Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[cheeseman]

9 hours ago, HoosierBilliken said:

They mean like male people and non-white people.  I need to move on from this travesty of justice, but I don't know how to give SLU a pass on this.

Nobody gets a pass - the problem you and others have little leverage here.  The only thing I know to do is hold back my money except for the BB program and just simply disregard what the Freddy says.  This was a no win situation as it was set up and school needs to review the entire process - this is a BOT matter and hopefully they do not turn away.

[billikenfan05]

21 minutes ago, SLU_Lax said:

So the Title IX office accepts and welcomes uninvolved third parties to file complaints per their policy. Title IX is set to look at any gender inequality (either male or female). Hearsay from a third party is considered a legitimate foundation to start an investigation. 

So why haven’t we begun to file Title IX complaints against Kratky and Weathers?  At a minimum, it would be fascinating to see how it is handled and it would potentially help those suing the school if enough information contrasting their self-investigation to this investigation came out. It’d be great if it became a third party investigation. And yes, I know that almost nothing would be heard after filing a complaint. 

To be clear, I am not recommending frivolous complaints be filed. I have legitimate concerns spanning over their handling of multiple cases and their creation of a hostile and biased environment. 

Your first paragraph is the reason that USC football player was expelled right? 

[aj_arete]

2 hours ago, JohnnyJumpUp said:

In this case, it can't be considered victim shaming, since there was no victim. There was no sexual violence, it was consensual sex. So while these things worry you as a father of two daughters, this situation should actually worry you for a different reason, that which your daughters could actually ruin innocent male student lives with false accusations.

Actually, that's not true. One could argue that all parties involved are a victim to some degree. As for innocence, it was lost the minute that video was shared. There is a way to avoid situations where a female could ruin your life with a false accusation, though. It's refusing to have casual sex. Believe or not, it can carry consequences.

[Iggy]

I'm a victim.  I should be making plans for the tournament right about now.

[aj_arete]

1 hour ago, Bills_06 said:

This is what I have the biggest problem with.  Oritz's article was trash.  He focused on Goodwin and made accusations towards him and Ford for which he has no basis for.  Now per Frank, Goodwin was never even accused of sexual assault by the girls and one girl actually even said Goodwin didn't do it.  Yet reading the article, Ortiz made it seem like Goodwin only is still there and played because he was a top rated recruit, not because of the fact the kid was never accused of sexual assault.  Can somebody who says that explain to me why SLU would suspend 3 of it's better players, one of which was supposed to be the top scorer so they could have a mediocre season with their top recruit up until the last few games?  If they had this much control of the situation as Ortiz suggested, why not redshirt Goodwin, he serves the two months now and comes back next year with 4 years of eligibility with a full roster?  It's because they had no control of the situation which is why Ortiz again wrote a trash, factually incorrect article. 

If the basketball team and Goodwin were the ones that extended the process as Ortiz suggested (not the external firm that actually did the investigation and took 60+ days which is the real reason), why wouldn't they drag it out another month?  It's because it was the Title IX office that screwed up the process.  Focus your article on that, not on Goodwin.  

He said Ford needs to do a better job of looking into these kids before he brings them on campus.  How did he come to that conclusion?  What did any of these kids do in the past that would indicate they are dangerous?  Does Ford have a history of bringing in dangerous kids in his years of coaching that I missed and Ortiz didn't feel the need to point out if it's actually a pattern?  Or was Ortiz just making another baseless allegation?  Yep I will go with that.  

These girls aren't victims.  They are accusers. As a father you should be upset about the fact girls falsely accused guys therefore in a time when people are taking these allegations seriously finally, instances like this put a question mark on the whole situation.

Ortiz's article was at best irresponsible journalism, at worst a borderline racist article that just said these young black men must be guilty since they were accused.  

Did he or did he not share that video with other students? If the answer is no, then I agree that Goodwin was a true victim and Ortiz should be chastised.

[TGSLU]

12 hours ago, Adman said:

roy, i'll go one further. the title ix people hide behind title ix itself, saying, in effect, we have to play by the Fed Gvmt's rules, we're limited in what we can do, if it's unfair to the accused, can't be helped, our policy must be consistent with guidance, etc. this is utter nonsense. there are a couple reasons why.

no one is forcing the university to make an unfair decision, a decision weighted against the men. let's not be silly. trump and devos aren't going to march into grand & lindell and pull their funding. if anything, the trump administration - like them or not - leans the other direction and is beginning reform.

even more amazing, in the 2017 title ix guidance from the fed gvmt, universities were offered the option of making rulings based on the "clear and convincing evidence standard" -- a medium-level burden of proof of requiring 70-75% confidence -- rather than the existing "preponderance of the evidence standard" -- a low-level 50.1% likely burden of proof. i don't have to tell you which option slu chose to implement in its Policy. given that title ix already eliminates some basic rights of the accused which are hallmarks of our legal system, and this would have, you know, added a modicum of fairness, it is particularly troublesome. they chose to keep it unbalanced. 50.1% likely? GUILTY.  

but it gets worse. for a moment, forget title ix. let's focus only on the other parts of the SLU Student Handbook/Code of Conduct; the non-sexual assault parts, the parts actually NOT under the fed gvmt's thumb. to slu's great credit, there is a huge "Community Standards" section which prohibits all kinds of behavior unbecoming in a Catholic, Jesuit university. things like bias, hate crimes, theft, filing false or misleading complaints, cheating, alcohol, drugs, assaults and lots more. these are slu's rules, underscoring their mission and values. slu has wide latitude to throw the book at students in these areas. (apparently it is in this area that mr goodwin received his two months for something.)

with a caveat that few know the complete story of this situation -- yet much has been reported via various and multiple credible sources -- there are at least 4 areas of the Community Standards likely or highly likely violated by one or more of the women complainants. These areas include Indecent Conduct, Inappropriate Conduct, Abusive Behavior, Filing a false or misleading complaint, and if a false police report was filed, Violation of Law and the University Community Standards. These charges can be brought in the form of a student complaint, or as I read it, the University can initiate this on its own when they become aware of bad behavior and believe it risk to community.

Planning and executing an orgy in a dorm room? "2.7.21 Indecent Conduct... Engaging in sexual acts in a residence hall while others are present will be a violation under this community standard." A good attorney would argue that organizing an orgy in the dorm room of a Catholic university is at least as unbecoming as posting and quickly deleting a non-consensual video. This or less got three students expelled or suspended for 1.5 to 2 years. Would we say they're 50.1% likely to have violated the code? GUILTY.

So I ask: will the University actually punish the women for planning, organizing and executing an orgy? Office of Diversity: it's section 2.7.21 in case you didn't see above. Did they make misleading statements, later recanted? This is your chance to actually lay down the law about this kind of behavior on campus -- like you did against the men. Your chance to authentically and fairly underscore slu's jesuit, catholic mission. Higher Purpose. Greater Good.

Highly doubtful. Because of student confidentiality - a good thing - we won't know officially. But we will. Next game, let's see who if cheer team has full squad.

One last thing. This is NOT a defense of the men. Only a diatribe on how disappointed I am about my University's BIAS. Sadly, bias they are largely in control of. 

Completely agree-- this is a bastardization of justice and some haphazard attempt to enforce a predetermined judgement using whatever means necessary (i.e., selectively enforcing a school policy that if really enforced could reduce the SLU population).  If the facts are inconsistent, recanted, etc. how does one even get the preponderance standard?  Whoever the hearing officer was in this case should be immediately stripped of his or her ability to hear and offer opinions in Title IX or any other case for that matter.  There has to be some administrative way to address rogue hearing officers or seemingly incompetent ones.  Perhaps this is in the Missouri Bar venue to monitor?  Whatever the case, this process has been severely flawed and the discriminatory punishment needs to be reviewed and corrected.

[Bills_06]

3 minutes ago, aj_arete said:

Did he or did he not share that video with other students? If the answer is no, then I agree that Goodwin was a true victim and Ortiz should be chastised.

I have not seen it mentioned that he was the one that shared it, sounds like the one girl said it wasn't Goodwin.  If the girls weren't sexually assaulted and were concerned with the video as it seems, wouldn't they have focused on Goodwin instead of not naming him?  Unless you and Ortiz happen to have facts that nobody else does, his article was trash.  

[aj_arete]

59 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

@aj_arete, I hope you're reading and considering the above responses to your post.  I have defended you from those here who continually impugn your character and intentions, but it would be very hard for me to continue to do so if you don't acknowledge these posts' valid points in a manner that demonstrates you haven't read Ortiz's story (like Miklasz) and cast off all open-mindedness about the issue.

Excuse me? I acknowledged the points made on the post here. I get it. You have an influential, rich white father who is angry about his daughter having sex with black guys. I certainly agree that there's a racial element that is ugly and distasteful here. I also acknowledge that Ortiz did appear to cast Goodwin in a negative light where most readers would likely assume that he sexually assaulted a woman when he didn't. However, he did share a video to other other students without the permission of the girls involved. If I was his parent, I'd be embarrassed about that.

Yet, I know that those girls consented to group sex and didn't stop when they knew they were being recorded. Certainly, I would be ashamed if I was their parents and they are guilty of bad judgment and behavior. If they filed a false police report, then they should have been prosecuted. 

[billiken_roy]

1 minute ago, aj_arete said:

Excuse me? I acknowledged the points made on the post here. I get it. You have an influential, rich white father who is angry about his daughter having sex with black guys. I certainly agree that there's a racial element that is ugly and distasteful here. I also acknowledge that Ortiz did appear to cast Goodwin in a negative light where most readers would likely assume that he sexually assaulted a woman when he didn't. However, he did share a video to other other students without the permission of the girls involved. If I was his parent, I'd be embarrassed about that.

Yet, I know that those girls consented to group sex and didn't stop when they knew they were being recorded. Certainly, I would be ashamed if I was their parents and they are guilty of bad judgment and behavior. If they filed a false police report, then they should have been prosecuted. 

and you know this how?    see mike macmanus comment on scum ortiz article for help.  

[aj_arete]

9 minutes ago, Bills_06 said:

I have not seen it mentioned that he was the one that shared it, sounds like the one girl said it wasn't Goodwin.  If the girls weren't sexually assaulted and were concerned with the video as it seems, wouldn't they have focused on Goodwin instead of not naming him?  Unless you and Ortiz happen to have facts that nobody else does, his article was trash.  

We don't know what was in the Title IX file. I get it. You don't trust the independent process that went on at SLU. I have a little more faith that individuals not involved directly with athletics dealt with the facts fairly. So neither of us know definitively whether he shared the video or not? That sounds like it would be simple to disprove. Hand over your phone, email, and other social media and demand that they showed where he shared it. If they couldn't, I just don't see how he would be penalized.

Edited February 16, 2018 by aj_arete
typo

[aj_arete]

Just now, billiken_roy said:

and you know this how?    see mike macmanus comment on scum ortiz article for help.  

I don't know. I have read on this forum how there were some people who thought the lady leading the investigation was a feminist with strong anti-male views and shouldn't have been involved. But I don't know what Mike Macmanus comment you're referring to.

[billiken_roy]

1 minute ago, aj_arete said:

We don't know what was in the Title IX file. I get it. You don't trust the independent process that went on at SLU. I have a little more faith that individuals not involved directly with athletics dealt with the facts fairly. So neither of us know definitively whether he shared the video or not? That sounds like it would be simple to disprove. Hand over your phone, email, and other social media and demand that they showed where he didn't share it. If they couldn't, I just don't see how he would be penalized.

you mean the far left women activist that has been photographed at "me too" rallies and trump protests?   yeah stormy was all about being fair.   come on aj.  

[brianstl]

14 minutes ago, Iggy said:

I'm a victim.  I should be making plans for the tournament right about now.

The best and most accurate post about this whole damn topic.

[Bills_06]

2 minutes ago, aj_arete said:

We don't know what was in the Title IX file. I get it. You don't trust the independent process that went on at SLU. I have a little more faith that individuals not involved directly with athletics dealt with the facts fairly. So neither of us know definitively whether he shared the video or not? That sounds like it would be simple to disprove. Hand over your phone, email, and other social media and demand that they showed where he didn't share it. If they couldn't, I just don't see how he would be penalized.

Yep sounds simple.  Here is an example of a guy being accused of violating a no contact order and said:

"R.M. soon complained to the school that Bonsu had violated his no-contact order by trying to friend her on Facebook. Bonsu vehemently denied the allegation to administrators. He offered the university full access to his Facebook account and phone records. According to the suit, the university declined the offer."

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/

Yep, why should I doubt that he didn't try to do anything.  There is no evidence, no facts so the article isn't based on anything we know.  What part of that don't you get.  He already wrote it and made the kid look like a danger with no facts!

[brianstl]

5 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

you mean the far left women activist that has been photographed at "me too" rallies and trump protests?   yeah stormy was all about being fair.   come on aj.  

Weathers couldn't even fulfill the simple duty of her to remain free of any reasonable preconceived  bias, but we are supposed to trust the process.

[billikenfan05]

1 hour ago, Bills_06 said:

This is what I have the biggest problem with.  Oritz's article was trash.  He focused on Goodwin and made accusations towards him and Ford for which he has no basis for.  Now per Frank, Goodwin was never even accused of sexual assault by the girls and one girl actually even said Goodwin didn't do it.  Yet reading the article, Ortiz made it seem like Goodwin only is still there and played because he was a top rated recruit, not because of the fact the kid was never accused of sexual assault.  Can somebody who says that explain to me why SLU would suspend 3 of it's better players, one of which was supposed to be the top scorer so they could have a mediocre season with their top recruit up until the last few games?  If they had this much control of the situation as Ortiz suggested, why not redshirt Goodwin, he serves the two months now and comes back next year with 4 years of eligibility with a full roster?  It's because they had no control of the situation which is why Ortiz again wrote a trash, factually incorrect article. 

If the basketball team and Goodwin were the ones that extended the process as Ortiz suggested (not the external firm that actually did the investigation and took 60+ days which is the real reason), why wouldn't they drag it out another month?  It's because it was the Title IX office that screwed up the process.  Focus your article on that, not on Goodwin.  

He said Ford needs to do a better job of looking into these kids before he brings them on campus.  How did he come to that conclusion?  What did any of these kids do in the past that would indicate they are dangerous?  Does Ford have a history of bringing in dangerous kids in his years of coaching that I missed and Ortiz didn't feel the need to point out if it's actually a pattern?  Or was Ortiz just making another baseless allegation?  Yep I will go with that.  

These girls aren't victims.  They are accusers. As a father you should be upset about the fact girls falsely accused guys therefore in a time when people are taking these allegations seriously finally, instances like this put a question mark on the whole situation.

Ortiz's article was at best irresponsible journalism, at worst a borderline racist article that just said these young black men must be guilty since they were accused.  

I’d love to see this get sent to the post as a letter to the editor.

[Bills_06]

5 minutes ago, aj_arete said:

We don't know what was in the Title IX file. I get it. You don't trust the independent process that went on at SLU. I have a little more faith that individuals not involved directly with athletics dealt with the facts fairly. So neither of us know definitively whether he shared the video or not? That sounds like it would be simple to disprove. Hand over your phone, email, and other social media and demand that they showed where he shared it. If they couldn't, I just don't see how he would be penalized.

He was penalized because of "process of elimination." That is what is in the Title IX report.  

[aj_arete]

Just now, Bills_06 said:

He was penalized because of "process of elimination." That is what is in the Title IX report.  

So the Title IX report has been released to the public? Or you're restating what a defense attorney said.

[Bills_06]

Just now, aj_arete said:

So the Title IX report has been released to the public? Or you're restating what a defense attorney said.

I'm restating what Frank said.  Until you read it that is the best information we have.  

[aj_arete]

1 minute ago, Bills_06 said:

I'm restating what Frank said.  Until you read it that is the best information we have.  

And Frank got that from Rosenbloom, I'm sure.

[brianstl]

Just now, Bills_06 said:

I'm restating what Frank said.  Until you read it that is the best information we have.  

My guess is there is a good chance Frank read the report.  Goodwin gets a redacted copy of the report and the rulings.  I would think the Goodwins probably let Frank view it for the sit down.  

[billiken_roy]

1 minute ago, brianstl said:

My guess is there is a good chance Frank read the report.  Goodwin gets a redacted copy of the report and the rulings.  I would think the Goodwins probably let Frank view it for the sit down.  

exactly and what close source does ortiz have?   nothing.   ill take frank c word on this. 

[brianstl]

1 minute ago, aj_arete said:

And Frank got that from Rosenbloom, I'm sure.

Everyone involved in the case gets a redacted copy of the report and rulings from SLU.  It isn't a report from Rosenblum.

[Bills_06]

4 minutes ago, aj_arete said:

And Frank got that from Rosenbloom, I'm sure.

Or like Brianstl said, from Goodwins dad who also spent 3 days hand typing the entire report to share with his civil rights attorney that he took a second mortgage out to pay for  because he has felt his son was treated so poorly.  Yep, screams to me that it has great evidence Goodwin shared the video and definitely deserving of being chastised in the paper by a guy with no information.  I honestly don't know how you can't admit that the article was trash, even with the fact you have no better evidence to suggest Goodwin did anything.  

[brianstl]

Just now, billiken_roy said:

exactly and what close source does ortiz have?   nothing.   ill take frank c word on this. 

Do people really think in today's environment that Frank or KSDK management would let the Goodwins make the statements they made on the air if they didn't have some form of corroboration for what they were saying?