The university did not deny plaintiff students a fair hearing before expelling them for engaging in prohibited hazing activities in fraternity initiation of new pledges.  Unlike cases that turn largely on disputed facts and credibility of witnesses, in this one most of the alleged hazing activities were undisputed.  In that context, it was not a denial of a fair hearing for the university not to identify witnesses, require live testimony from those witnesses or allow plaintiffs to cross-examine them.  Because plaintiffs did not dispute most of the conduct the various unnamed witnesses told the university had occurred and instead focused on the significance and consequences of that conduct under university policies, the inability to assess or test the credibility of these witnesses via confrontation and cross-examination did not restrict plaintiffs’ ability to present their defense.  The university gave plaintiffs clear notice before the disciplinary hearing of the conduct that the unnamed witnesses had reported.  And even though the plaintiffs knew by other means who some of the unnamed witnesses were, they did not call any of them as witnesses at the hearing.