KSDK 5 report on the situation

[RiseAndGrind]

Whether you agree with the policy or not, this is not someone being made an example of. This is enforcement of a stadard university policy that has been in effect for a long time (at least 15 years ago because that is when I was on campus). If the university did not use past precedent they would be opening up themselves to lawsuit from everyone who has ever been punished under this previously. If they made a special case for 2 athletes then we would have another whole issue on the university's hands. So I will say again, whether you agree with the policy or not, the hands of the people making the ruling were tied based on the rulings made by previous decision makers.

I disagree. Does it say anywhere in the policy that all decisions must be handled in exactly the same manner? Attendant Circumstances are always part of a decision. Every situation is unique. Blanket rules don't always apply.

Anyhow, I'm more concerned about how the policy is construed. Does it not seem a bit sexist, unfair, and all around like bad policy?

[HusakAttack]

From the student handbook. A criminal act doesn't have to take place. Looking at the Sexual assualt policy, if the girl was intoxicated, the players could indeed be severely punished. She would be in violation also and could be punished as well.

1.15.6.3 There is a fundamental difference between student conduct and criminal law. While some terminology and procedures may resemble those used in the courts, the behavior of all student conduct cases within the University community must be consistent with the educational mission of Saint Louis University, rather than simply emulating legal proceedings. The standard utilized to determine if a violation has occurred is based on a finding that it is more likely than not that a violation of the Code occurred, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

1.15.2 Definition:

For purposes of this policy, sexual assault is defined as sexual contact without consent and includes intentional touching, either of the victim or when the victim is forced to touch, directly or through clothing, another person's genitals, breasts, thighs or buttocks; rape (sexual intercourse without consent whether by an acquaintance or a stranger); attempted rape; sodomy (oral sex or anal intercourse) without consent; or sexual penetration with an object without consent. To constitute lack of consent, the act(s) must be committed either by force, intimidation, or through use of the victim's mental incapacity or physical helplessness, including intoxication

I am no lawyer so if there is one here please correct me if I am wrong, but imagine the precedent being set by this case in student conduct decisions! I am under the impression that matters like this are judged by rulings in the past and the precedent is considered a new rule or case to judge new cases by. In this case there is clearly zero evidence since the STLPD could not even put up a case against these 2 alleged assailants. So if these 2 kids are stripped of their scholarships and the educational right given to them because someone said they raped them is unfathomable. After this decision holds up (if it does) all someone on campus has to do is accuse someone of rape and they are kicked off campus. How ridiculous is this?

[moytoy12]

I am no lawyer so if there is one here please correct me if I am wrong, but imagine the precedent being set by this case in student conduct decisions! I am under the impression that matters like this are judged by rulings in the past and the precedent is considered a new rule or case to judge new cases by. In this case there is clearly zero evidence since the STLPD could not even put up a case against these 2 alleged assailants. So if these 2 kids are stripped of their scholarships and the educational right given to them because someone said they raped them is unfathomable. After this decision holds up (if it does) all someone on campus has to do is accuse someone of rape and they are kicked off campus. How ridiculous is this?

I do believe it is a slippery slope. However, I will note that just because someone isn't prosecuted doesn't mean there is "zero" evidence.

[Clock_Tower]

I am no lawyer so if there is one here please correct me if I am wrong, but imagine the precedent being set by this case in student conduct decisions! I am under the impression that matters like this are judged by rulings in the past and the precedent is considered a new rule or case to judge new cases by. In this case there is clearly zero evidence since the STLPD could not even put up a case against these 2 alleged assailants. So if these 2 kids are stripped of their scholarships and the educational right given to them because someone said they raped them is unfathomable. After this decision holds up (if it does) all someone on campus has to do is accuse someone of rape and they are kicked off campus. How ridiculous is this?

No. It's even worse. All of what you mention will happen and still no student court finding/conviction of rape. Got to believe that if this student court believed a rape took place that the assailants would be expelled.

As to being kicked off campus, I doubt there is anyway the two (2) students themselves, even if they wanted to, could attend school but not live on campus. Got to believe the NCAA would not allow "loans" or other payments or subsidies outside of the normal/regular student housing/meals.

[saluki762]

No. It's even worse. All of what you mention will happen and still no student court finding/conviction of rape. Got to believe that if this student court believed a rape took place that the assailants would be expelled.

As to being kicked off campus, I doubt there is anyway the two (2) students themselves, even if they wanted to, could attend school but not live on campus. Got to believe the NCAA would not allow "loans" or other payments or subsidies outside of the normal/regular student housing/meals.

Many scholarship athletes at SIU live in off campus apartments together.

[Box and Won]

The eyewitness speaks out:

[jjray]

As to being kicked off campus, I doubt there is anyway the two (2) students themselves, even if they wanted to, could attend school but not live on campus. Got to believe the NCAA would not allow "loans" or other payments or subsidies outside of the normal/regular student housing/meals.

If the punishment is one year suspension, my argument on appeal would be to allow the student athletes to serve the suspension at the end of this academic school year as opposed to during the current year. The argument being that if the punishment had been handed down promptly at the close of last school year then the students would have had the opportunity to transfer with two years of eligibility remaining. By delaying the decision, the students are already enrolled at SLU and have little to no chance to transfer because teams have already used up their scholarships and, at the very least, a semester of school will be missed if they transferred in October. It's an extra burden on the students to be notified of the decision while the school year is already underway. Add that on top of all the other arguments that this is unfair. You have to give whoever is hearing this appeal a way out of this mess that placates the alumni and parents that a serious punishment was handed out but, at the same time, lessen the devastation to careers of the student(s) athletes and the impact on the bball program.

[HusakAttack]

I do believe it is a slippery slope. However, I will note that just because someone isn't prosecuted doesn't mean there is "zero" evidence.

At very least, a severe lack of evidence...

[RiseAndGrind]

The eyewitness speaks out:

I like this one better:

[slufanskip]

If the punishment is one year suspension, my argument on appeal would be to allow the student athletes to serve the suspension at the end of this academic school year as opposed to during the current year. The argument being that if the punishment had been handed down promptly at the close of last school year then the students would have had the opportunity to transfer with two years of eligibility remaining. By delaying the decision, the students are already enrolled at SLU and have little to no chance to transfer because teams have already used up their scholarships and, at the very least, a semester of school will be missed if they transferred in October. It's an extra burden on the students to be notified of the decision while the school year is already underway. Add that on top of all the other arguments that this is unfair. You have to give whoever is hearing this appeal a way out of this mess that placates the alumni and parents that a serious punishment was handed out but, at the same time, lessen the devastation to careers of the student(s) athletes and the impact on the bball program.

If I'm a student and I know this was consentual, there is absolutely no way I appeal for anything other than the entire matter be dropped and I get the same punishment any other student gets for underage drinking. The dorm is their home. Kinky sex in your house between consenting adults should not be an act that is governed by anyone other than the adults themselves.

[jjray]

If I'm a student and I know this was consentual, there is absolutely no way I appeal for anything other than the entire matter be dropped and I get the same punishment any other student gets for underage drinking. The dorm is their home. Kinky sex in your house between consenting adults should not be an act that is governed by anyone other than the adults themselves.

I hear you skip but that approach ignores the realities of the situation. What are the chances of winning one of these appeals under normal circumstances? In our case, there are forces at work beyond legalistic ones. The case is already in the news. Parents and alumni who have no knowledge of the actual facts of the case, they just hear the words "sexual assault" in the news and get worked up, are sure to be angry about the situation. You have an administrator hearing the appeal caught between a rock and a hard place. If the students in question only argue for a complete reversal, that's a very hard sell. Lose the appeal and disaster ensues (or at least that's the rumor). If you give the administrator hearing the appeal a way out that affords him or her cover and substantially lessens the impact of the decision, then your chances of salvaging something less hurtful out of the appeal go way up. It's like settlement negotiations. Nobody is ever happy with the results of settlement. It hurts both sides but to a lesser extent than if they had gone to war and one loses. For WR (and I have no idea whether he is involved), he flirted with the idea of declaring for the draft last year. He's likely gone at end of this year no matter what. This would just be a face saving move. I don't want to speculate on another player's situation.

[BillikenROAR]

I blame Greg Oden. If he had not unzipped his pants and revealed his third leg to the entire world, this girl would not have been curious, done the dirty, and after she turtle-walked her ass home and woke up sore as hell, called her daddy.

[SluSignGuy]

Lets watch what we post here (between videos and lewd comments) folks.

[bsheldon]

I blame Greg Oden. If he had not unzipped his pants and revealed his third leg to the entire world, this girl would not have been curious, done the dirty, and after she turtle-walked her ass home and woke up sore as hell, called her daddy.

Hilarious.

[bsheldon]

My biggest issues with this whole mess are:

The delay in the ruling--it hsould havebeen handled months ago. This was high profile enough for a "special" session or wahtever. Whoever did not make this happen should be fired--ultimately FR B should have stepped in and made it happen.

The "rule" they are using to punish these kids with. Let's just say they admit they were drunk? Then they, by rule, were incapable themselve to give consent for "sexual activity." Really they should turn this thing on its head. They had drinks, therefore, it was sexual assault against them because in retrospect they regret doing it and they would not have gone through with it had they been sober. So, again, by the rule, they were the victims of sexual assault. If they are going to follow this mickey mouse rule--follow it to the end of its logical conclusions. Use the rule as it is written for your own defense.

This is all just awful for the program.

Hopefully, they get some sort of community service and perhaps some suspension. Ruining these young men's lives does not seem appropriate for a drunken hook up or at worse "sexual assault" with no real evidence.

[billikenfan05]

My biggest issues with this whole mess are:

The delay in the ruling--it hsould havebeen handled months ago. This was high profile enough for a "special" session or wahtever. Whoever did not make this happen should be fired--ultimately FR B should have stepped in and made it happen.

The "rule" they are using to punish these kids with. Let's just say they admit they were drunk? Then they, by rule, were incapable themselve to give consent for "sexual activity." Really they should turn this thing on its head. They had drinks, therefore, it was sexual assault against them because in retrospect they regret doing it and they would not have gone through with it had they been sober. So, again, by the rule, they were the victims of sexual assault. If they are going to follow this mickey mouse rule--follow it to the end of its logical conclusions. Use the rule as it is written for your own defense.

This is all just awful for the program.

Hopefully, they get some sort of community service and perhaps some suspension. Ruining these young men's lives does not seem appropriate for a drunken hook up or at worse "sexual assault" with no real evidence.

+1 Fantastic post.

[slufan13]

My biggest issues with this whole mess are:

The delay in the ruling--it hsould havebeen handled months ago. This was high profile enough for a "special" session or wahtever. Whoever did not make this happen should be fired--ultimately FR B should have stepped in and made it happen.

The "rule" they are using to punish these kids with. Let's just say they admit they were drunk? Then they, by rule, were incapable themselve to give consent for "sexual activity." Really they should turn this thing on its head. They had drinks, therefore, it was sexual assault against them because in retrospect they regret doing it and they would not have gone through with it had they been sober. So, again, by the rule, they were the victims of sexual assault. If they are going to follow this mickey mouse rule--follow it to the end of its logical conclusions. Use the rule as it is written for your own defense.

This is all just awful for the program.

Hopefully, they get some sort of community service and perhaps some suspension. Ruining these young men's lives does not seem appropriate for a drunken hook up or at worse "sexual assault" with no real evidence.

Agree completely. If only there were a way to let the student council hear or read all of this.

[bsheldon]

Agree completely. If only there were a way to let the student council hear or read all of this.

Thanks. I'll testify. Hell I made that stuff up in a few minutes, just imagine what I could do with a couple of days.

05 and any other of you young bucks that are in school now--get all of these threads in front of as many people on campus a humanly possible--now. Make it happen. I know you "Blue Crew" or soon to be "Slunatics" are a motivated bunch--get on it. Blast out emails to the whole campus, print them out, post them on everyone of the zillion bulliten boards, etc. Put down the X-Box remotes and the bongs and get to work--you have a basketball season and 2 players careers and lives to save. You will be heros.

[billiken_roy]

My biggest issues with this whole mess are:

The delay in the ruling--it hsould havebeen handled months ago. This was high profile enough for a "special" session or wahtever. Whoever did not make this happen should be fired--ultimately FR B should have stepped in and made it happen.

The "rule" they are using to punish these kids with. Let's just say they admit they were drunk? Then they, by rule, were incapable themselve to give consent for "sexual activity." Really they should turn this thing on its head. They had drinks, therefore, it was sexual assault against them because in retrospect they regret doing it and they would not have gone through with it had they been sober. So, again, by the rule, they were the victims of sexual assault. If they are going to follow this mickey mouse rule--follow it to the end of its logical conclusions. Use the rule as it is written for your own defense.

This is all just awful for the program.

Hopefully, they get some sort of community service and perhaps some suspension. Ruining these young men's lives does not seem appropriate for a drunken hook up or at worse "sexual assault" with no real evidence.

so all i have to do to exclude responsibility for anything is drunkeness? i need to remember that.

[bleedtheblue]

so all i have to do to exclude responsibility for anything is drunkeness? i need to remember that.

obviously not, there still needs to be some responsibility but if both parties are drunk then why is only one being blamed?...

[billikenfan05]

Thanks. I'll testify. Hell I made that stuff up in a few minutes, just imagine what I could do with a couple of days.

Put down the X-Box remotes

Creeepy. Please stop looking in my window! hahah

I'll do my best but my connections end with the athletic dept.

[kshoe]

so all i have to do to exclude responsibility for anything is drunkeness? i need to remember that.

That's the exact rule apparently. If a girl sleeps with a guy after having a drink then she is per slu laws absolved of all responsibility. You dont get such a break roy. As a male I find it to be ridiculous.

[bsheldon]

so all i have to do to exclude responsibility for anything is drunkeness? i need to remember that.

Not in general obviously, as we live in the real world. But SLU's code of conduct rules don't live there. According to their rules--your statement is correct as far as sexual consent is concerned. There is no possibility of consent if there is drinking involved. Even if a gal strips down to nothing, rubs her funbags in your face, goes downtown on you while you are passed out and then you wake up half way through--if you continue or not is irrelevant. She can later say she regrets what happened and charge you with sexual assualt or rape because she did not (could not by the rule) give consent because she had had a few drinks. Now I say to turn the thing around and say that you obviously couldn't of given consent either as you were drunk and therefore she assaulted you--as you now regret what happened.

[bsheldon]

That's the exact rule apparently. If a girl sleeps with a guy after having a drink then she is per slu laws absolved of all responsibility. You dont get such a break roy. As a male I find it to be ridiculous.

That is why I am saying turn the thing on its head--say you were drinking and therefore couldn't possibly of consented either. So, by rule she committed just as much of a sexual assault on you as you did to her.

SLU is supposed to be an open and diverse learning institution--heck they just put up a bunch of flags advertising how diverse they are--now lets truly be diverse and drop the sexism that is implied and built into the rule. If you truly follow it to the letter: If a man is drunk than he could not give consent either.

[saluki762]

Thanks. I'll testify. Hell I made that stuff up in a few minutes, just imagine what I could do with a couple of days.

05 and any other of you young bucks that are in school now--get all of these threads in front of as many people on campus a humanly possible--now. Make it happen. I know you "Blue Crew" or soon to be "Slunatics" are a motivated bunch--get on it. Blast out emails to the whole campus, print them out, post them on everyone of the zillion bulliten boards, etc. Put down the X-Box remotes and the bongs and get to work--you have a basketball season and 2 players careers and lives to save. You will be heros.

You will have just as many people who dislike athletics (you know there are a large number on campus) who will take up the other side of the fight. The last thing that is needed here is more publicity. It will then be portrayed as trying to allow BB players to get away with sexual assault to save the season. If that side of the battle is waged, the players, whoever they are will be crucified by the media. You think their lives are getting ruined now?