Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[aj_arete]

5 minutes ago, brianstl said:

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

OK if that's the case, then I can see Cusamano absolving Goodwin from sharing the video. Did he do that? If so, then I'll agree with all of you and I'll write the letter castigating Ortiz myself.

Edited February 16, 2018 by aj_arete
adding another point

[Bills_06]

13 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

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

I sign my ownership rights of that post over to you if you want to.  

[kshoe]

All, stop feeding AJ the troll. 

Also, why did we start a second thread on this after 4 months of keeping it all contained in one thread?

[JMM28]

The "process of elimination" part is terrible. The cross-race effect is a real thing. This is all just so awful. 

[cgeldmacher]

1 hour ago, Tilkowsky said:

Yet you and everyone else on this board are giving the players a pass.

Everyone is just worried about how it affects the basketball teams wins/losses.

Again is this the type of behavior you want SLU basketball players to be known for?

All four players are responsible for the situation they currently find themselves in.

No one else. Not Kratky. Not Weathers. Not Pestello. Not Ortiz.

Sad that NO ONE will answer the question - Is this the type of behavior SLU students should be engaged in? 

 

I agree.  Tilky is right for once.  This is not the type of behavior that SLU students should be engaged in.  Whoever organized the orgy in the first place should be disciplined, because that's not the type of activity we should expect of SLU students.  Pestello should suspend the parties to this encounter that set it all up, brought the condoms, and then made false allegations after the fact.  We need to expect more of SLU students.

[RiseAndGrind]

Editorial from the WSJ from last week. I'm not making any comment other than just posting the article. 

Distorted Campus Assault Math

A survey claims 41% of Tulane women have been sexually assaulted.

 

 

By 

The Editorial Board

Feb. 8, 2018 7:18 p.m. ET

 

Forty-one percent of Tulane’s undergraduate women have been sexually assaulted since arriving on campus, the university reported last month. That’s a shocking statistic, but is it true? The number is worth breaking down because Congress may soon require all colleges to use similar surveys to inform their practices.

One problem is how broadly Tulane defines sexual assault. The school goes beyond rape or attempted rape to include any form of unwanted sexual contact, including a stolen kiss or hug. The latter may be unwelcome but are they assault? This definition helps explain why nearly 38% of female undergraduates and 16% of males said they’d been victims of unwanted sexual contact. The statistics for rape or attempted rape are lower, but the 41% can’t be easily broken down because some students reported more than one form of assault.

Other questions are subject to questionable interpretation. Students were asked if they agreed with the statements, “I don’t think sexual violence is a problem at Tulane” and “there isn’t much need for me to think about sexual violence while at college.” Disagreement indicates that sexual violence is a pressing issue. But students who agree risk being seen as ignorant or uncaring, which some campuses and activists say is evidence of a “rape culture.”

Self-selection almost certainly occurred to some extent. Tulane highlights its large pool of 4,500 respondents. But the university boosted participation by offering “incentives for Greek organizations, residence halls, and graduate/professional schools” to recruit members to take the survey. Tulane’s Institutional Research Board approved these incentives, but we wonder if the groups urging students to participate may have also influenced answers.

Other survey elements are so subjective they raise more questions than they answer. Among students who said they were sexually assaulted, 73.5% of undergraduate women and 86.7% of men said they were incapacitated by alcohol, not force. Tulane never defined how many drinks render someone incapable of consent, leaving that to the discretion of students.

But that’s a hotly debated question on campus and off, and some of the standards have been extreme. U.S. military sexual-assault prevention training sessions recently claimed “one drink means you can’t consent.” The U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals said in 2016 that this standard was a “legally-inaccurate proposition.”

The Tulane results matter because such flawed “campus-climate surveys” could soon become mandatory across the country. The House of Representatives will soon consider legislation to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, and it is likely to include direction on how universities should respond to sexual assault. More legal clarity is overdue, and several proposed changes would reinforce due-process rights while supporting victims.

But the bill that cleared the House Education and Workforce Committee in December would also require administrators to conduct campus-climate surveys on sexual assault every three years. The Education Department could offer a sample survey with strong methodology, but universities would be under no obligation to use it. If federal lawmakers fail to require rigorous standards for these surveys, universities could create sexual-assault policies based on false assumptions and faulty data.

That doesn’t help women. Last May Stanford student Rhea Karuturi described how female students suffered from “rape anxiety”—the perception that “when you’re walking, when you’re going somewhere new, whatever—that there is a danger you could get raped.”

Increasingly, campus-climate surveys tell women they’re in perpetual danger, though federal crime statistics suggest they’re safer from sexual assault in college than off campus. If the goal is to protect women, this is the wrong way to do it.

Appeared in the February 9, 2018, print edition.

[Billboy1]

Anyone know if the girls were punished

[TGSLU]

1 hour ago, Tilkowsky said:

Yet you and everyone else on this board are giving the players a pass.

Everyone is just worried about how it affects the basketball teams wins/losses.

Again is this the type of behavior you want SLU basketball players to be known for?

All four players are responsible for the situation they currently find themselves in.

No one else. Not Kratky. Not Weathers. Not Pestello. Not Ortiz.

Sad that NO ONE will answer the question - Is this the type of behavior SLU students should be engaged in? 

 

You are over generalizing that everyone just cares about basketball players.  It just so happens that this case was initiated against basketball players.  The same injustice would be apparent to non basketball players.  If three or four good looking girls proposition guys (basketball player or not) and initiate a real good time, I would venture that most straight male students would succumb to the temptation.  Is this poor judgment-- probably.  Is this anti-Christian, Catholic judgement-- probably (although I can recall at least one saint who in his youth was known to venture on the wild side).  The four players definitely put themselves in a bad position but so did the women.  If SLU wants to punish the players that's fine but why not punish ALL of the people involved (i.e., the women as well).  You could argue that the basketball players are held to some higher standard of conduct which may be correct but we are dealing for the most part with 18-20 year olds.  Bad decisions are made by everyone-- the punishment should fit the crime and should not be selectively enforced.  This disparity is what raises the inference of discrimination.  The players are responsible for their decisions just as are the women.   The process may be a typical Title IX process but if the facts are as gleaned from posters here, as well as newspaper reports and parent statements, it is difficult to see how this case was even adjudicated to the point of punishment.  So  you can say "everyone" here is jaded by basketball but you ignore the core problem which is lack of justice whether one is a basketball player or not.

[JohnnyJumpUp]

6 hours ago, aj_arete said:

Overall, I'm a fan of Ortiz and don't have serious problems with his article. However, I will say that many of the posters made some good points about only focusing on the athlete rather than the victim. The problem is victim shaming is one reason why women are reluctant to share their stories of sexual violence and with me being a father of two daughters, that's concerning to me. 

 

1 hour ago, aj_arete said:

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.

Nice response, which is actually "victim shaming" at its finest. This type of behavior seems very concerning to you. 

[Spoon-Balls]

22 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said:

Other questions are subject to questionable interpretation. Students were asked if they agreed with the statements, “I don’t think sexual violence is a problem at Tulane” and “there isn’t much need for me to think about sexual violence while at college.” Disagreement indicates that sexual violence is a pressing issue. But students who agree risk being seen as ignorant or uncaring, which some campuses and activists say is evidence of a “rape culture.”

Self-selection almost certainly occurred to some extent. Tulane highlights its large pool of 4,500 respondents. But the university boosted participation by offering “incentives for Greek organizations, residence halls, and graduate/professional schools” to recruit members to take the survey. Tulane’s Institutional Research Board approved these incentives, but we wonder if the groups urging students to participate may have also influenced answers.

Other survey elements are so subjective they raise more questions than they answer. Among students who said they were sexually assaulted, 73.5% of undergraduate women and 86.7% of men said they were incapacitated by alcohol, not force. Tulane never defined how many drinks render someone incapable of consent, leaving that to the discretion of students.

But that’s a hotly debated question on campus and off, and some of the standards have been extreme. U.S. military sexual-assault prevention training sessions recently claimed “one drink means you can’t consent.” The U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals said in 2016 that this standard was a “legally-inaccurate proposition.”

 

The Tulane results matter because such flawed “campus-climate surveys” could soon become mandatory across the country. The House of Representatives will soon consider legislation to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, and it is likely to include direction on how universities should respond to sexual assault. More legal clarity is overdue, and several proposed changes would reinforce due-process rights while supporting victims.

 

You could literally plug in SLU for Tulane in this article and everything would be the exact same. The questions on SLU's survey (which I'm assuming is the same exact survey that everyone is using even though they claimed it took "2 years" to prepare it) were all leading, if you didn't agree that "sexual assault is a problem" than you'd be viewed as part of the "rape culture," incentives were being offered to various groups... It's pretty twisted that climate surveys are being viewed as legitimate in academia land, but good to see the WSJ isn't buying this BS.

Now if only the Post Dispatch had the balls to do some similar reporting, maybe they would still be nationally relevant....

[Cowboy]

Just now, Spoon-Balls said:

 

You could literally plug in SLU for Tulane in this article and everything would be the exact same. The questions were all leading, if you didn't agree that "sexual assault is a problem" than you'd be viewed as part of the "rape culture," incentives were being offered to various groups... It's pretty twisted that climate surveys are being viewed as legitimate in academia land, but good to see the WSJ isn't buying this BS.

Now if only the Post Dispatch had the balls to do some similar reporting, maybe they would still be nationally relevant....

-I thought the same thing, this very serious subject is at risk of being mocked and diminished due to nonsense like the SLU survey 

[Quality Is Job 1]

1 hour ago, aj_arete said:

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.

@aj_arete:

 

[billikenfan05]

1 hour ago, RiseAndGrind said:

Editorial from the WSJ from last week. I'm not making any comment other than just posting the article. 

Distorted Campus Assault Math

A survey claims 41% of Tulane women have been sexually assaulted.

 

 

By 

The Editorial Board

Feb. 8, 2018 7:18 p.m. ET

 

Forty-one percent of Tulane’s undergraduate women have been sexually assaulted since arriving on campus, the university reported last month. That’s a shocking statistic, but is it true? The number is worth breaking down because Congress may soon require all colleges to use similar surveys to inform their practices.

One problem is how broadly Tulane defines sexual assault. The school goes beyond rape or attempted rape to include any form of unwanted sexual contact, including a stolen kiss or hug. The latter may be unwelcome but are they assault? This definition helps explain why nearly 38% of female undergraduates and 16% of males said they’d been victims of unwanted sexual contact. The statistics for rape or attempted rape are lower, but the 41% can’t be easily broken down because some students reported more than one form of assault.

Other questions are subject to questionable interpretation. Students were asked if they agreed with the statements, “I don’t think sexual violence is a problem at Tulane” and “there isn’t much need for me to think about sexual violence while at college.” Disagreement indicates that sexual violence is a pressing issue. But students who agree risk being seen as ignorant or uncaring, which some campuses and activists say is evidence of a “rape culture.”

Self-selection almost certainly occurred to some extent. Tulane highlights its large pool of 4,500 respondents. But the university boosted participation by offering “incentives for Greek organizations, residence halls, and graduate/professional schools” to recruit members to take the survey. Tulane’s Institutional Research Board approved these incentives, but we wonder if the groups urging students to participate may have also influenced answers.

Other survey elements are so subjective they raise more questions than they answer. Among students who said they were sexually assaulted, 73.5% of undergraduate women and 86.7% of men said they were incapacitated by alcohol, not force. Tulane never defined how many drinks render someone incapable of consent, leaving that to the discretion of students.

But that’s a hotly debated question on campus and off, and some of the standards have been extreme. U.S. military sexual-assault prevention training sessions recently claimed “one drink means you can’t consent.” The U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals said in 2016 that this standard was a “legally-inaccurate proposition.”

The Tulane results matter because such flawed “campus-climate surveys” could soon become mandatory across the country. The House of Representatives will soon consider legislation to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, and it is likely to include direction on how universities should respond to sexual assault. More legal clarity is overdue, and several proposed changes would reinforce due-process rights while supporting victims.

But the bill that cleared the House Education and Workforce Committee in December would also require administrators to conduct campus-climate surveys on sexual assault every three years. The Education Department could offer a sample survey with strong methodology, but universities would be under no obligation to use it. If federal lawmakers fail to require rigorous standards for these surveys, universities could create sexual-assault policies based on false assumptions and faulty data.

That doesn’t help women. Last May Stanford student Rhea Karuturi described how female students suffered from “rape anxiety”—the perception that “when you’re walking, when you’re going somewhere new, whatever—that there is a danger you could get raped.”

Increasingly, campus-climate surveys tell women they’re in perpetual danger, though federal crime statistics suggest they’re safer from sexual assault in college than off campus. If the goal is to protect women, this is the wrong way to do it.

Appeared in the February 9, 2018, print edition.

I read a letter to the editor concerning it and they quipped that tulane should be shut down or every freshman receive a warning that they will be assaulted by the time they leave with a  degree 

[Bills_06]

2 hours ago, aj_arete said:

OK if that's the case, then I can see Cusamano absolving Goodwin from sharing the video. Did he do that? If so, then I'll agree with all of you and I'll write the letter castigating Ortiz myself.

I love how I actually addressed what Ortiz wrote in the article (basically saying the kids committed sexual assault) and then you still say the article is fine because of the off-chance something happened that Ortiz didn't even mention in his article.  Talk about moving the goal posts.

Sorry kshoe, I didn't realize how closed minded he was.  He will go on my ignore list, I am done talking to a wall.  

[ACE]

Just now, Bills_06 said:

I love how I actually addressed what Ortiz wrote in the article (basically saying the kids committed sexual assault) and then you still say the article is fine because of the off-chance something happened that Ortiz didn't even mention in his article.  Talk about moving the goal posts.

Sorry kshoe, I didn't realize how closed minded he was.  He will go on my ignore list, I am done talking to a wall.  

Yep, he's been a troll for a long time. Not surprising he would crawl out from under his rock to get involved in this thread.

[slu72]

2 hours ago, kshoe said:

All, stop feeding AJ the troll. 

Also, why did we start a second thread on this after 4 months of keeping it all contained in one thread?

Because Ortiz is a butt wipe who needs to be singled out for his extremely biased non factual opinion. I am surprised no one from SLU's AD has come to Jordan's defense and demanded a retraction. Maybe not that surprised, since SLU's attitude towards this mess has been to bury their heads in the sand.  

[majerus mojo]

Looking back, Rosenblum made it clear his 3 clients were the ones who received suspensions from the school. We also now know that the Goodwin family wasn’t even aware Jordan was being investigated until the University officially notified them of that 3 weeks ago. Is it possible to deduce that Goodwin was the one handed the expulsion, via “process of elimination”?

[NH]

2 hours ago, Billboy1 said:

Anyone know if the girls were punished

I don’t like this sentiment. I’m sure the girls had to give very detailed accounts to the school. We don’t have enough information to know whether they lied, what they said or anything like that. It’s not fair when people assume they know what happened with Goodwin without basis (Ortiz) and it’s absolutely not fair for anyone on here to assume they know enough to call for punishments for the accusers.

[billikenfan05]

4 minutes ago, NH said:

I don’t like this sentiment. I’m sure the girls had to give very detailed accounts to the school. We don’t have enough information to know whether they lied, what they said or anything like that. It’s not fair when people assume they know what happened with Goodwin without basis (Ortiz) and it’s absolutely not fair for anyone on here to assume they know enough to call for punishments for the accusers.

Normally I’d agree but considering the girl herself said the issue was not sexual assault and the police have an open sexual assault investigation open. I’d say that’s enough to assume that it was a false police report 

[Schasz]

2 hours ago, kshoe said:

All, stop feeding AJ the troll. 

Also, why did we start a second thread on this after 4 months of keeping it all contained in one thread?

Agree I'm putting him on my ignore list. He's not a SLU fan...just a Sh!t Disturber.

[Billboy1]

There is no way the girls should not share in punishment.

[GMan Alum]

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, but Section A, page 2, down at the bottom in the P-D today, there is a Correction notice about Ortiz' article.  It says Ortiz stated that "...Goodwin acknowledged that he had violated Title IX Policy.  However, Goodwin,  in a prepared statement, acknowledged only that he had violated a university policy..."

Ortiz must have written the correction because he only quotes Goodwin, not the fact that he truly was cleared of all charges.

 

[aj_arete]

37 minutes ago, Bills_06 said:

I love how I actually addressed what Ortiz wrote in the article (basically saying the kids committed sexual assault) and then you still say the article is fine because of the off-chance something happened that Ortiz didn't even mention in his article.  Talk about moving the goal posts.

Sorry kshoe, I didn't realize how closed minded he was.  He will go on my ignore list, I am done talking to a wall.  

Moving the goalposts suggests to me that you don't understand what sexual assault is. Maybe you think it involves making sexual contact, but it goes beyond that. I have never said that Goodwin was involved in sex with the other girls and let's not make the assumption that Ortiz did either. Sexual assault is also sharing sexually explicit video, which is called sexual exploitation.  I'm not a lawyer and understand that having an expectation of privacy means that charge would be hard to prove.  However consenting to being recorded is different than having that video shared. Otherwise, you wouldn't have spouses or past sexual partners suing their past partners for sharing intimate videos to others. This isn't clear cut.

Now I thought most people agreed that Goodwin shared the video with others, but maybe that's an open question, which I was unaware of before. If that's an open question, then I would be more critical of Ortiz's take.  Therefore, I agree the case is murkier.

[LindellWest]

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 11:24 AM, TheOne said:

Guys,

It is hurting me that many on this board are hoping that SLU’s administration will get “burned to the ground”.  

This is a university we all share a passion and a bond over, otherwise we wouldn’t be posting on this board. I understand where these frustrations are coming from, but calling for full blown federal investigations and saying wildly immature things on Twitter will badly damage our university - potentially forever. The pursuit of justice is never to be overlooked, but as affiliates and representatives of SLU we must handle ourselves maturely. There is a way to express your feelings the right way.

While most are not pleased with the process or the outcome of S2, we need to be supportive of SLU. We need to be at every game, cheering on our remaining Billikens.  We need to be enouraging Goodwin that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, that we cannot wait for him to return to the floor, and that he can change this program forever. We owe it to the program, we owe it to Coach, and we owe it to Jordan for honoring his commitment and returning to SLU after his suspension.

There is a bright day ahead of us, we just need to see it through.

While I understand and agree to some degree, SLU should take a moment to contemplate the why. The university has a leader that has managed to turn a segment of some of the most ardent SLU supporters into people hoping SLU is punished. That is TERRIBLE LEADERSHIP. You shouldn't be hurt by the fans who are tired of the constant failure and hypocrisy,  you should be mad a the man who did nothing to stop it.

[DeSmetBilliken]

23 minutes ago, majerus mojo said:

Looking back, Rosenblum made it clear his 3 clients were the ones who received suspensions from the school. We also now know that the Goodwin family wasn’t even aware Jordan was being investigated until the University officially notified them of that 3 weeks ago. Is it possible to deduce that Goodwin was the one handed the expulsion, via “process of elimination”?

I had heard some people suggest that Goodwin was the one expelled. Personally, I never gave it much credence because of Rosenblum's comment that the player expelled was represented by someone other than him. Chris Gardner reported that Graves wasn't represented by Rosenblum, so my guess is still that it was Graves.

If Goodwin was the one expelled initially, it makes this whole thing even more ridiculous. How would you reconcile expelling the guy when one of the "victims" specifically said it wasn't him?