My 2 cents worth of thought --
I concede it's an interesting case IF some of these allegations are true, and provable.
Suits against bureaucrats acting in their official capacity are usually suits against the sovereign (here, the school or the state). The ones that continue against the individual defendant are called Bivens cases (involving the intentional denial of a known Const right), and I dont think this is alleged here (or is it?). Nonetheless, the original caption of a case will stick, even if the proper defendant is nominally replaced. Plaintiffs lawyers know this but they do it anyway. Maybe because that's how they want it thought of in the minds of the media, the jury, the public and history itself if they hook a winner (the original caption will stick even through the appellate process although the order of the names might be reversed).
One of the standard lines for attacking a bureaucrat's decision is "arbitrary and capricious." These are not often winning arguments -- how do you show someone acted capriciously absent a video or email where they admit- "I am doing this capriciously?" Also Courts will always seek defer to admin types (it's a tough job but someone has to do it + we cant substitute our judgement for theirs + we dont like it when someone does it to us! + we dont want to see thousands of these types of cases + the courts wont change the outcome of an election you dont like (lol) + many other reasons). But it's not impossible.
Here, based on a cursory reading, my guess is this would survive a motion to dismiss (to be distinguished from a motion for SJ) because the allegations made, if true, in my opinion at least, do state a claim (against the proper defendant). I have little doubt the judge wants to dismiss it (no one in the state or federal court system wants to encourage suits against the UT system president). And, Austin being Austin, the judge probably knows Fenves. But we will see. Plus remember that denial of a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, not dispositive. It primarily only means discovery gets to proceed. Some of which might be interesting.
-- "...The lawsuit accuses Fenves of coming up with his own standard..." = does seem kind of arbitrary. did he do this to or for anyone else? if not, why here? i had drunk sex in college -- was I raped too? most of you did as well- does this mean we are all both victims and rapists at the same time? if any of this is even partially the case, why intervene for this one victim but not anyone else?
-- "... is the daughter of a wealthy donor ....... the father of the woman is a university donor who gave a significant sum within a month of her allegations ..." = some fun depos (leading to a quiet settlement?)
-- "Public humiliation and punishment without a fair trial, done by insiders within the power structure, is a vestige of Middle Ages" - heh, good line for the media