Report: FBI Investigated Claims That Bob Knight Groped Women

[jsglow]

Have you been talking to my wife????

Talking?   

(Like taking candy from #nored!)

[mu03eng]

(Like taking candy from #nored!)

That is surprisingly difficult

[jsglow]

That is surprisingly difficult

+1

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Agreed. That's why BAC is the theoretical line. It is where a person goes from drunk to incapacitated. The standard actually used in conduct cases is "should a reasonable person have known that the person was incapacitated." In other words, was the complrightnt exhibiting enough visible signs of incapacitation or was the accused aware of how many drinks the complrightnt had consumed.

Now, "should a reasonable person have known that the person was incapacitated" is a fair standard.  No need to use a theoretical BAC line in your argument.  Are you using .08 as an example to try to make it easier to understand?  Because it actually muddies the water.

Since when does intent matter? If hit and kill someone with my car I certainly didn't intend to do it. I still need to be held accountable for my actions.

It doesn't. The standard of "should a reasonable person have known..." is what I was trying to say.  I was just using intent as an example of when "a reasonable person should have known" vs a lack of intent, which may or may not align with a reasonable person knowing/not knowing.  Sorry I wasn't clearer.

Well I'm certainly never going to advocate for getting rid of privacy laws on these matters. Those laws are in place to protect the accused as much as they are to protect the comprightnt. The only reason we hear about cases like the USC one is because the accused chooses to make themselves known. As for making the policies more public....they are public. You can log onto any universities website and they will explain the conduct process and the student code to you in explicit detail. They aren't trying to hide anything. People and the media (sorry MU82) just don't take the time to read or understand the rules.

Nowhere did I say anything about doing away with privacy rights.  Even though the policies are public, they are hidden in plain sight.  There needs to be a PR campaign from universities guiding the public to these policies.  Many people don't even know this is public information, much less where to look...so thanks for making me aware it is public and telling me where to look.

Well there is a national standard. That's what Title IX is. Universities are then free to interpret that standard and create their policies based on that. Students can then challenge those standards with the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education if they think the standards are unreasonable. To create a 100% uniform conduct system across all universities is quite literally impossible and wouldn't be ethical. As Sultan pointed out, why would a public land grant institution like TAMU and a private Baptist institution like Baylor have the same rules? Plus, a system that works at a giant school like UW would not work the same for a small institution like Marquette. Think of it like the states having different rules. On some matters the state (or the university) knows better what works for their constituents than the federal government (or the Department of Education). And again, these rules are readily available to anyone who is interested. They can research themselves whether or not we are being fair and consistent.

Title IX is a very vague.  I think people like Lenny would like a more explicit standard.  Forgive me Lenny if that is not your position.  Personally, I feel there should at least be a specific, explicitly stated investigative and review procedure for what constitutes due process, one that applies to all Title IX compliant schools.  If one exists, I would be happy to hear it. 

As for a uniform code of conduct, that is unnecessary.  I misspoke in my earlier post.  I really meant to talk about having a federal, explicitly stated, uniform procedure for investigating sexual assault & harassment, which would be just a small part of a university's overall code of conduct.  I apologize for the error.

But all the lawsuits are coming from accused students who are found responsible. If they were truly concerned about avoiding lawsuits and covering their backsides they would do everything in their power to favor the accused. The preferred narrative by universities is that sexual assault never happens on their campus. Finding students responsible for sexual assault goes against their best interests from a public relations standpoint.

The bolded certainly seems to have been the case about 5 plus years ago.  Not all universities took proper steps to investigate claims of sexual assault and pass cases onto authorities.  Some may have even obstructed investigations. 

This opened up the possibility of lawsuits from assault victims.  Now that nearly all the lawsuits, like you said, are coming from the accused it gives a false impression of over-correction.  In attempting to avoid lawsuits from accusers, there are now only lawsuits coming from the accused.  I was merely trying to point out that some people have this impression.  Personally, I know these high profile cases are the vast minority and for the most part universities get it right.

I do appreciate your insight TAMU.  This is a very important topic for society to discuss and I hope to improve my understanding of the process to better judge whether or not justice is being served for all parties.

[Lennys Tap]

Title IX is a very vague.  I think people like Lenny would like a more explicit standard.  Forgive me Lenny if that is not your position.  Personally, I feel there should at least be a specific, explicitly stated investigative and review procedure for what constitutes due process, one that applies to all Title IX compliant schools.  If one exists, I would be happy to hear it. 

That's certainly part of my position, Lazar. I wonder what % of parents and/or students themselves are aware that having sex after 2 beers with someone who has had 3 beers can be classified by some Title IX administrators as sexual assault on an incapacitated person. I think that potential misuse of power is dangerous and ultimately hurts/trivializes efforts to curtail a very serious problem.

[GGGG]

That's certainly part of my position, Lazar. I wonder what % of parents and/or students themselves are aware that having sex after 2 beers with someone who has had 3 beers can be classified by some Title IX administrators as sexual assault on an incapacitated person. I think that potential misuse of power is dangerous and ultimately hurts/trivializes efforts to curtail a very serious problem.

Every student at my school is required to complete a 20 minute webinar, and complete a short quiz, in their first semester of being enrolled. 

[Lennys Tap]

Every student at my school is required to complete a 20 minute webinar, and complete a short quiz, in their first semester of being enrolled.

Does the webinar tell them that if, after having 2 beers in 45 minutes they have consensual sex with someone who has had 3 beers in the same time period that they are guilty of sexual assault on an incapacitated person?

[GGGG]

Does the webinar tell them that if, after having 2 beers in 45 minutes they have consensual sex with someone who has had 3 beers in the same time period that they are guilty of sexual assault on an incapacitated person?

I haven't taken it so I do not know.

[Lennys Tap]

I haven't taken it so I do not know.

I have no objection to a webinar or a quiz to follow. I think it's important that students be reminded (hopefully their parents have already told them) that  their new found freedom can be a double edged sword and that they need to be careful to treat one another with respect and consideration. I hope, though, that the webinar doesn't confuse less than optimal behavior with sexual assault.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

One thing you point out here which I think I'd like some guidance based on your experience....percentage-wise how many cases are purely one party was too intoxicated to consent and the other person "knew" and how many cases might have that as a component but there was also an element of coercion be it physical or verbal? I'd have to think the later scenario is vastly more likely to result in some sort of finding than the former.

I would guess that somewhere in the realm of 95% of the case that I have personally seen that involve alcohol also involve some sort of coercive behavior. Either bullying, badgering, blackmailing, threatening, ignoring nos, physical force, or getting nos when the complainant is sober and then keep pouring them drinks until they can't answer any more. The concept that two incapacitated people are happily throwing themselves  at each other and then one of them feels taken advantage of the next day is so rare it can be considered myth. I personally have seen three cases where there was no evidence of coercive behavior but evidence of incapciation. Two were found not responsible one was found responsible.

General statement as a result of all of this.....culturally people just need to understand, if you and/or the other party have been drinking and you don't really know each other, don't have sex in any form. Nothing good can come of it.

Yep. This is why the education piece of Title IX is so much more important than the conduct piece. That is where meaningful change will come.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth but this standard is a guideline and this is where the reasonable person stance comes in. If both parties are at, lets say, 0.1 BAC was it reasonable that the accused could know that the accused either didn't or couldn't provide consent. Am extreme example to make the point: both parties at 0.1 BAC and it is known conclusively that no words were exchanged and zero physical coercion was applied, both parties seemingly engaged in the activity. Afterwards the accused says they were assaulted and did not knowingly grant consent. In that case, it would not be reasonable for the accused to know that the other party was unable to consent (they seemed to be acting "normal" and didn't say no) and very likely the finding around be for the accused.

If you are saying what I think you are saying, than yes. If it can be established that neither party was exhibiting signs of incapacitation and no coercive behavior was present than the finding would likely (and should) go in favor of the accused.

It's important to remember that when I say .08 BAC is the standard, it is not the actual standard. It is the point that has been established as when incapacitation starts for most people. Impairment is also affected by serveral other factors like tolerance. Some people will be impaired at .08, some won't be impaired until .10, and others can be impaired at .04.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Now, "should a reasonable person have known that the person was incapacitated" is a fair standard.  No need to use a theoretical BAC line in your argument.  Are you using .08 as an example to try to make it easier to understand?  Because it actually muddies the water.

The .08 is the line where most people start to become incapaciated. If you are going to use a word like incapacitated in your standard you need to be able to define it.

Nowhere did I say anything about doing away with privacy rights.  Even though the policies are public, they are hidden in plain sight.  There needs to be a PR campaign from universities guiding the public to these policies.  Many people don't even know this is public information, much less where to look...so thanks for making me aware it is public and telling me where to look.

I see what you are going for but I don't know that a PR campaign would be a wise use of resources. The general public are not primary stakeholders and they for the most part aren't interested until a high profile case happens at a university they are interested in. Maybe including directions to the policy in any public statements about cases could be beneficial but I think the general best practice is to just quote FERPA and not say anything.

Title IX is a very vague.  I think people like Lenny would like a more explicit standard.  Forgive me Lenny if that is not your position.  Personally, I feel there should at least be a specific, explicitly stated investigative and review procedure for what constitutes due process, one that applies to all Title IX compliant schools.  If one exists, I would be happy to hear it. 

As for a uniform code of conduct, that is unnecessary.  I misspoke in my earlier post.  I really meant to talk about having a federal, explicitly stated, uniform procedure for investigating sexual assault & harassment, which would be just a small part of a university's overall code of conduct.  I apologize for the error.

The original Title IX is very vague but has been repeatedly clarified by Dear Colleague Letters that set out some of the standards you are looking for. The one from 2011 is the main one that set a lot of these standards. So there is a set standard, but like any law, it is up to individuals to interpret it so there are naturally some differences. And again, these universities are separate institutions that have the right to set their own standards and systems within reason.

Personally, I know these high profile cases are the vast minority and for the most part universities get it right.

Thank you for acknowledging this. The system is not perfect. No system is...including the criminal system. But it works the vast majority of the time but everyone wants to focus on the handful of cases where it doesn't. We should of course work to improve the system but many seem to just want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I do appreciate your insight TAMU.  This is a very important topic for society to discuss and I hope to improve my understanding of the process to better judge whether or not justice is being served for all parties.

Thank you, I appreciate the conversation as well. I don't always get unfiltered conversation like this in person. Its usually one of two extremes, either people who are too scared to say the wrong thing to the scary Title IX guy or people who don't understand and just want to scream at me.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

That's certainly part of my position, Lazar. I wonder what % of parents and/or students themselves are aware that having sex after 2 beers with someone who has had 3 beers can be classified by some Title IX administrators as sexual assault on an incapacitated person. I think that potential misuse of power is dangerous and ultimately hurts/trivializes efforts to curtail a very serious problem.

Per Title IX every University must go over the definition of sexual assault, consent, incapacitaiton, the conduct process, and other relevant information at their orientation. It is also considered a best practice though not required to have a mandatory second training during the student's first year and to have the student sign a copy of the student rules affirming that they have read and understand them. So the only ones to blame if they don't understand the rules is the students. (Assuming the university has followed through on their obligations)

What do you mean by "trivializes efforts to curtail a very serious problem"?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Does the webinar tell them that if, after having 2 beers in 45 minutes they have consensual sex with someone who has had 3 beers in the same time period that they are guilty of sexual assault on an incapacitated person?

Lenny, the only people who reach .08 after two beers is women who are 100 lbs or less and if they drink them both in less than an hour and has not eaten in a while. And I'm not sure why the amount of beers matters. It's not about how much they drink its about when their judgement has become compromised by alcohol.

Let's go about this a different way. You are obviously opposed to this idea. So where do you draw the line? Is there a point where someone is too drunk to consent? Or is it as long as they are conscious they are fair game?

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny, the only people who reach .08 after two beers is women who are 100 lbs or less and if they drink them both in less than an hour and has not eaten in a while. And I'm not sure why the amount of beers matters. It's not about how much they drink its about when their judgement has become compromised by alcohol.

Please reread my post. I didn't say the person who drank 2 beers in 45 minutes was .08 - he or she was the "assaulter" in my example. The person who drank 3 beers or the same period was the "assaultee". The idea that person A can make a bad decision and end up expelled (or worse) while person B can make the same bad decision and becomes a victim is one I just can't get my arms around.

[Lennys Tap]

Let's go about this a different way. You are obviously opposed to this idea. So where do you draw the line? Is there a point where someone is too drunk to consent? Or is it as long as they are conscious they are fair game?

1.Yes
2.No

I just believe .08 to be much too low a level to be considered "incapacitated".

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

1.Yes
2.No

I just believe .08 to be much too low a level to be considered "incapacitated".

So what is it?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Please reread my post. I didn't say the person who drank 2 beers in 45 minutes was .08 - he or she was the "assaulter" in my example. The person who drank 3 beers or the same period was the "assaultee". The idea that person A can make a bad decision and end up expelled (or worse) while person B can make the same bad decision and becomes a victim is one I just can't get my arms around.

Apologies for the misread.  Even so, 3 beers only gets a significant minority of people to .08. And it's not the same decision.  One is making a decision to have sex with a sober person,  which is legal.  The other is making a decision to have sex with an incapacitated person which is against the rules (and starting to become illegal in several states).

I'll give a comparison.  A 15 year old and a 25 year old decide to have sex with each other. Both are "willing", both are deciding to have sex, the 15 year old night even be the one pushing for it,  but only the 25 year old is choosing to do something illegal. It is the 25 year olds responsibility to say no.  Like alcohol,  youth is not an excuse for committing crimes.  You murder someone or knock over a Gas Station as a 15 year old you are held accountable.  But we don't hold them accountable for their decision to have sex because we recognize that itwas the other persons responsibility to not do something illegal.

Which brings us back to the question of the line. The .08 has been put forward because most people start to have impaired judgement at .08. And just like the courts have repeatedly decided that someone cannot be held responsible for a written contract signed while under the influence,  consent is a verbal contact that needs two clear minded individuals.

As I've said previously,  I'm open to arguments for other thresholds. But there got to be a scientific justification to it, not just "that seems too low."

[B. McBannerson]

New York Magazine.   Title IX Enforcement is Broken

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/a-bizarre-usc-case-shows-how-broken-title-ix-enforcement-is.html

[rocket surgeon]

New York Magazine.   Title IX Enforcement is Broken

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/a-bizarre-usc-case-shows-how-broken-title-ix-enforcement-is.html

  a very well written article that i believe nails it-no pun intended, but, as carpenters with their hammers-everything looks like a nail-title IX bureaucrats, everything looks like an unsafe environment and/or sexual assault.  then you throw fed money into the mix and look out.  all common sense is thrown out and it's like they were trying to re-program zoe katz because they were the perfeshonals (sp mine) you know.  this is the "$450 per hour" attorney's wet dream

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

New York Magazine.   Title IX Enforcement is Broken

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/a-bizarre-usc-case-shows-how-broken-title-ix-enforcement-is.html

Lots of misinformation in that article followed by hypothesises that are formed based on a lack of information. In Title IX cases, the university is not allowed offer any clarity on rulings because of FERPA. So one side is free to make up whatever story they want, publicize it, and the university is not allowed to comment. Over half the country was ready to burn down the University of Minnesota last year until someone leaked the investigation report clearly showing that the university was more than justified in their decision.

It is hilarious to me that the same people who scrutinize those who report sexual assault and claim they are just seeking attention or out for revenge, or making things up are often the same ones who are willing to take the words of those found responsible for sexual violence as the gospel truth.

There are miscarriages of justice under Title IX. Just as there are miscarriages of justice in the criminal system. Both can stand to be improved. But focusing on the vast minority of cases where it doesn't go right and ignoring the thousands where it does is not a logical response.

I don't have the investigation report for the USC case. I can't condemn or condone the university's decision without all the information. But one of two things is true. Either USC's Title IX office is one of the most incompetent in the nation and multiple someones need to get fired or there is more to the story. While I can't personally vouch for anyone in that office I personally think that it is more likely that there is more to the story than there being that level of gross incompetence. And if there isn't more to the story, I would be the first one to condemn them.

EDIT: To be honest, I can't be angry with journalists like Mr. Singal. While some of the misinformation in his article could have been clarified if he talked to an expert on Title IX, presenting his example cases in a one sided manner is all he can really do. If I have an investigation where one side gives a tell all and the other refuses to answer any questions, the only information I can record is very one sided. Universities' hands are tied. They aren't allowed to comment on cases at all. I'm sure Mr. Singal did his due diligence and tried to get the university's side in his examples but in the end all he can report is what he's told. Its an unfortunate reality that this spreads myths about the Title IX process and that is something I don't know how to fix. Federal privacy laws are a must in this matter. That is non-negotiable. I think all universities can do is keep up the good work and trust the Department of Education has their backs. We can take all the mud slinging if it means we can continue to help people.

[real chili 83]

Over half the country was ready to burn down the University of Minnesota last year until someone leaked the investigation report clearly showing that the university was more than justified in their decision

Not accurate, as much of the original discipline imposed was changed upon appeal.  Lots of bad actors on all sides of this issue.  The U of M came across as a solution looking for a problem in this case.  It didn't help that Minnesota's athletic department has a rich history of inappropriate sexual conduct by AD's and other high ranking administrators...fact.  They had zero credibility when investigating this.

TAMU, you have a very difficult job.  I deal with these issues in an employment context. 

Here's a real life case I'm curious how others would deal with....senior SME long tenured, invites a brand new employee to go for a boat ride after work, along with the new employee's two very young children.  Invite happens at work.  Drinks are poured and consumed before and during boat ride.  SME initiates (and admits) engaging in sexual conduct in front of the kids.  Employee reports they were intoxicated and was assaulted.  Intoxication is verified.  SME insists it was conseting behavior between two adults.  New employee claims assault.  No criminal charges filed.  Employee files harassment charge at work.

What's the right decision for the employer?

[jsglow]

Not accurate, as much of the original discipline imposed was changed upon appeal.  Lots of bad actors on all sides of this issue.  The U of M came across as a solution looking for a problem in this case.  It didn't help that Minnesota's athletic department has a rich history of inappropriate sexual conduct by AD's and other high ranking administrators...fact.  They had zero credibility when investigating this.

TAMU, you have a very difficult job.  I deal with these issues in an employment context. 

Here's a real life case I'm curious how others would deal with....senior SME long tenured, invites a brand new employee to go for a boat ride after work, along with the new employee's two very young children.  Invite happens at work.  Drinks are poured and consumed before and during boat ride.  SME initiates (and admits) engaging in sexual conduct in front of the kids.  Employee reports they were intoxicated and was assaulted.  Intoxication is verified.  SME insists it was conseting behavior between two adults.  New employee claims assault.  No criminal charges filed.  Employee files harassment charge at work.

What's the right decision for the employer?

Real, I know nothing about the field.  But I personally think the long tenured employee is in a crap ton of trouble.

And as to the article above, that's exactly what I think is happening in far too many places. We've got a whole industry built to handle the innocent 'I hit that' balcony catcall that should have been a total nothing burger ending with the apology as indicated in the article.  Silly things like that specifically detract from legitimate cases of assault where it actually takes place.  My sincere hope is that serious professionals in the field like TAMU would take that set of facts and immediately quash the 'case'.

[StillAWarrior]

TAMU - I agree that privacy in such cases is often vitally important.  What I want to know is whose right of privacy is being protected?  While I'm asking a general question, I'm really focusing on the USC case.  Is it the "victim's" privacy that is being protected?  If so, since she's denying that anything took place, could she waive her privacy rights and authorize the release of the report?  Or is the entire process cloaked in a privacy right that doesn't belong to any individual and cannot be waived?

I understand that the USC case is an anomaly and that you don't have any more information about the specific facts than what we've all read.  I'm just asking more of a general question about the privacy rules surrounding such cases.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Let's just drop this one here...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/national/security-footage-clears-usc-student-rape-charges-article-1.3385203