Sweeping Sexual Assault Suit Filed Against UT

[VFL-82-JP]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't work for UT. I'm asking questions that interest me that I would think the other side would ask for the sole purpose of trying to be fair to that side. There are plenty here that have the backs of the other side.

Fair enough.

I'm gonna sit in the middle and wait for the folks whose job it is to sort it all out. :hi:

 

[vol66]

I am not 100% sure either

I would bet 66 knows

I wasn't implying UT was breaking an NCAA rule, in fact I added the "extra benefit" part so the discussion wouldn't go there on purpose. Oh well.

The point is, obviously someone is advising the athletes, are alleged victims getting the same kind of help?

The last amendment from UT's side had a list of attorneys they might call as witnesses and of course the other side has mentioned attorneys as well.

 

[Iam4utalways]

I wasn't implying UT was breaking an NCAA rule, in fact I added the "extra benefit" part so the discussion wouldn't go there on purpose. Oh well.

The point is, obviously someone is advising the athletes, are alleged victims getting the same kind of help?

The last amendment from UT's side had a list of attorneys they might call as witnesses and of course the other side has mentioned attorneys as well.

Sounds like they have a lawyer to protect their interests. Maybe when they went to UT court and the ones accused of rape had a lawyer, they figured it out on their own they needed one too.

Getting a lawyer for free I would imagine is difficult. Getting a great lawyer for free even harder.

 

[82_VOL_83]

How did they modify their policy? Who criticized them?

Or are you saying that about the time of the Von Pearson incident (April 24, 2015) that the OCR received complaints on May 15th, and 18th and UT was notified on June 29 and July 1st that they would be investigating and that UT was added to their ever growing list of schools being investigated.

Are you saying that's why they "modified" their policy. There is no proof that they "seemingly followed their policy." In fact not only do the plaintiffs say it, former employees lost their jobs or resigned over their complaints on this issue.



This last passage almost makes me want to throw up. The players have no say in who is or isn't on the sidelines and if UT had any PR skills at all, or a legal team worth a poop they never would have allowed it to happen.

The fact that she was no longer attending school and AJ is allowed on the field as if nothing ever happened is EXACTLY why the University finds it's self in this position.

As for the school leaking info, being naive is a choice. Fine by me.

As for Peyton, it has less to do with him and more about how Mike Rollo dealt with the incident. You can't tell an alleged victim who also happens to be a direct report how she should handle the incident and what it's going to be called...AKA a mooning. That's why the judge said it stays and it really is that simple.

BartW's football forum alt.

 

[Remy]

I wasn't implying UT was breaking an NCAA rule, in fact I added the "extra benefit" part so the discussion wouldn't go there on purpose. Oh well.

The point is, obviously someone is advising the athletes, are alleged victims getting the same kind of help?

The last amendment from UT's side had a list of attorneys they might call as witnesses and of course the other side has mentioned attorneys as well.

The answer to "are alleged victims getting the same kind of help?" is a decided YES. It's called the KPD and Knox County DA's office (pretty much the same everywhere) as well as victims assistance programs. Those are in total support and in an advisory role to the accusers as long as there is a criminal case under investigation or being pursued. Once it's determined there is no prosecution going forward, they are on their own unless various groups decide to fund for them. It would be more than interesting to follow the money as to who is funding the civil suit for the accusers with no criminal prosecutions underway.

 

[BruinVol]

Just because someone understands how something works doesn't give them the ability to implement their understanding. Basically, the school would not have access to the alleged off-campus crime scene. And even if they did have access to it, they wouldn't have the tools to run all the proper tests on their findings. That should be solely on the local police departments and why Title IX works better in theory than application. In these cases, the schools' information can come from the accuser, the accused, and possible witnesses. With only that information (he-said/she-said), how are they qualified to thoroughly investigate and be expected to discipline appropriately?

This isn't correct

Universities have a duty to proceed the accuser a "safe" learning environment away from the accused BEFORE guilt is determined.

So changing the victims schedule would be one way to do that. The other wound be changing the accused schedule

 

[vol66]

The answer to "are alleged victims getting the same kind of help?" is a decided YES. It's called the KPD and Knox County DA's office (pretty much the same everywhere) as well as victims assistance programs. Those are in total support and in an advisory role to the accusers as long as there is a criminal case under investigation or being pursued. Once it's determined there is no prosecution going forward, they are on their own unless various groups decide to fund for them. It would be more than interesting to follow the money as to who is funding the civil suit for the accusers with no criminal prosecutions underway.

I'm talking about the school hearings, not the legal proceedings. Who helps the alleged victims navigate the universities' process. The athletes hire these attorneys for the legal proceedings and those same attorneys help them navigate the university hearings most of the time if not all of the time.

There are two different types of hearings.

It's very complicated and unfortunately I don't have time to get into all of it because it's BASEBALL TIME IN TENNEESSEE!

 

[butchna]

Doug Matthews preaching truth this morning on Title IX. Straightforward and sane perspective.

 

[AM64]

Anybody who complains about someone who has been accused of a crime that carries a minimum sentence of 8 years in Tennessee having a lawyer has told me all I need to know to immediately discount their ramblings.

Absolutely, because all or parts of the school's administrative investigation might be admissible in an accused's criminal trial. That would trample all over the right to counsel and the right to avoid self incrimination which frequently starts out as "on the advice of counsel..." Further troubling is that the administrative process may bias a criminal trial - if the administrative process results in suspension of the student - then it must have found that the student/accused was considered guilty. Now if the school's administrative process decided to suspend the accused for something like poor conduct related to alcohol use, it better do absolutely the same for the accuser; and that is another really big can of worms - the appearance of punishing the accuser. Title IX originators obviously weren't intelligent enough to realize they were creating a monster, or maybe they didn't care and had a different agenda.

 

[AM64]

What if they get the best lawyers at a cheaper rate because they play football?

What if someone gets the best lawyer at a cheap rate because they are friends, friends of friends, members of the same church, or because the client twenty years ago played for .... Do you really believe that all people pay the same for legal representation or receive the same quality of legal representation for the same price? Neither of us might like that it happens, but that's life.

 

[82_VOL_83]

This isn't correct

Universities have a duty to proceed the accuser a "safe" learning environment away from the accused BEFORE guilt is determined.

So changing the victims schedule would be one way to do that. The other wound be changing the accused schedule

Not what the post was about.

 

[AM64]

I wasn't implying UT was breaking an NCAA rule, in fact I added the "extra benefit" part so the discussion wouldn't go there on purpose. Oh well.

The point is, obviously someone is advising the athletes, are alleged victims getting the same kind of help?

The last amendment from UT's side had a list of attorneys they might call as witnesses and of course the other side has mentioned attorneys as well.

The accused may find his words later used in a criminal court because there doesn't seem to be anything precluding it unless his lawyer manages to have it excluded as hearsay. If that happened, there would probably be complete political uproar about denigrating Title IX to the level of hearsay. The accuser on the other hand might be accused of perjury, but then then he/she always had the option to never have falsely accused someone. The accused has to defend himself or herself or suffer the consequences; the accuser always has an option to accuse or not and to do so in a fair, honest manner.

 

[AM64]

Sounds like they have a lawyer to protect their interests. Maybe when they went to UT court and the ones accused of rape had a lawyer, they figured it out on their own they needed one too.

Getting a lawyer for free I would imagine is difficult. Getting a great lawyer for free even harder.

Great lawyer aside. It makes you wonder if the lawyer in the civil case would have represented pro bono one of the accusers in an administrative setting because he believed her and in her plight ("discrimination by the athletic department and school"). My guess - no way in hell.

 

[butchna]

Great lawyer aside. It makes you wonder if the lawyer in the civil case would have represented pro bono one of the accusers in an administrative setting because he believed her and in her plight ("discrimination by the athletic department and school"). My guess - no way in hell.

Are you suggesting that those lawyers are free to represent the oppressed but won't do it FOR FREE? :question:

 

[Kristy*]

This isn't correct

Universities have a duty to proceed the accuser a "safe" learning environment away from the accused BEFORE guilt is determined.

So changing the victims schedule would be one way to do that. The other wound be changing the accused schedule

Not what the post was about.

Ha. Yeah, but I'll respond anyways; I think I'm following you Bruin.

Bruin, say you and I attend UT. I don't like you. I accuse you of something and demand your schedule be changed, before you have an opportunity to defend yourself of said accusation. Not only is altering your schedule an inconvenience; it could potentially derail your graduation track if you weren't able to get all the classes you need. Why would the school have to alter your schedule? What's fair in that, and where is the process? Now, in this same situation, they should unequivocally allow me the opportunity to change my schedule to avoid situations with you or in which I would feel threatened or uncomfortable. Follow what I'm saying?

 

[drylo]

Great lawyer aside. It makes you wonder if the lawyer in the civil case would have represented pro bono one of the accusers in an administrative setting because he believed her and in her plight ("discrimination by the athletic department and school"). My guess - no way in hell.

I get your point (the plaintiffs' lawyers are in it for the money), and I agree.

But you are granting the premise that the accuser needs a lawyer in the accused's school disciplinary proceedings... Why? The accused is "on trial," so the accused obviously should be entitled to a lawyer (especially when the accusation is that the accused committed a serious felony)... But why in the world does the accuser need a lawyer? The accuser isn't on trial. The accuser isn't a party to the proceeding at all. That's like saying I need a lawyer in your criminal trial--it makes no sense. Of course, I have a right to hire a lawyer to advise me any time I like, but there's no obvious reason why I need a lawyer in connection with your trial.

 

[volfan102455]

I get your point (the plaintiffs' lawyers are in it for the money), and I agree.

But you are granting the premise that the accuser needs a lawyer in the accused's school disciplinary proceedings... Why? The accused is "on trial," so the accused obviously should be entitled to a lawyer (especially when the accusation is that the accused committed a serious felony)... But why in the world does the accuser need a lawyer? The accuser isn't on trial. The accuser isn't a party to the proceeding at all. That's like saying I need a lawyer in your criminal trial--it makes no sense. Of course, I have a right to hire a lawyer to advise me any time I like, but there's no obvious reason why I need a lawyer in connection with your trial.

I am with you - I don't understand why there is focus on what the accuser should have supplied to them in these cases. They are not the one who may get kicked out of school. They in fact are asking a university to punish someone with that punishment possibly being to deny that person an education.

I know some would like for UT to cave - but some university is going to need to take one of these cases to closure to stop the madness and get some clarity around these type of situations. Otherwise, this is going to be a constant drain on $$'s that should be spent educating those students who make smart choices with not only their education but with their life as well.

 

[AM64]

Are you suggesting that those lawyers are free to represent the oppressed but won't do it FOR FREE? :question:

Yepper. But many things are done on a contingency basis, and they are in the business for a livelihood, so I'll temper just a little my condemnation of the typical ambulance chaser in a civil case. Defending someone at no cost in a criminal matter is actually commendable.

 

[AM64]

I get your point (the plaintiffs' lawyers are in it for the money), and I agree.

But you are granting the premise that the accuser needs a lawyer in the accused's school disciplinary proceedings... Why? The accused is "on trial," so the accused obviously should be entitled to a lawyer (especially when the accusation is that the accused committed a serious felony)... But why in the world does the accuser need a lawyer? The accuser isn't on trial. The accuser isn't a party to the proceeding at all. That's like saying I need a lawyer in your criminal trial--it makes no sense. Of course, I have a right to hire a lawyer to advise me any time I like, but there's no obvious reason why I need a lawyer in connection with your trial.

Drylo, we're really on the same page. I said in the post prior to this one that an accuser who made an fair, honest accusation - one which the accuser didn't perjure himself or herself, then the accuser wouldn't need a lawyer.

My point in this response was to one that seemed to be implying that the accuser might also want a lawyer in the school's administrative process; and that unlike an athlete, might not be able to find adequate pro bono representation. And I was being a little snarky by suggesting that the lawyer representing the Jane Doe's in the civil case probably wouldn't have seen fit to help any one of them out at no cost in UT's administrative process - that his great concern for the plaintiffs has a lot to do with expectation of a very lucrative settlement and publicity.

 

[drylo]

Drylo, we're really on the same page. I said in the post prior to this one that an accuser who made an fair, honest accusation - one which the accuser didn't perjure himself or herself, then the accuser wouldn't need a lawyer.

My point in this response was to one that seemed to be implying that the accuser might also want a lawyer in the school's administrative process; and that unlike an athlete, might not be able to find adequate pro bono representation. And I was being a little snarky by suggesting that the lawyer representing the Jane Doe's in the civil case probably wouldn't have seen fit to help any one of them out at no cost in UT's administrative process - that his great concern for the plaintiffs has a lot to do with expectation of a very lucrative settlement and publicity.

Gotcha. I detected the snark, and I follow. 👍🏼

(I wasn't really trying to come across as arguing with you.)

 

[AM64]

Gotcha. I detected the snark, and I follow. 👍🏼

(I wasn't really trying to come across as arguing with you.)

I didn't take it that way - just that we weren't quite on the same wavelength. The "You better be smiling when you say that" factor doesn't always come across in posts, and some things that appear very clear in our own minds don't always have the same clarity in written form - that's always a struggle for me at least.

 

[AM64]

While working in the garage this afternoon, my mind went to work on why the Title IX issue is so unsettling. To me the "Dear Colleague letter" is how totalitarian regimes begin - nameless, faceless bureaucrats begin a reign of terror by developing nebulous programs and then begin stating that implementation is lax. The "Dear Comrade" letters suggest that those charged with implementing the program aren't doing their utmost; but unlike in a totalitarian setting, they can't threaten personal welfare directly. Of course, fines and lawsuits costing the employer put them at risk; after all, someone has to take the fall. So implementation becomes more stringent until all sense of reason fails and the witch-hunts begin - just a hint is enough to warrant investigation of someone - anyone.

The DOE could simply have stated that aggression by one student or university employee toward a student is unacceptable. Required that the university have in place a mandatory educational program to delineate what behavior is inappropriate - as defined by Title IX - no guessing games. Required that the university "investigate" any instance in which a student files a complaint or a university employee believes that a student has been assaulted (for lack of a more appropriate word). Required that the university immediately assist the student and direct (and if needed take) the student to the appropriate civil authority if the student had not done so. Required that the university apply punitive measures to anyone involved in the complaint as defined by student policy. There should be no "reasonably should have known" clauses, and no expectation that the university somehow prevent inappropriate behaviors that have never been preventable. Simply put: tell students what is expected of them, and take appropriate action if they violate those standards - the same standards, processes, and university disciplinary measures applied to every student.

"The school also should take steps to protect a student who was assaulted off campus from further sexual harassment or retaliation from the perpetrator and his or her associates." How might a school do that? The university could expel a student, but it certainly can't physically restrain him or her or even ensure that he or she or associates are no longer physically near. Supposedly two of the Jane Doe's in the civil suit continued relationships with athletes. Does their willing association with likely associates of an accused athlete mean that the university has failed to comply? Measurables, measurables, measurables - what is realistically expected?

Social engineering doesn't work; has never worked; and without mind control, never will. Universities must always "create a hostile environment" simply because they mass people together and they cannot prevent people from incivility - that no one else ever has is apparently irrelevant. We need a means to protect us (citizens and organizations) from bureaucratic overreach. We should never have mandates to do what has never been accomplished, nor should we ever have to guess what is enough to avoid fines, and civil or criminal punishment for failing to achieve an achievable goal that was never stated.

The "Dear Comrade" letter does specifically spell out many actions - great. But it is all undone by, "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." If I knew I would have a traffic accident tomorrow, I'd stay home; and I do know and accept any time I travel that there is a chance of an accident. Does that imply fault (regardless of what happened) because I "reasonably should have known" that I could be in an accident and never have left home - that by being at the right place at the right time I created a "hostile environment" - that I failed by being unable to tell the future? Nevertheless, that statement IS there, and it makes expectations limitless. It is Rule No 1 and all subsequent rules include "See Rule No 1."

 

[Iam4utalways]

While working in the garage this afternoon, my mind went to work on why the Title IX issue is so unsettling. To me the "Dear Colleague letter" is how totalitarian regimes begin - nameless, faceless bureaucrats begin a reign of terror by developing nebulous programs and then begin stating that implementation is lax. The "Dear Comrade" letters suggest that those charged with implementing the program aren't doing their utmost; but unlike in a totalitarian setting, they can't threaten personal welfare directly. Of course, fines and lawsuits costing the employer put them at risk; after all, someone has to take the fall. So implementation becomes more stringent until all sense of reason fails and the witch-hunts begin - just a hint is enough to warrant investigation of someone - anyone.

The DOE could simply have stated that aggression by one student or university employee toward a student is unacceptable. Required that the university have in place a mandatory educational program to delineate what behavior is inappropriate - as defined by Title IX - no guessing games. Required that the university "investigate" any instance in which a student files a complaint or a university employee believes that a student has been assaulted (for lack of a more appropriate word). Required that the university immediately assist the student and direct (and if needed take) the student to the appropriate civil authority if the student had not done so. Required that the university apply punitive measures to anyone involved in the complaint as defined by student policy. There should be no "reasonably should have known" clauses, and no expectation that the university somehow prevent inappropriate behaviors that have never been preventable. Simply put: tell students what is expected of them, and take appropriate action if they violate those standards - the same standards, processes, and university disciplinary measures applied to every student.

"The school also should take steps to protect a student who was assaulted off campus from further sexual harassment or retaliation from the perpetrator and his or her associates." How might a school do that? The university could expel a student, but it certainly can't physically restrain him or her or even ensure that he or she or associates are no longer physically near. Supposedly two of the Jane Doe's in the civil suit continued relationships with athletes. Does their willing association with likely associates of an accused athlete mean that the university has failed to comply? Measurables, measurables, measurables - what is realistically expected?

Social engineering doesn't work; has never worked; and without mind control, never will. Universities must always "create a hostile environment" simply because they mass people together and they cannot prevent people from incivility - that no one else ever has is apparently irrelevant. We need a means to protect us (citizens and organizations) from bureaucratic overreach. We should never have mandates to do what has never been accomplished, nor should we ever have to guess what is enough to avoid fines, and civil or criminal punishment for failing to achieve an achievable goal that was never stated.

The "Dear Comrade" letter does specifically spell out many actions - great. But it is all undone by, "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." If I knew I would have a traffic accident tomorrow, I'd stay home; and I do know and accept any time I travel that there is a chance of an accident. Does that imply fault (regardless of what happened) because I "reasonably should have known" that I could be in an accident and never have left home - that by being at the right place at the right time I created a "hostile environment" - that I failed by being unable to tell the future? Nevertheless, that statement IS there, and it makes expectations limitless. It is Rule No 1 and all subsequent rules include "See Rule No 1."

You lost me at "failed by being unable to tell the future", so I stopped reading. It seemed to start strong. But I doubt I'll go back and read the rest.

 

[BruinVol]

Ha. Yeah, but I'll respond anyways; I think I'm following you Bruin.

Bruin, say you and I attend UT. I don't like you. I accuse you of something and demand your schedule be changed, before you have an opportunity to defend yourself of said accusation. Not only is altering your schedule an inconvenience; it could potentially derail your graduation track if you weren't able to get all the classes you need. Why would the school have to alter your schedule? What's fair in that, and where is the process? Now, in this same situation, they should unequivocally allow me the opportunity to change my schedule to avoid situations with you or in which I would feel threatened or uncomfortable. Follow what I'm saying?

I 100% don't agree with all the BS that issues like this cause universities with title 9 but that doesn't mean they aren't real

In the cases where "safe" learning environments are compromised then the school can change schedules or work with students on a independent study basis but it's darn sure their responsibly to change the "unsafe" setting way before guilt or innocence is determined

 

[Iam4utalways]

I 100% don't agree with all the BS that issues like this cause universities with title 9 but that doesn't mean they aren't real

In the cases where "safe" learning environments are compromised then the school can change schedules or work with students on a independent study basis but it's darn sure their responsibly to change the "unsafe" setting way before guilt or innocence is determined

I'm with ya. It's 2016 no need for them to ever cross paths except at court. Or whatever we call it. That should be the easiest part.