no homo (nh)

[Jockey]

Typical Scoop thread.

One guy (TAMU) is involved and knowledgeable.

Then the trolls crawl out just to verify their complete lack of knowledge to all of us. When that doesn’t work, it’s straight to the insults.

[real chili 83]

I’m going out on a limb on this on with.....

In before the lock!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Typical Scoop thread.

One guy (TAMU) is involved and knowledgeable.

Then the trolls crawl out just to verify their complete lack of knowledge to all of us. When that doesn’t work, it’s straight to the insults.

I don't think anyone has insulted me. There is some misinformation and obviously some don't have any interest in learning or hearing anything other than their own opinion but that's fine. I'm glad for the opportunity for discussion. It makes me better at my job honestly. It's good for me to know what perceptions and misinformation is out there so I can address it in my training. People are more likely to open about these things on an anonymous internet forum than when attending a title ix training at their place of employment.

[rocket surgeon]

Typical Scoop thread.

One guy (TAMU) is involved and knowledgeable.

Then the trolls crawl out just to verify their complete lack of knowledge to all of us. When that doesn’t work, it’s straight to the insults.

With all due respect to TAMU with regards to this topic specifically, I trust he knows more than I and many others about this issue.  Just as I’d like to think 4ever and I would know more about oral issues.  The fact that someone may question another is good as long as it’s respectful and constructive.  Debating an issue is good stuff and I think most of us are able to make our own decisions on who and or what is the most plausible.  But, according to Brandi in his never ending attempts to suck up, eveyone who disagrees with his opinion should just shut up.  Now what does that sound like??  🤷🏼‍♂️

[mu03eng]

With all due respect to TAMU with regards to this topic specifically, I trust he knows more than I and many others about this issue.  Just as I’d like to think 4ever and I would know more about oral issues.  The fact that someone may question another is good as long as it’s respectful and constructive.  Debating an issue is good stuff and I think most of us are able to make our own decisions on who and or what is the most plausible.  But, according to Brandi in his never ending attempts to suck up, eveyone who disagrees with his opinion should just shut up.  Now what does that sound like??  🤷🏼‍♂️

[4everwarriors]

Yeah Man, proud ta sey I got loads of experience wit those, hey?

[#UnleashSean]

@TAMU

Thanks for the info. I'll have to find the articles I read and post them since they seem to contradict what you say. In those articles, they stated that the process was mostly a sham with little room for the accused to make their case and I distinctly remember it being stated that no lawyers were allowed.

I believe this was about Rice university if that helps.

[Jay Bee]

@TAMU

Thanks for the info. I'll have to find the articles I read and post them since they seem to contradict what you say. In those articles, they stated that the process was mostly a sham with little room for the accused to make their case and I distinctly remember it being stated that no lawyers were allowed.

I believe this was about Rice university if that helps.

Many examples of this. For whatever reasons, TAMU is lying.

[MU82]

So you really didn’t follow the case but “ rich white male prevails!” ? 

  Kevin Olsen barely made it out of college as a “decent” qb.  He obviously did not make it to the next level(nfl) that I’m aware of, and he’s a “rich white male”?? 

His brother Greg is an All-Pro tight end who has made tens of millions of dollars during his career, and he is directly involved in every step of Kevin's life. Greg was in the courtroom just about every day, and he bankrolled the best attorneys money could buy to defend his brother.

So yes, Kevin Olsen is a rich, white male.

A poor person would not have been able to afford that kind of defense, and very well might have been found guilty because of it -- one of many reasons our prisons are filled non-Caucasians.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

@TAMU

Thanks for the info. I'll have to find the articles I read and post them since they seem to contradict what you say. In those articles, they stated that the process was mostly a sham with little room for the accused to make their case and I distinctly remember it being stated that no lawyers were allowed.

I believe this was about Rice university if that helps.

Please do.  Keep in mind that media often get things wrong and the only source they often have is the accused student who is of course going to say the process is a sham. Universities are bound by privacy laws and can't offer a defense.

Also keep in mind that like any other system,  there are bad actors. There have been and are biased university conduct professionals. There have been universities that have violated the guidance. These individuals have been biased both ways, some benefitting the accused,  some benefitting the accuser.  These individuals need to be found out and held accountable.  Just like biased and corrupt judges,  DAs,  jurors, etc need to be found out and held accountable.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Many examples of this. For whatever reasons, TAMU is lying.

Go read the rules from the Obama era guidance.  Find me the one that says lawyers are banned from being advisors.

I'll wait

[4everwarriors]

Please do.  Keep in mind that media often get things wrong and the only source they often have is the accused student who is of course going to say the process is a sham. Universities are bound by privacy laws and can't offer a defense.

 Herd da very same thing just dis mornin' 'bout another matta, hey?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

 Herd da very same thing just dis mornin' 'bout another matta, hey?

What matter?

[Jay Bee]

Go read the rules from the Obama era guidance.  Find me the one that says lawyers are banned from being advisors.

I'll wait

Lol “Obama era GUIDANCE”

You’re so off on this one, bud.

Anyway, fun read...

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/the-student-right-to-counsel

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Lol “Obama era GUIDANCE”

You’re so off on this one, bud.

Anyway, fun read...

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/the-student-right-to-counsel

1. Those aren't the rules, that's an article with two peoples opinions on the rules.

2. That article supports what I said. Students are allowed to have attorneys as advisors but they aren't allowed to speak for the student. They are allowed to directly advise the student.

3. The article does give an example from Notre Dame after the guidelines were rescinded with what I would call unreasonable and formerly illegal restrictions on the advisor. Assuming the facts are correct I would agree that school needs to change.

[Jay Bee]

1. Those aren't the rules, that's an article with two peoples opinions on the rules.

2. That article supports what I said. Students are allowed to have attorneys as advisors but they aren't allowed to speak for the student. They are allowed to directly advise the student.

Thank you for supporting what I've been saying.

Try, try again if you wish, but U LYIN

[Jay Bee]

There are plenty of examples, but the point is that TAMU is dead wrong.

https://studentconduct.gwu.edu/advisors-role

“Legal representation is not permitted in University Disciplinary Conferences, University Hearing Board or Ad Hoc Board hearings, although parties may be accompanied by advisors or friendly observers.  The role of advisors shall be limited to consultation with the specific parties they are advising; and they may not address the Board or question witnesses.  A violation of this limitation may result in an advisor being removed from the hearing at the discretion of the presiding officer.  The advisor may be, but may not act in the role of an attorney.”

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Try, try again if you wish, but U LYIN

I edited to address one particular example that occurred after the guidance was recinded which I agree is problematic. Another reason why rescinding the guidance with no replacement was a terrible idea.

The article also keeps making the argument that this should be treated as a criminal case. It's not. These are student rule violations.

[Its DJOver]

There are plenty of examples, but the point is that TAMU is dead wrong.

https://studentconduct.gwu.edu/advisors-role

“Legal representation is not permitted in University Disciplinary Conferences, University Hearing Board or Ad Hoc Board hearings, although parties may be accompanied by advisors or friendly observers.  The role of advisors shall be limited to consultation with the specific parties they are advising; and they may not address the Board or question witnesses.  A violation of this limitation may result in an advisor being removed from the hearing at the discretion of the presiding officer. The advisor may be, but may not act in the role of an attorney.”

I don't have a dog in this fight, but how exactly would this work?  Your adviser can be an attorney and consult with you, but can't act as an attorney?  So can your attorney/adviser tell you exactly what to say as long as they don't directly address the Board or witnesses?

[Jay Bee]

Stop the lies! If it’s a student code violation, YOUR OWN SCHOOL doesn’t permit an attorney to be PRESENT.

How are you so confused here? It must be me. What am I misunderstanding?

https://studentlife.tamu.edu/sco/faq/accused/

Can I have someone with me during my student conduct conference?

Students are permitted to have one advisor present with them during their student conduct conference. Students that are charged in the same incident or who are "not in good standing" with the University may not serve as an advisor for the accused student. Additionally, the advisor may not be an attorney unless the accused student is also the subject of a pending criminal matter arising out of the same circumstances.

 

[MUBurrow]

I edited to address one particular example that occurred after the guidance was recinded which I agree is problematic. Another reason why rescinding the guidance with no replacement was a terrible idea.

The article also keeps making the argument that this should be treated as a criminal case. It's not. These are student rule violations.

TAMU, can you speak to the intent of prohibiting representation? It is to prevent universities from needing to bring in (and pay for) their own counsel? I can understand that for underage drinking tickets and plagiarism, but for serious disciplinary proceedings where there may also be criminal charges, assuming that the university proceeding record is admissible in a criminal court proceeding, doesn't that discourage the accused from participating at the university level?

[Jockey]

I don't think anyone has insulted me.

JayBee has called you a liar numerous times in this thread.

[Jay Bee]

JayBee has called you a liar numerous times in this thread.

That’s not my username and it’s not an insult - it’s fact.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Stop the lies! If it’s a student code violation, YOUR OWN SCHOOL doesn’t permit an attorney to be PRESENT.

How are you so confused here? It must be me. What am I misunderstanding?

https://studentlife.tamu.edu/sco/faq/accused/

Can I have someone with me during my student conduct conference?

Students are permitted to have one advisor present with them during their student conduct conference. Students that are charged in the same incident or who are "not in good standing" with the University may not serve as an advisor for the accused student. Additionally, the advisor may not be an attorney unless the accused student is also the subject of a pending criminal matter arising out of the same circumstances.

You are mistaken. You found the rules for students accused of non-Title IX related rule violations. We have a separate process (with more due process!) for those accused of Title IX related rule violations.

https://student-rules.tamu.edu/rule47/

Throughout the process, complainants and accused students may have an advisor of their choice present at any meeting related to the investigation, conduct process, and appeal.  An advisor of choice may include an attorney at the student’s own expense.

Don't worry, I won't call you a liar. I know you just made a mistake.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

There are plenty of examples, but the point is that TAMU is dead wrong.

https://studentconduct.gwu.edu/advisors-role

“Legal representation is not permitted in University Disciplinary Conferences, University Hearing Board or Ad Hoc Board hearings, although parties may be accompanied by advisors or friendly observers.  The role of advisors shall be limited to consultation with the specific parties they are advising; and they may not address the Board or question witnesses.  A violation of this limitation may result in an advisor being removed from the hearing at the discretion of the presiding officer. The advisor may be, but may not act in the role of an attorney.”

Once again, you have provided an example that illustrates what I am talking about. Students are allowed to have attorneys as advisors but advisors can only address their advisee.