Sweeping Sexual Assault Suit Filed Against UT

[vol66]

Yeah, it is starting to happen everywhere, because people are seeing a loophole in title 9 where you can not satisfy all parties of it. That is why we are being "added to list of schools being investigated". Has Tn made mistakes or handle situations better, I am sure they could have, but to imply Tn 'is a problem' probably not true.

I don't know if UT is a problem, what does that mean? Compared to what?

Do we have a problem?

We have two former players awaiting trial for Aggravated Rape.

We have six or seven women alleging sexual assault and that the University didn't handle it properly.

We have a former employee of 38 years who resigned who actually warned this might happen.

We can put our heads in the sand like the fans at PSU who were turning over ambulances in protest or put our hands over our ears like UNC and rock back and forth saying "Roy didn't know, Roy didn't know, Roy..."

Or we can hope to get to the bottom of it and fix it, because obviously, at the very least UT needs to do it better.

"We are eager to respond to the other allegations in the lawsuit and will do so through the judicial process."

That's the statement from UT in 2012 regarding the Debby Jennings lawsuit. They never did "respond", they settled in 2014 right at the cap of what can be awarded.


There's no cap this time.

 

[BruinVol]

I don't know if UT is a problem, what does that mean? Compared to what?

Do we have a problem?

We have two former players awaiting trial for Aggravated Rape.

We have six or seven women alleging sexual assault and that the University didn't handle it properly.

We have a former employee of 38 years who resigned who actually warned this might happen.

We can put our heads in the sand like the fans at PSU who were turning over ambulances in protest or put our hands over our ears like UNC and rock back and forth saying "Roy didn't know, Roy didn't know, Roy..."

Or we can hope to get to the bottom of it and fix it, because obviously, at the very least UT needs to do it better.

"We are eager to respond to the other allegations in the lawsuit and will do so through the judicial process."

That's the statement from UT in 2012 regarding the Debby Jennings lawsuit. They never did "respond", they settled in 2014 right at the cap of what can be awarded.


There's no cap this time.

66,

No doubt your one of my favorite posters here. When you post it's worth reading because you 100% tell it like it is even when it's not popular.

This Board doesn't want to even consider tenn has done anything wrong in this deal and that's flat out being a homer for sure

 

[VFL-82-JP]

vol66, you're showing a bias in your response.

Unless you are an insider with access the rest of us don't have, you can't yet know whether "UT needs to do it better." It may be that UT has done it just about as well as the student body, their families, the state of Tennessee, and the federal government could reasonably expect them to do (once they knew all the facts). That's what the upcoming trial is about, is finding out (through a judge and jury) whether UT did do it reasonably well, or "needs to do it better."

Let's not rush to judgment in either direction. Far too much of that going on already in the print media of the state, and some TV/radio personalities as well.

 

[volnpowell]

66,

No doubt your one of my favorite posters here. When you post it's worth reading because you 100% tell it like it is even when it's not popular.

This Board doesn't want to even consider tenn has done anything wrong in this deal and that's flat out being a homer for sure

I do not know about others, but I did not say "did nothing wrong", but what I am saying is I believe this is more along the lines of yes Tn could have done this or done that better like any school, but not a problem school that suit is implying. No school is perfect nor is any player or person. Sometimes players just like any other person may make mistakes and may need to go to court to settle that mistake, but imo, I do not think Tn is turning a blind eye or trying to help athlete even if believe guilty. I also believe most of this is a money grab because no matter how Tn or any school handles it they can be sued by either side. Title 9 needs MAJOR adustments!!!!!

 

[vol66]

vol66, you're showing a bias in your response.

Unless you are an insider with access the rest of us don't have, you can't yet know whether "UT needs to do it better." It may be that UT has done it just about as well as the student body, their families, the state of Tennessee, and the federal government could reasonably expect them to do (once they knew all the facts). That's what the upcoming trial is about, is finding out (through a judge and jury) whether UT did do it reasonably well, or "needs to do it better."

Let's not rush to judgment in either direction. Far too much of that going on already in the print media of the state, and some TV/radio personalities as well.

How can I put this...

How do these players football, basketball etc... end up with these attorneys?

How come the accusers aren't steered towards those attorneys?

Obviously, UT can't pay the legal fees for the players, that would be an "extra benefit"...still they seem to have access to attorneys and it sure seems other student's don't.


That's all fine, happens everywhere...

These guys are s'pose to handle the player's legal matters...but the hearings at the school aren't really legal matters. Which kind of hearing should the player have? Does the lawyer influence his decision, "well this type of hearing can't be held against you in a court of law, the other one can."

How long does it take? Can we put this off until after the season starts, or can this be taken care of by summer workouts?

Where is the alleged victim while all this is going on? Who is advising her about the best road to take? Did the accused with all the benefits of the Thornton Center have his class schedule changed so that the the accuser would not have to face the accused in class or did they change the alleged victims class schedule so that the accused athlete could maintain his normal schedule?

Does she have a choice?

These are the kinds of questions that should be asked, along with some others that quite honestly I'm Afraid to bring up on this board.

There is no doubt in my mind that UT should have handled a lot of this better. Whether it costs them anything and whether there's a change in leadership, we'll see.

 

[vol66]

66,

No doubt your one of my favorite posters here. When you post it's worth reading because you 100% tell it like it is even when it's not popular.

This Board doesn't want to even consider tenn has done anything wrong in this deal and that's flat out being a homer for sure

Reminded me of this, kind of on topic even...


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNc45FTenhg[/youtube]

 

[Iam4utalways]

Title IX has made it where there is no right way. So the only way to do it is wrong. I think the spirit of the law should be considered. Along with the spirit in which those that execute the procedures and have conducted the investigations, have acted.

Allegations have been levied, if true major change is needed and the whole process is corrupt.

How ever, if the allegations are exaggerated to entice a quick settlement, it could still be on track, but exaggerated facts are not the truth.

Let's get to the truth and make necessary adjustments to conduct investigations with integrity.

I hope they all get what they deserve.

Nobody is for rape. No rape culture.

 

[vol66]

Title IX has made it where there is no right way. So the only way to do it is wrong. I think the spirit of the law should be considered. Along with the spirit in which those that execute the procedures and have conducted the investigations, have acted.

Allegations have been levied, if true major change is needed and the whole process is corrupt.

How ever, if the allegations are exaggerated to entice a quick settlement, it could still be on track, but exaggerated facts are not the truth.

Let's get to the truth and make necessary adjustments to conduct investigations with integrity.

I hope they all get what they deserve.

Nobody is for rape. No rape culture.

There will be nothing quick about this unless UT decides they don't want to carry this into the football season.

Jenny Moshak filed in 2010, settlement in January of this year...

Of course the press on this makes it a different animal and because it's relatable to football...like I said we'll see.

 

[drylo]

April 24, 2015, Von Pearson Incident

June 18, 2015, Haslam hires Bill Ramsey

"They (the university) understood this lawsuit would be coming," Ramsey said.


One question I have is this...if they knew the lawsuit was coming did it influence the way they handled Von Pearson?

My whole point was that UT responded to the Pearson situation in April. If they didn't hire Ramsey until two months later, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that UT knew a lawsuit was coming in April.

Another question I have is who is paying this lawyer, are we the taxpayers on the hook for this?

Of course. Which is why you're stupid schtick is even more annoying than it otherwise would be (although I will make a point of saying that the legal fees incurred to date have been extremely reasonable).

Where is the alleged victim while all this is going on? Who is advising her about the best road to take? Did the accused with all the benefits of the Thornton Center have his class schedule changed so that the the accuser would not have to face the accused in class or did they change the alleged victims class schedule so that the accused athlete could maintain his normal schedule?

You are assuming that all accusations are true--which is stupid.

I'm sick of reading your ignorant crap on this subject.

 

[volger]

Thank you. :hi: My mistake. But we'll have to agree to disagree on what certain articles were implying with the way they told the timeline story.



UT (the school, not the football program) did handle Pearson's case more harshly. By not wanting to appear to show favoritism, they instead showed prejudice. They suspended him based on allegations alone. No evidence. Look where that got them. They were wrong. He could have sued the school (and won) for denying him an education. Maybe he should. That could help their case by showing they're in a no-win situation. Schools don't have the resources or expertise to handle cases of this seriousness.

With how they handled Johnson/Williams. There is nothing to suggest they handled it inappropriately. They allowed the young men to continue getting an education until they were indicted. Their alleged incident happened off-campus. What evidence would the school have had access to that would have supported the accuser's claims over Johnson/Williams?

They should be discredited for offering a degree in law then

 

[vol66]

My whole point was that UT responded to the Pearson situation in April. If they didn't hire Ramsey until two months later, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that UT knew a lawsuit was coming in April.



Of course. Which is why you're stupid schtick is even more annoying than it otherwise would be (although I will make a point of saying that the legal fees incurred to date have been extremely reasonable).



You are assuming that all accusations are true--which is stupid.

I'm sick of reading your ignorant crap on this subject.

Needed a good laugh, thanks. :birgits_giggle:

 

[AM64]

I'll just say it like this. In the past couple of years UT (Athletic Dept.) has settled lawsuits with former employees to the tune of one million dollars.

We've been added to the list of schools being investigated by the Office of Civil Rights AND ...We're also now involved in a federal lawsuit.

It's cool, happens everywhere.

Have you scanned through the "Dear Colleague Letter"; the one Dear Leader in N Korea might be proud of?

"Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. It includes unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a
sexual nature. Sexual violence is a form of sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX."

That statement could cover gay pride exhibition.

Or how about: "If a school knows or reasonably should know about student-on-student harassment that
creates a hostile environment, Title IX requires the school to take immediate action to eliminate
the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects."

"Or reasonably should know" - now that's an open ended invitation to failure. Who defines "reasonably" - I see a lot of room for second guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking. Perhaps "reasonably should know" is code language that athletics should be banned because athletes tend to be aggressive and risk takers - at least to some - and, therefore, not a reasonable risk around naive students. Maybe UT fails for not having Thought Police on campus to sniff these things out. Or maybe only men's sports should be banned since female athletes haven't raped anyone to our knowledge. But then perhaps men don't change their mind the next day or the day after that, and we should "reasonably" know that, too.

Then there is that action clause with words like "immediate" and "eliminate" and "prevent". Of course, nobody at the DOE described "the" plan. Federal government cowards don't do that; rather they, after the fact, pick apart anything that anyone implements. "Find me a rock - no not that one - or that one - I'll know the right one if I see it."

You see, the thing is you can never implement a satisfactory plan because there isn't one - there will always be something new that no one could have foreseen - which goes back to that "reasonable" thing. Unless you can tell the future or have an HD crystal ball, you're going to fail. We have had laws on the books for years and years to stop violent crime - not "he said she said" games - and they haven't stopped violent crime anywhere at anytime. Tell me of any federal, state, or local government entity that owns up to that "failure".

"So here's to you old Tennessee,"

"Oh, I say and I say it again, ya been had!

Ya been took!

Ya been hoodwinked!

Bamboozled!

Led astray!

Run amok!"

by good ole faceless bureaucrats in Washington who have set themselves up another self perpetuating empire on your backs and with your money.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

There will be nothing quick about this unless UT decides they don't want to carry this into the football season.

Jenny Moshak filed in 2010, settlement in January of this year...

Of course the press on this makes it a different animal and because it's relatable to football...like I said we'll see.

Orr of me feels like the longer this drags on, the better it is for the university, honestly.

Other Title IX lawsuits will pop up too and UT's will be old news by the time it's finished.

 

[drylo]

Needed a good laugh, thanks. :birgits_giggle:

Yep. Ignore.

 

[vol66]

Orr of me feels like the longer this drags on, the better it is for the university, honestly.

Other Title IX lawsuits will pop up too and UT's will be old news by the time it's finished.

I'd venture that's right...The strategy is wear down the other side financially...hasn't really worked the last few years.

 

[vol66]

Yep. Ignore.

So sensitive...oh well.

 

[volfan102455]

I believe some on here forget that there is the criminal process and then there is the process that the University must use to make decisions on whether a student is allowed to continue with their education at the school. These are not the same but some seem to be mixing the two as if they are the same.

For the criminal process, the plaintiff has the district attorney representing their case, the accused must secure their own attorney to defend themselves. They have a right to do so when being investigated for criminal charges. More than likely in most, if not all these situations, the attorney was due to the police investigation not the investigation by the university.

Then there is the decision that the school must make which quite honestly should be the lessor concern. Even in this decision, it is the accused that must make their case for being allowed to continue with their education while the criminal side of the equation continues. Most folks don't lose their jobs just because they are accused of a crime unless that crime is in direct conflict with their job.

For those of you who believe the procedures are wrong. What exactly do you think is wrong? Surely you don't believe it would be fair to punish someone without that person being able to plead their case and defend themselves?

 

[volfan102455]

How can I put this...

How do these players football, basketball etc... end up with these attorneys?

Have you ever considered they may get them on their own? If there is a police investigation going on they have a right to and should have an attorney.

How come the accusers aren't steered towards those attorneys?

The district attorney is working the criminal case. The proceedings before the University is and should not be a criminal case and no one is or should be on trial.

Obviously, UT can't pay the legal fees for the players, that would be an "extra benefit"...still they seem to have access to attorneys and it sure seems other student's don't.

You don't know that, neither do I. I suspect though that a non athlete accused of a similar crime would have an attorney for the criminal side of this. You act like folks don't have ready access to an attorney. Most people do and can secure one if they need to.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

I'd venture that's right...The strategy is wear down the other side financially...hasn't really worked the last few years.

Yeah that's partly why I'm glad they're really digging in and battling it any way they can.

The longer the better IMO, sports fans are already getting tired of hearing about this. Attention spans are too short these days for people to care about something that's been in the news too long.

 

[vol66]

I believe some on here forget that there is the criminal process and then there is the process that the University must use to make decisions on whether a student is allowed to continue with their education at the school. These are not the same but some seem to be mixing the two as if they are the same.

For the criminal process, the plaintiff has the district attorney representing their case, the accused must secure their own attorney to defend themselves. They have a right to do so when being investigated for criminal charges. More than likely in most, if not all these situations, the attorney was due to the police investigation not the investigation by the university.

Then there is the decision that the school must make which quite honestly should be the lessor concern. Even in this decision, it is the accused that must make their case for being allowed to continue with their education while the criminal side of the equation continues. Most folks don't lose their jobs just because they are accused of a crime unless that crime is in direct conflict with their job.

For those of you who believe the procedures are wrong. What exactly do you think is wrong? Surely you don't believe it would be fair to punish someone without that person being able to plead their case and defend themselves?

There are two different tracts.

Let's take Von Pearson, AJ Johnson and Michael Williams.

Legal Tract

AJ Johnson and Michael Williams were charged with a crime. That means the DA decided there was enough evidence to go to a grand jury.

They are awaiting trial.


School Tract

AJ Johnson was suspended from the football team but remained in school, was around the football program and graduated.

Michael Williams was dismissed from the football program or in UT's own words...June 1, 2015

When asked if Williams remained indefinitely suspended or was now dismissed, Yellin said, “We’ve moved on.”

Yet he was still enrolled in school. Not sure if he graduated.

What we don't know is what University hearings took place that allowed Williams, who Butch Jones dismissed from the football team, to remain in school while charged with two counts of aggravated rape.

We also don't know what hearings took place, whether they were delayed to allow AJ Johnson to not only remain in school, be around the football team, and graduate.

Or if in either case, any hearings took place at all. Was the accuser afforded all the players were or did she just throw her hands up and say, football players...no one will believe me?


Von Pearson

Legal Tract

Never charged with anything.

School Tract

Suspended from the football team and placed on interim suspension from the school.

Had a hearing on May 4th and was reinstated by Maxine Davis, two days later Vince Carilli overturned Maxine Davis.

No reason was given to Pearson's attorney who was referred to UT attorneys.

After the DA declined to pursue charges based on a Negative DNA test Pearson voluntarily submitted, he was allowed to return to school and the team in August.

Three student athletes accused of similar things handled three different ways and the accusers involved are parties to this lawsuit.

Since you asked, sometimes the accuser has the DA...but not all of these alleged victims pursue the legal avenue and choose to just deal with it through the school, this message board is a perfect reason for why they'd choose to go a less publicized way, but it happens and then it's up to her and her family to figure it out versus a high powered attorney who really doesn't want to deal with school hearings and simply tries to delay them until the plaintiff either runs out of steam or his client has gotten where he needs to go.

Most of the time this "gets worked out"...obviously it hasn't here...yet.

BTW Vince Carilli replaced Tim Rodgers.

 

[Remy]

April 24, 2015, Von Pearson Incident

June 18, 2015, Haslam hires Bill Ramsey

"They (the university) understood this lawsuit would be coming," Ramsey said.


One question I have is this...if they knew the lawsuit was coming did it influence the way they handled Von Pearson?

Another question I have is who is paying this lawyer, are we the taxpayers on the hook for this?

Von Pearson never convicted of a crime. Rather than. It being the "Von Pearson" incident further tarring a still innocent man, why not incident of xyz date or accuser xyz? Why must an innocent person be forever linked to a crime he did not commit?

 

[drylo]

Surely you don't believe it would be fair to punish someone without that person being able to plead their case and defend themselves?

One would think...

 

[UT-Rex]

Quote:
Originally Posted by vol66 View Post
I don't know if UT is a problem, what does that mean? Compared to what?

Do we have a problem?

We have two former players awaiting trial for Aggravated Rape.

We have six or seven women alleging sexual assault and that the University didn't handle it properly.

We have a former employee of 38 years who resigned who actually warned this might happen.

We can put our heads in the sand like the fans at PSU who were turning over ambulances in protest or put our hands over our ears like UNC and rock back and forth saying "Roy didn't know, Roy didn't know, Roy..."

Or we can hope to get to the bottom of it and fix it, because obviously, at the very least UT needs to do it better.

"We are eager to respond to the other allegations in the lawsuit and will do so through the judicial process."

That's the statement from UT in 2012 regarding the Debby Jennings lawsuit. They never did "respond", they settled in 2014 right at the cap of what can be awarded.


There's no cap this time.

66,

No doubt your one of my favorite posters here. When you post it's worth reading because you 100% tell it like it is even when it's not popular.

This Board doesn't want to even consider tenn has done anything wrong in this deal and that's flat out being a homer for sure

Are you 2 saying the school has a problem/ has done wrong, in that it has been TOO harsh on those player-students who made mistakes?

Because here's what this article (wbir.com) is reporting: "The 2013 report, which included two outside experts from Duke and Clemson universities, concluded that the (tenn) office was taking a "punitive approach in holding students accountable for their actions."

 

[82_VOL_83]

I hope this is not a popular sentiment, maybe it is.

Don't go down that rabbit hole, you will never find your way back.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

How can I put this...

How do these players football, basketball etc... end up with these attorneys?

How come the accusers aren't steered towards those attorneys?

Obviously, UT can't pay the legal fees for the players, that would be an "extra benefit"...still they seem to have access to attorneys and it sure seems other student's don't.


That's all fine, happens everywhere...

These guys are s'pose to handle the player's legal matters...but the hearings at the school aren't really legal matters. Which kind of hearing should the player have? Does the lawyer influence his decision, "well this type of hearing can't be held against you in a court of law, the other one can."

How long does it take? Can we put this off until after the season starts, or can this be taken care of by summer workouts?

Where is the alleged victim while all this is going on? Who is advising her about the best road to take? Did the accused with all the benefits of the Thornton Center have his class schedule changed so that the the accuser would not have to face the accused in class or did they change the alleged victims class schedule so that the accused athlete could maintain his normal schedule?

Does she have a choice?

These are the kinds of questions that should be asked, along with some others that quite honestly I'm Afraid to bring up on this board.

There is no doubt in my mind that UT should have handled a lot of this better. Whether it costs them anything and whether there's a change in leadership, we'll see.

That's a lot of words for two simple questions:

1. How do the accused players get access to attorneys, and do the accusers also have access? (you don't answer this question, you just ask it); and

2. How do class schedules get rearranged so that the accused and accuser don't have to see each other? (again, you don't answer the question, only ask it).

So from asking two questions that you don't even answer, neither of which involves the university as an active participant as far as we can see, you conclude that the university "should have handled a lot of this better."

A lot of what? Only thing I see in your response is a lot of superfluous words.

Not trying to be mean or nasty, just pointing out that you're making no sense. Perhaps you're an insider who can see things the rest of us can't, but if so, you're not doing a very good job of sharing your unique viewpoint. As a result, you come across as biased against the institution without valid reason.