Sweeping Sexual Assault Suit Filed Against UT

[AM64]

Still sounds like you're defending an actual rape situation with the "just better not to be there". Those of us believing that our players have been falsely accused, prolly also believe a young woman can attend a social gathering without expectation of sexual assault. :unsure:

Not really, and to be honest it's one of those issues that is tough to debate. Say anything too bluntly and you get into having to back away from being accused of saying "she was asking for it" or that "boys will be boys" or any number of other things.

Yeah, I think several of the guys have been falsely accused; they certainly didn't hang out in the bushes and grab women off the street. In just about every post I've made on this topic, my direction has been that most of the UT incidents have either been or started as consensual (from what we know). A guy doesn't stand a great chance in the PC era when the girl decides she was a victim and not a partner - even if the DA disagrees, there's an ambulance chaser waiting in the wings. Check out the Harvard basketball player - accused of rape a year after the event and when the girl even admitted they had willing sex a few times before the time she decided he raped her. Hard to defend your self against that (at least the accusation and all that entails) except by just not being there.

Where it really gets problematic is when you mix confusing consensual incidents with what may well have taken place at Baylor. Again we have to remember that an accusation doesn't mean that something happened or that it happened as stated. There is a big difference between real rape (an act absolutely against someone's will accomplished through force or drugs) and some type of willing engagement that maybe went too far because of lack of inhibition. Personal safety and personal responsibility for safety are still paramount in both - whether it's not going into a bad place alone or staying sober enough to know what's happening.

In the end it is a lot like driving after too many drinks. You might not be capable of avoiding an accident or of thinking you were capable of driving, but you were certainly sober enough at one point to have avoided being too drunk to function later. Bad things can happen when you choose to put yourself in a position that you cannot control. Too many people - like the girls in several of the UT incidents - are unwilling to accept responsibility for their own poor judgement. If you set a room on fire and stand in the middle because it's exciting, don't be surprised if it doesn't end well - but, you see, that's really getting close to saying that like fire will be fire, boys will be boys.

 

[AM64]

The problem with this article is that is classifies ALL based on the action of a very FEW. It is an insult to the majority of the players many of whom are outstanding members of their universities. It also classifies all incidents as the classical assault situation - if that were the case then the cases that have been dismissed would have not been dismissed.

If this were not about football players, who some in the media see as being among the privileged, but about a community that contained folks of certain racial characteristics - those same media folks would be saying it isn't fail to classify the entire community as bad. And that same media would be making excuses for what was happening in that community.

I absolutely agree with you on both points. There is a huge difference between a forcible rape and consensual play that went too far or included some sort of "buyer's remorse". A woman who has been flirting and drinking with a guy and then willing goes into his bedroom certainly seems to be giving some sort of tacit permission to go further - unlike a woman grabbed in a parking lot.

The media do like to go after their "bad guys" especially when they can conjure up some sort of privilege leading to their behavior. Funny how college athletics can at one point make someone privileged and at another be the opportunity that allowed someone who otherwise might not qualify a college education. Just really depends on the point they need to make.

 

[butchna]

Not really, and to be honest it's one of those issues that is tough to debate. Say anything too bluntly and you get into having to back away from being accused of saying "she was asking for it" or that "boys will be boys" or any number of other things.

Yeah, I think several of the guys have been falsely accused; they certainly didn't hang out in the bushes and grab women off the street. In just about every post I've made on this topic, my direction has been that most of the UT incidents have either been or started as consensual (from what we know). A guy doesn't stand a great chance in the PC era when the girl decides she was a victim and not a partner - even if the DA disagrees, there's an ambulance chaser waiting in the wings. Check out the Harvard basketball player - accused of rape a year after the event and when the girl even admitted they had willing sex a few times before the time she decided he raped her. Hard to defend your self against that (at least the accusation and all that entails) except by just not being there.

Where it really gets problematic is when you mix confusing consensual incidents with what may well have taken place at Baylor. Again we have to remember that an accusation doesn't mean that something happened or that it happened as stated. There is a big difference between real rape (an act absolutely against someone's will accomplished through force or drugs) and some type of willing engagement that maybe went too far because of lack of inhibition. Personal safety and personal responsibility for safety are still paramount in both - whether it's not going into a bad place alone or staying sober enough to know what's happening.

In the end it is a lot like driving after too many drinks. You might not be capable of avoiding an accident or of thinking you were capable of driving, but you were certainly sober enough at one point to have avoided being too drunk to function later. Bad things can happen when you choose to put yourself in a position that you cannot control. Too many people - like the girls in several of the UT incidents - are unwilling to accept responsibility for their own poor judgement. If you set a room on fire and stand in the middle because it's exciting, don't be surprised if it doesn't end well - but, you see, that's really getting close to saying that like fire will be fire, boys will be boys.

Didn't help. "Boys will be boys"? What are we? Muslim country where girls go to a spot that has guys there and should know to turn and flee before the animals catch sight of a bare ankle and are rendered ravenous? :gone: I've been to parties in my time. Had much drink and still been able to take no and go home in disappointment. It's no big accomplishment.

 

[AM64]

Didn't help. "Boys will be boys"? What are we? Muslim country where girls go to a spot that has guys there and should know to turn and flee before the animals catch sight of a bare ankle and are rendered ravenous? :gone: I've been to parties in my time. Had much drink and still been able to take no and go home in disappointment. It's no big accomplishment.

I didn't argue that "boys will be boys"; rather I said that if you argue that women have a stake in their own safety, then you can be accused of excusing the guys as "boys will be boys". If you claim women have an obligation or a responsibility, it can easily be turned to imply that men don't. Everybody has responsibilities and obligations; it's not an either/or.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

A woman who has been flirting and drinking with a guy and then willing goes into his bedroom certainly seems to be giving some sort of tacit permission to go further - unlike a woman grabbed in a parking lot.

Strongly disagree with you on the "tacit permission" comment.

A girl could just want to make out. See if the guy is a "good kisser" as that may well be one of her criterias for accepting more dates. Then, maybe, at some point weeks or even months later after what seems to be a committed relationship develops, further exploration of the sexual spark between them.

There absolutely is NO "tacit permission" for sex given if a girl has a few drinks, flirts with a guy she thinks is cute, then goes off to make out. No guy has a right to expect it, none; even if they wind up with their clothes off, if she says, "Stop!", you better stop. Anything after that is sexual abuse. Any penetration after that is rape.

 

[butchna]

I didn't argue that "boys will be boys"; rather I said that if you argue that women have a stake in their own safety, then you can be accused of excusing the guys as "boys will be boys". If you claim women have an obligation or a responsibility, it can easily be turned to imply that men don't. Everybody has responsibilities and obligations; it's not an either/or.

You did the quotes then you made the argument for same. I have a daughter going to college this Fall. I want her to be able to go to gatherings and not subliminally consenting to rape. It's not "asking for it" to do so.

 

[AM64]

Strongly disagree with you on the "tacit permission" comment.

A girl could just want to make out. See if the guy is a "good kisser" as that may well be one of her criterias for accepting more dates. Then, maybe, at some point weeks or even months later after what seems to be a committed relationship develops, further exploration of the sexual spark between them.

There absolutely is NO "tacit permission" for sex given if a girl has a few drinks, flirts with a guy she thinks is cute, then goes off to make out. No guy has a right to expect it, none; even if they wind up with their clothes off, if she says, "Stop!", you better stop. Anything after that is sexual abuse. Any penetration after that is rape.

It was "tacit permission to go further" without defining an end point. The rules are very definitely that permission ends when someone says so. The question is more about whether there was actually a "no", and the words of one person versus another.

Let's play another game. If a girl texts a guy and says "why did you stop when I told you to last night - that was stupid, don't ever do that again." Does "no" mean "no" the next time? Do actions speak louder than words? If you don't want to be mistaken in your intent, then don't intentionally confuse the issue.

One other little point. We are a society that has a thing about not accepting defeat. It's immortalized in songs and books - frequently about relationships. Are we going to ban all that history and literature, or are we going to continue giving conflicting guidance? If you tell a salesman "no", but he continues the pitch, is he guilty of some sort of abuse?

 

[gunner]

It's not a concidince that one month after FSU settled their own Title IX lawsuit UT is hit with one of their own. This is certainly all about the money!

Florida State pays landmark Title IX settlement over alleged Jameis Winston rape.

 

[daj2576]

I absolutely agree with you on both points. There is a huge difference between a forcible rape and consensual play that went too far or included some sort of "buyer's remorse". A woman who has been flirting and drinking with a guy and then willing goes into his bedroom certainly seems to be giving some sort of tacit permission to go further - unlike a woman grabbed in a parking lot.

The media do like to go after their "bad guys" especially when they can conjure up some sort of privilege leading to their behavior. Funny how college athletics can at one point make someone privileged and at another be the opportunity that allowed someone who otherwise might not qualify a college education. Just really depends on the point they need to make.

As a father of two daughters(second is pending-due in October), I think about this situation frequently. The thing that scares me about the way we're approaching the subject is that in an effort to show support for the victim of a terrible crime, we're not educating *potential* victims about safety, avoidance, etc. It would be like teaching HIV awareness by providing tons of treatment for newly diagnosed patients without saying "if you just wrap it up without exception, your risk drops precipitously (and that responsibility falls on both sexes)."

This isn't a problem that more laws, rules and regulations will fix alone (murder is prohibited by law, but there are still murders, right?). It will take a concerted effort of re-educating both sexes. Yes, men need to understand no means no, and all that flows from that. But, women need to understand the situations that put them at a much higher risk, too (you can interchange men and women freely between the two sentences, as both sexes are capable of perpetrating rape).

It is true that a person *should* be able to do X and not risk a violent attack. But, with very little effort (not doing some of the things associated with X) the chances of violent attack go way, way, way down.

That isn't to say that the risk will ever meaningfully approach zero, nor is it to say that we shouldn't have strong support systems for victims, and robust penalties for perpetrators. We just shouldn't be trying to ignore the tough conversations about risk factors...that's like the failed "abstinence only" policies that never fix the problem.

And no, having this conversation isn't victim blaming, it should be empowering. A thorough discussion of these risk factors should give all of us the tools to best avoid becoming a victim (or even a perpetrator).

 

[Remy]

Didn't help. "Boys will be boys"? What are we? Muslim country where girls go to a spot that has guys there and should know to turn and flee before the animals catch sight of a bare ankle and are rendered ravenous? :gone: I've been to parties in my time. Had much drink and still been able to take no and go home in disappointment. It's no big accomplishment.

Exactly! Promoting the idea that what women wear, where they go, how they look, if they drink excessively, dance suggestively, God forbid pass out from too much party then they partially contributed to their being sexually assaulted if it were to have occurred. That is total bunk.

 

[AM64]

Exactly! Promoting the idea that what women wear, where they go, how they look, if they drink excessively, dance suggestively, God forbid pass out from too much party then they partially contributed to their being sexually assaulted if it were to have occurred. That is total bunk.

If any of you believe that is what I said then you need to read again.

"Not really, and to be honest it's one of those issues that is tough to debate. Say anything too bluntly and you get into having to back away from being accused of saying "she was asking for it" or that "boys will be boys" or any number of other things."

That doesn't at all say that I condone what's in those quotes because I absolutely do not - simply that if you try to look at things openly, then that is frequently the accusation. How about girls aren't always right and boys aren't always wrong? Or how about people by their actions and words don't always send the intended message.

"If you set a room on fire and stand in the middle because it's exciting, don't be surprised if it doesn't end well - but, you see, that's really getting close to saying that like fire will be fire, boys will be boys."

That pointed out that if you put yourself in a risky position then it may not end well. But to suggest that a someone chooses to be in a risky situation opens you to being accused of condoning someone else's behavior.

If you can't get the point of the message - personal responsibility, then apparently I don't write well enough so I'll quit. But, you know, if you won't open your mind to all sides of an issue, then you haven't really given it full consideration - one of the big problems in today's PC world.

 

[volfan102455]

Exactly! Promoting the idea that what women wear, where they go, how they look, if they drink excessively, dance suggestively, God forbid pass out from too much party then they partially contributed to their being sexually assaulted if it were to have occurred. That is total bunk.

So girls get to do whatever they want, whenever they want and have no responsibility for anything that happens as a result? I know these are not the same thing - but consider what other bad things can happen when girl drinks. What if that girl who has drunk too much gets in a car and drives and causes a wreck that kills someone - whose fault is that? And if the girl gets so drunk she falls down steps and hurts herself - whose fault is that? What if she hurts the friend that is trying to get her to go home before she does something she regrets? What if the girl drinks too much, passes out and never wakes up again because she actually did drink too much?

Being a female, I should like the line of thinking that says I can do anything I want and always blame a guy for my bad decisions, but I don't. It makes us females look weak and irresponsible. The "boys will be boys" argument is wrong too - but that doesn't make the other extreme right.

We need to teach our children that they are responsible for their lives and that the decisions they make when they are in control that results with them losing control of a situation are the most important ones they will ever make. It is their life that is at stake.

 

[Kristy*]

I'll say this (from a woman's perspective) for anyone interested:

We should be able to dress how we want to dress, go where we want to go, act how we want to act, and still expect guys to treat us with respect and honor our wishes. Stop when we say no. All that being said, we do have to take responsibility of situations we put ourselves in.

When a lady puts herself in a closed bedroom (especially the bedroom of a male she has had past relations with and/or has been flirting with) with a male, she needs to unequivocally trust that person. If something bad were to happen in that situation, then there are no witnesses. And frankly, with everything leading up to the incident in question being consensual, her case looks weak. It'd be nice if all guys were gentlemen, but they aren't.

Now to the other side; when a man (especially one in the public eye) puts himself in a compromising situation, he needs to unequivocally trust the female he's with. A false claim can ruin a life. And sadly, not all women are trustworthy either.

Just my ramblings. I kinda get what you're trying to say AM64.

 

[chiwipeterbug]

We should be able to dress how we want to dress...and still expect... respect

:hmm:

 

[butchna]

If any of you believe that is what I said then you need to read again.

"Not really, and to be honest it's one of those issues that is tough to debate. Say anything too bluntly and you get into having to back away from being accused of saying "she was asking for it" or that "boys will be boys" or any number of other things."

That doesn't at all say that I condone what's in those quotes because I absolutely do not - simply that if you try to look at things openly, then that is frequently the accusation. How about girls aren't always right and boys aren't always wrong? Or how about people by their actions and words don't always send the intended message.

"If you set a room on fire and stand in the middle because it's exciting, don't be surprised if it doesn't end well - but, you see, that's really getting close to saying that like fire will be fire, boys will be boys."

That pointed out that if you put yourself in a risky position then it may not end well. But to suggest that a someone chooses to be in a risky situation opens you to being accused of condoning someone else's behavior.

If you can't get the point of the message - personal responsibility, then apparently I don't write well enough so I'll quit. But, you know, if you won't open your mind to all sides of an issue, then you haven't really given it full consideration - one of the big problems in today's PC world.

"So if you stand there looking all fine with your booty out to here, don't get all victim and what not when I want to put my FIRE out in it."

-Just Sayin Chronicles

 

[VFL-82-JP]

As a father of two daughters(second is pending-due in October), I think about this situation frequently. The thing that scares me about the way we're approaching the subject is that in an effort to show support for the victim of a terrible crime, we're not educating *potential* victims about safety, avoidance, etc. It would be like teaching HIV awareness by providing tons of treatment for newly diagnosed patients without saying "just wrap it up, without exception-and your risk drops precipitously (and that responsibility falls on both sexes)."

This isn't a problem that more laws, rules and regulations will fix alone(murder is prohibited by law, but there are still murders, right?). It will take a concerted effort of re-educating both sexes. Yes, men need to understand no means no, and all that flows from that. But, women need to understand the situations that put them at a much higher risk, too (you can interchange men and women freely between the two sentences, as both sexes are capable of perpetrating rape).

It is true that a person *should* be able to do X and not risk a violent attack. But, with very little effort (not doing some of the things associated with X) the chances of violent attack go way, way, way down.

That isn't to say that the risk will ever meaningfully near zero, nor is it to say that we shouldn't have strong support systems for victims, and robust penalties for perpetrators. We just shouldn't be trying to ignore the tough conversations about risk factors...that's like the failed "abstinence only" policies that never fix the problem.

And no, having this conversation isn't victim blaming, it should be empowering as it gives many future victims the tools to avoid becoming a victim.

Very, very well said, DAJ.

 

[chargervol]

I'll say this (from a woman's perspective) for anyone interested:

We should be able to dress how we want to dress, go where we want to go, act how we want to act, and still expect guys to treat us with respect and honor our wishes. Stop when we say no. All that being said, we do have to take responsibility of situations we put ourselves in.

When a lady puts herself in a closed bedroom (especially the bedroom of a male she has had past relations with and/or has been flirting with) with a male, she needs to unequivocally trust that person. If something bad were to happen in that situation, then there are no witnesses. And frankly, with everything leading up to the incident in question being consensual, her case looks weak. It'd be nice if all guys were gentlemen, but they aren't.

Now to the other side; when a man (especially one in the public eye) puts himself in a compromising situation, he needs to unequivocally trust the female he's with. A false claim can ruin a life. And sadly, not all women are trustworthy either.

Just my ramblings. I kinda get what you're trying to say AM64.

Some where, in one of these threads,I said it like this -
Should a woman be able to walk to her car at night without being mugged? Of course. Does that mean it's a smart idea to park on the unlit side of the lot? I don't think it is. The person committing the crime is always the true party at fault. Doesn't mean I don't want all of my female family members to take as few of risks ad possible.
I don't know why everytime someone simply asks ladies to take precautions because SOME men are dangerous, someone else starts screaming "stop blaming the victims" but it's a hell of a show of ignorance.
I'm glad that you get it along with others that just want people to be safe and smart.

 

[daj2576]

Very, very well said, DAJ.

Thanks.

These things really do preoccupy my thoughts.

The thing that makes this the most frustrating for me, as a father (and a natural worrier), is that these aren't random acts of violence. In the case of rape/sexual assault there are patterns that are troubling.

The one thing that is prevalent in the vast majority of reported rape/sexual assault cases on college campuses involve alcohol or other intoxicants. Perhaps, as a minimum, we should be treating ''hooking up'' while drinking/doing drugs as something that is as dangerous as driving while drinking.

Another thing that is troubling is the prevalence of rape/sexual abuse among the population of male athletes at major college campuses. According to Benedict's "The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big Time College Football" 20% of all of the reported cases of rape/sexual assault in college are committed by less than 3% of the total male population, the male student athletes. Most shockingly, Benedict finds that "ubsequent research has suggested a range of factors contributing to why some athletes are more prone to abuse women, from a sense of entitlement to a higher frequency of casual sex with multiple partners to a warped sense of women as sexual prey. But the biggest factor may boil down to opportunity or access." Most pertinent to the discussion of UT's legal woes is this line: "the lion's share of sexual assault cases against college football players-and athletes in general-usually involve a victim who willingly goes to the athlete's turf - his dorm room, apartment or hotel-and later claims that something happened she didn't sign up for."

In other words, there are patterns and predictability inherent in this discussion that are simply being ignored both those passionately on either side.

 

[drylo]

When a lady puts herself in a closed bedroom (especially the bedroom of a male she has had past relations with and/or has been flirting with) with a male, she needs to unequivocally trust that person. If something bad were to happen in that situation, then there are no witnesses. And frankly, with everything leading up to the incident in question being consensual, her case looks weak.

DAJ is on point in the last few comments, and this quote from Kristy really nails it. (I note that AM64 said something about "getting into bed" with a guy being tacit permission, and somebody else paraphrased him, omitting that very salient hypothetical detail.)

It goes without saying that rape is bad. But when we are talking about cases where two people get drunk (or not, for that matter) and then voluntarily hop in bed naked together, all bets are off. At that point, you are "asking for it." Period. Yes, you can theoretically still be raped in that situation, but you will never, ever be able to prove it. If you've gone that far, you can fairly be presumed to have "said yes" (without saying anything) absent compelling evidence to the contrary. So it stands to reason, people should be aware that by hopping in bed with someone that you don't trust to respect whatever boundaries you might have, you do so at your own risk. (I think most people intuitively know that anyway, but this whole "rape culture" thing that encourages people not to take responsibility for their own actions is problematic.)

And incidentally, this applies to both guys and girls--both of whom can be taken advantage of, especially when alcohol is involved. But "taken advantage of" doesn't necessarily mean rape, and everyone should be taught to take responsibility for their own actions.

(By the way, I think the whole "what she was wearing" thing is a terrible straw man. The "anti-rape" crowd likes to pretend that people say a girl deserves to be raped if she was wearing a short skirt. Dressing in a certain way does send a message, but nobody attempts to say that attire justifies rape. That is a straw man when the real argument is not just that "she was wearing a short skirt," but that "she went to his bedroom and got in bed with him.")

 

[volfan102455]

Thanks.

Another thing that is troubling is the prevalence of rape/sexual abuse among the population of male athletes at major college campuses. According to Benedict's "The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big Time College Football" 20% of all of the reported cases of rape/sexual assault in college are committed by less than 3% of the total male population, the male student athletes. Most shockingly, Benedict finds that "ubsequent research has suggested a range of factors contributing to why some athletes are more prone to abuse women, from a sense of entitlement to a higher frequency of casual sex with multiple partners to a warped sense of women as sexual prey. But the biggest factor may boil down to opportunity or access." Most pertinent to the discussion of UT's legal woes is this line: "the lion's share of sexual assault cases against college football players-and athletes in general-usually involve a victim who willingly goes to the athlete's turf - his dorm room, apartment or hotel-and later claims that something happened she didn't sign up for."

In other words, there are patterns and predictability inherent in this discussion that are simply being ignored both those passionately on either side.

So you assume because something is written in a book - it must be a true reflection of reality? Statistics are interesting and can be used to prove two conflicting conclusions as being the right one.

I personally would need to see the details of the research in order to take a stand one way or the other on this. I suspect there are other factors in play.

 

[daj2576]

So you assume because something is written in a book - it must be a true reflection of reality? Statistics are interesting and can be used to prove two conflicting conclusions as being the right one.

I personally would need to see the details of the research in order to take a stand one way or the other on this. I suspect there are other factors in play.

I cited the book. You can assuage your fears by reading it, or just discount it without having read it, which is antithetical to your original point (that you are persuaded only by data and not conjecture).

 

[daj2576]

I cited the book. You can assuage your fears by reading it, or just discount it without having read it, which is antithetical to your original point.

Quoting myself so I could make another post to cite the resources the author used in the book. It might save you a step. Of key importance are the following references for Chapter 5 titled "The Victim: 'They had suffered enough. They lost their scholarships.'"

1) Male Student-Athletes Reported for Sexual Assault: A Survey of Campus Police Departments and Judicial Affairs Offices, Journal of Sports & Social Issues 19, no. 2 (1995) Todd Crosset, Jeff Benedict and Mark McDonald

2) Arrest and Conviction Rates of Athletes Accused of Sexual Assault, Sociology of Sport Journal 14, no. 1 (1997) Jeff Benedict and Alan Klein

There are about 5 other sources, but the author of The System was also lead researcher and writer, and I don't think they were as pertinent to the references I used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Benedict

You probably should read the book anyway. It is well researched, and Tennessee is mentioned prominently in its own chapter titled "The Closer: The life of a college football hostess."

 

[BowlBrother85]

Quoting myself so I could make another post to cite the resources the author used in the book. It might save you a step. Of key importance are the following references for Chapter 5 titled "The Victim: 'They had suffered enough. They lost their scholarships.'"

1) Male Student-Athletes Reported for Sexual Assault: A Survey of Campus Police Departments and Judicial Affairs Offices, Journal of Sports & Social Issues 19, no. 2 (1995) Todd Crosset, Jeff Benedict and Mark McDonald

2) Arrest and Conviction Rates of Athletes Accused of Sexual Assault, Sociology of Sport Journal 14, no. 1 (1997) Jeff Benedict and Alan Klein

There are about 5 other sources, but the author of The System was also lead researcher and writer, and I don't think they were as pertinent to the references I used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Benedict

You probably should read the book anyway. It is well researched, and Tennessee is mentioned prominently in its own chapter titled "The Closer: The life of a college football hostess."

That's Armen Keteyian's book isn't it?

 

[daj2576]

That's Armen Keteyian's book isn't it?

Jeff Benedict & Armen Keteyian, yes.

 

[volfan102455]

Quoting myself so I could make another post to cite the resources the author used in the book. It might save you a step. Of key importance are the following references for Chapter 5 titled "The Victim: 'They had suffered enough. They lost their scholarships.'"

1) Male Student-Athletes Reported for Sexual Assault: A Survey of Campus Police Departments and Judicial Affairs Offices, Journal of Sports & Social Issues 19, no. 2 (1995) Todd Crosset, Jeff Benedict and Mark McDonald

2) Arrest and Conviction Rates of Athletes Accused of Sexual Assault, Sociology of Sport Journal 14, no. 1 (1997) Jeff Benedict and Alan Klein

There are about 5 other sources, but the author of The System was also lead researcher and writer, and I don't think they were as pertinent to the references I used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Benedict

You probably should read the book anyway. It is well researched, and Tennessee is mentioned prominently in its own chapter titled "The Closer: The life of a college football hostess."

So the reference data is from 1997 and 1995?