Full opinion text
HENRY, Circuit Judge. This is a consolidation of seven separate appeals spawned by one district court case. Professor Emil Tonkovich, a law professor at the University of Kansas School of Law (“the Law School”), filed a complaint challenging his dismissal, alleging under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the University violated his First Amendment speech rights, and his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. He also alleged several state claims, which are not before us. Although the district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity with respect to the First Amendment claim, it denied the motions to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claims. The defendants appeal this partial denial of their motions to dismiss, asserting their entitlement to qualified and absolute immunity. Because we resolve these appeals on qualified immunity grounds, we need not reach the issue of absolute immunity. Even taking Professor Tonkovich’s allegations as true, they are insufficient to show that the defendants subjected him, or caused him to be subjected, to the violation of a clearly established right of constitutional dimension. Thus, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich’s procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection claims. I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A.Legal Standard On appeal from a motion to dismiss, we must accept all of the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994). However, we need not accept conclusory allegations. Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir.1984). We must liberally construe the pleadings and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Id. Accordingly, the facts recited herein are gleaned from Professor Tonko-vich’s first amended complaint. As we analyze the issues presented by the doctrine of qualified immunity, which we shall discuss below in greater detail, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s statement of our task: An appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant’s claim of immunity need not consider the correctness of the plaintiffs version of the facts, nor even determine whether the plaintiffs allegations actually state a claim. All it need determine is a question of law: whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.... Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 527-28, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). B. Overview Professor Tonkovich was employed as a faculty member at the Law School beginning in August 1981. In 1986, he became a tenured faculty member. In 1991, a graduating law student (“the Law Student”) complained that, during her first year of law school, Professor Tonkovich had engaged in a sexual act with her after discussing her grades. Officials in the Chancellor’s office conducted an investigation, enlisting the assistance of various Law School faculty members and the Dean of the Law School. During the investigation, the Chancellor’s office issued written findings and recommendations regarding the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken in Professor Tonkovich’s case. A period of settlement negotiations ensued. Eventually, the Chancellor filed official written charges against Professor Tonkovich. An evidentiary hearing was conducted before a standing University Hearing Committee, which issued its decision and recommendation to the Chancellor, who dismissed Professor Tonko-vich from the faculty in 1993. Professor Tonkovich then took an appeal to the Board of Regents. What follows are the details of the events surrounding Professor Tonkovieh’s dismissal, which form the basis of his claims. C. Facts In May 1991, just after her graduation from the Law School, the Law Student went to Robert Jerry, Dean of the Law School, and complained that Professor Tonkovich had made a pass at her in the fall of 1988. Dean Jerry informed Professor Tonkovich that a female student had complained about his conduct. However, he did not name the student, nor did he provide any details about the nature of the allegation. Professor Ton-kovich denied misconduct and asked to confront his accuser. During July and August 1991, Professor Tonkovich repeatedly requested that Dean Jerry disclose the name of his accuser and the nature of the allegation, but the Dean refused to do so. In August 1991, the Law Student filed a formal written statement with Vice Chancellor P. Delbert Brinkman, alleging that in July 1988, when she was a first-year law student, she had engaged in a sexual act with Professor Tonkovich, who was her professor at the time, and that the act was preceded by a discussion of law school grades. That same day, a local television news crew came to the Law School. The station later aired a segment about allegations of sexual misconduct against various law professors, who were not named. Later that day, Professor Tonkovich learned the name of his accuser. Shortly after the Law Student filed her written statement, Law Professor Elinor Schroeder told Vice Chancellor Brinkman that some faculty members thought the Law Student was unstable and that the accusations were part of a conspiracy against Professor Tonkovich. The University established September 6, 1991 as the deadline for submitting complaints against Professor Tonkovich. Professor Tonkovich’s response, filed on September 9th, denied the Law Student’s allegation and denied sexually harassing any student. Two days later, he submitted an affidavit of Jean Younger, one of the Law Student’s classmates. Ms. Younger had hosted the party that preceded the alleged sexual activity. Ms. Younger stated (and later testified at the hearing) that at the party, the Law Student was flirting with Professor Tonkovich. The following is Professor Tonkovich’s version of the events that took place on the evening of the party. The Law Student followed him around the party for approximately five hours. She flirted with him, but he did not return her flirtations. When Professor Tonkovich left the party, she followed him out. She asked him for a ride home, claiming she was too drunk to drive. However, she did not appear too drunk to drive. He agreed to drive her home, but he was concerned that she had romantic intentions. He suggested that they go for a drive. He drove her to the campus police department parking lot where they got out and took a walk. During their walk, she attempted to kiss him. When they returned to the car, she attempted to sit in the driver’s seat with him. When Professor Tonkovich said they should go, she became upset. He then drove her back to her car, dropped her off, and left. He did not have sex with her, nor did he discuss grades with her. During the course of the investigation, in September 1991, Dean Jerry issued a memorandum to the Law School faculty, stating that the guidelines of the Association of American Law Schools apply to the faculty. In particular, Dean Jerry pointed out the guideline concerning the inappropriateness of a professor engaging in sexual conduct with a student enrolled in his or her class. Dean Jerry’s memo stated that the guidelines were relevant to the ethics provision of the University’s Faculty Code of Conduct (“Faculty Code”). The Faculty Code in effect at the time the Law Student filed her statement, and at the time of the alleged incident, did not expressly prohibit sexual relations between a professor and a student enrolled in his or her class. The Faculty Code did, however, prohibit a professor from exploiting a student for the professor’s private advantage. During Professor Tonkovieh’s tenure, six members of the Law School faculty had dated students. Several days after Dean Jerry issued this memo, Professor Tonkovich received Vice Chancellor Brinkman’s written findings. Based on the Law Student’s allegation, Vice Chancellor Brinkman found that Professor Tonkovich had violated the Faculty Code’s ethics provision. Vice Chancellor Brinkman recommended a one-year paid teaching suspension for this violation. When Professor Tonkovich received the written findings, he was warned that repeating such behavior in the future would be cause for his dismissal from the University. Several days later, Executive Vice Chancellor Delbert Shankel formally adopted Vice Chancellor Brinkman’s written findings. Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel informed Professor Tonkovich that if past misconduct were brought to the University’s attention, it might be cause for further disciplinary action. The next day, Chancellor Gene Budig adopted Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel’s decision. On October 4th, Professor Tonko-vich formally requested a hearing before the Committee on Tenure and Related Problems (“the Hearing Committee”). Shortly after Professor Tonkovich requested a hearing, General Counsel to the Board of Regents called the Hearing Committee’s chairman, Professor William Lawrence. During their conversation, they discussed re-cusals from the committee. After this conversation, Professor Lawrence and two other members of the standing committee recused themselves. Three other professors were substituted. The conversation, the recusals, and the substitutions occurred without Professor Tonkovich’s knowledge. Professor H. Rutherford Turnbull, III, a substituted member, became the new chairman. Other members of the Hearing Committee were Professors Nancy Ann Dahl, E.P. Johnsen, John Michel, and Delores Ringer. None of the Hearing Committee members were members of the Law School faculty. Mr. Turnbull and one of the other substituted members of the Hearing Committee, Professor Dahl, eventually voted with the 3-2 majority in favor of Professor Tonkovich’s dismissal. In October 1991, a few weeks after Professor Tonkovich requested a hearing, the University’s newspaper, the University Daily Kansan, reported that a University employee (not a party to this appeal) had referred to Professor Tonkovich as a “faggot” in his conversations with reporters. As a result of this and the publicity generated when the local television station had aired its news segment, Professor Tonkovich requested an investigation into how the information was leaked to the press. The University denied his request. On October 31, 1991, Law School faculty members Sidney Shapiro, A. Kimberly Dayton, Reginald Robinson, Ellen Sward, Elinor Schroeder, and Sandra McKenzie signed a letter (“the Letter”) asking that students report any misconduct or sexual harassment by faculty members. Professor Shapiro drafted the Letter at the request of a University administrator. The Letter did not mention Professor Tonkovich by name. After Dean Jerry approved the Letter, it was distributed to students. Professor Tonkovich did not know of the Letter or that the University was soliciting additional complaints against him. Throughout the solicitation process, various people, including Professors Shapiro and Schroeder, told others that the Law Student’s allegations against Professor Ton-kovich included an allegation of rape. In December 1991, Professors Shapiro, Robinson, Dayton, and Sward met with Chancellor Budig, Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel, and Ann Victoria Thomas, University General Counsel, to discuss the case against Professor Tonkovich. During December 1991 and January 1992, some of these law professors accompanied students (“the complainants”) to the University’s Office of Academic Affairs, where the complainants presented allegations regarding Professor Tonkovich to University officials. Associate Vice Chancellor David Shulenbur-ger interviewed these complainants, and, after completing the interviews, he recommended Professor Tonkovieh’s dismissal, which is the sanction Professor Tonkovich ultimately faced when the charging documents were filed. Professor Tonkovich requested copies of the complainants’ written statements. Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel told Professor Tonkovich that the complainants had not provided written statements. University Associate General Counsel Rose A. Marino denied having any knowledge of written statements submitted by complainants. As the investigation progressed, in December 1991, Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel and Vice Chancellor Brinkman told Professor Tonkovich that if he did not “resign quietly,” he would be suspended from teaching, and a letter would be placed in his file to the effect that he posed a risk of substantial harm to students. Professor Tonkovich, who had continued teaching pending his administrative hearing, refused to resign. The University placed him on teaching leave. Shortly thereafter, Executive Vice Chancellor Shank-el and Vice Chancellor Brinkman communicated with Professor Tonkovich’s attorney, stating that there were no terms acceptable to the University that would allow Professor Tonkovich to continue as a faculty member. Several weeks later, in March 1992, Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Dean Jerry sent Professor Tonkovich a letter, reminding him that Board of Regents regulations did not allow payment of salary when a faculty member was dismissed for moral turpitude. This letter also informed Professor Tonkovich that Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Dean Jerry were recommending that he be charged with moral turpitude, which carried a sanction of dismissal. The following day, Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel concurred in Vice Chancellor Brinkman’s and Dean Jerry’s recommendation. In March 1992, Professor Tonkovich filed a complaint against various University administrators. He requested a stay in the investigation, recusal of the administrators, and appointment of independent investigators. The University denied his requests. On April 17, 1992, Chancellor Budig filed the University’s formal written complaint against Professor Tonkovich. The complaint set forth charges of ethics violations, sexual harassment, and moral turpitude. The complaint contained a proposed sanction of dismissal. One week after the University filed the complaint, the University newspaper ran an article about the Law Student’s allegation against Professor Tonkovich. The article named Professor Tonkovich but did not name the Law Student. Certain charges in the complaint were based upon allegations made by the additional student complainants. Several of the female students who were named in the allegations submitted affidavits that the allegations were false and that Professor Tonkovich had done nothing improper. These same students also submitted a letter requesting that the allegations involving them be dismissed. Nevertheless, the University prosecuted these charges. After receiving the formal complaint, Professor Tonkovich made repeated discovery requests, including requests for written statements from the complainants, which the University initially denied. However, on July 24, 1992, the Hearing Committee ordered discovery. Although the written complainants’ statements that Professor Tonko-vich had requested were not disclosed at this time, Professor Tonkovich was given summaries of them. The University did not produce an alleged tape-recorded interview between University officials and the Law Student that served as the basis of the article printed by the University newspaper shortly after the University filed its complaint against Professor Tonkovich. In addition, many of the University’s witnesses, including the Law Student, declined to be interviewed by Professor Tonkovieh’s attorney prior to testifying. On August 27, 1992, the administrative hearing concerning the University’s complaint against Professor Tonkovich began. Ms. Marino prosecuted the case on behalf of the University, presenting witnesses in support of the allegations in the complaint. Professor Tonkovich was present and represented by an attorney, who cross-examined the University’s witnesses and presented witnesses on Professor Tonkovich’s behalf. The Hearing Committee presided. The hearing was conducted in public at Professor Tonko-vich’s request. The hearing lasted until May 12, 1993, with sessions held once a week during the school year. At the hearing, during his cross-examination of one of the University’s witnesses, Professor Tonkovich learned that at least one of the complainants had, indeed, provided a written statement. At Professor Tonkovich’s request, the Hearing Committee sent a letter to the Law School faculty seeking any written statements. None were forthcoming. When Professor Tonkovich called Professor Dayton as a witness, she testified that she had received a written statement from a complainant but that she had discarded it. Professor Robinson also testified that he received approximately five written statements from complainants. He further testified that he received the statements in sealed envelopes, that he never opened them, and that he later threw them away. A week after she testified, Professor Dayton sent a letter to the Hearing Committee stating that she possessed the written statements of four complainants. She proceeded to turn these statements over to the Hearing Committee. Among them was a statement addressed to Professor Robinson. The Hearing Committee denied Professor Tonko-vich’s request to recall Professor Dayton as a witness. At Professor Tonkovich’s request, the Hearing Committee sent certified letters to all of the complainants who had previously testified, asking them to produce their written statements. Two of the complainants, whose allegations the Hearing Committee ultimately found to constitute Faculty Code violations, did not respond to the request, nor did they return to testify. The Hearing Committee did not compel these witnesses to return to testify, nor did it strike the earlier testimony of these complainants. Professor McKenzie, who had openly dated a law student, declined Professor Tonkovich’s request to testify at his hearing. The Hearing Committee did not compel her to testify. However, according to Professor Tonkovich, three law professors who had signed the Letter testified as “expert” witnesses on behalf of the University: Professor Sehroeder testified about sexual harassment; Professor Sward testified about faculty ethics; and Professor Shapiro testified about due process. On the day before the Law Student was scheduled to testify, Ms. Marino proposed an evidentiary rule prohibiting counsel from inquiring about witnesses’ prior sexual conduct. The Hearing Committee adopted this rule. It also adopted a sequestration rule to prevent witnesses who were scheduled to testify from hearing other witnesses’ testimony. When cross-examining Ms. Younger, Professor Tonkovieh’s first witness, Ms. Marino asked if she had ever been sexually intimate with a professor. Ms. Marino also read a transcript of the Law Student’s testimony to another University witness who was scheduled to testify. During the 1992-93 academic year, the year in which the hearing took place, Dean Jerry gave Professor Tonkovich a negative annual evaluation and the lowest merit salary increase on the entire Law School faculty. According to Professor Tonkovich, in the previous ten years, he had received excellent evaluations and average or above average salary increases. On May 19,1993, one week after the hearing concluded, Andrew Ramirez, an attorney representing a University witness, sent a letter to the parties. The letter stated that his client had spoken with Mr. Turnbull several weeks after she testified at the hearing. At the conclusion of their conversation, Mr. Turnbull stated to her, “I admire your courage in coming forward.” On July 30, 1993, the Hearing Committee issued its opinion. By a 3-2 vote, the Hearing Committee recommended that Professor Tonkovich be dismissed. As to the Law Student’s allegation, the Commit tee found that she and Professor Tonkovich had engaged in a sexual act that was preceded by a discussion of grades. The Committee further found that Professor Tonkovich did not intend to intimidate the Law Student by discussing grades but that she was, nonetheless, intimidated because of the inherent power differential between a student and a professor. The committee concluded that this constituted unethical conduct in violation of the Faculty Code. The Committee also concluded that Professor Tonkovich’s behavior constituted sexual harassment in violation of Title VII and Title IX and, as unlawful conduct, constituted moral turpitude under the Faculty Code. The Hearing Committee also found that Professor Tonkovich had violated the ethical provisions of the Faculty Code with another student. This occurred when Professor Ton-kovich held a female student’s hand while asking her who her favorite professor was. The Committee concluded that although this conduct was unethical, it did not constitute sexual harassment. The Committee further found that Professor Tonkovich’s social behavior with respect to various other law students was negligent and constituted unethical conduct under the Faculty Code. On August 3, 1993, Chancellor Budig accepted the Hearing Committee’s recommendation and dismissed Professor Tonkovich. The following day, Professor Tonkovich appealed his dismissal to the Kansas Board of Regents (“the Regents”). At this time, the Regents consisted of Robert Caldwell, Tom Hammond, John Hiebert, Karen Krepps, John Montgomery, Phyllis Nolan, Frank Sa-batini, and Sidney Warner. On September 15, 1994, the Regents upheld Professor Ton-kovich’s dismissal. D.Procedural History Pursuant to the Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions, Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 77-601 et seq., Professor Tonkovich had the opportunity to file an action in Kansas state district court for judicial review of the University’s decision. See id. at § 77-609. However, he decided to forego this route, and on April 27, 1995, he filed suit in federal court against the University of Kansas, the University Board of Regents, and approximately thirty-four other defendants in their individual and official capacities, alleging violations of § 1983 and various state laws. In his first amended complaint, Professor Tonkovich averred three § 1983 counts (for violations of his due process, free speech, and equal protection rights), and four state law counts (for breach of employment contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with business relationship, and intentional infliction of emotional distress). All defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting various defenses such as Eleventh Amendment immunity, absolute immunity, and qualified immunity. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. We shall relate only the district court’s rulings with respect to qualified immunity. On the issue of qualified immunity, the district court treated the issues of procedural due process, free speech, and equal protection. The court found that all of the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich’s First Amendment free speech claim. However, the court ruled that the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich’s procedural due process and equal protection claims. E.Jurisdiction Many of the defendants have attempted to appeal not only the district court’s denial of their qualified immunity motions but also the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We believe that these defendants have misunderstood this court’s limited jurisdiction at this stage of the litigation. Thus, at this juncture, we embark on a brief discussion of our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. “The courts of appeals ... shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States....” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “A denial of a motion to dismiss ordinarily may not be appealed because it is not a final decision.” Eastwood v. Department of Corrections, 846 F.2d 627, 629 (10th Cir.1988). However, the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified or absolute immunity is immediately ap-pealable under the Cohen collateral order doctrine. See Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806 (qualified immunity); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 742, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (absolute immunity). In holding the issue of immunity to be ap-pealable under the collateral order doctrine, “the Court has recognized that a question of immunity is separate from the merits of the underlying action for purposes of the Cohen test even though a reviewing court must consider the plaintiffs factual allegations in resolving the immunity issue.” Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911, -n. 5, 117 S.Ct. 1800, 1804 n. 5, 138 L.Ed.2d 108 (1997). Although to a certain extent a qualified immunity analysis overlaps with a 12(b)(6) analysis, we do not have jurisdiction to review the merits of Professor Tonkovich’s lawsuit at this time. We turn, then, to a review of the district court’s rulings with respect to qualified immunity. II. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review de novo the denial of a motion based on qualified immunity. Walter v. Morton, 33 F.3d 1240, 1242 (10th Cir.1994); Eastwood, 846 F.2d at 629. “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Ramirez v. Oklahoma Dep’t of Mental Health, 41 F.3d 584, 592 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)); cf. Harris v. Board of Educ. of the City of Atlanta, 105 F.3d 591, 595 (11th Cir.1997) (“In all but the most exceptional cases, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from the burdens of civil trials and from liability for damages.”). The key to the qualified immunity inquiry is the “objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.” Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706, 727 (10th Cir.1989) (quotations omitted), modified on other grounds, 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir.1991). Hearkening back to its pronouncement in Siegert v. Gilley, the Supreme Court has recently stated that the better approach to resolving cases in which the defense of qualified immunity is raised is to determine first whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at all. Normally, it is only then that a court should ask whether the right allegedly implicated was clearly established at the time of the events in question. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, —— U.S. -,-n. 5, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 1714 n. 5, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (citing Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (“A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is ‘clearly established’ at the time the defendant acted is the determination of whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all.”)). Thus, we use a two-part framework to analyze the issue of qualified immunity. Latta v. Keryte, 118 F.3d 693, 697-98 (10th Cir.1997). First, we determine whether the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right. Id. at 698. If the answer is yes, then we determine whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known that his or her conduct violated that right. Id Ordinarily, in order for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a law is clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.” Medina v. City and County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir.1992); see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (a right is clearly established if the contours of the right are “sufficiently clear [so] that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”) A plaintiff “must do more than identify in the abstract a clearly established right and allege that the defendant has violated it.” Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 645 (10th Cir.1988). A plaintiff “must articulate the clearly established constitutional right and the defendant’s conduct which violated the right with specificity.” Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1535 (10th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted); see also Walter, 33 F.3d at 1242 (“the plaintiff ... has the burden to show with particularity facts and law establishing the inference that the defendants violated a constitutional right.”). “If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant’s conduct that violated clearly established law.” Mick v. Brewer, 76 F.3d 1127, 1134 (10th Cir.1996) (citing Albright, 51 F.3d at 1535). Although of necessity we must consider Professor Tonkovich’s factual allegations in resolving the immunity issues, we reiterate that this appeal comes to us on a partial denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, as opposed to motions for summary judgment. The district court did not, nor shall we, consider whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Thus, we do not face the appellate jurisdictional problem that may be entangled with a qualified immunity analysis on summary judgment. Cf. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (holding that “a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial”) (emphasis added). Instead, as stated above, we must accept the plaintiffs version of the facts as true. With this in mind, we proceed to analyze the issue of qualified immunity with respect to each separate cause of action under § 1983, i.e., alleged violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection rights. A. Are the Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity on Professor Tonkovich’s Procedural Due Process Claim? Because Professor Tonkovich was a tenured professor, he possessed a property interest deserving of procedural due process protections. Brenna v. Southern Colo. State College, 589 F.2d 475, 476 (10th Cir.1978); see also Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-77, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). In Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 535, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985), the Supreme Court examined the issue of “what pretermination process must be accorded a public employee who can be discharged only for cause.” In deciding this issue, the Court balanced the competing interests at stake: “the private interest in retaining employment, the governmental interest in the expeditious removal of unsatisfactory employees and the avoidance of administrative burdens, and the risk of an erroneous termination.” Id. at 542-43, 105 S.Ct. 1487 (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). The Court concluded that prior to termination, something less than a full evi-dentiary hearing is sufficient. Id. at 545, 105 S.Ct. 1487. Thus, the Court held that a “tenured public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer’s evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story.” Id. at 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487. The holding in Loudermill rested partially on the availability of a full post-termination hearing under applicable state law. Id.; see also Langley v. Adams County, Colo., 987 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir.1993) (“Under Loudermill, the adequacy of pre-termination procedures must be examined in light of available post-termination procedures.”); Calhoun v. Gaines, 982 F.2d 1470, 1476 (10th Cir.1992) (holding that “Loudermill established that some form of pretermination hearing, plus a full-blown adversarial post-termination hearing” are required when a property interest in continued employment is at stake). “A ‘full post-termination hearing’ is understood to include the right to representation by an attorney and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.” Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475, 480 (10th Cir.1994). A fundamental principle of procedural due process is a hearing before an impartial tribunal. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46-17, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975). “A tribunal is not impartial if it is biased with respect to the factual issues to be decided at the hearing.” Patrick v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir.1992) (quotation omitted). However, “a substantial showing of personal bias is required to disqualify a hearing officer or tribunal in order to obtain a ruling that a hearing is unfair.” Corstvet v. Boger, 757 F.2d 223, 229 (10th Cir.1985). Moreover, “[b]ecause honesty and integrity are presumed on the part of a tribunal, there must be some substantial countervailing reason to conclude that a de-cisionmaker is actually biased with respect to factual issues being adjudicated.” Mangels v. Pena, 789 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir.1986) (citation omitted). It is worth noting briefly that, in addition to being governed by constitutional law, Professor Tonkovich’s claims are also governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 itself. Thus, Professor Tonkovich must satisfy the elements of that statute, which states, in part, Every person who ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws ... shall be liable to the party injured.... 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). The plain wording of the statute contains an element of causation. In other words, a defendant may not be held liable under § 1983 unless he or she subjected a citizen to the deprivation, or caused a citizen to be subjected to the deprivation. See 1A Martin A. Schwartz & John E. Kirklin, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims and Defenses § 6.3 (3d ed.1997). Professor Tonkovich argues that the University’s policies require the following procedural safeguards: (1) notice; (2) discovery; (3) presentation of evidence; (4) confrontation and cross-examination; and (5) an impartial hearing committee. He argues that in denying him these safeguards, the defendants violated his clearly established procedural due process rights. At this juncture, we shall discuss each defendant’s (or defendant group’s) arguments with respect to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich’s procedural due process claim. 1. Appeal of Dean Jerry (Case No. 96-3402) Professor Tonkovich takes issue with the following actions of Dean Jerry: (1) his initial handling of the Law Student’s complaint; (2) his attempt to pass a rule, after the fact, prohibiting student/faeulty sexual relations; (3) his denial of a request for a leak investigation; (4) his role in the settlement process; and (5) his negative annual evaluation of Professor Tonkovich. Dean Jerry argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich’s procedural due process claim because he is not responsible for any alleged defects in the process afforded Professor Tonkovich. In other words, he argues that nothing he did violated any of Professor Tonkovieh’s clearly established procedural due process rights. We agree. As for Dean Jerry’s handling of the Law Student’s initial complaint, Professor Tonkovich appears to argue that he did not receive proper notice of the charges against him because Dean Jerry would not immediately disclose the name of the accuser and the details of the allegation. However, Professor Tonkovich does not allege that it was Dean Jerry’s duty to notify him of the charges. Moreover, Chancellor Budig did give Professor Tonkovich notice in plenty of time to prepare his defense in response to the charges. Professor Tonkovich next argues that his procedural due process rights were violated because the dean never disclosed the “blatantly false” statements that the Law Student allegedly made to a judge for whom she worked. Aple’s Brief at 60. According to Professor Tonkovich, the Law Student told the judge who was her employer the following: (1) she had nonconsensual sex with her professor; (2) she told Dean Jerry about it; and (3) the Dean was not responsive. Professor Tonkovich argues that the statement the Law Student made to her employer was false because she had only told Dean Jerry that a professor had made a pass at her. We fail to see how Dean Jerry’s failure to relate this conversation to Professor Tonkovich violated Professor Tonkovich’s procedural due process rights. As we have discussed, Professor Tonkovich received sufficient notice of the charges against him, and, in addition, he had the opportunity to cross-examine the Law Student at his hearing. As for the remaining allegations involving Dean Jerry, Professor Tonkovich has failed to explain how any of them might constitute a denial of his procedural due process rights. That is, he has failed to demonstrate how attempting to pass a new faculty code rule, denying a request for a leak investigation, taking part in settlement negotiations, and rendering an unfavorable annual evaluation had anything to do with whether Professor Tonkovich received the process that he was due-notice, an explanation of the charges against him, and an opportunity to respond. Nor has Professor Tonkovich pointed to any clearly established law that stands for the proposition that the sorts of actions taken by Dean Jerry might form the basis of a procedural due process claim. For these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in denying Dean Jerry’s motion to dismiss Professor Tonkovich’s procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 2. Appeal of Regents (Case No. 96-3403) and Hearing Committee (Case No. 96-3404) The Regents and the Hearing Committee members argue that because Professor Ton-kovich failed to exercise his right to judicial review he should not now be heard to complain of the violation of his procedural due process rights. In other words, they argue that because Professor Tonkovich was entitled to seek judicial review of the University’s decision under Kansas law, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 77-601 et seq., the state provided even more process than an administrative hearing and an appeal to the Board of Regents. Thus, they argue, his procedural due process claim must fail. We reject the argument that Professor Tonkovieh’s failure to seek judicial review in state court precludes his procedural due process claim. It is beyond dispute that a plaintiff need not exhaust state administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court under § 1983. Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 516, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982). However, as we shall discuss below, the availability of an action for judicial review is relevant to the question of what process the state afforded Professor Tonkovich. Professor Tonkovich argues that the Regents and the Hearing Committee members denied him his procedural due process right to an impartial tribunal. He also takes issue with the Hearing Committee members’ failure to: (1) order discovery; (2) compel witnesses to appear and testify; and (3) mention evidence favorable to him in their findings. We shall address each contention in turn. Professor Tonkovich first argues that he was denied the right to an impartial tribunal because the Hearing Committee members were not professional hearing officers, they were employed by the University, and they were subordinates of the Chancellor. Furthermore, he argues that the fact that various members of the standing committee re-cused themselves, and that other members were substituted, demonstrates that the resulting Hearing Committee was biased. In support of this claim, he points to Mr. Turn-bull’s statement to a witness to the effect that he admired her courage in coming forward to testify. First of all, while the Due Process Clause certainly requires a hearing before an impartial tribunal, Professor Tonko-vich has pointed to no law, clearly established or otherwise, that procedural due process includes a right to professional hearing officers or hearing officers not employed by the governmental body or agency taking the adverse action. As to the recusals, one of the substituted Hearing Committee members, Mr. Michel, actually voted against Professor Tonkovich’s dismissal. This alone takes the wind out of the sails of Professor Tonkovich’s recusal argument. Furthermore, even assuming Mr. Turnbull stated to a witness, “I admire your courage in coming forward,” that does not establish the required “substantial showing of personal bias.” Corstvet, 757 F.2d at 229. The Hearing Committee members argue that there is nothing indicating that they had a personal or financial stake in the decision, which might create a conflict of interest, nor are there sufficient allegations to support charges of personal animosity on the part of its members. See Hortonville Joint School Dist. Number 1 v. Hortonville Educ. Ass’n, 426 U.S. 482, 491-92, 496, 96 S.Ct. 2308, 49 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976) (basing, in part, its holding that school board dismissing striking teachers did not violate Due Process Clause on fact that these indicia of bias were lacking). In short, they argue that Professor Tonko-vich’s complaint contains only conclusory allegations of bias, without alleging factual support. We agree. We simply do not think that Professor Tonkovich has sufficiently alleged personal bias requiring disqualification of the Hearing Committee members under the Due Process Clause. As to the Regents, Professor Tonko-vich similarly levels accusations of bias against them. He argues that the Regents’ bias violated his procedural due process rights. In support of this argument, he states that the Regents made erroneous and prejudicial decisions and that they deferred to the findings of the Hearing Committee. As with the Hearing Committee, these con-elusory assertions are insufficient to allege bias constituting a violation of Professor Ton-kovich’s procedural due process rights. Professor Tonkovich next takes issue with what he claims is the Hearing Committee’s failure to order discovery. He claims that this led to a denial of his right to cross-examine the witnesses against him. In particular, he argues that he never was able to discover a tape-recording of an alleged interview between the Law Student and University administrators. This, he argues, amounted to a denial of his right to cross-examine the Law Student. Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich argues that he was unable to discover all of the statements that various complainants had submitted during the investigation. As he points out, the Hearing Committee specifically requested, through certified return-receipt mailings, that the complainants produce their statements and return to testify. However, two of the complainants neither produced their statements nor returned to testify. Thus, he argues, he was denied the right to cross-examine these two complainants. Professor Tonkovich also complains that all of the complainants, including the Law Student, refused to allow Professor Tonkovich’s attorney to interview them prior to the hearing. First of all, we note that the Hearing Committee ultimately did order discovery prior to Professor Tonkovich’s administrative hearing. The fact that Professor Tonkovich was unable to discover every piece of evidence is of no consequence as a matter of procedural due process. The Due Process Clause does not guarantee that parties to an adversarial proceeding may discover every piece of evidence they desire. Indeed, civil litigants in federal court do not have a claim for a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights every time a federal district judge or a federal magistrate rules against them in a discovery dispute. Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich has not adequately alleged that he was denied the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. As we have discussed, he had notice of the charges, and of his accusers, well before the hearing. He was able to cross-examine each of them, albeit not in exactly the way he would have liked. On these facts, we cannot say that the cross-examinations violated Professor Tonkovich’s procedural due process rights simply because he did not have access to several of the witnesses’ prior statements. As his complaint admits, the University did provide him with summaries of the complainants’ statements. Importantly, Professor Tonkovieh has also cited no clearly established legal authority for the proposition that the Due Process Clause requires that he be allowed to interview adverse witnesses prior to a hearing. Professor Tonkovieh next argues that the Hearing Committee members violated his procedural due process rights by failing to compel the return of various witnesses who had previously testified. The Hearing Committee members argue that they did not have the authority to compel the attendance of witnesses. They did, however, attempt to assist Professor Tonkovieh with the re-appearance of witnesses by sending certified return-receipt mail, as Professor Tonkovieh himself acknowledges in his complaint. Professor Tonkovieh has cited no law, clearly established or otherwise, which states that an administrative tribunal runs afoul of the Due Process Clause for its failure to compel the attendance of witnesses when it lacks subpoena power. See Workman, 32 F.3d at 480 (stating that, under the facts of that case, “[t]he lack of subpoena power available to the plaintiff or the unavailability of some witnesses does not ... create unconstitutional process.”). Even if the Hearing Committee did have subpoena power, a reasonable person in the place of a Hearing Committee member would not know that he or she was violating someone’s procedural due process rights for failing to compel the appearance of witnesses under these circumstances. Professor Tonkovieh next argues that the Hearing Committee should have mentioned in its findings various pieces of evidence favorable to his side of the case. For example, Professor Tonkovieh takes issue with the Hearing Committee’s failure to mention the discrepancy between what the Law Student told the judge who employed her and what she told Dean Jerry. Professor Tonkovieh claims that the Committee’s failure to mention such evidence violated his procedural due process rights. We disagree. The Hearing Committee handed down extensive findings and conclusions after a hearing spanning approximately nine months. Under the circumstances, the fact that the Committee did not mention every possible fact in its resolution of the case does not implicate due process. Professor Tonkovieh also claims that the Hearing Committee itself admitted that the proceedings against him were unfair because it recommended additional procedures for future disciplinary proceedings. Taking into consideration the procedures afforded Professor Tonkovieh, the fact that the Hearing Committee members made recommendations concerning future disciplinary proceedings does not convince us that they violated his procedural due process rights. In sum, the Regents and the Hearing Committee members argue that under Loud-ermill, Professor Tonkovieh was entitled only to notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence against him, and an opportunity to respond. They argue that the allegations in Professor Tonkovich’s own complaint establish that he received this and much more. We agree. Therefore, the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss Professor Tonkovieh’s procedural due process claim against the Regents and the Hearing Committee members on the basis of qualified immunity. 3. Appeal of Professor McKenzie (Case No. 96-3405) The only allegations against Professor McKenzie in particular were that she signed the Letter, she refused to testify, and she dated a student. None of these allegations, she argues, are sufficient to establish that she violated a constitutional right. We agree. As we shall discuss at length below, when the Law School faculty members signed the Letter, they did not thereby violate Professor Tonkovich’s procedural due process rights. As to the remaining allegations against Professor McKenzie-that she refused to testify on Professor Tonkovich’s behalf and that she dated a student-we fail to see how these might form the basis of a procedural due process claim. Professor McKenzie neither subjected Professor Ton-kovich, nor caused Professor Tonkovieh to be subjected, to the deprivation of his procedural due process rights. Thus, the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 4. Appeal of the University General Counsel (Case No. 96-3406) The specific allegations against General Counsel Thomas are that she gave an opinion as to the applicability of the University’s statute of limitations, and she attended two meetings to discuss Professor Tonko-vich’s case. Essentially, he seems to be complaining that she did her job. Ms. Thomas argues that neither of these actions can be said to have violated Professor Tonkovich’s procedural due process rights. We agree. The allegations against Associate General Counsel Marino, who prosecuted the case on behalf of the University, are that she denied the existence of the complainants’ statements and that she violated two of the Hearing Committee’s evidentiary rulings. Specifically, she asked a witness about her sexual involvement with law professors, and she read a portion of the Law Student’s testimony to another witness who was scheduled to testify. Associate General Counsel Marino argues that even if some of these actions constituted infractions of a University policy or rule, this is not enough to rise to the level of a deprivation of a federal constitutional right. We note that a university’s failure to follow its established guidelines in overseeing a grievance “does not in and of itself implicate constitutional due process concerns.” Purisch v. Tennessee Technological University, 76 F.3d 1414, 1423 (6th Cir.1996); cf. Jones v. City and County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir.1988) (a violation of state law, by itself, does not rise to the level of a federal constitutional deprivation, and, thus, is not cognizable under § 1983). The federal courts, and not the University of Kansas, are responsible for establishing the contours of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, even taking Professor Tonkovich’s allegations against Ms. Marino as true, as we must, we do not think they are sufficient to establish the violation of his procedural due process rights. While Ms. Marino’s failure to adhere to certain evidentiary rules was perhaps not a model of prosecutorial conduct, nothing that she did changes the fact that Professor Tonkovich received notice, an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal, and various post-termination remedies. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in denying Ms. Thomas’s and Ms. Marino’s motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 5. Appeal of Law School Faculty Members (Case No. 96-3407) The Law School faculty members argue that they were not even in a position from which they could afford or deny procedural protections to Professor Tonkovich. Thus, they argue, they cannot be said to have violated his due process rights. We disagree with the notion that a faculty member, by virtue of his or her position within a university, may never effect a procedural due process violation. However, in this case, nothing the Law School faculty members did caused a deprivation of Professor Tonkovieh’s procedural due process rights. The specific allegations against the Law School faculty members are as follows: (1) they signed the Letter soliciting additional complaints; (2) they met with University administrators to discuss the ease; (3) they accompanied students who submitted complaints to administrators; (4) two of them stated they heard that the Law Student’s complaint contained an allegation of rape; (5) some of them refused to disclose, and one of them intentionally destroyed, complainant statements; and (6) they testified as witnesses at Professor Tonkovich’s hearing. The faculty members argue that Professor Tonkovich has failed to point to any clearly established law that stands for the proposition that any of these actions might form the basis of a procedural due process claim. We shall first address the Law School faculty members’ role in authoring, signing, and distributing the Letter, which Professor Tonkovich continually refers to as the “secret” solicitation process. See, e.g., Aple’s Brief at 7, 31, 43. Professor Tonko-vich cites no clearly established Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent standing for the proposition that when a university is investigating a complaint of sexual misconduct against a professor, the university must disclose, during the investigatory process, every complaint it solicits and the means it uses to solicit those complaints. In fact, there is precedent in this circuit that arguably supports a contrary proposition. In Derstein v. Kansas, 915 F.2d 1410 (10th Cir.1990), the plaintiff, a tenured court employee who could be terminated only for just cause, was fired after an investigation revealed that he had sexually harassed various fellow employees. The plaintiff was told neither that an investigation was underway nor that complaints against him were being solicited. A court personnel officer conducted the investigation by tape-recording interviews with various court employees and then transcribing the tapes. After the investigation was complete the plaintiff was told that he would have ten days to resign or be terminated. Id. at 1412. He was also advised that he could appeal the decision and that a hearing would be afforded at that time. At the end of the ten-day period, the plaintiff received a termination letter, which specified the nature of the charges against him and his right to appeal. The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, which was denied as frivolous. At no time during the administrative proceedings did the employer provide the plaintiff with transcripts of the tape-recorded interviews. Id. The plaintiff then filed a § 1983 action. After a bench trial, the district court held that the pretermination proceedings deprived the plaintiff of a property interest without due process of law. Id. at 1411. We reversed, holding that the pretermination procedures comported with LoudermiU’s requirements. Id. at 1413. We stated that the fact that the plaintiff “may not have known in advance about [the personnel officer’s] internal investigation [and that he] did not receive more facts or a copy of the transcript at the pretermination hearing is not significant.” Id. at 1413. Likewise, in the ease at bar, the fact that University administrators conducted an investigation without Professor Tonkovich’s knowledge does not implicate procedural due process because he ultimately received notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to respond in the hearing that took place over a period of nine months. We noted that the plaintiff in Derstein never contested the factual basis for the sexual harassment charges, i.e., he did not deny that the conduct occurred. Under those circumstances, we held that the appeal to an appeals board constituted a sufficient post-termination procedure, even though the appeals board did not grant the plaintiff a full evidentiary hearing. We found that this post-termination proceeding, in combination with the pretermination procedures, afforded the plaintiff all of the process he was due. In Professor Tonkovich’s case, he obviously did contest the factual basis for the charges against him; however, he also received a full-blown evidentiary hearing. The fact that University officials and faculty members did not keep Professor Tonkovieh apprised every step along the way of the investigation does not amount to a violation of his procedural due process rights. Professor Tonkovieh next complains that when the Law School faculty members met with University administrators to discuss his case, and when they accompanied the complainants to meet with administrators, they violated his procedural due process rights. We fail to see how either of these actions might form the basis of a procedural due process claim in the absence of allegations that these actions interfered with Professor Tonkovich’s receiving notice of the charges or with his ability to respond to those charges. Professor Tonkovieh has not cited any law, clearly established or otherwise, that would support the proposition that in taking part in the investigation as the Law School faculty members here did, their actions ran afoul of the Due Process Clause. Next, Professor Tonkovieh argues that two of the Law School faculty members violated his procedural due process rights when they repeated information they had heard, namely, that the allegations against Professor Tonkovieh included an allegation of rape. Assuming, as we must, that the allegation is false, it still does not implicate procedural due process. While the statements may be actionable under state tort law, they do not rise to the level of depriving Professor Tonkovieh of federal procedural due process rights. There is no allegation that the statements made by the professors had anything to do with whether Professor Tonkovieh received notice of the charges against him or had a meaningful opportunity to respond, which is what procedural due process requires. Finally, Professor Tonkovieh takes issue with the Law School faculty members’ role in testifying at his hearing and in discarding or denying the existence of the written complainant statements. Once again, he cites no clearly established law that stands for the proposition that taking such actions implicates procedural due process. As we have discussed, Professor Tonkovieh received summaries of the statements, and he was able to cross-examine the complainants; therefore, the fact that several professors were not forthcoming with written statements does not amount to a violation of Professor Tonkovich’s procedural due process rights. Although such conduct on the part of the professors is not to be lauded, it simply does not rise to a level sufficient to implicate procedural due process concerns. Furthermore, we fail to see how the professors’ acts in testifying at Professor Tonko-vich’s hearing — and thereby being subjected to cross-examination — violated his procedural due process rights. For all of these reasons, the district court should have granted the Law School faculty members’ motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 6. Appeal of the Chancellor’s Office (Case No. 96-3408) The Chancellor’s office staff members argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich’s procedural due process claim because Professor Tonkovieh received all of the process he was due. Furthermore, they argue that Professor Tonko-vich failed to show that any of their actions constituted violations of a clearly established right. The specific allegations against staff members of the Chancellor’s office are as follows: (1) they extended the investigation after having set a deadline for fil