KSDK 5 report on the situation

[saluki762]

The big problem I have with the report is that Channel 5 leaves the impression that the board decided a sexual assualt occured. If they decided that there is no way the two players would just be suspened for one year. They would be gone.

This is very true. I will not to pretend to know anything of the situation other then what has been reported here and through the local media but based on what has been reported, there would have been several violations of the student code even with no sexual assualt allegations.

I have 2 daughters and think that any sexual assualt allegations need full investigation and proper punishment. That said, the female student would have been guilty of a violation of the student code of conduct as well considering she was 20 y/o at the time. Will she be punished for her violations as well?

[mcglotherirvin]

If the news is reporting that the suspension is 1 year, which a previous post indicates, then that suggests to me there was no finding of credible evidence of a sexual assault. If there was, the players would be expelled.

I know from experience that underage drinking can lead to being kicked out of res life for a year. It is ridiculous.

This whole situation is weird to me. The prosecutor's office decides not to proceed. Then this girl's attorney (who is some type of corporate or tax attorney) gets on the news and claims that she will pursue this through the school review process, which she obviously did. If there was any merit to her allegations, why was he not threatening a civil lawsuit? Instead, the threatens to take this in front of a bunch of people who are not professionals, who take pride in enforcing ridiculous rules, and who will absolutely find that some rule has been broken, regardless of whether that rule had anything to do with what happened that night.

What does this girl gain by "pursuing" this through the school?

Guys, hang in there a little longer with this. The news media is really starting to salivate on this one, anyway.

There has been a LOT of misinformation in that long and tedious other thread. I will make a few brief responses and again, mainly points of policy, and will add more when appropriate / ethical:

yes, the disciplinary board can definitely suspend and/or evict from school any student, not somehow excepting student athletes. It is hardly a kangaroo court; this is a very serious and detailed group of people, and they take these tasks very seriously; every school I know of has such a system of internal justice and I was quite surprised by some folks (including p. diddy!) claiming they had "never heard of such a thing" in college athletics. I can assure you of their existence and their charge; and I can give many examples of school disciplinary boards expelling students, when found guilty; although often in bad cases the AD and/or coach simply "fires" a player unilaterally, in obvious cases.

yes, it is not at all surprising to me that it "took so long" to hear the spring case. Again, people at SLU desert immediately after finals in May; and the first weeks of class are extremely hectic with many other issues. The second full week of September makes perfect sense, and nobody should be surprised about that as too late.

Yes, there is an appeal process; I am not clear at this time how long that might take. But the appeal decision (barring lawsuits), will be final at SLU.

No, I do not know anything about further breaches of decorum but I am not saying that is inaccurate. Again, I am no prosecutor but the fact that no criminal charges were filed at the time of the arrest does not mean that a school cannot expel a student for the same encroachment of campus rules. Cheating on an exam is a perfect example; criminal charges are never filed for that, as far as I know; but ethical codes of conduct make that crime punishable within the school community.

(NOTE: I am NOT suggesting anything here about any SLU students cheating in these cases; obviously cheating and plagiarism are simply unheard of at SLU) [it's irony, btw]

and some of the comments on this thread are seriously in denial: no evidence whatsoever? it will all just blow away?? ouch!

More later, perhaps. ps-- did it simply never occur to anyone else on here that these issues might plausibly resurface and affect this year's team (and our W-L record)? maybe that slippage of institutional memory among fans is what has surprised me most of all in this particular case. . . . . anyway, I can assure you that within the SLU community, lots of folks have not forgotten and have been waiting for this review.

[slufan13]

The thing is that I would think she puts herself in danger of punishment by taking it through the school. I know an underage drinking violation wouldn't be much of a punishment, but she would still have to be charged with it. I don't see how you can suspend someone for a year if you don't find them guilty. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[brianstl]

What is really starting to bother me is the fact that these two players keep getting connected to a sexual assualt that obviously in the opinion of the police, prosecutors, and now the school review decided their is no proof occured. Yet, someone is feeding selected info to the media to further trash these players in an attempt to connect them to a sexual assualt. It is pretty appalling.

It is looking like someone connected big time to the school or in the school itself is abusing this process for their own personal vandetta.

[mcglotherirvin]

She can't be punished. She transferred schools. At least, that's what's been reported.

The thing is that I would think she puts herself in danger of punishment by taking it through the school. I know an underage drinking violation wouldn't be much of a punishment, but she would still have to be charged with it. I don't see how you can suspend someone for a year if you don't find them guilty. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[RiseAndGrind]

What is really starting to bother me is the fact that these two players keep getting connected to a sexual assualt that obviously in the opinion of the police, prosecutors, and now the school review decided their is no proof occured. Yet, someone is feeding selected info to the media to further trash these players in an attempt to connect them to a sexual assualt. It is pretty appalling.

It is looking like someone connected big time to the school or in the school itself is abusing this process for their own personal vandetta.

Bingo

[jjray]

This would explain why they felt a need to add Jett and why they were interested in Kowal.

The Kowal garbage NCAA investigation really blows in light of these new developments.

[kmbilliken]

If the appeal is handled by the Vice-president of Student Affairs I don't see this being overturned. He's in a very bad position. If he overturns this, he'll be accused of giving special treatment to athletes and trying to protect the school's big investment in their basketball program. He'd take some real heat.

The interesting thing is both students are being given the same punishment which should mean they were found to be equally culpable. Obviously there is no finding there was a sexual assault, otherwise both would be expelled. Is there a rule against having consensual sex on campus? If not, this must be just an alcohol violation? If so, thats awfully tough punishment for an alcohol violation.

Could this be RM's own version of the Craig Upchurch fiasco?

[mcglotherirvin]

Jett quietly verballed before this incident even happened. In fact, I think he was in town for one of his many visits either the same weekend or right around that weekend.

This would explain why they felt a need to add Jett and why they were interested in Kowal.

[bsheldon]

My problem with the whole thing is the whole "consent can not be givien if intoxication is involved."

This simply means that anytime that any person regrets doing something with someone they can claim "sexual assault" or even "rape."

Obviously, I don't really know what happened that night, but hypothetically:

She could have instigated the entire thing. Then the next day or several days later her daddy could have pressed her as to where she was that night and what exactly did she do and she could have said anything. Simply saying she had any kind of sexual contact under the influence automatically implicates the other parties and puts them under charges because she (the underage drunk who decides she regretted her own actions at a later date) was under the influence. By the letter of the rule, they are guilty just because she says they had sexual contact of any kind--if in fact they did. Even simply kissing could be enough. It doesn't matter who started it or how willing all parties were in the alleged events. If there was any contact of any kind and she had one drink at all--they are guilty by the rule.

So according to this rule a young man, 18-22 year old, who is approached by a similarly aged young lady that is being aggressive and is wanting to have sex with him is supposed to what--ask for a blood alcohol test first before even kissing her? Again, I am not saying that she was the instigator in the real scenario, but just pointing out the impracticality of the rule. Anyone who has ever had sex after a single beer was consumed by either party while a student at SLU is in violation of the rule and could be expelled. Sure, underage drinking is bad--but the rule still applies if your are 22 or 23--have a drink and it can be sexual assault or rape--even if the other party was totally the instigator at the time but later decides they are not happy with their own actions.

IF all of this turns out to be true it will truly be a sad day for the Billikens. I was so excited about this season--as were many. To lose those two would be a devestating blow to the team and this program's upward path.

[saluki762]

What is really starting to bother me is the fact that these two players keep getting connected to a sexual assualt that obviously in the opinion of the police, prosecutors, and now the school review decided their is no proof occured. Yet, someone is feeding selected info to the media to further trash these players in an attempt to connect them to a sexual assualt. It is pretty appalling.

It is looking like someone connected big time to the school or in the school itself is abusing this process for their own personal vandetta.

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

[jjray]

Again, I am no prosecutor but the fact that no criminal charges were filed at the time of the arrest does not mean that a school cannot expel a student for the same encroachment of campus rules. Cheating on an exam is a perfect example; criminal charges are never filed for that, as far as I know; but ethical codes of conduct make that crime punishable within the school community.

Somebody mentioned an online copy of the SLU student handbook. If you go back and look through it, I'd be willing to bet there is some catchall rule like conduct detrimental to the University or Jesuit way of life and mission. The persons on this board may be conscientious and take their jobs seriously but Dean Wormer sure seemed to be conscientious and take his job seriously as well. Student handbooks are universally vague. There are rarely sentencing guidelines that spell out the punishment to be connected to the various rule violations in the handbook. Ergo, a vast amount of discretion falls into the hands of the discipline board. That's a kangaroo court. I'm not saying its necessarily wrong though in that the University is a private institution and they have the right to conduct business as they see fit. But these discipline boards bear no resemblance to courts of law, none.

[bsheldon]

What is really starting to bother me is the fact that these two players keep getting connected to a sexual assualt that obviously in the opinion of the police, prosecutors, and now the school review decided their is no proof occured. Yet, someone is feeding selected info to the media to further trash these players in an attempt to connect them to a sexual assualt. It is pretty appalling.

It is looking like someone connected big time to the school or in the school itself is abusing this process for their own personal vandetta.

This person needs to be found and well.. I was going to say beat into a bloody gooey mess, but that didn't sound right. I am sure someone can think of something more appropriate.

[P.B.]

She can't be punished. She transferred schools. At least, that's what's been reported.

I believe she was also a SLU athlete which complicated things a little

[billiken_roy]

first, i want to defend channel 5 a bit. they did not use names or identify the players. while most of us know the names, the vast general public does not. imo they did report the news. we know more now than we did yesterday when the thread about strickland was a lot of guessing. we now know that a decision by the student court has indeed been rendered. we know it is more than just one player. we know the current proposed punishment is a one year suspension from saint louis university and if the players come back they will not be allowed to live on campus. and we know this now in a final appeal process that may be resolved this week. so imo, channel five did their job of providing some facts to what was spinning out of control.

second, brian is right, this does indeed explain the signing of jett and the attempt to get kowal. if we indeed lose these two players jett's minutes skyrocket and kowal would have been a huge get.

last, everyone needs to remember that saint louis university is not a court of law. they do not have to follow the rules of law. they follow saint louis university guidelines. while there may not have been an actual "rape" or "sexual assault" something unbecoming indeed happened and obviously it is serious enough. it is a priviledge to be a student at saint louis university. not everyone is accepted to attend. even fewer get their tuition and housing paid for and only an elite 13 young men get to play basketball representing saint louis university.

while i want to win the national championship, if something deemed inappropriate enough for the school to stand by this decision indeed happened (and that doesnt have to be a "rape" or "sexual assault" necessarily) then we should accept and support the school's decision to protect our student body, our school reputation and move forward regardless of what it does for our won loss record for 2010-2011.

as a part of the slu family of alumni, i dont want us to be anywhere near those schools that would turn their heads just to maintain a good basketball team. and i trust our administration to make the right decision. if our players are cleared in the appeal. great let's move forward. if not, they shouldnt be billikens and we also move forward. the last thing i want to happen is to tarnish our reputation any more than it already has been tarnished. so good that we have the process to uncover the real story and i will live with the decision. we have gotten through worse in our history. we will get through this.

[Scoop]

If SLU is smart, they let these guys back on the team and sweep this under the rug asap. Unless they want bad national press, a couple racial lawsuits, a pissed off coach who already has a history of running his mouth to the media, pissed off donors(me included}, and probably not last but probably least two more mediocre seasons which means lower ticket sales and less $.

There wasn't enough evidence to charge these guys, but some board of conduct has to flex their muscles so they can feel like they've done something. I hope their ready for the sh*tstorm they've started. These people are the ones who need to get laid.

[Bizziken]

If the appeal is handled by the Vice-president of Student Affairs I don't see this being overturned. He's in a very bad position. If he overturns this, he'll be accused of giving special treatment to athletes and trying to protect the school's big investment in their basketball program. He'd take some real heat.

The interesting thing is both students are being given the same punishment which should mean they were found to be equally culpable. Obviously there is no finding there was a sexual assault, otherwise both would be expelled. Is there a rule against having consensual sex on campus? If not, this must be just an alcohol violation? If so, thats awfully tough punishment for an alcohol violation.

Could this be RM's own version of the Craig Upchurch fiasco?

I tend to agree with you on this one...

The only scenario I can envision that will yield any semblance of positivity for the basketball program is IF the initial ruling was 'anticipated', and on appeal it has been 'predetermined' that the punishment will be reduced...That way, the school will still save face by punishing the players in some capacity, but also avoid any bad press/backlash from dismissing them...

Kind of like MLB suspensions...MLB anticipates appeals, so they give a harsher suspension initally, knowing full well that they are going to reduce it on appeal...

[mcglotherirvin]

first, i want to defend channel 5 a bit. they did not use names or identify the players. NO, BUT THE ONLY CLIPS THEY PLAYED HAD THE TWO INVOLVED PLAYERS IN THOSE CLIPS, NO ONE ELSE. while most of us know the names, the vast general public does not. imo they did report the news. we know more now than we did yesterday when the thread about strickland was a lot of guessing. we now know that a decision by the student court has indeed been rendered. we know it is more than just one player. we know the current proposed punishment is a one year suspension from saint louis university and if the players come back they will not be allowed to live on campus. and we know this now in a final appeal process that may be resolved this week. so imo, channel five did their job of providing some facts to what was spinning out of control.

second, brian is right, this does indeed explain the signing of jett and the attempt to get kowal. JETT WAS ALREADY COMING, SO IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN HIS SIGNING. if we indeed lose these two players jett's minutes skyrocket and kowal would have been a huge get.

last, everyone needs to remember that saint louis university is not a court of law. they do not have to follow the rules of law. they follow saint louis university guidelines. while there may not have been an actual "rape" or "sexual assault" something unbecoming indeed happened and obviously it is serious enough. it is a priviledge to be a student at saint louis university. not everyone is accepted to attend. even fewer get their tuition and housing paid for and only an elite 13 young men get to play basketball representing saint louis university.

while i want to win the national championship, if something deemed inappropriate enough for the school to stand by this decision indeed happened (and that doesnt have to be a "rape" or "sexual assault" necessarily) then we should accept and support the school's decision to protect our student body, our school reputation and move forward regardless of what it does for our won loss record for 2010-2011. ASK YOUR SON IF HE EVER DRANK A BEER BEFORE HE WAS 21. IF HE SAYS YES, THEN YOU ARE SAYING YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT A DECISION SUSPENDING HIM FROM THE BASEBALL TEAM AT SLU FOR A FULL YEAR AND BANISHING HIM FROM CAMPUS HOUSING. WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT?

as a part of the slu family of alumni, i dont want us to be anywhere near those schools that would turn their heads just to maintain a good basketball team. and i trust our administration to make the right decision. if our players are cleared in the appeal. great let's move forward. if not, they shouldnt be billikens and we also move forward. the last thing i want to happen is to tarnish our reputation any more than it already has been tarnished. so good that we have the process to uncover the real story and i will live with the decision. we have gotten through worse in our history. we will get through this.

[Guest BillikenReport]

second, brian is right, this does indeed explain the signing of jett and the attempt to get kowal. if we indeed lose these two players jett's minutes skyrocket and kowal would have been a huge get.

I'm not going to comment on the other stuff until a final decision has been made, but I want to correct the above misinformation.

SLU did not recruit Jett because another player may have been in trouble. The Billikens started recruiting Jett more than a year earlier — before they started recruiting Justin Jordan — so it is impossible that they did so because of another player being in trouble.

The Kowal stuff was about possibly adding another big body and making the team better. Hasn't it been proven that Majerus is always trying to make the team better?

[Pistol]

I'll echo the comments of TheChosenOne earlier in this thread. We had a friend who was expelled after our first semester at SLU after a situation like this occurred in early October that year. She reported the incident about a week after the fact after letting her friends talk her into it and he had an example made of him by this court. The students, faculty, and whoever else is on this thing had their minds made up before it started. They moved him to the far end of the basement in Fusz, put up statistics about sexual assualt on all the corkboards in the dorms, and he was gone after the semester.

This had serious impacts on his life after that. It was basically a night where everyone drank a bunch, and he went back to his room with a girl. I think there was a little regret on both ends the next day but it wasn't justified, what she did to him. It's a scary precedent that anyone, anytime, could regret what they did the night before and punish the other person for it.

I guess what I'm saying is that the fact that this still didn't seem to be finalized by the school's judicial board last year has had me nervous ever since the story first broke. People here seemed sure that when it was dismissed for lack of evidence initially, it was over. But as my friend experienced firsthand in 2001, SLU's judicial board does not require any criminal evidence whatsoever to decide against a defendant.

It tears me up inside that so many sexual assaults go unreported and then drunken hook-ups, questionable at best, where both sides are playing equal roles can permanently affect someone's life in a bad way. If everyone acted on "man, I shouldn't have done that last night", SLU's campus would be a ghost town.

For what it's worth, one of the players in question was at the Homecoming festivities this past weekend and one was not.

I knew we weren't out of the woods on this. This situation sucks all around. We beg for local coverage of the program and can't get it until a terrible off-court event takes place. Two players' careers and lives could be dramatically altered. Our program's short- and long-term success is in serious jeopardy.

It's hard work being a SLU fan.

[RiseAndGrind]

they did not use names or identify the players.

Showing v

ideo footage isn't identifying?

second, brian is right, this does indeed explain the signing of jett and the attempt to get kowal. if we indeed lose these two players jett's minutes skyrocket and kowal would have been a huge get.

Not true. The timing doesn't add up

last, everyone needs to remember that saint louis university is not a court of law. they do not have to follow the rules of law. they follow saint louis university guidelines. while there may not have been an actual "rape" or "sexual assault" something unbecoming indeed happened and obviously it is serious enough. it is a priviledge to be a student at saint louis university. not everyone is accepted to attend. even fewer get their tuition and housing paid for and only an elite 13 young men get to play basketball representing saint louis university.

That is a lame statement. I had this discussion with Bhayes. Doesn't every student represent the university? Yes. Doesn't everyone have some sort of financial assistance from SLU? Yes. So why do we only use this line when it comes to basketball players? If SLU was legitimately concerned about the "Jesuit" Mission, they would be picking up people left and right stepping out of Humps

while i want to win the national championship, if something deemed inappropriate enough for the school to stand by this decision indeed happened (and that doesnt have to be a "rape" or "sexual assault" necessarily) then we should accept and support the school's decision to protect our student body, our school reputation and move forward regardless of what it does for our won loss record for 2010-2011.

If it was neither of the above, then what exactly do we have to "protect our student body" from?

[slufanskip]

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

So if the males were also intoxicated, how could they have given consent? Take the basketball players out of it and use any 2 students who have sex while intoxicated, aren't they both guilty of sexual assault? Neither could have given consent under that policy. Or does this just apply to males?

[Box and Won]

Or does this just apply to males?

Sounds like it.

I'm so pissed off this morning.

I don't know why I even bother with this program sometimes.

[eastsidejoe]

Sounds like it.

I'm so pissed off this morning.

I don't know why I even bother with this program sometimes.

you can say that again. i bought 2 extra tickets this year. what a waste if this turns the way i think that it might.

[billikenfan05]

I believe she was also a SLU athlete which complicated things a little

Girl played a club sport. Was not on scholarship or in the Athletic Department at all.