Baylor Scandal

[forgetful]

That's ridiculous.  So you'd have no problem with the whole situation if Baylor's affiliation happened to be with a religion that openly allowed the rape and/or sexual harassment of women?

At best, the "truth-in-advertising" point you and brandx are espousing is nothing more than a diversion... this is a case where a school needs to be sanctioned and people need to go to jail, period, without any regard for religious affiliation.

I think you are too quick to attack here.  The way I read Brandx was that there are two things going on:

Most importantly

1:  Terrible crimes were committed and this should be punished to the full extent of the law.  This applies universally to any organization.

Tangentially:

2:  Baylor is a university that holds its students and faculty to an extremely high honor code, where students are required to attend church weekly and at one point all faculty were also required to, and used to be required to have a note indicating that they did attend church if they did not attend on campus services. 

To require this of your students, employees and faculty, but openly permit and cover up blatant sexual assaults and use sex/prostitution as a way to recruit athletes is absurdly hypocritical.  The hypocritical nature of this exacerbates the situation and would apply equally to other schools like, BYU, Liberty, The Citadel, that have extreme honor codes. 

I agree, referencing it as specifically Christian, was misleading, but you were too quick to immediately assume a negative angle against Christianity.

[warriorchick]

Meanwhile, college baseball players get suspended for playing fantasy football....

http://deadspin.com/report-five-richmond-baseball-players-suspended-for-he-1792836494

[GGGG]

And meanwhile this...

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18792577/baylor-suspends-db-travon-blanchard-accusations-repeated-violence

[brandx]

Meanwhile, college baseball players get suspended for playing fantasy football....

http://deadspin.com/report-five-richmond-baseball-players-suspended-for-he-1792836494

Finally!!!

The real problem afflicting college sports has been dealt with.

I will sleep well tonight.

[brandx]

I think you are too quick to attack here.  The way I read Brandx was that there are two things going on:

Most importantly

1:  Terrible crimes were committed and this should be punished to the full extent of the law.  This applies universally to any organization.

Tangentially:

2:  Baylor is a university that holds its students and faculty to an extremely high honor code, where students are required to attend church weekly and at one point all faculty were also required to, and used to be required to have a note indicating that they did attend church if they did not attend on campus services. 

To require this of your students, employees and faculty, but openly permit and cover up blatant sexual assaults and use sex/prostitution as a way to recruit athletes is absurdly hypocritical.  The hypocritical nature of this exacerbates the situation and would apply equally to other schools like, BYU, Liberty, The Citadel, that have extreme honor codes. 

I agree, referencing it as specifically Christian, was misleading, but you were too quick to immediately assume a negative angle against Christianity.

A very good take on what I said/meant.

But I have no problem with Benny's comments. There are many in this country who feel "christians" are being persecuted and I don't begrudge them their beliefs. I just happen to feel differently.

As you said, I used the christian comment because it is their (Baylor) standard that they proclaim loudly and openly.

[Tugg Speedman]

They should get the death penalty for sure.  It won't happen though.

The Baylor scandal though is good news for Louisville and UNC, that look like pillars of morality compared to Baylor.

Penn State did not get it despite Jerry Sandusky.  Stop their ... the death penalty no longer exists.

Moving on ... UNC defrauded hundreds of student athletes from an education and did not get it.

This shows their is no possible way one can get a death penalty.  Pay a fire, fire some people, agree to some compliance nonsense ... then go back to business as usual.

[HouWarrior]

 Baylor is a university that holds its students and faculty to an extremely high honor code, where students are required to attend church weekly and at one point all faculty were also required to, and used to be required to have a note indicating that they did attend church if they did not attend on campus services. 

To require this of your students, employees and faculty, but openly permit and cover up blatant sexual assaults and use sex/prostitution as a way to recruit athletes is absurdly hypocritical.  The hypocritical nature of this exacerbates the situation and would apply equally to other schools like, BYU, Liberty, The Citadel, that have extreme honor codes. 

I concur here, ....especially. Baylor is not like many schools where the religious affiliation has little impact to the actual running of the school.

This is the Baptist flagship school of the USA...your citing BYU is a great analogy. Waco is a Baptist capital. West Point/Citadel have high "honor" codes too...but these codes are mostly secular . The Baylor code (attending chapel, etc) is directly connected to religious beliefs at a pervasive level.

Quoting:Baylor University is governed by a predominantly Baptist Board of Regents and is operated within the Christian-oriented aims and ideals of Baptists. The University is affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, a cooperative association of autonomous Texas Baptist churches. We expect that each Baylor student will conduct himself or herself in accordance with Christian principles as commonly perceived by Texas Baptists. Personal misconduct either on or off the campus by anyone connected with Baylor detracts from the Christian witness Baylor strives to present to the world and hinders full accomplishment of the mission of the University. http://www.baylor.edu/student_policies/index.php?id=32399

The leadership folks during this period have been equally connecting of themselves to religion .

 Read Art Briles' book : Beating Goliath: My Story of Football and Faith.

....or note this history outline of some of the religious/leadership inter denominational feuds (for example, about the teaching of evolution and the showing of R-rated movies)  :

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/us/08beliefs.html

Yes there were purely secular violations of rules laws and policies in the pervassive Baylor sexual assaults.

But inasmuch as Baylor aggressively/pervasively  attaches itself to  religion it isnt an attack on christianity in the least here....and it is fair game to note it in its recent failures, that:
...."Personal misconduct either on or off the campus by anyone connected with Baylor detracts from the Christian witness Baylor strives to present to the world and hinders full accomplishment of the mission of the University..."

The law best covers what you are/should be doing when people are watching and/or when you get caught. Religion/morality/ethics best covers what you are to do even when no ones looking and you wont be caught.

Baylor failed at both levels.

[mu03eng]

A very good take on what I said/meant.

But I have no problem with Benny's comments. There are many in this country who feel "christians" are being persecuted and I don't begrudge them their beliefs. I just happen to feel differently.

As you said, I used the christian comment because it is their (Baylor) standard that they proclaim loudly and openly.

Just for the sake of clarity I was backing Benny not because I think Christian's are persecuted....in this country, certainly not, in some countries, potentially but it's all about your point of view.

My objection is that inserting religion, any religion, into the story is a red herring and distracts from the human tragedy that seems to be going on at that school. At some point we need to draw a line around what are basic decencies that we as a human race accept as infallible. The right to not be raped and then prevented from seeking through redress should be one of those things. That's true if it takes place at a christian university or if it takes place in a middle eastern country controlled by Muslim clerics. Neither scenario benefits at all by conflating religion with the crimes....they are crimes and should be addressed as such without the inflammation of religion.

[Benny B]

But I have no problem with Benny's comments. There are many in this country who feel "christians" are being persecuted and I don't begrudge them their beliefs. I just happen to feel differently.

See... I knew I would get you to see the light.  I still have work to do, but I'm going to teach you how to make a solid, logical argument yet.

But with every two steps forward, there's one back... there's nothing wrong with put Christians in quotes given the context of the matter (I would certainly do the same), but if you do so, you have to capitalize the 'C.'  In other words, you can reference these so-called "Christians" pejoratively by using either quotations or the lower case, but you can't do both.  While the rules for double-pejorative are not the same as double-negative, you cannot emphasize a pejorative with another pejorative... you have to use a separate adjective (e.g. see how I used 'so-called' above).  In utilizing both pejoratives, you actually end up making reference to an undefined group of people who - presumably - have nothing to do with J.C.'s teachings.  But again, all of this is irrelevant to the subject at hand:

It's horribly tragic that no heads will roll (figuratively literally) at Baylor over this, of course, presuming the allegations are true.  The universities are not going to police themselves individually... especially when there's millions of $$ at stake.  At some point, the NCAA has to step in and both draft and enforce a code of conduct that allows a school like Baylor to be sanctioned when something like this occurs.  We cannot leave it to the justice system because too often, rape and sexual assault cases are too difficult to prosecute, even when there's sufficient evidence to indict.  No one else can fix the situation except the NCAA, but unfortunately, the NCAA is not an outside agency... its leadership, and therefore its powers, are vested in its members.  So long as those members include juggernauts of influence like UNC, Baylor, Penn State, Syracuse - not to mention their respective conferences who also suffer from sanctions - the NCAA will be beholden to the dollar at the expense of basic civil protections and human decency.

[See... no reference to religion necessary.]

[brandx]

See... I knew I would get you to see the light.  I still have work to do, but I'm going to teach you how to make a solid, logical argument yet.

But with every two steps forward, there's one back... there's nothing wrong with put Christians in quotes given the context of the matter (I would certainly do the same), but if you do so, you have to capitalize the 'C.'  In other words, you can reference these so-called "Christians" pejoratively by using either quotations or the lower case, but you can't do both.  While the rules for double-pejorative are not the same as double-negative, you cannot emphasize a pejorative with another pejorative... you have to use a separate adjective (e.g. see how I used 'so-called' above).  In utilizing both pejoratives, you actually end up making reference to an undefined group of people who - presumably - have nothing to do with J.C.'s teachings.  But again, all of this is irrelevant to the subject at hand:

You have taught me so much, master (or should it be "Master"). I hope I will be able to repay you some day.

[brandx]

Just for the sake of clarity I was backing Benny not because I think Christian's are persecuted....in this country, certainly not, in some countries, potentially but it's all about your point of view.

My objection is that inserting religion, any religion, into the story is a red herring and distracts from the human tragedy that seems to be going on at that school. At some point we need to draw a line around what are basic decencies that we as a human race accept as infallible. The right to not be raped and then prevented from seeking through redress should be one of those things. That's true if it takes place at a christian university or if it takes place in a middle eastern country controlled by Muslim clerics. Neither scenario benefits at all by conflating religion with the crimes....they are crimes and should be addressed as such without the inflammation of religion.

I understood that in your earlier comment. And, your point about a red herring may be correct. It is a conversation that maybe should stand on its own.

But when a group's very identity is based on religion and morality, I think it opens the conversation a little wider when they allow and defend this sort of behavior.

[Benny B]

You have taught me so much, master (or should it be "Master"). I hope I will be able to repay you some day.

Next I'll teach you how to master the Toledo Take Back.

[mu03eng]

But when a group's very identity is based on religion and morality, I think it opens the conversation a little wider when they allow and defend this sort of behavior.

With you 100% here. If we want to talk about the hypocrisy of various organized religions and the misapplication of their moral codes, I could go on for days.

Honestly, I'd rather have someone who's morally bankrupt but in an agnostic way than someone who picks and chooses when they want to apply their religious-based morality. Much easier to understand and predict the former.

[brandx]

With you 100% here. If we want to talk about the hypocrisy of various organized religions and the misapplication of their moral codes, I could go on for days.

Honestly, I'd rather have someone who's morally bankrupt but in an agnostic way than someone who picks and chooses when they want to apply their religious-based morality. Much easier to understand and predict the former.

I think we pretty much agree.

I probably should have been more specific and referred to the people at Baylor rather than use the generic "christian". But to me there is a big, big difference between "christians" and "Christians". I should have explained that in my original post.

[mu03eng]

I think we pretty much agree.

I probably should have been more specific and referred to the people at Baylor rather than use the generic "christian". But to me there is a big, big difference between "christians" and "Christians". I should have explained that in my original post.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You're probably right, TAMU.

But does there really need to be a rule about covering up rape? What a sad state of affairs when a school looks the other way over a heinous, violent crime because "there isn't a rule". Shouldn't human decency prevail?

Sadly, I don't live in a world of human decency.

I firmly believe that every student that I have had a hand in finding responsible for sexual assault has known at least on some level, that what they did was wrong. Yet every single one of them tried to find some loophole or rationalization that justified their actions. But I also firmly believe that while every one of them knew what they did was wrong....most of them believed that it wasn't THAT wrong. Quite simply, most people can't come to terms with the reality that they committed a sexual assault.

It is currently estimated that 98% of rapists will never spend a day in jail. Some of that is because of under-reporting. But most of it is because our justice system is not properly set up to handle sexual assault cases. Convincing 12 strangers beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred when 95%+ of the time the only witnesses are the victim and the alleged? Damn near impossible. Especially in today's day and age where everyone points at Duke LAX and says "but that was a lie! ESPN told me so!"

Don't get me wrong, when someone's freedom is on the line, maximum due process and the highest standard of proof is necessary. I am a firm believer that it is better that a guilty man go free than an innocent one go to prison. However, I still think it is a massive failure when 98% of people who commit a specific crime go free. We need to find a way to lower that number without compromising due process. How? I have a few ideas. But it will take a complete shift in how the courts view consent and sexual assault.

That long rant is basically to say....when sh*t hits the fan or lots of $$$ is involved, all human decency goes out the window. The only way to stop this is to write strong legislation and enforce it. If you leave any loophole or wiggle room it will be exploited.

[brandx]

Sadly, I don't live in a world of human decency.

I firmly believe that every student that I have had a hand in finding responsible for sexual assault has known at least on some level, that what they did was wrong. Yet every single one of them tried to find some loophole or rationalization that justified their actions. But I also firmly believe that while every one of them knew what they did was wrong....most of them believed that it wasn't THAT wrong. Quite simply, most people can't come to terms with the reality that they committed a sexual assault.

It is currently estimated that 98% of rapists will never spend a day in jail. Some of that is because of under-reporting. But most of it is because our justice system is not properly set up to handle sexual assault cases. Convincing 12 strangers beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred when 95%+ of the time the only witnesses are the victim and the alleged? Damn near impossible. Especially in today's day and age where everyone points at Duke LAX and says "but that was a lie! ESPN told me so!"

Don't get me wrong, when someone's freedom is on the line, maximum due process and the highest standard of proof is necessary. I am a firm believer that it is better that a guilty man go free than an innocent one go to prison. However, I still think it is a massive failure when 98% of people who commit a specific crime go free. We need to find a way to lower that number without compromising due process. How? I have a few ideas. But it will take a complete shift in how the courts view consent and sexual assault.

That long rant is basically to say....when sh*t hits the fan or lots of $$$ is involved, all human decency goes out the window. The only way to stop this is to write strong legislation and enforce it. If you leave any loophole or wiggle room it will be exploited.

I have nothing but admiration for people like you who can keep a clear mind when having to deal with this garbage.

[Benny B]

Don't get me wrong, when someone's freedom is on the line, maximum due process and the highest standard of proof is necessary. I am a firm believer that it is better that a guilty man go free than an innocent one go to prison. However, I still think it is a massive failure when 98% of people who commit a specific crime go free. We need to find a way to lower that number without compromising due process. How? I have a few ideas. But it will take a complete shift in how the courts view consent and sexual assault.

A lot of well-intentioned people have been struggling with this question for a long time.  The problem is that one of the keystones to our legal system is the accused's right to confront his/her accuser.  Unfortunately, in the case of a sexual assault, rape, etc., there's only one person who can make that accusation and that person happens to be the victim.  The biggest obstacle a prosecutor has in overcoming the burden of proof is a victim's presence of mind (to make it through the shaming of cross-examination).

Honestly, I can't see any way we can leave it up to the American legal system without creating a whole new set of rules (which would inevitably be tossed as unconstitutional)... the cure for this epidemic has to start in the home by a) teaching respect and boundaries and b) eliminating the shame of sex.  Do not interpret the latter as victim-blaming, but it is victim-indoctrinating... our society places a stigma on a females and sex that needs to end. 

Take for example a mugging... absent the sexual component, it's an otherwise similar personal violation as rape.  When someone is mugged at gunpoint, they typically feel victimized, vulnerable, powerless, embarrassed, shocked, etc., just like someone who is raped.  However, the victim of a mugging isn't stigmatized or shamed by society - whether he/she contributed to his/her actions or not - and so when it comes to trial, the victim has no problem standing up to his/her perpetrator.  But because our society stigmatizes women who have had previous sexual contact - whether it be voluntary or involuntary - the immediate reaction for most women is to simply keep quiet about it.  Hence, your 98%.  In other words, women need to be able to confront their accuser without fear that society will cast them aside.

While this may appear to be contrary to what I said earlier, perhaps the cure for the rape epidemic is to trivialize sex.  Start with teaching people that there's no shame in a woman having sex.  Perhaps then someday, a woman's immediate reaction will be not to not keep quiet, but to say "you forced me to have sex against my will... I'll get over it... but in the meantime, I'm going to make sure the favor is repaid for the next 20-30 years." 

Once women can view sexual assault and rape strictly as a crime, and not a scarlet letter, maybe that 98% will drop to 9.8%.  In the same vein, when women are not made to feel shame for having sex, we'll most likely also see false claims of sexual assault and rape plummet.

[warriorchick]

A lot of well-intentioned people have been struggling with this question for a long time.  The problem is that one of the keystones to our legal system is the accused's right to confront his/her accuser.  Unfortunately, in the case of a sexual assault, rape, etc., there's only one person who can make that accusation and that person happens to be the victim.  The biggest obstacle a prosecutor has in overcoming the burden of proof is a victim's presence of mind (to make it through the shaming of cross-examination).

Honestly, I can't see any way we can leave it up to the American legal system without creating a whole new set of rules (which would inevitably be tossed as unconstitutional)... the cure for this epidemic has to start in the home by a) teaching respect and boundaries and b) eliminating the shame of sex.  Do not interpret the latter as victim-blaming, but it is victim-indoctrinating... our society places a stigma on a females and sex that needs to end. 

Take for example a mugging... absent the sexual component, it's an otherwise similar personal violation as rape.  When someone is mugged at gunpoint, they typically feel victimized, vulnerable, powerless, embarrassed, shocked, etc., just like someone who is raped.  However, the victim of a mugging isn't stigmatized or shamed by society - whether he/she contributed to his/her actions or not - and so when it comes to trial, the victim has no problem standing up to his/her perpetrator.  But because our society stigmatizes women who have had previous sexual contact - whether it be voluntary or involuntary - the immediate reaction for most women is to simply keep quiet about it.  Hence, your 98%.  In other words, women need to be able to confront their accuser without fear that society will cast them aside.

While this may appear to be contrary to what I said earlier, perhaps the cure for the rape epidemic is to trivialize sex.  Start with teaching people that there's no shame in a woman having sex.  Perhaps then someday, a woman's immediate reaction will be not to not keep quiet, but to say "you forced me to have sex against my will... I'll get over it... but in the meantime, I'm going to make sure the favor is repaid for the next 20-30 years." 

Once women can view sexual assault and rape strictly as a crime, and not a scarlet letter, maybe that 98% will drop to 9.8%.  In the same vein, when women are not made to feel shame for having sex, we'll most likely also see false claims of sexual assault and rape plummet.

The double standard and related slut-shaming is definitely part of it, but it is not everything.

My guess is that it is very rare for the defense of an straight-up assault and battery defendant to be "He wanted me to hit him over the head with a pipe."  But consent is one of the primary defenses in sexual assault, and probably the most common when the accuser knows the defendant. And "yes, she told me that she likes it rough".

You will always have a harder case to prove when the issue is whether or not the accuser was a willing participant.  Not placing blame or making excuses; it's just the way it is.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Next I'll teach you how to master the Toledo Take Back.

Or the Madison Handshake.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/new-title-ix-suit-alleges-woman-gang-raped-least-4-ex-baylor-players-154509881.html

Seventh Title IX suit filed against Baylor. The more information that comes out, the more heinous it seems. Assuming all the allegations are true, there has never been a school more deserving of the NCAA death penalty or to have its federal funding stripped via Title IX. The latter won't happen. The former likely won't either. NCAA will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction but I wonder if the below paragraph opens the door a little bit:

The new suit — the seventh Title IX suit filed against the school — also corroborates the January suit’s claim that Baylor would use sex to sell the football program to incoming players and notes the school would look the other way regarding a policy that prohibited women from the Baylor Bruin hosting program from having sexual contact with football players and recruits. It also notes that Baylor football players would have dog fights at parties.

Given that abuse of "hostess" programs is pretty widespread among P5 football and the kid gloves that the NCAA has been using on the Louisville case, I'm not hopeful here. But I do think it gives them the option if they have the courage to take it.

[warriorchick]

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/new-title-ix-suit-alleges-woman-gang-raped-least-4-ex-baylor-players-154509881.html

Seventh Title IX suit filed against Baylor. The more information that comes out, the more heinous it seems. Assuming all the allegations are true, there has never been a school more deserving of the NCAA death penalty or to have its federal funding stripped via Title IX. The latter won't happen. The former likely won't either. NCAA will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction but I wonder if the below paragraph opens the door a little bit:

Given that abuse of "hostess" programs is pretty widespread among P5 football and the kid gloves that the NCAA has been using on the Louisville case, I'm not hopeful here. But I do think it gives them the option if they have the courage to take it.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people for whom the dogfighting is the much more serious offense.

[Benny B]

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people for whom the dogfighting is the much more serious offense.

If the "sexual contact" were consensual - admittedly I don't know, but I'm presuming the "hostesses" are "independent contractors" and not actual students on work-study grants - why would dogfighting not be the more serious offense?

[warriorchick]

If the "sexual contact" were consensual - admittedly I don't know, but I'm presuming the "hostesses" are "independent contractors" and not actual students on work-study grants - why would dogfighting not be the more serious offense?

How do you know that the dog fighting wasn't consensual?

[source?]

...