Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[HoosierBilliken]

7 minutes ago, brianstl said:

I would say SLU is amazingly losing the PR battle even though they were the only participant in that battle until Friday.  You think the response of SLU has looked sloppy so far, just wait until their actions are actively challenged in public for a few days. 

Pestello is the President of the university. The lawyers and top administrators all answer to him. He a has ultimate complete control over everything.

You are right, I made the correction.  The Board of Trustees hires Pestello.  If the lawyers are in their ears too, they could be slowing down the process or it could be just the lawyers.  I'm sure there is some reason other than Pestello is just a horrible person that needs fired.  

[brianstl]

3 minutes ago, 615Billiken said:

Man, when did Billikens.com become the home of the MAGA mob? Am I on Breitbart?

Supporting fairness, due process and justice for three young black males isn’t a MAGA mob being broadcast by Briebart.

Those things are the kind of principals that are demanded by decent people regardless of political party.

[615Billiken]

23 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Supporting fairness, due process and justice for three young black males isn’t a MAGA mob being broadcast by Briebart.

Those things are the kind of principals that are demanded by decent people regardless of political party.

Im on board with this. I was referring to the weird backlash to Doc B’s post.

[brianstl]

1 hour ago, 615Billiken said:

Im on board with this. I was referring to the weird backlash to Doc B’s post.

Doc B’s post was arrogant and self-indulgent drivel.  His two post in question showed no desire for fairness, justice or due process  for the players to play any role in this process.

[LindellWest]

1 hour ago, 615Billiken said:

Man, when did Billikens.com become the home of the MAGA mob? Am I on Breitbart?

You could always consult the boards very own cultural historian

[Old guy]

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

Supporting fairness, due process and justice for three young black males isn’t a MAGA mob being broadcast by Briebart.

Those things are the kind of principals that are demanded by decent people regardless of political party.

What you say is correct brianstl, but it must be extended to providing the same due process to the women involved in this fray. This is not saying anyone is guilty or innocent , it is just saying that the process must be applied equally to both sides of this fray.

[brianstl]

Just now, Old guy said:

What you say is correct brianstl, but it must be extended to providing the same due process to the women involved in this fray. This is not saying anyone is guilty or innocent , it is just saying that the process must be applied equally to both sides of this fray.

Has the school took actions that led to the identity of the females being revealed?  Has the school leveled any kind of interim suspension against the females? 

[Wendelprof]

2 hours ago, brianstl said:

I would say SLU is amazingly losing the PR battle even though they were the only participant in that battle until Friday.  You think the response of SLU has looked sloppy so far, just wait until their actions are actively challenged in public for a few days. 

Pestello is the President of the university. The lawyers and top administrators all answer to him. He a has ultimate complete control over everything.

Brian,

I share your frustrations, but I'm not sure you understand how academics and universities work (not that people should).  They are not companies per se.  They are governed by different laws than companies.  I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm pretty sure that under FERPA, universities are prohibited from commenting on student matters, and violations of FERPA can result in a university losing its right to receive federal funding (i.e., student loan money).  If SLU were to lose its right to receive student loan money, SLU would have to close its doors pretty quickly.  Unfortunately, this is about something much more important than just the basketball players and the basketball program.  Moreover, once the Title IX investigation starts, at most universities the principal parties are faculty members, not administrators.  Many faculty members have mixed feelings about athletic programs.  Most faculty members tolerate the athletic programs but do not see any reason to give student-athletes are different treatment than any other student.  And most faculty members have tenure, so the President of the University really cannot fire the faculty member if he or she decides to take his or her time to investigate, hear, and decide a difficult matter as he or she deems appropriate.  

It is understandable that the fans are frustrated, the athletic program is frustrated, and the players are frustrated - but that's how academics and universities act.  And for the record, once a decision is reached, the university again cannot comment on it.  The only reason we'll hear anything is if the players decide to disclose whatever they want.  Under FERPA the University cannot make any specific comment about the matter.  So the universities will always lose the PR battle, but FERPA dictates that it should not be a PR matter.  Just as a university cannot publicly comment on a student's academic performance, a university cannot comment on a student's disciplinary matter.

We can vent all we want, but it isn't going to change anything.  The process has to run its course.  

I don't know if that will help any, but I also think it is a bit unfair the criticism that the university has taken on this one.  It is simply following FERPA and Title IX rules, and as a Catholic institution, even if no crime has been committed, it is unlikely that this is conduct that the university finds acceptable.  The video itself evidences conduct that is likely to warrant disciplinary action.  And while I have not seen the video and know only what has been reported here, there are potentially serious issues with the question of consent.  If any of the women involved had consumed alcohol or other substances that might have affected their ability to give consent, the current position in most student handbooks is that any consent must be "effective" consent or something to that effect, giving the university grounds for taking action even if the women gave consent if the hearing board decides the consent was not truly effective but the women were acting with diminished capacity.

This is a much more complicated matter than most on this board appreciate.  Let the process run its course.

I hope that helps put the complexity of the matter in a better light.

 

 

[keyser soze]

30 minutes ago, Wendelprof said:

Brian,

I share your frustrations, but I'm not sure you understand how academics and universities work (not that people should).  They are not companies per se.  They are governed by different laws than companies.  I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm pretty sure that under FERPA, universities are prohibited from commenting on student matters, and violations of FERPA can result in a university losing its right to receive federal funding (i.e., student loan money).  If SLU were to lose its right to receive student loan money, SLU would have to close its doors pretty quickly.  Unfortunately, this is about something much more important than just the basketball players and the basketball program.  Moreover, once the Title IX investigation starts, at most universities the principal parties are faculty members, not administrators.  Many faculty members have mixed feelings about athletic programs.  Most faculty members tolerate the athletic programs but do not see any reason to give student-athletes are different treatment than any other student.  And most faculty members have tenure, so the President of the University really cannot fire the faculty member if he or she decides to take his or her time to investigate, hear, and decide a difficult matter as he or she deems appropriate.  

It is understandable that the fans are frustrated, the athletic program is frustrated, and the players are frustrated - but that's how academics and universities act.  And for the record, once a decision is reached, the university again cannot comment on it.  The only reason we'll hear anything is if the players decide to disclose whatever they want.  Under FERPA the University cannot make any specific comment about the matter.  So the universities will always lose the PR battle, but FERPA dictates that it should not be a PR matter.  Just as a university cannot publicly comment on a student's academic performance, a university cannot comment on a student's disciplinary matter.

We can vent all we want, but it isn't going to change anything.  The process has to run its course.  

I don't know if that will help any, but I also think it is a bit unfair the criticism that the university has taken on this one.  It is simply following FERPA and Title IX rules, and as a Catholic institution, even if no crime has been committed, it is unlikely that this is conduct that the university finds acceptable.  The video itself evidences conduct that is likely to warrant disciplinary action.  And while I have not seen the video and know only what has been reported here, there are potentially serious issues with the question of consent.  If any of the women involved had consumed alcohol or other substances that might have affected their ability to give consent, the current position in most student handbooks is that any consent must be "effective" consent or something to that effect, giving the university grounds for taking action even if the women gave consent if the hearing board decides the consent was not truly effective but the women were acting with diminished capacity.

This is a much more complicated matter than most on this board appreciate.  Let the process run its course.

I hope that helps put the complexity of the matter in a better light.

 

 

Then you might as well expel 75% of the university... like trying to hand out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.

[almaman]

1 hour ago, Old guy said:

What you say is correct brianstl, but it must be extended to providing the same due process to the women involved in this fray. This is not saying anyone is guilty or innocent , it is just saying that the process must be applied equally to both sides of this fray.

Violated or not can't see how it helps the women that it take 2 and a half months to resolve

[Littlebill]

the two RTs at this moment are our very own Moytoy and.... Jermaine Bishop....

[almaman]

what the hell this one mean?  stop playing and look at the ball? 

[Wendelprof]

49 minutes ago, keyser soze said:

Then you might as well expel 75% of the university... like trying to hand out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.

Keyser,

No where do I mention expelling students.  Moreover, 75% of student "fooling around" does not result in one of the parties filing a Title IX claim shortly after they are done.  When the video was posted apparently one or more of the women felt violated.  I don't think 75% of the university is engaging in the particular conduct that has been alleged here.  

In the law we often speak of a "question of first impression" - where the facts are so different from any previous case that the ruling will set precedent that will be followed by all parties involved moving forward.  I think it safe to say that this is a question of first impression.  SLU is appropriately concerned about setting the proper precedent and sending the proper message to its students.  What will that message be?  Let the process run its course.

 

 

[BillIkenFan_Dan]

1 hour ago, almaman said:

what the hell this one mean?  stop playing and look at the ball? 

This one means stop messing around and just let them play in a sense stop playing=stop messing around The eyes=look out and the ball means basically just basketball 

[Clock_Tower]

50 minutes ago, Wendelprof said:

Keyser,

No where do I mention expelling students.  Moreover, 75% of student "fooling around" does not result in one of the parties filing a Title IX claim shortly after they are done.  When the video was posted apparently one or more of the women felt violated.  I don't think 75% of the university is engaging in the particular conduct that has been alleged here.  

In the law we often speak of a "question of first impression" - where the facts are so different from any previous case that the ruling will set precedent that will be followed by all parties involved moving forward.  I think it safe to say that this is a question of first impression.  SLU is appropriately concerned about setting the proper precedent and sending the proper message to its students.  What will that message be?  Let the process run its course.

 

 

Wendelprof.

Appreciate your comments.  As I am sure you can appreciate, most of us who are frustrated at the process/status quo are NOT win at all cost, pro-athlete fans.  Obviously, you have some insight and/or familiar with this Title IX process and procedure.  If you don't mind, a few questions:

1.  Was there a Title IX investigation with regard to Situation 1 (Kwamaine Mitchell, Willie Reed, etc.?  If I recall, talk was less about Title IX and more about SLU Student Code of Conduct/Housing regulations and tribunal.

2.   Are Title IX complaints only available to student athletes?  such as women's soccer, basketball, softball players? as opposed to SLU  female student who are not athletes?

3.   How long has SLU/other colleges been conducting/allow Title IX investigations?  As mentioned, I don't recall the same for Situation 1.  Also, I understand the federal regulations were greatly increased in both size and scope under President Obama.  and are now being cut back under President Trump. 

The vibes I am receiving is that our Men's baketball players, due to their high profile nature, appear to be subject to far greater scrutiny than SLU nont -student athletes.

[3star_recruit]

6 hours ago, Wendelprof said:

Keyser,

No where do I mention expelling students.  Moreover, 75% of student "fooling around" does not result in one of the parties filing a Title IX claim shortly after they are done.  When the video was posted apparently one or more of the women felt violated.  I don't think 75% of the university is engaging in the particular conduct that has been alleged here.  

In the law we often speak of a "question of first impression" - where the facts are so different from any previous case that the ruling will set precedent that will be followed by all parties involved moving forward.  I think it safe to say that this is a question of first impression.  SLU is appropriately concerned about setting the proper precedent and sending the proper message to its students.  What will that message be?  Let the process run its course.

 

 

Thanks for fleshing out the issue.  But at the end of the day, the University either has to expel the students or let them play.  There is no middle ground here.  The faculty decision makers are just dragging their feet at this point.  And from your explanation, they're simply doing it because they can.  

[keyser soze]

6 hours ago, Wendelprof said:

Keyser,

No where do I mention expelling students.  Moreover, 75% of student "fooling around" does not result in one of the parties filing a Title IX claim shortly after they are done.  When the video was posted apparently one or more of the women felt violated.  I don't think 75% of the university is engaging in the particular conduct that has been alleged here.  

In the law we often speak of a "question of first impression" - where the facts are so different from any previous case that the ruling will set precedent that will be followed by all parties involved moving forward.  I think it safe to say that this is a question of first impression.  SLU is appropriately concerned about setting the proper precedent and sending the proper message to its students.  What will that message be?  Let the process run its course.

 

 

So let me get this straight, since the university has completely bungled this situation, they are now having paid employees using a fan forum to give lectures on the importance of a thorough investigation?  

And yes probably 75% of your students are engaging in stupid behavior using social media, alcohol and drugs.

wow this is worse than we thought.....

[billiken_roy]

8 hours ago, Wendelprof said:

Brian,

I share your frustrations, but I'm not sure you understand how academics and universities work (not that people should).  They are not companies per se.  They are governed by different laws than companies.  I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm pretty sure that under FERPA, universities are prohibited from commenting on student matters, and violations of FERPA can result in a university losing its right to receive federal funding (i.e., student loan money).  If SLU were to lose its right to receive student loan money, SLU would have to close its doors pretty quickly.  Unfortunately, this is about something much more important than just the basketball players and the basketball program.  Moreover, once the Title IX investigation starts, at most universities the principal parties are faculty members, not administrators.  Many faculty members have mixed feelings about athletic programs.  Most faculty members tolerate the athletic programs but do not see any reason to give student-athletes are different treatment than any other student.  And most faculty members have tenure, so the President of the University really cannot fire the faculty member if he or she decides to take his or her time to investigate, hear, and decide a difficult matter as he or she deems appropriate.  

It is understandable that the fans are frustrated, the athletic program is frustrated, and the players are frustrated - but that's how academics and universities act.  And for the record, once a decision is reached, the university again cannot comment on it.  The only reason we'll hear anything is if the players decide to disclose whatever they want.  Under FERPA the University cannot make any specific comment about the matter.  So the universities will always lose the PR battle, but FERPA dictates that it should not be a PR matter.  Just as a university cannot publicly comment on a student's academic performance, a university cannot comment on a student's disciplinary matter.

We can vent all we want, but it isn't going to change anything.  The process has to run its course.  

I don't know if that will help any, but I also think it is a bit unfair the criticism that the university has taken on this one.  It is simply following FERPA and Title IX rules, and as a Catholic institution, even if no crime has been committed, it is unlikely that this is conduct that the university finds acceptable.  The video itself evidences conduct that is likely to warrant disciplinary action.  And while I have not seen the video and know only what has been reported here, there are potentially serious issues with the question of consent.  If any of the women involved had consumed alcohol or other substances that might have affected their ability to give consent, the current position in most student handbooks is that any consent must be "effective" consent or something to that effect, giving the university grounds for taking action even if the women gave consent if the hearing board decides the consent was not truly effective but the women were acting with diminished capacity.

This is a much more complicated matter than most on this board appreciate.  Let the process run its course.

I hope that helps put the complexity of the matter in a better light.

 

 

the run of the course should have been over long ago.  there is no reason this situation should even take the allotted 60 days.   all parties are local and readily available, take the statements, and get it done.   generously this should have been over in 30 days.  if it is a matter that the attorneys involved or the slu committee had scheduling issues, it seems that all the parties that are involved shouldnt have to be a slave to that.   look i dont see anyone on this board that wants to ignore justice.   if the players are truly guilty of some school guideline then expel the kids and lets move on.  but if it is proven that no rules were broken, then get the kids back on the floor.   it is well past time to make a decision.   and there is no reason the time frames are past due.   

make a decision.  

[slufan13]

SLU's job should be to protect its students. By suspending the players (even without comment), they have not protected the identity of the players in question. Regardless of what happens with the investigation, these players reputations have been ruined. And the longer this goes on, the worse it'll get for the players. Again, if the players violated some type of major university rule or law, they should be kicked out of school. Honestly, they should have been kicked out 2 months ago if they did that. If not, they should be playing throughout this investigation. Once the police decided not to pursue any charges, the players should have been practicing/playing. What if this case goes 180 days and it's determined that the players are completely innocent? Then the university just cost them an entire year of eligibility (or if the NCAA gives them an extra year, the school caused them to delay their professional careers/earnings by a full year). Everyone wants to talk about how SLU has to be careful in not giving preferential treatment to athletes. SLU has gone to the opposite extreme here and are treating athletes worse than they would treat regular students. 

SLU is spending too much time trying to protect itself and not enough time trying to protect its students. I don't know the race of the women involved in this situation, but I really hope for SLU's case that this doesn't turn into a race war. 

#LetThemPlay

 

[slufan13]

I will be happy if we get the players back at the end of the semester even though I think the tank is empty and I'm not sure that just getting them back is going to solve all our on-court problems at this point. But I just hope that the University doesn't think that we are naive enough to believe that the investigation will conveniently/coincidentally end right at the end of the semester. If the players start playing again right after exams, it's going to tell me that a one semester suspension was determined a long time ago. Now whether that was communicated with the athletic department/players, we will never know. 

[Tilkowsky]

11 hours ago, brianstl said:

I would say SLU is amazingly losing the PR battle even though they were the only participant in that battle until Friday.  You think the response of SLU has looked sloppy so far, just wait until their actions are actively challenged in public for a few days. 

Pestello is the President of the university. The lawyers and top administrators all answer to him. He a has ultimate complete control over everything.

Except the lawyers and top administrators are more familiar with Title IX investigations.

Something you care nothing about.

 

[Tilkowsky]

18 minutes ago, slufan13 said:

SLU's job should be to protect its students. By suspending the players (even without comment), they have not protected the identity of the players in question. Regardless of what happens with the investigation, these players reputations have been ruined. And the longer this goes on, the worse it'll get for the players. Again, if the players violated some type of major university rule or law, they should be kicked out of school. Honestly, they should have been kicked out 2 months ago if they did that. If not, they should be playing throughout this investigation. Once the police decided not to pursue any charges, the players should have been practicing/playing. What if this case goes 180 days and it's determined that the players are completely innocent? Then the university just cost them an entire year of eligibility (or if the NCAA gives them an extra year, the school caused them to delay their professional careers/earnings by a full year). Everyone wants to talk about how SLU has to be careful in not giving preferential treatment to athletes. SLU has gone to the opposite extreme here and are treating athletes worse than they would treat regular students. 

SLU is spending too much time trying to protect itself and not enough time trying to protect its students. I don't know the race of the women involved in this situation, but I really hope for SLU's case that this doesn't turn into a race war. 

#LetThemPlay

 

The players should have thought about that when they did whatever they did.

[cheeseman]

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

the run of the course should have been over long ago.  there is no reason this situation should even take the allotted 60 days.   all parties are local and readily available, take the statements, and get it done.   generously this should have been over in 30 days.  if it is a matter that the attorneys involved or the slu committee had scheduling issues, it seems that all the parties that are involved shouldnt have to be a slave to that.   look i dont see anyone on this board that wants to ignore justice.   if the players are truly guilty of some school guideline then expel the kids and lets move on.  but if it is proven that no rules were broken, then get the kids back on the floor.   it is well past time to make a decision.   and there is no reason the time frames are past due.   

make a decision.  

Roy, the only thing I would disagree with here is that of course rules were broken.  The problem is these rules are broken all the time - in fact I would be comfortable saying every weekend and more at SLU and virtually every other campus in the country this happens.  I have raised this point before, if SLU has not dealt with each and every offender in the past in the same way they find themselves in a bit of a pickle.  I feel safe in saying that sometime at SLU someone representing the school turned their backs on or was willfully ignorant of these rule breakers.  This is the biggest dilemma the school faces - how to avoid appearing to be selective in these matters.  I know some people do not want to admit that SLU is like all schools - kids do nasty things all the time and they do not all get expelled.  The school is going to get blasted no matter what they decide to do so trying to wait this out makes no sense - it only makes more people pissed off over the appearance of  foot dragging.  This is one of those times where you just have to hold your nose and take your medicine.  The only constant here is the DA - if the DA is not going to charge the students then SLU needs to just drop the matter for the reasons I gave above or risk being sued and my guess losing.  If by some chance they win then they will still be dirtied by the entire affair - no pun intended.

[Billy Ken]

Who allows these players to use social media? I know Geno Auriemma bans his team from social media during the season, what does he know anyway. If I were one of these guys, keep your heads down, worry about school and don't draw attention to yourself. Just a thought.

[Billboy1]

That's a great concept except pressure needs to be applied by whatever means are available.