EXCLUSIVE: Since the start of 2026, San Jose State University (SJSU) has had a donor ask to be removed from a key list in protest, a parade of pro-trans activists shout demands at administrators in an organized meeting, and assault allegations surface against its head volleyball coach.
Fox News Digital has obtained exclusive video and documents from independent verified sources, and emails via a public records request that reveal a university paralyzed and divided over its 2024 volleyball scandal involving Blaire Fleming and Brooke Slusser.
INSIDE THE FALLOUT OF THE SJSU VOLLEYBALL SCANDAL: ‘THIS IS AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM’
SJSU and the California State University system (CSU) are currently waging a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration to assert the school followed the law in its handling of the scandal, and to reject the findings of a federal investigation.
The lawsuit may set a national precedent for Title IX enforcement for public universities going forward, as SJSU faces internal and external friction.
On Feb. 26, a town hall was held in the SJSU engineering building.
A copy of an invitation obtained by Fox News Digital included the title “Trans Gender Rights Town Hall with SJSU Administration” in big, bold all-caps letters. The subject to be discussed was SJSU’s response to the Trump administration’s resolution proposal.
“Please come to a Town Hall with SJSU’s President and top administration, and tell them they must stand up for our transgender students,” it wrote.
A sign-up form said that SJSU President Cynthia Teniente-Matson would be in attendance. But she was not there, as seen in footage of the meeting provided to Fox News Digital from an independent verified source.
Just two administrators were seen in attendance.
One by one, pro-trans activists came up to a lectern and unleashed emotionally charged rants, often directed at the two administrators. At one point, one of the speakers expressed being “glad” that the meeting was being recorded, so it could be sent to Teniente-Matson later. A separate video camera was seen recording the event, in the obtained footage.
Harsh orders were delivered to the two administrators there to tell their superiors not to accept the resolution agreement.
“It is about protecting all of the oppressed communities here on campus, doing more than lip service, and doing your job of going to the CSU and saying, ‘We will not capitulate to violent transphobic demands or any other oppressive demands that come from this heinous, heinous current administration at all!'” one person exclaimed.
At one point in the meeting, a speaker declared, “It is your job to get in the room with Cynthia to make sure that she conveys all of this information to the relevant people. This isn’t a compromise. We’re talking about people’s human rights. We’re talking about enforcing segregation on our campus. That’s not something we can capitulate to. That’s not something negotiable.”
Teniente-Matson’s absence at the meeting was a frequent point of outrage for multiple speakers.
One of them shouted, “We heard from administration, ‘We’re doing our best. We’re doing what we can with the cards we’ve been given.’ Bull f—ing s—. Bulls—. No. Uh-uh … Your best isn’t f—ing adequate. Like, just point blank. You can do the best. You can say it’s your best. It’s not adequate. People are harmed. People are scared.”
Another cried, “45 minutes. They handed over 45 minutes for this issue, 45 minutes. And they didn’t even give us 45. They gave us zero because two of these seats are f—ing empty right now. They didn’t even show up. Gave a bulls— email about two hours before the event started.”
Just eight days later, on March 6, SJSU and the entire CSU system announced they were suing the federal government to challenge the ED investigation and its findings.
In her announcement of the lawsuit, Teniente-Matson wrote, “Our support for the LGBTQ members of our community, who have experienced threats and harms over the last several years remains unwavering… We’ve heard the fear and anxiety that it has created and recognize that waiting for the university’s response has been difficult at a time already filled with uncertainty.”
Administrator inboxes received responses from faculty, students and alumni, with reactions to the news, as seen in public records obtained by Fox News Digital.
“I attended the town hall and heard the students anxiety and pain,” one professor wrote to Teniente-Matson. “Thank you for showing the nation how to fight with dignity.”
Another SJSU employee sent an email to Vice President of University Advancement Judy Nagai, voicing concerns. That email was then flagged to other administrators.
“It’s worth noting that the university’s communications don’t directly address concerns about fairness and privacy for women,” the email wrote. “It’s easy to see how the messaging might come across as ambiguous or even dismissive of women’s rights for some, especially given the strong emphasis on inclusivity for LGBTQ students.”
Nagai forwarded that email to Teniente-Matson and other admins and wrote, “[redacted] replied with a lengthy response below. He will likely attend the alumni board meeting.”
Nagai later sent out a mass email, advising admins on how to handle individuals with concerns about the lawsuit.
“If you receive any questions, comments, or concerns about this topic from alumni, volunteers, and donors, please connect with [Associate Vice President of Strategy & Campaigns Manaf Mansure] so he can track and assess an appropriate response with guidance from UMC and university leadership,” Nagai wrote.
“This includes all forms of communication — phone calls, emails, texts and mobile messages and in-person conversations.”
A month before the town hall, and five days before the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced it had determined SJSU violated Title IX, a donor sent an email to the school that was forwarded to Nagai. It was in response to an announcement about the school’s dedicated philanthropy partner, The Tower Foundation.
The subject line read “no more giving to SJSU.”
“Judy, please remove me from your list. I am totally against trans athletes playing in women’s sports. I am fine with trans people but the women who work so hard to advance their careers in athletics are getting robbed of their chances to rank and be recognized,” the donor wrote.
“I was on the Tower Foundation for years and was a supporter. I wrote to the Chair and asked him to let the President know my feelings about this. A separate trans program is fine for me and makes sense. Title IX, in my view was to advance and protect women.”
SJSU has addressed the donor’s email in a statement to Fox News Digital.
“The University takes very seriously its legal obligations under Title IX. The University has followed and continues to follow the law,” the statement wrote.
The email was provided to Fox News Digital in response to a public records request. The identity of the person who sent the email was redacted by SJSU.
Less than a week later on Jan. 28, ED announced that SJSU was found in violation of Title IX after conducting a nearly-year-long investigation into the volleyball scandal. ED gave SJSU an ultimatum to agree to resolve the violation that would have included an apology to players and changes to official program records, but no monetary fines.
But later that same day, SJSU’s Risk Manager Karen Vogler sent an email to a finance colleague, about a potentially different risk.
“It doesn’t appear that SJSU will face any fines or monetary penalties as a result of the U.S. Department of Education’s investigation. However, claims/litigation may increase given their findings that the Title IX violation goes back to 2022,” Vogler wrote.
Over the last two weeks, Fox News Digital has reported on decades-old allegations against the coach who oversaw the controversial 2024 team. One of Kress’s former players at Fairfield University sent a letter to SJSU in October 2024, near the height of the scandal’s national exposure, with a letter that included allegations Kress attacked her in a hotel room in 1998.
The former player made her first public statements on Tuesday, since the allegations first surfaced on July 7 in a Fox News Digital report.
“SJSU has known I feared for the safety of the women in the program since October of 2024 and yet they have allowed Todd to continue to coach and travel with the team,” she told Fox News Digital on the condition of anonymity. “I informed both Fairfield and SJSU of my 1998 encounter with Todd after reading accounts of young women on the 2024 SJSU team describing his intimidation, coercive, and manipulative behaviors.”
SJSU is in this predicament three years after Slusser was allegedly convinced by Kress to move into an apartment with Fleming.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
The alleged treatment of Slusser, and every other player on those teams from 2022-24, would be codified in ED’s 45-page findings were SJSU to agree to the resolution agreement.
But SJSU and CSU are seeking to have the entire investigation vacated, as stated in a copy of their lawsuit obtained by Fox News Digital.
CSU and the federal government filed a joint proposed order on March 27, 2026, that would prevent ED from using its findings to immediately disrupt federal funding.
Meanwhile, Slusser and former SJSU associate head coach Melissa Batie-Smoose continue to wage their own individual lawsuits against the institutions.
Slusser’s lawsuit is set to soon receive a decision on motions to dismiss, after a federal judge delayed final ruling on the Title IX charges in the lawsuit until after the recent Supreme Court cases on trans athletes in women’s sports. All nine justices in the cases, all nine justices unanimously agreed that federal Title IX law does not prohibit states from maintaining separate sports teams for biological females or from excluding transgender girls and women from women’s and girls’ sports teams.
The unanimous interpretation of Title IX could prove to strengthen Slusser’s chances of advancing past motions to dismiss, but does not guarantee it.
Meanwhile, Batie-Smoose is engaged in a wrongful termination lawsuit with SJSU.
Oral arguments for that case are scheduled for Aug. 21.
