SShoe

I also emailed Jose.  I'm sure it's a pointless effort, but I felt it needed to be sent.
Jose,
I just finished reading your piece on the SLU Title IX investigation and the punishment handed down to Jordan Goodwin along with the other 3 suspended players.  While I knew the level of writing and reporting at the Post had declined in recent years, I had no clue it fell off a cliff.  I continue to be a subscriber to the Post and badly want to support our local newspaper, but this type of article makes it awfully difficult. 
The column you wrote is full of non-verified speculation and innuendo, and any additional investigations or research would have resulted in a column with at least some semblance of fairness.  Instead, you took huge leaps in making broad sweeping statements about SLU and about the 4 players involved in the investigation.  You indirectly suggested that the campus is not being made safe by the school because the basketball program allows its players free reign.  Clearly, that’s not the case, as evidenced by an expulsion, two 2-year suspensions, and a third suspension that was reduced because he was cleared of all charges relating to the sexual misconduct. 
Comparing the school to Penn State, Baylor, or MSU right now is also disingenuous at best.  There is no clear pattern of abuse or cover-up.  There was one incident and the school has responded with very strong punishments for those involved, including one player, Henriquez, who was expected to be the leading scorer for the team.  Again, any research might’ve allowed you to understand that instead of making the suggestion that Goodwin is only still here because he was the “best player”. 
This assumption also shows zero knowledge or understanding of how the Title IX process works and who is making these determinations.  Go find out who the Hearing Officer was that made the initial rulings and ask yourself, “does this seem like someone who is trying to prop up the basketball program.”
At the end of the article, you wrote about accountability. I hope you get a chance to learn that lesson as well. 
Best Regards,
Steve Schuman     
 

I also emailed Jose.  I'm sure it's a pointless effort, but I felt it needed to be sent.
Jose,
I just finished reading your piece on the SLU Title IX investigation and the punishment handed down to Jordan Goodwin along with the other 3 suspended players.  While I knew the level of writing and reporting at the Post had declined in recent years, I had no clue it fell off a cliff.  I continue to be a subscriber to the Post and badly want to support our local newspaper, but this type of article makes it awfully difficult. 
The column you wrote is full of non-verified speculation and innuendo, and any additional investigations or research would have resulted in a column with at least some semblance of fairness.  Instead, you took huge leaps in making broad sweeping statements about SLU and about the 4 players involved in the investigation.  You indirectly suggested that the campus is not being made safe by the school because the basketball program allows its players free reign.  Clearly, that’s not the case, as evidenced by an expulsion, two 2-year suspensions, and a third suspension that was reduced because he was cleared of all charges relating to the sexual misconduct. 
Comparing the school to Penn State, Baylor, or MSU right now is also disingenuous at best.  There is no clear pattern of abuse or cover-up.  There was one incident and the school has responded with very strong punishments for those involved, including one player, Henriquez, who was expected to be the leading scorer for the team.  Again, any research might’ve allowed you to understand that instead of making the suggestion that Goodwin is only still here because he was the “best player”. 
This assumption also shows zero knowledge or understanding of how the Title IX process works and who is making these determinations.  Go find out who the Hearing Officer was that made the initial rulings and ask yourself, “does this seem like someone who is trying to prop up the basketball program.”
At the end of the article, you wrote about accountability. I hope you get a chance to learn that lesson as well. 
Best Regards,
Steve Schuman     
 

I also emailed Jose.  I'm sure it's a pointless effort, but I felt it needed to be sent.
Jose,
I just finished reading your piece on the SLU Title IX investigation and the punishment handed down to Jordan Goodwin along with the other 3 suspended players.  While I knew the level of writing and reporting at the Post had declined in recent years, I had no clue it fell off a cliff.  I continue to be a subscriber to the Post and badly want to support our local newspaper, but this type of article makes it awfully difficult. 
The column you wrote is full of non-verified speculation and innuendo, and any additional investigations or research would have resulted in a column with at least some semblance of fairness.  Instead, you took huge leaps in making broad sweeping statements about SLU and about the 4 players involved in the investigation.  You indirectly suggested that the campus is not being made safe by the school because the basketball program allows its players free reign.  Clearly, that’s not the case, as evidenced by an expulsion, two 2-year suspensions, and a third suspension that was reduced because he was cleared of all charges relating to the sexual misconduct. 
Comparing the school to Penn State, Baylor, or MSU right now is also disingenuous at best.  There is no clear pattern of abuse or cover-up.  There was one incident and the school has responded with very strong punishments for those involved, including one player, Henriquez, who was expected to be the leading scorer for the team.  Again, any research might’ve allowed you to understand that instead of making the suggestion that Goodwin is only still here because he was the “best player”. 
This assumption also shows zero knowledge or understanding of how the Title IX process works and who is making these determinations.  Go find out who the Hearing Officer was that made the initial rulings and ask yourself, “does this seem like someone who is trying to prop up the basketball program.”
At the end of the article, you wrote about accountability. I hope you get a chance to learn that lesson as well. 
Best Regards,
Steve Schuman     
 

I also emailed Jose.  I'm sure it's a pointless effort, but I felt it needed to be sent.
Jose,
I just finished reading your piece on the SLU Title IX investigation and the punishment handed down to Jordan Goodwin along with the other 3 suspended players.  While I knew the level of writing and reporting at the Post had declined in recent years, I had no clue it fell off a cliff.  I continue to be a subscriber to the Post and badly want to support our local newspaper, but this type of article makes it awfully difficult. 
The column you wrote is full of non-verified speculation and innuendo, and any additional investigations or research would have resulted in a column with at least some semblance of fairness.  Instead, you took huge leaps in making broad sweeping statements about SLU and about the 4 players involved in the investigation.  You indirectly suggested that the campus is not being made safe by the school because the basketball program allows its players free reign.  Clearly, that’s not the case, as evidenced by an expulsion, two 2-year suspensions, and a third suspension that was reduced because he was cleared of all charges relating to the sexual misconduct. 
Comparing the school to Penn State, Baylor, or MSU right now is also disingenuous at best.  There is no clear pattern of abuse or cover-up.  There was one incident and the school has responded with very strong punishments for those involved, including one player, Henriquez, who was expected to be the leading scorer for the team.  Again, any research might’ve allowed you to understand that instead of making the suggestion that Goodwin is only still here because he was the “best player”. 
This assumption also shows zero knowledge or understanding of how the Title IX process works and who is making these determinations.  Go find out who the Hearing Officer was that made the initial rulings and ask yourself, “does this seem like someone who is trying to prop up the basketball program.”
At the end of the article, you wrote about accountability. I hope you get a chance to learn that lesson as well. 
Best Regards,
Steve Schuman     
 

I also emailed Jose.  I'm sure it's a pointless effort, but I felt it needed to be sent.
Jose,
I just finished reading your piece on the SLU Title IX investigation and the punishment handed down to Jordan Goodwin along with the other 3 suspended players.  While I knew the level of writing and reporting at the Post had declined in recent years, I had no clue it fell off a cliff.  I continue to be a subscriber to the Post and badly want to support our local newspaper, but this type of article makes it awfully difficult. 
The column you wrote is full of non-verified speculation and innuendo, and any additional investigations or research would have resulted in a column with at least some semblance of fairness.  Instead, you took huge leaps in making broad sweeping statements about SLU and about the 4 players involved in the investigation.  You indirectly suggested that the campus is not being made safe by the school because the basketball program allows its players free reign.  Clearly, that’s not the case, as evidenced by an expulsion, two 2-year suspensions, and a third suspension that was reduced because he was cleared of all charges relating to the sexual misconduct. 
Comparing the school to Penn State, Baylor, or MSU right now is also disingenuous at best.  There is no clear pattern of abuse or cover-up.  There was one incident and the school has responded with very strong punishments for those involved, including one player, Henriquez, who was expected to be the leading scorer for the team.  Again, any research might’ve allowed you to understand that instead of making the suggestion that Goodwin is only still here because he was the “best player”. 
This assumption also shows zero knowledge or understanding of how the Title IX process works and who is making these determinations.  Go find out who the Hearing Officer was that made the initial rulings and ask yourself, “does this seem like someone who is trying to prop up the basketball program.”
At the end of the article, you wrote about accountability. I hope you get a chance to learn that lesson as well. 
Best Regards,
Steve Schuman     
 

I also emailed Jose.  I'm sure it's a pointless effort, but I felt it needed to be sent.
Jose,
I just finished reading your piece on the SLU Title IX investigation and the punishment handed down to Jordan Goodwin along with the other 3 suspended players.  While I knew the level of writing and reporting at the Post had declined in recent years, I had no clue it fell off a cliff.  I continue to be a subscriber to the Post and badly want to support our local newspaper, but this type of article makes it awfully difficult. 
The column you wrote is full of non-verified speculation and innuendo, and any additional investigations or research would have resulted in a column with at least some semblance of fairness.  Instead, you took huge leaps in making broad sweeping statements about SLU and about the 4 players involved in the investigation.  You indirectly suggested that the campus is not being made safe by the school because the basketball program allows its players free reign.  Clearly, that’s not the case, as evidenced by an expulsion, two 2-year suspensions, and a third suspension that was reduced because he was cleared of all charges relating to the sexual misconduct. 
Comparing the school to Penn State, Baylor, or MSU right now is also disingenuous at best.  There is no clear pattern of abuse or cover-up.  There was one incident and the school has responded with very strong punishments for those involved, including one player, Henriquez, who was expected to be the leading scorer for the team.  Again, any research might’ve allowed you to understand that instead of making the suggestion that Goodwin is only still here because he was the “best player”. 
This assumption also shows zero knowledge or understanding of how the Title IX process works and who is making these determinations.  Go find out who the Hearing Officer was that made the initial rulings and ask yourself, “does this seem like someone who is trying to prop up the basketball program.”
At the end of the article, you wrote about accountability. I hope you get a chance to learn that lesson as well. 
Best Regards,
Steve Schuman     
 

Then it's probably SLU's rationale

Gordon has some growing up to do, but it is amazing some of the awful things adults have said about the kid.  People with kids of their own spreading awful rumors about Gordon just because he didn’t play/stay at the high school they wanted him to or choose the college they prefer.  Plenty of parents that have more growing up to do than Gordon.

Right.  It would be nice to have them in light of Situation 2.0, but having watched MY, MB and MR play, it's clear that...

I can't remember which article I saw this in, but the stat I saw was that the successful prosecution rate for sexual assault crimes was only 20%.  That seems horribly low, but what do I know.  Pair that with the fact that sexual assaults are an extremely common occurrence on university campuses and often occur between two students who know each and one can certainly see the need for additional university actions/protections.  Again, that does not mean we should automatically punish the accused or have a system where one individual is ultimately responsible for making the decision. 

Well said on these 3 major points.  The suggestion that these Title 9 investigations are some sweeping effort by lefty, feminist radicals completely ignores the flip side of the coin, which is that real sexual assault is all too common on college campuses and there needs to be a process for schools to properly adjudicate these assaults.  That said, this investigation has certainly opened my eyes to the need for various reforms. 
It's also unfortunate that the local paper has not done any actual investigative reporting on this one, as it would've been a great opportunity to highlight these issues and bring some notoriety to the paper.  My guess is that the resources are just not there, but there are other local papers doing this type of work (see Indianapolis Star and Larry Nassar).  I understand the SLU bball team doesn't generate the clicks, but the Title 9 stuff does.

Well said on these 3 major points.  The suggestion that these Title 9 investigations are some sweeping effort by lefty, feminist radicals completely ignores the flip side of the coin, which is that real sexual assault is all too common on college campuses and there needs to be a process for schools to properly adjudicate these assaults.  That said, this investigation has certainly opened my eyes to the need for various reforms. 
It's also unfortunate that the local paper has not done any actual investigative reporting on this one, as it would've been a great opportunity to highlight these issues and bring some notoriety to the paper.  My guess is that the resources are just not there, but there are other local papers doing this type of work (see Indianapolis Star and Larry Nassar).  I understand the SLU bball team doesn't generate the clicks, but the Title 9 stuff does.

I don't want to move our best interior defender to the wing. 
He showed some nice skills for a big leading the break last night but other than that i don't see him as much of a ball handler. 
French is the power forward we have been wanting for 20 years let's not move him away from what he excels at.
 

I think DJ Foreman is more of a 3 than Hasahn.

Her use of the word "survivor" cheapens its meaning.  It's disrespectful to all the women who actually are survivors of sexual assault.

I heard the teammate said something good about Mizzou and he was therefore rightly beat up.

My guess is he ends up at UCLA and Under Armour starts sponsoring Mr. Ramey's AAU teams.

99.9% of true Billiken Fans hate all things Mizzou with a passion because 99.8% of Mizzou fans are arrogant a-holes.  There are few exceptions.  
 
The history is probably similiar to WSU and Kansas except that the Tigers were never quite as good as the Jayhawks and the Billikens never seem to sustain success for more than a few years at a time....

At this point... Only care about 1 of the 4.

Let’s stop pretending that retweeting women’s march material is any kind of indication of her ability to remain impartial. 
Supporting women’s rights and being a hearing officer in this case is not the contradictory golden goose we want it to be. 

Given the circumstances, I consider this a positive development.  Assuming this means Ty is the non-Rosenbloom 3, it also means that Goodwin is not the one facing expulsion.  If he is, as others have suggested, the one given the 1.5-year suspension, a "successful" appeal could result in a reduced suspension and a much stronger chance he'll remain a Billiken. 

This is a good post (there aren't many left these days). Could the punishments be thrown out or dialed way back because of these perceived biases? Sort of a "mistrial"? We may be grasping, but she certainly exercised poor judgment in not considering how her Twitter feed may be perceived.
I'll also say this, because I DGAF about getting tagged with "Bad Posts" - I have a go-to comparison to Weathers in my wife, who is also a lawyer and would be aligned politically with Weathers - she also attended the women's march Saturday, she was a women's studies major at SLU, was active in UNA at SLU, and is just kind of a badass in general. However, given what we now know about this particular situation, there's no way she would've been handed this investigation and come to the same punishments for these players. Not a chance. She's extremely cautious and even-handed, knowing how the school may be opened up to litigation (she's a Xavier fan and the Dez Wells case was not that long ago), and unwilling to level a significant punishment to one side without damn good reason to do so. And this case, as we know, was shaky. So it's kind of painful to me to read through hundreds and hundreds of posts drenched in contempt for women, academia, and a broader "climate" right now, because there are a lot of excellent, sharp, fair legal minds out there who don't have cases decided ahead of time because of their broader beliefs. Based on the shocking penalties handed down by Weathers, she doesn't appear to be one of them, and that's a shame.
More important to me than her Twitter feed, though, is the Christopher Winston case that a few people have linked. I've read that a couple times now and I know it's coming from one side but I'm absolutely puzzled as to why this kid was cited for anything. Do we know how it turned out?
His behavior, to me, is the whole point of college. Learning, discussion, exchange of ideas, and challenging of beliefs. I went to talks at SLU that had the exact same thing happen (i.e. someone stand up and really challenge a speaker in a Q&A), and it was far from the most progressive campus then (early 2000s). We also had some Palestinian students every year put up a wall by the clock tower and talk about their perspective on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Anyway, I can see no reason why Winston would've ever gotten in trouble, and the letter linked above claims a racial bias, and Weathers was one of the primary decision makers. I'm curious to know whether there are other data points here, and how the Winston situation turned out, if it has indeed wrapped up completely.

I can totally see opposing coaches going into a high school player's living room and telling the parents they shouldn't send their kids to SLU because the school won't allow their kid to engage in sexual misconduct while at the university. 

I can totally see opposing coaches going into a high school player's living room and telling the parents they shouldn't send their kids to SLU because the school won't allow their kid to engage in sexual misconduct while at the university. 

I can totally see opposing coaches going into a high school player's living room and telling the parents they shouldn't send their kids to SLU because the school won't allow their kid to engage in sexual misconduct while at the university.