What happened

[slufan13]

That student wrote a libelous article. Claimed they were guilty without any proof and did so even after charges weren't filed.

I'm not claiming they did or didn't do anything just merely stating that the article blatantly said they were guilty.

I agree completely. The article completely assumed they were guilty. I feel like the whole time a lot of people have gone with the guilty until proven innocent idea here which is completely unfair.

[RiseAndGrind]

I agree completely. The article completely assumed they were guilty. I feel like the whole time a lot of people have gone with the guilty until proven innocent idea here which is completely unfair.

That article wasn't worth the paper it was written on. I'm sure '05 saw my thoughts on it.

That article exemplified why no one can take the UNews seriously.

[kshoe]

That article wasn't worth the paper it was written on. I'm sure '05 saw my thoughts on it.

That article exemplified why no one can take the UNews seriously.

Was it an article or a "readers write" type opinion piece?

[cheeseman]

If you think it won't bother them you are crazy.

Just wait till Duke, I almost hope they are suspended for that game, haha.

But anyways, if anything it maximizes every road game, gives their fans something to be fired up about and a chance to be extra loud, obnoxious, what have you. There is no great home court advantage than in college basketball and these accusations will not shut the fans up, that's for sure.

No more creeping up on teams, these people will be ready for blood from opening tip.

We were not creeping up on any team this year - all the pubs have us marked as a team to watch so this whole thing has nothing to do with it. Yes, I do not believe any goading from the fans will impact a players play if they don't let it. This kind of heckling is all part of the game - the key is to not give them anything but once you do then put it out of your mind.

[cheeseman]

Well, you kind of have to hear something if players are suspended...

Yes but they do not have to say why.

[RiseAndGrind]

Was it an article or a "readers write" type opinion piece?

Here is the article:

http://www.unewsonline.com/2010/10/dear-saint-louis-university-the-jesuit-mission-is-missing-here/

Here is a short response:

If there was a rape, the author may be correct. However, after an investigation of an ALLEGED sexual assault by the St. Louis Police Department, no charges were ever filed. The author of this commentary ridicules SLU, saying their silence (which is also wrong, there was an email sent out) is causing the campus to run rampant with rumors. However, in his attempt to curtail the rumors, he has only fueled the fire by using words such as, "rape", "hush up", "victim", "guilty", and so forth. None of these terms are appropriate to use in a situation like this.

Also, I wholeheartedly disagree with author in regards to his statement that the "SLU community deserves to know what happened." No, we absolutely do not. What took place during this alleged incident needs to stay within the confines of the alleged victim, those accused, and the prosecutors office. Additionally, because there was a subsequent hearing by SLU's conduct board, they also should be privy to the information. As regular members of the SLU community, neither we or anyone else that was not involved, have a right to know what happened. This not only protects the alleged victim, who may or may not have had a traumatic experience, it also protects the accused from facing undeserved ridicule.

and Here is Bhayes rather different approach to it:

Pat, how did you get through the entire article? Once I read "Sain" Louis University I had to stop. If whoever wrote this had re-read it once, if whoever "edited" it had read it once, if whoever "published" it had read it once, suuuuurely they wouldn't have missed a glaring typo regarding the spelling of the school they purportedly care so much for. Maybe this is a reason, beyond the sensationalism of the piece itself, why our journo program can't keep pace with Mi$$ou. At least when hacks from Mi$$ou like our friends at Ch. 5 publish baseless crap they hit spellcheck first.

[RiseAndGrind]

Was it an article or a "readers write" type opinion piece?

Here is the article:

http://www.unewsonline.com/2010/10/dear-saint-louis-university-the-jesuit-mission-is-missing-here/

Here is a short response:

If there was a rape, the author may be correct. However, after an investigation of an ALLEGED sexual assault by the St. Louis Police Department, no charges were ever filed. The author of this commentary ridicules SLU, saying their silence (which is also wrong, there was an email sent out) is causing the campus to run rampant with rumors. However, in his attempt to curtail the rumors, he has only fueled the fire by using words such as, "rape", "hush up", "victim", "guilty", and so forth. None of these terms are appropriate to use in a situation like this.

Also, I wholeheartedly disagree with author in regards to his statement that the "SLU community deserves to know what happened." No, we absolutely do not. What took place during this alleged incident needs to stay within the confines of the alleged victim, those accused, and the prosecutors office. Additionally, because there was a subsequent hearing by SLU's conduct board, they also should be privy to the information. As regular members of the SLU community, neither we or anyone else that was not involved, have a right to know what happened. This not only protects the alleged victim, who may or may not have had a traumatic experience, it also protects the accused from facing undeserved ridicule.

and Here is Bhayes rather different approach to it:

Pat, how did you get through the entire article? Once I read "Sain" Louis University I had to stop. If whoever wrote this had re-read it once, if whoever "edited" it had read it once, if whoever "published" it had read it once, suuuuurely they wouldn't have missed a glaring typo regarding the spelling of the school they purportedly care so much for. Maybe this is a reason, beyond the sensationalism of the piece itself, why our journo program can't keep pace with Mi$$ou. At least when hacks from Mi$$ou like our friends at Ch. 5 publish baseless crap they hit spellcheck first.

[cheeseman]

I think we should hear something but SLU has covered this up for almost 6 months. I wouldn't be surprised to see them to keep it private. Students aren't too happy though, from reading some of the U-News. They all want to know if sexual assault took place on campus, but SLU won't say anything. Maybe SLU thinks that if they dont announce anything, they won't get as bad of press, but if a lawsuit from the players takes place it would become even worse for SLU that they covered it all up.

Everybody knows that a sexual assault did not take place on campus - the police determined that - you can believe what they said or not but officially nothing like that took place.

[bonwich]

I would suggest that a certain lack of understanding of nuance is on display in some of the prior posts.

1) The only public-record determination thus far is that there was not enough evidence to bring charges for criminal sexual assault. That isn't the same as saying that a sexual assault did not occur.

2) The "article" in question is a Letter to the Editor. It's not up to the U. News to (nor should it) edit or redact portions of such an article unless there is clear evidence of libel, which there is not.

3) Speaking of libel: The letter refers to the Channel 5 report. The Channel 5 report said that the students faced disciplinary action. It is reasonable to conclude that such action, and the students' appeal, resulted from a "guilty verdict."

4) The larger issue, which relates back to the "hornets' nest" our resident counsel referred to awhile back, is the overall environment on campus with regard to public safety. The best everyone (ardent basketball fans, as well as the general SLU population, whether or not they even know we have a basketball team) knows is that something happened, and police were called, and charges weren't filed, and the matter was referred to internal disciplinary procedures and it's still pending. Almost six months later. I don't think it's unreasonable for some subset of the female student population to worry about their own safety. There may be no reason for that worry, but a generic "we care about our students' safety and we've refered any appropriate matters to internal disciplinary procedures" isn't exactly a strong statement of reassurance.

I hope this resolves well for the players and I do agree that a double-standard is apparent in the stated regulations for student sexual misconduct. Nonetheless, I do understand the need to ensure that female students feel safe to begin with, and that they believe that proper procedures exist to provide deterrents to anyone who would breach that safety.

[RiseAndGrind]

I would suggest that a certain lack of understanding of nuance is on display in some of the prior posts.

1) The only public-record determination thus far is that there was not enough evidence to bring charges for criminal sexual assault. That isn't the same as saying that a sexual assault did not occur.

2) The "article" in question is a Letter to the Editor. It's not up to the U. News to (nor should it) edit or redact portions of such an article unless there is clear evidence of libel, which there is not.

3) Speaking of libel: The letter refers to the Channel 5 report. The Channel 5 report said that the students faced disciplinary action. It is reasonable to conclude that such action, and the students' appeal, resulted from a "guilty verdict."

4) The larger issue, which relates back to the "hornets' nest" our resident counsel referred to awhile back, is the overall environment on campus with regard to public safety. The best everyone (ardent basketball fans, as well as the general SLU population, whether or not they even know we have a basketball team) knows is that something happened, and police were called, and charges weren't filed, and the matter was referred to internal disciplinary procedures and it's still pending. Almost six months later. I don't think it's unreasonable for some subset of the female student population to worry about their own safety. There may be no reason for that worry, but a generic "we care about our students' safety and we've refered any appropriate matters to internal disciplinary procedures" isn't exactly a strong statement of reassurance.

I hope this resolves well for the players and I do agree that a double-standard is apparent in the stated regulations for student sexual misconduct. Nonetheless, I do understand the need to ensure that female students feel safe to begin with, and that they believe that proper procedures exist to provide deterrents to anyone who would breach that safety.

Bonwich,

1) It wasn't a Letter to the Editor. It was a commentary piece.

2) There has been no confirmation that the Channel 5 report was even accurate. How can someone base an opinion piece on something they aren't even sure is true?

[cheeseman]

I would suggest that a certain lack of understanding of nuance is on display in some of the prior posts.

1) The only public-record determination thus far is that there was not enough evidence to bring charges for criminal sexual assault. That isn't the same as saying that a sexual assault did not occur.

2) The "article" in question is a Letter to the Editor. It's not up to the U. News to (nor should it) edit or redact portions of such an article unless there is clear evidence of libel, which there is not.

3) Speaking of libel: The letter refers to the Channel 5 report. The Channel 5 report said that the students faced disciplinary action. It is reasonable to conclude that such action, and the students' appeal, resulted from a "guilty verdict."

4) The larger issue, which relates back to the "hornets' nest" our resident counsel referred to awhile back, is the overall environment on campus with regard to public safety. The best everyone (ardent basketball fans, as well as the general SLU population, whether or not they even know we have a basketball team) knows is that something happened, and police were called, and charges weren't filed, and the matter was referred to internal disciplinary procedures and it's still pending. Almost six months later. I don't think it's unreasonable for some subset of the female student population to worry about their own safety. There may be no reason for that worry, but a generic "we care about our students' safety and we've refered any appropriate matters to internal disciplinary procedures" isn't exactly a strong statement of reassurance.

I hope this resolves well for the players and I do agree that a double-standard is apparent in the stated regulations for student sexual misconduct. Nonetheless, I do understand the need to ensure that female students feel safe to begin with, and that they believe that proper procedures exist to provide deterrents to anyone who would breach that safety.

Using your #1, then the only way anybody can be absolved of something is if there is a trial and they are acquitted. If no charges are merited then they are still possibly guilty. I understand your fine line but given how our legal world works the police and the DA not filing charges is as good as it can get without a full trial.

[jjray]

As this case has been in the news and is a hot topic on campus, the athletic department should do a simple press release saying "player X (or players x and y) have been suspended from the basketball team by Coach Majerus for Z number of games for violation of team rules." Period. RM and the athletic department refuse to comment further based upon privacy concerns for students involved. If any local news organization is interested, they can run their piece before the season starts and the story peters out. That's much better than silence and then waiting for the first game for Rammer to announce on air that player x has been suspended from the team. Without a press release, the discipline story sits dormant to be revived with more vigor during the season. Any PR professionals out there, feel free to chime in. Conventional wisdom is to disclose as much as you can as early as possible to let the story die out quickly.

[jimbofive]

Here is the article:

http://www.unewsonline.com/2010/10/dear-saint-louis-university-the-jesuit-mission-is-missing-here/

let it be known that were there a more appropriate adjective to describe that article, i would use it. but to quote kip dynamite, "at the moment, nothing comes to mind."

that article was GAY AS . i'm guessing the person that wrote it is a HUGE *****. he makes it sound like virginia tech 2.0 just went down.

exactly 1:00 into this video is how i feel about it:

cry me a river, dickface.

[b.hayes]

I would suggest that a certain lack of understanding of nuance is on display in some of the prior posts.

2) The "article" in question is a Letter to the Editor. It's not up to the U. News to (nor should it) edit or redact portions of such an article unless there is clear evidence of libel, which there is not.

Using your #1, then the only way anybody can be absolved of something is if there is a trial and they are acquitted. If no charges are merited then they are still possibly guilty. I understand your fine line but given how our legal world works the police and the DA not filing charges is as good as it can get without a full trial.

And using your #2, Eckelkamp is correct. Simply being an opinion piece doesn't make it a letter to the editor. It was a commentary piece that absolutely should have gone through a full review before being published, for both content and usage. Beyond that, even a letter to the editor piece ought to be subject to a full review of content and usage. Not that they have to, or even should, change things in a piece that is a letter to the editor, but simply because publishing something full of half truths, inflammatory statements, empty emotional appeals, and glaring errors is irresponsible. Not every letter to the editor gets published. It is up to the editors to determine which ones are up to snuff and which aren't.

[bauman]

Using your #1, then the only way anybody can be absolved of something is if there is a trial and they are acquitted. If no charges are merited then they are still possibly guilty. I understand your fine line but given how our legal world works the police and the DA not filing charges is as good as it can get without a full trial.

Bonwich is exactly right in his #1. Your first sentence still reflects a lack of understanding of the legal system in this country. Even a trial acquittal does NOT equate to the charged person being guilt free. All it means is the judge/jury couldn't find that the accused was guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (BARD) based on the evidence they had in front of them. In some cases particularly incriminating evidence may have been excluded from the jury's consideration due to some legal technicality. In other cases the jury may have a strong belief that the accused is guilty but not to the level of BARD, or finally the jury might just blow it and return a verdict of Not Guilty when the person is in fact guilty.

In other words, all the opinions expressed in the threads discussing this incident, which take the position that our players are innocent are based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the City Attorney deciding to NOT press charges in this case. It merely means that she doesn't believe that she would be able to convince a jury BARD as to any guilt of our players.

PLEASE DON'T MISUNDERSTAND THIS POST!!! I am NOT saying our players are guilty of anything. I'm just saying based on the City's decision to not bring charges we can't equate that automatically to the FACT that nothing criminal happened that night. I, like many of you, hope that anything that might have transpired that night was consensual and that all parties were just guilty of bad judgment.

[slu72]

As this case has been in the news and is a hot topic on campus, the athletic department should do a simple press release saying "player X (or players x and y) have been suspended from the basketball team by Coach Majerus for Z number of games for violation of team rules." Period. RM and the athletic department refuse to comment further based upon privacy concerns for students involved. If any local news organization is interested, they can run their piece before the season starts and the story peters out. That's much better than silence and then waiting for the first game for Rammer to announce on air that player x has been suspended from the team. Without a press release, the discipline story sits dormant to be revived with more vigor during the season. Any PR professionals out there, feel free to chime in. Conventional wisdom is to disclose as much as you can as early as possible to let the story die out quickly.

Good post, Jray. The school has now made this a water cooler topic for the past 2-3 weeks when it should have been over 5 months ago. It effectively did die last spring with the DA's announcement, but there were still whispers something may or may not happen. Most on here, being hopeful hoops fans, were feeling justice had been served, ie the arrest and subsequent release of those involved, and we could all continue forward. But now it's become a media bombshell waiting to drop, and no matter what the decision is the timing of it's delivery is going to cause a furor depending upon which side of the fence you reside. If nothing comes down, people will scream preferential treatment for athletes and no woman on campus is safe from the predator athlete. If it goes the other way, fans will shout either why so harsh and why wait to announce 1, 2, or 3 days before the first practice. It's become a distraction no one needs, including the alleged victim. .

[b.hayes]

cry me a river, dickface.

Amen. I wish instead of two threads with nearly 20,000 views on our front page about this crap, we had two threads with nearly 20,000 views about Rob Loe doing a New Zealand tribal dance and then going 25-for-25 in a three point contest.

[Cowboy]

As this case has been in the news and is a hot topic on campus, the athletic department should do a simple press release saying "player X (or players x and y) have been suspended from the basketball team by Coach Majerus for Z number of games for violation of team rules." Period. RM and the athletic department refuse to comment further based upon privacy concerns for students involved. If any local news organization is interested, they can run their piece before the season starts and the story peters out. That's much better than silence and then waiting for the first game for Rammer to announce on air that player x has been suspended from the team. Without a press release, the discipline story sits dormant to be revived with more vigor during the season. Any PR professionals out there, feel free to chime in. Conventional wisdom is to disclose as much as you can as early as possible to let the story die out quickly.

-not a pr professional but i am going to chime in, you are very clear by this post you believe that an act(s) against the student code has(have)taken place as you give us what the adept should do and this is suspend, period. why is that? what do you KNOW? not speculation

-IF nothing happened against the code do you expect a simple press release everyday saying "no one on the team did anything against the student code yesterday"? when did you stop beating your wife?

[eastsidejoe]

It doesn't appear to me that there is going to be a press release. I think they may just let the thing play out and we will see from practice on Friday

[cheeseman]

As this case has been in the news and is a hot topic on campus, the athletic department should do a simple press release saying "player X (or players x and y) have been suspended from the basketball team by Coach Majerus for Z number of games for violation of team rules." Period. RM and the athletic department refuse to comment further based upon privacy concerns for students involved. If any local news organization is interested, they can run their piece before the season starts and the story peters out. That's much better than silence and then waiting for the first game for Rammer to announce on air that player x has been suspended from the team. Without a press release, the discipline story sits dormant to be revived with more vigor during the season. Any PR professionals out there, feel free to chime in. Conventional wisdom is to disclose as much as you can as early as possible to let the story die out quickly.

Why assume any punishment is being given? - if none then why say anything.

[slufanskip]

Bonwich is exactly right in his #1. Your first sentence still reflects a lack of understanding of the legal system in this country. Even a trial acquittal does NOT equate to the charged person being guilt free. All it means is the judge/jury couldn't find that the accused was guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (BARD) based on the evidence they had in front of them. In some cases particularly incriminating evidence may have been excluded from the jury's consideration due to some legal technicality. In other cases the jury may have a strong belief that the accused is guilty but not to the level of BARD, or finally the jury might just blow it and return a verdict of Not Guilty when the person is in fact guilty.

In other words, all the opinions expressed in the threads discussing this incident, which take the position that our players are innocent are based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the City Attorney deciding to NOT press charges in this case. It merely means that she doesn't believe that she would be able to convince a jury BARD as to any guilt of our players.

PLEASE DON'T MISUNDERSTAND THIS POST!!! I am NOT saying our players are guilty of anything. I'm just saying based on the City's decision to not bring charges we can't equate that automatically to the FACT that nothing criminal happened that night. I, like many of you, hope that anything that might have transpired that night was consensual and that all parties were just guilty of bad judgment.

and they aren't actually guilty either which is what the article is assuming. Does innocent until proven guilty mean anything. I'm also wondering who's protecting male students of being falsely accused of an act such as rape or sexual misconduct at the whim of any female student who's had a couple of beers. If I was a male at SLU, I'd go out have a few drinks hook up with a female and make a complaint that I was raped the next day. I'd love to see how it's handled if the male is the complaintant.

[cheeseman]

Bonwich is exactly right in his #1. Your first sentence still reflects a lack of understanding of the legal system in this country. Even a trial acquittal does NOT equate to the charged person being guilt free. All it means is the judge/jury couldn't find that the accused was guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (BARD) based on the evidence they had in front of them. In some cases particularly incriminating evidence may have been excluded from the jury's consideration due to some legal technicality. In other cases the jury may have a strong belief that the accused is guilty but not to the level of BARD, or finally the jury might just blow it and return a verdict of Not Guilty when the person is in fact guilty.

In other words, all the opinions expressed in the threads discussing this incident, which take the position that our players are innocent are based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the City Attorney deciding to NOT press charges in this case. It merely means that she doesn't believe that she would be able to convince a jury BARD as to any guilt of our players.

PLEASE DON'T MISUNDERSTAND THIS POST!!! I am NOT saying our players are guilty of anything. I'm just saying based on the City's decision to not bring charges we can't equate that automatically to the FACT that nothing criminal happened that night. I, like many of you, hope that anything that might have transpired that night was consensual and that all parties were just guilty of bad judgment.

I beg to differ - I do understand all the fine points you made. I simply did not go into a full discussion of them since until further evidence is brought to light the players should not be assumed to be anything but not charged thus making them as innocent as they can be without a trial. I also understand that because you are acquitted, you can not be recharged with the same crime - double jeopardy which apparently you missed. My point simply was, without a trial, the best we may ever know is that there was not enough evidence to support charges being brought and it may not get any clearer than just that but that does not mean the players should be treated as guilty. I would guess that if you were in their shoes you would be willing to accept that if no charges were made then you should be able to get on with your life. Not being able to prove that somebody did something may be the best that person can get regarding clearing his/her name.

[bonwich]

Sorry, when I saw the truncated URL I thought it was this one

http://www.unewsonline.com/2010/09/dear-slu-there-is-still-something-very-wrong

which appeared a week earlier and was a letter to the editor (and to which the commentary was apparently replying/follwing up).

That said, would someone care to cite the so-called "glaring errors" (aside from a typo, which I would lay odds happened when a copy editor deleted the "t." in a big hurry and filled in the "ain" without catching the slip)?

[slufan13]

Sorry, when I saw the truncated URL I thought it was this one

http://www.unewsonline.com/2010/09/dear-slu-there-is-still-something-very-wrong

which appeared a week earlier and was a letter to the editor (and to which the commentary was apparently replying/follwing up).

That said, would someone care to cite the so-called "glaring errors" (aside from a typo, which I would lay odds happened when a copy editor deleted the "t." in a big hurry and filled in the "ain" without catching the slip)?

i think this letter to the editor is almost worse than the other article

"There was a guilty verdict, after all. So now that it’s finally been confirmed, are we allowed to know that there was a high-profile sexual assault involving two athletes last spring? "

thats just ridiculous by whoever wrote this

[jjray]

Why assume any punishment is being given? - if none then why say anything.

True. Intended to present "what if" based on board speculation of suspension. My post should have stated that at the outset.