Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[Cowboy]

26 minutes ago, Wendelprof said:

The note on the transcript will not mark the students as a "rapist" - it will simply say something to the effect of "the student was disciplined/suspended/expelled for violating the student handbook."  The student is then free to explain the situation.

You might be surprised how many students have such notes on their transcripts.  Increasingly schools and employers are realizing - and accepting - that kids do stupid things while they are young.  The keys are (a) how stupid was it, and (b) did they learn from it.  It is not necessarily a damning note; other schools will be open to accepting them as transfer students if it comes to that (depending on how stupid was it and how much time has passed).

I have concerns based on the one player's tweet.  Based on it, my assumption (and it is completely an assumption) is that the investigator's report and recommendation is not good for the player (players? - it will be interesting to see if all three get the same treatment or if there are grounds for distinguishing them).  If that is the investigator's recommendation, the problem from the university's perspective is if it disagrees with the recommendation, it bears the burden of explaining why it didn't follow it.  That will be particularly difficult to do in this current social climate brought on by revelations concerning the conduct of our entertainment and political leaders.  I'm not sure the university will be able to do that if the investigator's report is not good.  The best case scenario is for the investigator's report to come in light.  The university can then accept it and shift the burden of explaining the outcome to the investigator.  Much more pessimistic scenario if the investigator's report is not good.

We should know more soon.

-didn't the U hire the investigator? not sure how any shift can happen if that is the case

 

[Cowboy]

2 minutes ago, JMM28 said:

If anyone thinks there is going to a positive result in this process...read this...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/slu-case-highlights-the-gray-areas-of-campus-sex-assault/article_160c1a40-03c7-5db7-bb9d-ab23b1ca858e.html

and then the lineup of names on this. Seems loaded to one gender.

https://www.slu.edu/general-counsel-home/office-of-institutional-equity-and-diversity/sexual-misconduct-policy

 

-loaded indeed, would this be a factor in the legal proceedings that seem to be on the horizon?

[WestCoastBilliken]

21 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

-loaded indeed, would this be a factor in the legal proceedings that seem to be on the horizon?

It is Title 9... an entire policy created for the sole purpose of 'resolving gender inequalities and discrimination'.

You guys are blaming SLU for a policy that our society has created, not slu. 

Title IX, as a federal law enforced in the United States of America is considered a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972. This is Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235, codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

[billiken_roy]

8 minutes ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

It is Title 9... an entire policy created for the sole purpose of 'resolving gender inequalities and discrimination'.

You guys are blaming SLU for a policy that our society has created, not slu. 

Title IX, as a federal law enforced in the United States of America is considered a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972. This is Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235, codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

i dont think anyone has an issue with the need to review.  but when all parties concerned are readily available for a pretty simple he said she said situation i just cant fathom the reason this just drags on and on.   if it is a matter of scheduling convenience doesnt the accused parties schedule carry any priority?   this should have been settled weeks ago.   it is a joke.   i am not arguing for preference on the decision either way i am arguing for it to be over.   make a decision.  

[ACE]

11 minutes ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

It is Title 9... an entire policy created for the sole purpose of 'resolving gender inequalities and discrimination'.

You guys are blaming SLU for a policy that our society has created, not slu. 

Title IX, as a federal law enforced in the United States of America is considered a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972. This is Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235, codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

Thanks Dick Nixon! Crazy liberal!

[WestCoastBilliken]

2 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i dont think anyone has an issue with the need to review.  but when all parties concerned are readily available for a pretty simple he said she said situation i just cant fathom the reason this just drags on and on.   if it is a matter of scheduling convenience doesnt the accused parties schedule carry any priority?   this should have been settled weeks ago.   it is a joke.   i am not arguing for preference on the decision either way i am arguing for it to be over.   make a decision.  

So you are certain SLU is the party that is dragging this out?

[billiken_roy]

9 minutes ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

So you are certain SLU is the party that is dragging this out?

slu is paying for it.  they better have some pull on both sides attorneys to get the process completed.   if they dont you gotta wonder 

[Bobby Metzinger]

12 minutes ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

So you are certain SLU is the party that is dragging this out?

There's always the chance that the three and their representation will look to drag the accusers through the same mud if they can find reason to; with that being said, it's hard to imagine anyone in this situation coming out spot-clean. 

[Adman]

1 hour ago, Wendelprof said:

The note on the transcript will not mark the students as a "rapist" - it will simply say something to the effect of "the student was disciplined/suspended/expelled for violating the student handbook."  The student is then free to explain the situation.

You might be surprised how many students have such notes on their transcripts.  Increasingly schools and employers are realizing - and accepting - that kids do stupid things while they are young.  The keys are (a) how stupid was it, and (b) did they learn from it.  It is not necessarily a damning note; other schools will be open to accepting them as transfer students if it comes to that (depending on how stupid was it and how much time has passed).

I have concerns based on the one player's tweet.  Based on it, my assumption (and it is completely an assumption) is that the investigator's report and recommendation is not good for the player (players? - it will be interesting to see if all three get the same treatment or if there are grounds for distinguishing them).  If that is the investigator's recommendation, the problem from the university's perspective is if it disagrees with the recommendation, it bears the burden of explaining why it didn't follow it.  That will be particularly difficult to do in this current social climate brought on by revelations concerning the conduct of our entertainment and political leaders.  I'm not sure the university will be able to do that if the investigator's report is not good.  The best case scenario is for the investigator's report to come in light.  The university can then accept it and shift the burden of explaining the outcome to the investigator.  Much more pessimistic scenario if the investigator's report is not good.

We should know more soon.

Thanks for your excellent input.

A question: while it would certainly be enlightening if the investigator’s report came to light, given need for confidentiality in Title IX investigations, no adjudication has happened, the likely lawsuits from both sides which would occur with release of preliminary report, and University’s complete news lockdown to date, don’t you think the chance of the report coming to light is highly improbable?

[Billiken Rich]

24 minutes ago, ACE said:

Thanks Dick Nixon! Crazy liberal!

He also gave us the EPA so you aren't too far off blue font or not....

[JMM28]

42 minutes ago, ACE said:

Thanks Dick Nixon! Crazy liberal!

The sexual assault portion was apparently resuscitated by President Obama in 2011. And now has been altered again by Trump. Some folks think that some schools are dragging these out in some sort of political protest point. 

[Adman]

2 hours ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

The school is a private institution and I think it is clear to me that the students violated student code policy at the minimum.  I am not sure how the students can sue? 

They are a private institution for sure. However, what specific student code violation are you clear they violated?

I’m not trying to be snarky in the least; I’m truly just curious. Do you know with certainty the details of what happened or was alleged to have happened and has been proven - that makes it clear?

I don’t. I’ve read the complete SLU sexual harassment policy with definitions, prohibited behavior, etc. But since I don’t have certainty of the details of what was alleged and has been proven, for me it is impossible to determine. So far, about the only thing I think is a student code violation - if rumor/evidence is correct - is the posting of video by one (of the three) players, presumably without consent to do so.

This is not expressly prohibited in SLU’s policy, but seems to reasonably fall under a higher umbrella of other/related prohibited behavior.

What do you know??

[cheeseman]

3 hours ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

The school is a private institution and I think it is clear to me that the students violated student code policy at the minimum.  I am not sure how the students can sue? 

You sue because you have been harmed.  Makes no difference that SLU is a private school or not.  Your rights do not go away if you go to a private school.  They have missed playing and have been labeled in some way.  I can assure you it will be cheaper for the school to settle out of court on this but it won't be cheap.  The school should have left the kids in school and let them play until a ruling.  

[cheeseman]

3 hours ago, JMM28 said:

I'm not sure it is that easy with the title 9 investigation lingering. My understanding is that it doesn't go away just because a person leaves campus and it puts a mark on their official transcripts if they are found "guilty." If there is a pending investigation, other schools might not be interested in adding them to their roster. 

Its a crazy to think that a university can permanently mark someones transcripts as 'rapist' forever. 

It went away in Situation #1 for the two who went to other schools in the fall.  Nothing happened to them at all.

[GBL_Bills]

20 minutes ago, Adman said:

They are a private institution for sure. However, what specific student code violation are you clear they violated?

I’m not trying to be snarky in the least; I’m truly just curious. Do you know with certainty the details of what happened or was alleged to have happened and has been proven - that makes it clear?

I don’t. I’ve read the complete SLU sexual harassment policy with definitions, prohibited behavior, etc. But since I don’t have certainty of the details of what was alleged and has been proven, for me it is impossible to determine. So far, about the only thing I think is a student code violation - if rumor/evidence is correct - is the posting of video by one (of the three) players, presumably without consent to do so.

This is not expressly prohibited in SLU’s policy, but seems to reasonably fall under a higher umbrella of other/related prohibited behavior.

What do you know??

Non-consensual videotaping is explicitly prohibited in the student handbook under "sexual exploitation". And, if the rumored video was consensual, but the sharing of it was not, then that falls under "including observing or allowing another individual t0 observe another’s nudity or sexual activity without the Effective Consent of all individuals’ involved"

[WestCoastBilliken]

We know with pretty clear certainty that 3 things occurred... drinking, sex and a video. (Correct me if I'm wrong) 

 

drinking: I believe a couple of the players were/are underage. Against school policy. If one of them is 21 and over and with underage students drinking also against Slu policy (and law technically).

 

sex: this one I'm not sure, but I believe their is something in the handbook about this being done in Slu dorms.

 

video: if a video happened, it is 100% against Slu policy even if all parties agreed to it. Read the Slu school policy but it's in there. 

 

 

[slu72]

Read all the articles that have been linked in this thread, and you'll come away with the conclusion the accuser just about always gets the benefit of the doubt. And some of the cases cited make it look like not only was the sex consensual it was pre planned. It may well come down to how drunk these young ladies were that determines the fate of the S2 Three.

[WestCoastBilliken]

25 minutes ago, Adman said:

They are a private institution for sure. However, what specific student code violation are you clear they violated?

I’m not trying to be snarky in the least; I’m truly just curious. Do you know with certainty the details of what happened or was alleged to have happened and has been proven - that makes it clear?

I don’t. I’ve read the complete SLU sexual harassment policy with definitions, prohibited behavior, etc. But since I don’t have certainty of the details of what was alleged and has been proven, for me it is impossible to determine. So far, about the only thing I think is a student code violation - if rumor/evidence is correct - is the posting of video by one (of the three) players, presumably without consent to do so.

This is not expressly prohibited in SLU’s policy, but seems to reasonably fall under a higher umbrella of other/related prohibited behavior.

What do you know??

See my post above 

[JMM28]

3 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

It went away in Situation #1 for the two who went to other schools in the fall.  Nothing happened to them at all.

I don’t think that was technically the a title 9 thing. That was a student conduct cangaroo court 

[cheeseman]

2 hours ago, JMM28 said:

If anyone thinks there is going to a positive result in this process...read this...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/slu-case-highlights-the-gray-areas-of-campus-sex-assault/article_160c1a40-03c7-5db7-bb9d-ab23b1ca858e.html

and then the lineup of names on this. Seems loaded to one gender.

https://www.slu.edu/general-counsel-home/office-of-institutional-equity-and-diversity/sexual-misconduct-policy

 

It is possible the school learned their lesson from this case.  Bottom line is government and schools should stay out of people's bedrooms - period!  If this girl thought she was raped she should have gone to the police.  Let the police handle the investigation.

[Wendelprof]

2 hours ago, billikenfan05 said:

Our resident Academic back to lecture us. 

billikenfan05,

Ah, what an insightful response.  You must truly be a blissful man.  My apologies for assuming that you might be interested in the facts and truth.  You're right - why let the facts and the truth get in the way of what you want to do.

[billiken_roy]

If the video indeed proves no assault but a totally consensual happening it seems to me common sense says it's a darn good thing there is a video. 

 

 As to posting the video, agreed stupid.

   I would hope the young ladies have never done anything like that in their past and they have above reproach histories assuming a lawsuit might be coming their way as well.   

[Tilkowsky]

10 minutes ago, slu72 said:

Read all the articles that have been linked in this thread, and you'll come away with the conclusion the accuser just about always gets the benefit of the doubt. And some of the cases cited make it look like not only was the sex consensual it was pre planned. It may well come down to how drunk these young ladies were that determines the fate of the S2 Three.

Remember Duke lacrosse.

That is why you don't rush to judgement.

 

[cheeseman]

7 minutes ago, JMM28 said:

I don’t think that was technically the a title 9 thing. That was a student conduct cangaroo court 

Either way - 2 got reamed and 2 got off scott free.

[billiken_roy]

Just now, Tilkowsky said:

Remember Duke lacrosse.

That is why you don't rush to judgement.

 

2+ months of a he said she said case where all parties involved are present and cooperating is far from a rush to judgement that even a Notre Dame educated attorney group could likely complete.