Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[moytoy12]

20 minutes ago, JMM28 said:

 

Deserved to be reposted. 

[Spoon-Balls]

2 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

Suspended from activities.  If that averages student is in a fraternity or sorority, they cannot participate in the fraternity or sorority functions during the suspension.  If the student is in student government, they cannot participate in student government during the suspension.  If the student is the a play, or a choir, or a speech planning committee, they cannot participate during their suspension.  Seems logical that a sports team is the same.

I don't even know where to begin. You can't reasonably compare playing D-I basketball to being in speech or choir. Those suspensions you're talking about are completely unequal. 

[DeSmetBilliken]

15 minutes ago, JMM28 said:

What a troll...

 

 

Not gonna lie, if he were doing that, I'd almost respect the troll move. It's pretty cold blooded.

[brianstl]

 

1 hour ago, cgeldmacher said:

Yes.  That's part of going to a catholic institution.  I don't necessarily agree that it should happen this way, but that is exactly how it was enforced when I was at SLU and how, I assume, it is enforced now.

I am not sure what Catholic institutions you have been to, but drinking is definitely not frowned upon.  It is only used when administrators want to get a student on something else, but can't.  The school serves beer on campus.  Catholic churches have grade school basketball tournaments where you can buy beer.  Catholic orders have their own wineries and distilleries.  Binge drinking? Sure they have a problem with that.  Just having some drinks?  They don't care as long as you don't do anything that can embarrass the institution or harm someone.

It isn't the drinking itself they are really going after.  They use it to add to your punishment or as way to punish you for something they can't get you on.

Edited December 15, 2017 by brianstl

[cheeseman]

This is the 21st century.  Just saying No does not work and never really did.  Plenty of girls got pregnant and went to visit relatives out of town in the 40's and 50's.  All this - the kids should have known better stuff - is just simply unrealistic.  Did they all do wrong - of course but doing wrong does not get your head cut off for this kind of stuff.  I have said this before but it is worth saying again - we all need to stay out of people's bedrooms unless a crime is being committed.

[Wendelprof]

3 hours ago, kshoe said:

I literally broke multiple laws this morning when I went 5 miles over the speed limit and rolled a stop sign. Doesn't mean I should be thrown in the slammer, and not allowed to drive anymore or am a threat to society. I literally broke the student conduct code every time I consumed a beer in the dorms as an underage student. 

I don't believe that average students are punished more harshly than this and don't believe you were kicked off campus for "far far less" than consensual sex.

kshoe,

I don't think you understand the climate on college campuses due to Title IX.  I personally know of a kid who is probably your typical freshman.  Went to a typical college party.  He drank some, the girl drank some, they went back to her room, they fooled around some more (nothing - repeat nothing - went below the waist), and then they both fell asleep.  She woke up the next morning, regretted her decision, claimed the consent was not effective because of the alcohol, and the male student was suspended from the university for a whole semester.  The university is a private institution, but not a Catholic or religious one.  The kid was just your typical freshman - not on any sports teams.  She was just a typical freshman, no special connections.  Yes, kids do these things and make bad decisions, but universities are running scared of Title IX complaints because of the way the federal government overseas and reviews them.  Kids are routinely being suspended for much less than what was alleged happened here.  If the players are suspended, it will not be because the basketball program is held to a different standard.  We know about this incident because the kids happened to be on the team and therefore people notice their absence, but this happens in Title IX complaints all the time.

I think the fact that the university went outside to hire an investigator gives some hope for a more impartial review and analysis.  But if you know the fuller history and record of Title IX complaints, you'd be expecting some kind of punishment.  My guess is the players have been held out to date in the hope that the school will decide that is punishment enough, but I'm not optimistic (I'd be thrilled if we get one or more of them back, but truly surprised if we get them all back).  I'd prepare yourself for a less than ideal outcome.

 

 

[slufanskip]

3 hours ago, WestCoastBilliken said:

But the players literally broke multiple student code of conduct rules if the rumors are true.  So... im not really understanding here why people think they should be free from any punishment.  An average student would be looking at a lot of trouble as well with the student board. I dont recall the steps in punishment... but I had the unpleasant experience of dealing with the student conduct team and I was kicked off campus and on probation for far far less. 

I wonder how many times on a given Saturday night do drunk students have sex? I wonder how many of those take pics or video? As for just drunk sex, I'd bet it's over 100. Are we suspending all of them?

[Wendelprof]

5 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I wonder how many times on a given Saturday night do drunk students have sex? I wonder how many of those take pics or video? As for just drunk sex, I'd bet it's over 100. Are we suspending all of them?

Doesn't matter how many are doing it, what matters are how many are filing Title IX complaints.  Once that happens, the university is under a legal duty to treat it very differently.  And unfortunately, many universities de facto end up making an example of those kids in the hope that it will send a message to the other  kids who are doing it to be more careful and think more carefully before you act.  

[GBL_Bills]

9 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I wonder how many times on a given Saturday night do drunk students have sex? I wonder how many of those take pics or video? As for just drunk sex, I'd bet it's over 100. Are we suspending all of them?

No, because they're not being accused of sexual assault?

This isn't that hard. The players are not being prohibited from playing games because they got caught having sex. They're prohibited from playing because they were accused of sexual assault. Whether or not students should be suspended during a Title IX investigation is a different question, and one that can reasonably result in a debate.

[kappy96]

52 minutes ago, brianstl said:

 

I am not sure what Catholic institutions you have been to, but drinking is definitely not frowned upon.  It is only used when administrators want to get a student on something else, but can't.  The school serves beer on campus.  Catholic churches have grade school basketball tournaments were you can buy beer.  Catholic orders have their own wineries and distilleries.  Binge drinking? Sure they have a problem with that.  Just having some drinks?  They don't care as long as you don't do anything that can embarrass the institution or harm someone.

It is the drinking itself they are really going after.  They use it to ad to your punishment or to as way to punish you for something they can't get you on.

The first beer I was ever served while at SLU was bought by a Jesuit priest...

[TheA_Bomb]

This notion that the federal government is enforcing TIX is silly.  There's a federal law and all this stuff re sexual assault is guidelines.  There's a view that if you don't comply you may not get federal monies.  I haven't heard of one incidence where this occurred.  Even Baylor. 

[Tilkowsky]

4 hours ago, Spoon-Balls said:

 

As if you're the judge on what is moral... Let's just implement the Mike Pence view of "sexual morality" into SLU's handbook and see what happens.

 

With all of these hardcore evangelical Christians proclaiming to be the harbingers of "Christian values" lately (like good ol' Roy Moore), it's no surprise no one takes their archaic views on "sexual morality" seriously anymore....

I think you can put liberal Democrats into that category as well that includes you Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from NY.

[Wendelprof]

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

 

I am not sure what Catholic institutions you have been to, but drinking is definitely not frowned upon.  It is only used when administrators want to get a student on something else, but can't.  The school serves beer on campus.  Catholic churches have grade school basketball tournaments where you can buy beer.  Catholic orders have their own wineries and distilleries.  Binge drinking? Sure they have a problem with that.  Just having some drinks?  They don't care as long as you don't do anything that can embarrass the institution or harm someone.

It isn't the drinking itself they are really going after.  They use it to add to your punishment or as way to punish you for something they can't get you on.

Drinking tends to lead to diminished capacity.  Diminished capacity tends to make people vulnerable.  Taking advantage of one who is vulnerable is frowned upon, both morally and legally.   That fact that SLU is a Catholic institution definitely complicates that situation, but this is not a Catholic issue per se.  This is a sexual misconduct issue that we as a society are clearly struggling with.  And while different people can disagree on the issue, the federal government has taken a rather clear line with respect to these issues when it comes to Title IX complaints.  SLU has to be looking over its shoulder because it knows the federal government has a history of taking these issues very, very seriously, and the federal government will be watching.  Using an outside investigator may - notice I said "may" depending on what the person concluded - help the school in whatever decision it ultimately reaches.  The involvement of the outside investigator gives the school grounds to argue that whatever conclusion is reached, it was reached for objective reasons and not because of any internal pressures or biases.

[Tilkowsky]

4 hours ago, Spoon-Balls said:

What's your point? Does SLU bar gays and lesbians from enrolling? Punish students for using contraception? Discipline students for having pre marital sex? I'm pretty sure SLU does none of those things despite being a Catholic institution. Most people send their kids there because it is a great school, not because it explicitly follows conservative Catholic doctrine by the book.

 

Look my original point to the troll was that SLU can't just start making this whole case into a "Catholic sexual morality" one. That would be terrible precedent. 

The basketball players are high profile representatives of the University. They need to know better.

I have an idea - can we just cancel all the theology and religion requirements at SLU then?

how about auctioning off the College Church as well?

 

[Wendelprof]

13 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

This notion that the federal government is enforcing TIX is silly.  There's a federal law and all this stuff re sexual assault is guidelines.  There's a view that if you don't comply you may not get federal monies.  I haven't heard of one incidence where this occurred.  Even Baylor. 

A number of universities recently were sent letters from the federal government that basically put them on notice that the federal government did not think they were in compliance with Title IX, and if they didn't change their Title IX procedures the government might take the school's punishment to the next level.  Those letters have put the fear of the federal government in all universities.  Whether the school received a letter or not, by making an example of those schools the federal government sent a message to all universities it is getting serious.  Moreover, some private groups have used the fact that a school was sent a Title IX compliance letter to bash the school on social media, thereby making it harder for that school to recruit students.  The notion that the federal government is enforcing Title IX is not silly to those in the business of running universities.

[slufan13]

Who is arguing that there shouldn't have been an investigation? I'm so confused. Pestello supporters are out in full force today.

Regardless, the case is fully in SLU's hands now. No more excuses for delays. So I'll say say what many others have said. Make a f.uckin.g decision.

[Billboy1]

Appears there is not enough pressure being put on SLU to make a decision. 

[Tilkowsky]

2 minutes ago, slufan13 said:

Who is arguing that there shouldn't have been an investigation? I'm so confused. Pestello supporters are out in full force today.

Regardless, the case is fully in SLU's hands now. No more excuses for delays. So I'll say say what many others have said. Make a f.uckin.g decision.

Again, stop worrying about Basketball games

Did you ever consider you may not like the decision?

[slufan13]

1 minute ago, Tilkowsky said:

Again, stop worrying about Basketball games

Did you ever consider you may not like the decision?

With SLU's current administration, there's a very good chance I won't like the decision. But they still need to make a decision.

[Tilkowsky]

1 minute ago, Billboy1 said:

Appears there is not enough pressure being put on SLU to make a decision. 

If the accusers were a daughter of yours - would you want a rush to judgement.

Again, you may not like the decision.

Who are you to demand anything?, 

[Tilkowsky]

Just now, slufan13 said:

With SLU's current administration, there's a very good chance I won't like the decision. 

Let's say for example that they make the players sit out a whole year.

How is that the administrations fault?

[Wendelprof]

17 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

This notion that the federal government is enforcing TIX is silly.  There's a federal law and all this stuff re sexual assault is guidelines.  There's a view that if you don't comply you may not get federal monies.  I haven't heard of one incidence where this occurred.  Even Baylor. 

Even Baylor?  Not sure that's the best example.  Once Baylor realized that it had a problem with the way it was handling its Title IX complaint process, and that the problem had gone public, the university moved to try to send that message that there was no need for the government to step in and punish the university because it would punish itself.   Remember Baylor's Board of Trustee moved in and instilled its own punishment - which included firing a number of university administrators and forcing the then President of Baylor, Ken Starr, to step down.  Baylor tried a pre-emptive punishment in the hope the federal government wouldn't punish it more severely.  (Maybe similar to SLU's immediate suspension of the players - acknowledging that the university understood the severity of the situation - but then maybe giving the university a little more leeway with the final punishment when the process was all said and done).

[Wendelprof]

4 minutes ago, slufan13 said:

With SLU's current administration, there's a very good chance I won't like the decision. But they still need to make a decision.

I assume a decision has been made by now, but due process, a well-recognized right in our judicial process, gives both parties a right to appeal.  I assume we are in the appeal period now (or will be shortly).

Dispute resolution moves slowly when the risk of litigation is present (which it definitely is here).  If there is subsequent legal action, moving quickly with respect to the underlying decision will look much worse than moving slowly and deliberately to show that there was no rush to judgment, and the decision was made after the emotional component of the matter had died down.

Let the process play itself out. 

[DirtyRican]

Handbook?  I was caught drunk pissing in the ice machine on 2 Walsh and all I received was a 3 day vacation from fall baseball practices.  I don’t know if Title 9 was involved but do know I received a summons of sorts from res life after 2 days then suspended that afternoon. 

Maybe this isn’t covered in the handbook.  

[billiken_roy]

Just now, Wendelprof said:

I assume a decision has been made by now, but due process, a well-recognized right in our judicial process, gives both parties a right to appeal.  I assume we are in the appeal period now (or will be shortly).

Dispute resolution moves slowly when the risk of litigation is present (which it definitely is here).  If there is subsequent legal action, moving quickly with respect to the underlying decision will look much worse than moving slowly and deliberately to show that there was no rush to judgment, and the decision was made after the emotional component of the matter had died down.

Let the process play itself out. 

we've done that for nearly 3 months.   it took nbc about 3 hours to fire matt lauer.   

please post the time line and actual duties being performed that justify three months to still not make a decision.   i assume most of the three months is adjustment for committee personal schedules regulating the rights of the accused to a secondary status and painfully dragging this out for everyone.   there is no reasonable reason this has went on this long.  

 

make a decision.