Report: FBI Investigated Claims That Bob Knight Groped Women

[B. McBannerson]

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.

Then there is a public perception problem brewing with the work that you do, and that is unfortunate as you are doing your jobs, but these things percolate because of situations that keep repeating themselves. The feeling, at least by some and captured in this article among many others, is that we have over rotated.   The reporter asks a great question, why are we not listening to an adult woman who says this is a railroad job?  The reflex reaction is to listen to the woman first if she makes a claim of sexual assault, but if she says nothing happened we ignore it?  That is troubling and should be concerning to anyone.

Clay Travis, sports entertainment guy has a good take in my opinion.  https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/title-ix-broken-usc-kicker-booted-nothing/

Change is coming, the question is to what degree.  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/04/little-appetite-rollback-obama-guidelines-campus-sexual-assault

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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?

I don't think an appeal means that there were bad actors on the university side. All that means is the system was doing what it was supposed to. There is due process and checks for both the accuser and the accused.

As for your example, it would depend on what your company's rules. If this was a university case we would use the standard "would a reasonable person have known that the new employee was incapacitated." It would also depend on the type of relationship been the two, is there a direct line of supervision? The specific line of "in front of the kids" concerns me. I wasn't sure what you meant by that but you could have some indecent exposure or innapropriate conduct with a child concerns there.

What's it with Minnesotans and having sex on boats? 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

Both the privacy of the complainant and the accused. There is no bias it is a blanket requirement. Both sides are free to discuss the case with whoever they so choose. If the young woman would like the truth out there, she and the accused could sign a document waiving their FERPA rights as it pertains to this case and the university would be free to comment on their case. They wouldn't have to comment on the case but they would be free to.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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

I'm not sure what the point of this is. This isn't about the case we are talking about. Nor does it prove what I think you want it to prove.  And this is the problem with these types of cases. That woman could have been making out with him, making sexual gesutres, leading her back to her room.....but she has the right to change her mind at any point. If she got to the room and then decided I don't want to do this anymore and he went ahead anyway, that is still a sexual assault. And per Title IX if she was incapacitated and he was not than it is still a violation of the student code of conduct. Of course, if they were both incapacitated then she would be the assaulter in the case.

Another factor in this case is that California is an affirmative consent state. It is required by state law that a verbal yes must be obtained before initiating sexual contact. A practice that I personally think is good in theory but is significantly flawed.

All that being said, if I was on the panel for this case and I saw that video I would find him not responsible unless I had very strong evidence that she had later changed her mind or that a reasonable person would have known she was incapacitated.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Then there is a public perception problem brewing with the work that you do, and that is unfortunate as you are doing your jobs, but these things percolate because of situations that keep repeating themselves. The feeling, at least by some and captured in this article among many others, is that we have over rotated.   The reporter asks a great question, why are we not listening to an adult woman who says this is a railroad job?  The reflex reaction is to listen to the woman first if she makes a claim of sexual assault, but if she says nothing happened we ignore it?  That is troubling and should be concerning to anyone.

Clay Travis, sports entertainment guy has a good take in my opinion.  https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/title-ix-broken-usc-kicker-booted-nothing/

Change is coming, the question is to what degree.  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/08/04/little-appetite-rollback-obama-guidelines-campus-sexual-assault

To the first bolded, people think situations keep repeating themselves. The truth is, they don't have all the information and make assumptions. That's not to say that misapplications don't happen, because they do. Just like any other justice system. It can stand to be improved but the baby does not need to be thrown out with the bathwater.

To the second, we already discussed this previously but domestic violence victims often lie to protect their abusers. This is well established by research and cases that happen every day. I would be happy to provide you with both. There are many reasons why victims protect their abusers ranging from fear of retaliation to an honest to goodness belief that the abuse was somehow their fault and they deserved it. I would also argue that the reflex reaction is NOT to believe a survivor of sexual assault. Our reflex reaction is to scrutinize and question. When I investigate cases of sexual assault I usually have dozens of witnesses lining up to give character references for the accused. The accusers are usually all alone.

To the last bolded, it's possible. We are all waiting to see what DeVos' DOE will do on this topic. I applaud her for meeting with both victims and accused students to get insight. My impression of DeVos herself is that she supports the universities and what they have been doing with Title IX. But some of the people around her don't feel the same way. One of them had to publicly apologize for her recent comments on sexual assault which is concerning. I personally don't see them making any major rollbacks but they are definitely going to stop the momentum on the topic. An administration with a leader that has been publicly accused multiple times of sexual assault loosening regulations of sexual assault on campus wouldn't have the best optics. There are changes I would like to see to Title IX so I'm open to the idea of DeVos issuing a new DCL dependent on what the changes are.

[StillAWarrior]

Both the privacy of the complrightnt and the accused. There is no bias it is a blanket requirement. Both sides are free to discuss the case with whoever they so choose. If the young woman would like the truth out there, she and the accused could sign a document waiving their FERPA rights as it pertains to this case and the university would be free to comment on their case. They wouldn't have to comment on the case but they would be free to.

So, in the USC case, is it the alleged victim and the accused? Or is it the person who made the complaint (who was not the alleged victim in this case) and the accused?  In this particular case, if the alleged victim (not the complainant) and the accused both authorize (and I have no idea if they have), is there anything preventing USC from telling the other side of the story?  Can the alleged victim and the accused get a copy of the report?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So, in the USC case, is it the alleged victim and the accused? Or is it the person who made the complaint (who was not the alleged victim in this case) and the accused?  In this particular case, if the alleged victim (not the complrightnt) and the accused both authorize (and I have no idea if they have), is there anything preventing USC from telling the other side of the story?  Can the alleged victim and the accused get a copy of the report?

Thank you for pointing that out, the complainant and the alleged victim are two different people in this case. Were getting into general counsel territory here so my understanding is a little shakier, but my understanding is that if the complainant was a student they would also need him/her to waiver his/her FERPA rights. If they weren't a student than they could proceed with just the waiver from the accused and the alleged victim.

Different universities have different policies on handing out copies of the report to those involved. They are required to let them review the report but most universities don't let them take a copy of the report because they need to protect the privacy rights of other students involved. Some universities give out copies to those involved with information about other students redacted out.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I'm not sure what the point of this is. This isn't about the case we are talking about. Nor does it prove what I think you want it to prove.  And this is the problem with these types of cases. That woman could have been making out with him, making sexual gesutres, leading her back to her room.....but she has the right to change her mind at any point. If she got to the room and then decided I don't want to do this anymore and he went ahead anyway, that is still a sexual assault. And per Title IX if she was incapacitated and he was not than it is still a violation of the student code of conduct. Of course, if they were both incapacitated then she would be the assaulter in the case.

Another factor in this case is that California is an affirmative consent state. It is required by state law that a verbal yes must be obtained before initiating sexual contact. A practice that I personally think is good in theory but is significantly flawed.

All that being said, if I was on the panel for this case and I saw that video I would find him not responsible unless I had very strong evidence that she had later changed her mind or that a reasonable person would have known she was incapacitated.

The point is it is another confounding case at the same school where two different burdens of proof are at play. If she said no, as you point out about California law, he would have been legally tried for rape. She didn't or else the legal charges would have gone forward.  Instead, evidence (at least in this article) indicates she was the aggressor.

So, what will USC do? Expel him? Her? Neither? In the kicker's case, USC kicked him off the team and out of school, while putting a restriction order on him to not reach out to his girlfriend who denies the abuse and claims she was "railroaded" (even though he is out of school).

https://www.google.com/amp/deadspin.com/girlfriend-of-former-usc-kicker-says-school-railroaded-1797468166/amp

Again, the issue for many of us is when the two burdens of proof are disjointed, and thus the flaw of Title IX's application here in these cases by universities (which even apparently varies university to university). Fairness is getting mixed up with justice. The incongruity of which strongly brings into question the entire "due process" of it all, which is unfortunate. When universities overreach or under reach on its application, therein lies the problem.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The point is it is another confounding case at the same school where two different burdens of proof are at play. If she said no, as you point out about California law, he would have been legally tried for rape. She didn't or else the legal charges would have gone forward.  Instead, evidence (at least in this article) indicates she was the aggressor.

So, what will USC do? Expel him? Her? Neither? In the kicker's case, USC kicked him off the team and out of school, while putting a restriction order on him to not reach out to his girlfriend who denies the abuse and claims she was "railroaded" (even though he is out of school).

https://www.google.com/amp/deadspin.com/girlfriend-of-former-usc-kicker-says-school-railroaded-1797468166/amp

Again, the issue for many of us is when the two burdens of proof are disjointed, and thus the flaw of Title IX's application here in these cases by universities (which even apparently varies university to university). Fairness is getting mixed up with justice. The incongruity of which strongly brings into question the entire "due process" of it all, which is unfortunate. When universities overreach or under reach on its application, therein lies the problem.

You have a lot of blind faith in the criminal justice system. The bolded is not true. DAs only pursue cases they think they can win. After that video surfaced, it wouldn't have mattered if he pulled on gun her in the room. The case was over. It has nothing to do with the burden of proof.

The burdens of proof aren't disjointed. The preponderance of the evidence standard is the standard that universities use for every case that they hear. From sexual assault to noise violations. What you are asking universities to do is create special treatment for sexual assault cases which is nonsensical. The university is not investigating violations of law they are investigating violations of the student conduct. A lower burden of proof is warranted.

[Dr. Blackheart]

You have a lot of blind faith in the criminal justice system. The bolded is not true. DAs only pursue cases they think they can win. After that video surfaced, it wouldn't have mattered if he pulled on gun her in the room. The case was over. It has nothing to do with the burden of proof.

The burdens of proof aren't disjointed. The preponderance of the evidence standard is the standard that universities use for every case that they hear. From sexual assault to noise violations. What you are asking universities to do is create special treatment for sexual assault cases which is nonsensical. The university is not investigating violations of law they are investigating violations of the student conduct. A lower burden of proof is warranted.

If you think a DA makes judgments on bringing forward a case simply "if they think can win a case or not", I don't know what to say. If you don't think there are higher legal standards around burden of proof, grand juries, judges along the way, you are naive.

Secondarily, do you think reasonable doubt and 50.1% are the same burden of proof?

Secon

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If you think a DA makes judgments on bringing forward a case simply "if they think can win a case or not", I don't know what to say. If you don't think there are higher legal standards around burden of proof, grand juries, judges along the way, you are naive.

Secondarily, do you think reasonable doubt and 50.1% are the same burden of proof?

Secon

I work with the criminal justice system on a near daily basis. I'm not naive in the slightest. The reality is that most sexual assault accusations don't result in charges not because there is no evidence but because there is not enough evidence.

I don't think reasonable doubt and 50.1% are anywhere near the same burden of proof which is why I didn't say that. I said that universities use the preponderance of information standard for accusations of all violations of the student code of conduct. What you seem to be advocating for is that universities treat sexual assault differently and use a higher standard of proof that they don't use for any other violation. You can't seem to recognize that university conduct is not a legal matter.

Why is it so offensive to you that universities use a different standard of proof? You keep saying its an issue but have yet to explain what the issue is. What is the problem if someone is found not guilty in criminal court but found responsible by the university conduct system? Do you also have an issue with someone being found not guilty in criminal court but then losing in civil court?

[Lennys Tap]

So what is it?

I don't know. But my experience and common sense tells me that one does not go from bring OK to drive an automobile (.075, say) to being so incapacitated that his or her enthusiastic consent to sex is rendered meaningless (.080) in what amounts to a sip of wine or a swallow of beer. That doesn't seem very scientific to me - seems arbitrary.

[Lennys Tap]

Why is it so offensive to you that universities use a different standard of proof? You keep saying its an issue but have yet to explain what the issue is. What is the problem if someone is found not guilty in criminal court but found responsible by the university conduct system? Do you also have an issue with someone being found not guilty in criminal court but then losing in civil court?

Maybe beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a threshold, but I would also submit that 50.1% is dangerously low. That's basically a coin flip. Would you really want to kick a kid out of school and brand him/her forever a sexual assaulter, cheater, etc., because you thought there was "only" a 49.9% chance that he/she was innocent? Not me. And that's not even allowing for what % the needle is moved by the individual biases of the investigator - everyone has them.

[jsglow]

I'm not trying to take sides in the ongoing Title IX debate and I particularly don't want to ignite some argument over Education Secretary DeVos and the various positions outlined in the article taken by folks lining up as one might expect, but I do think it interesting that there appears to be some discussion taking place in official circles very much along the lines of several pages in this thread that I believe we all found informative. 

Perhaps TAMU can keep us in the loop.  Of course we all want people properly protected.  And of course we don't want others wrongly accused.  Let's hope that the national conversation can remain as constructive as we've been on the topic but somehow I have my doubts in these charged times.  Happy Friday everyone.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-devos-campus-assault-rules-201708-story.html

[rocket surgeon]

i may have missed it, but why are schools saddled with prosecuting anything?  let the schools try to stick with what they should be good at-teaching.  allow law enforcement to do what it's supposed to do-enforce the law.  the schools can then respond accordingly and further reprimand the student if they feel a need to further protect their students based in part on some real evidence and due process.  is this a perfect solution?  i don't know, but i don't believe the other one was working out very well at all.   

excellent latimes article by the way

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I don't know. But my experience and common sense tells me that one does not go from bring OK to drive an automobile (.075, say) to being so incapacitated that his or her enthusiastic consent to sex is rendered meaningless (.080) in what amounts to a sip of wine or a swallow of beer. That doesn't seem very scientific to me - seems arbitrary.

Well no matter where you put the standard, be it 0, .04, 08, .12, .20, etc, at some point one sip is going to be the difference between consensual and non-consensual. And given that you can't legally be held to a contract you signed while above .08, it seems there is some precedent for no longer being held responsible for a form of consent at that level of intoxication. In the end, this is all an academic exercise, because no one is being breathalyzed in these moments. The actual standard is whether a reasonable person should have known that the other person was incapacitated.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Maybe beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a threshold, but I would also submit that 50.1% is dangerously low. That's basically a coin flip. Would you really want to kick a kid out of school and brand him/her forever a sexual assaulter, cheater, etc., because you thought there was "only" a 49.9% chance that he/she was innocent? Not me. And that's not even allowing for what % the needle is moved by the individual biases of the investigator - everyone has them.

Given how much due process and thoroughness that goes into the investigations I am very comfortable with it. Especially given that the biases of our panel members tend to favor the accused. And while the actual standard is 50.1%, I think most of our panel members actually have an internal bar that is much higher. And while not an official practice, in my experience panel members will assign lower sanctions when they are closer to the 50% mark than the 100% mark.

A general disclaimer, I can't speak for all schools but at least at TAMU and the colleagues at other schools that I have worked with, expulsions for sexual assault are very rare. The national standard is that they are reserved for "true predators" or to say another way, serial offenders, who would likely offend again if given the opportunity. There seems to be a perception that students are getting expelled left and right.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm not trying to take sides in the ongoing Title IX debate and I particularly don't want to ignite some argument over Education Secretary DeVos and the various positions outlined in the article taken by folks lining up as one might expect, but I do think it interesting that there appears to be some discussion taking place in official circles very much along the lines of several pages in this thread that I believe we all found informative. 

Perhaps TAMU can keep us in the loop.  Of course we all want people properly protected.  And of course we don't want others wrongly accused.  Let's hope that the national conversation can remain as constructive as we've been on the topic but somehow I have my doubts in these charged times.  Happy Friday everyone.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-devos-campus-assault-rules-201708-story.html

I found the article mostly fair but I feel like they are using year old interviews from 2011. Yes there was a lot of turmoil and confusion when the DCL  first came out. It was a huge adjustment. But universities have had 6 years to get in compliance and most are doing just fine. New jobs were created, masters programs refocused a new energy on training people for these new jobs, and now you have a new generation of employees who understand Title IX very well and can execute its requirements with ease.

We are all waiting on DeVos at this point. I think I said it earlier but I don't think there will be major scalebacks the way many expect. There might be a few small changes but nothing major. The article mentioned one that I personally would like to see change. The 60 day requirement for investigations to close. While it is not a hard deadline, extensions can be requested, I think it does a disservice to both accused and accusers. It puts pressure on universities to get investigations, panels, and appeals scheduled. An accused student may be asked to come back to campus during an internship out of state, or an accuser be asked to interview during finals weeks. I appreciate the thought behind the rule but would like to see it extended or further relaxed.

There actually was a scaleback already when they rescinded the most recent DCL regarding transgendered students. I personally think it was an ok thing because it will allow schools time to prepare for the new requirements before they actually become enforceable. The changes made in the DCL were good but came too suddenly much like the 2011 DCL. This will hopefully ease some of the initial chaos when those changes get re instituted (and they will).

I'll definitely be watching and would be happy to offer my thoughts and opinions.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

i may have missed it, but why are schools saddled with prosecuting anything?  let the schools try to stick with what they should be good at-teaching.  allow law enforcement to do what it's supposed to do-enforce the law.  the schools can then respond accordingly and further reprimand the student if they feel a need to further protect their students based in part on some real evidence and due process.  is this a perfect solution?  i don't know, but i don't believe the other one was working out very well at all.   

excellent latimes article by the way

The NFL should stop investigating domestic violence. Let Zeke play. They should stick with what they are good at, playing football. Private businesses should stop investigating and holding employees responsible for violations of their employee conduct code. They should hand it all over to law enforcement.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, these cases have nothing to do with the law. These are violations of the student code of conduct. Law enforcement has no place there because there are no laws to enforce. They are of course welcome to investigate as well in case there were also laws violated, and we strongly encourage our students to report to them. What constitutes a sexual assault on a college campus is different from what constitutes a sexual assault off campus. Universities have the right to set and enforce their own codes of conduct for students that are a higher standard than criminal laws. Just like the NFL does and just like private businesses do.

And though you didn't mean any, I take offense to the idea that universities are only good at teaching and can't be good at investigating and enforcing a student code of conduct. I work for a university and I am terrible at teaching. That would be a terrible decision to have me teach in a classroom setting. I am however extensively trained and educated on how to conduct a proper investigation. I have written a thesis on the topic, I have conducted research on the topic, and I do pretty good work (if I do say so myself) everyday. In fact, I have trained law enforcement officers on proper techniques for interviewing survivors of power-based personal violence (more commonly known as sexual violence) and interviewing individuals accused of power based personal violence. And me? Honestly, I'm pretty average. Universities across the country have individuals in positions similar to mine who are even more well educated and trained than I am. While there was confusion and frustration when the DCL first came out, the market has adjusted and now there are individuals who have undergone the education and training to fill in these roles. Universities for the most part are good at this. Mistakes get made, systems can always get improved, but its not the broken system that some would make it out to be.

Oh and we use real evidence and due process. What do you think we are doing? Making sh*t up?

[Jockey]

The NFL should stop investigating domestic violence. Let Zeke play. They should stick with what they are good at, playing football. Private businesses should stop investigating and holding employees responsible for violations of their employee conduct code. They should hand it all over to law enforcement.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, these cases have nothing to do with the law. These are violations of the student code of conduct. Law enforcement has no place there because there are no laws to enforce. They are of course welcome to investigate as well in case there were also laws violated, and we strongly encourage our students to report to them. What constitutes a sexual assault on a college campus is different from what constitutes a sexual assault off campus. Universities have the right to set and enforce their own codes of conduct for students that are a higher standard than criminal laws. Just like the NFL does and just like private businesses do.

And though you didn't mean any, I take offense to the idea that universities are only good at teaching and can't be good at investigating and enforcing a student code of conduct. I work for a university and I am terrible at teaching. That would be a terrible decision to have me teach in a classroom setting. I am however extensively trained and educated on how to conduct a proper investigation. I have written a thesis on the topic, I have conducted research on the topic, and I do pretty good work (if I do say so myself) everyday. In fact, I have trained law enforcement officers on proper techniques for interviewing survivors of power-based personal violence (more commonly known as sexual violence) and interviewing individuals accused of power based personal violence. And me? Honestly, I'm pretty average. Universities across the country have individuals in positions similar to mine who are even more well educated and trained than I am. While there was confusion and frustration when the DCL first came out, the market has adjusted and now there are individuals who have undergone the education and training to fill in these roles. Universities for the most part are good at this. Mistakes get made, systems can always get improved, but its not the broken system that some would make it out to be.

Oh and we use real evidence and due process. What do you think we are doing? Making sh*t up?

I'm only guessing, but I think there are many others on this board besides me who appreciate your input on this subject.

We all know how threads often evolve into chaos and inanity here on Scoop. Thanks to your posts here, many of us are much more knowledgeable on this subject now.

Well done!!

[rocket surgeon]

dittos to jockey's comments-plus the fact that you don't demean my comments or me personally if i present a thought counter to yours.  i appreciate that.  you hold a great command of the evolving dynamics, politics and the laws for that matter on this hot button issue.  you have made yourself a valuable resource to help make this process better

"I take offense to the idea that universities are only good at teaching and can't be good at investigating and enforcing a student code of conduct."

     if it matters, i didn't say they were ONLY good at teaching.  just that they should stay with what they should be good at-teaching.

     is there a difference?  well, when we are talking about rape, let's add assault, maybe kidnapping.  these are some heavy duty violations of ones privacy to put it mildly.  if any of these occurred to a loved one, i want the best investigation.  if i need eye surgery-i don't want just any doctor-i want an eye doctor(ophthalmologist) for example. 

  yes, the schools can conduct their own investigation, but let the professionals in and heed their findings.  match them up with what you've got

you mention that you are terrible at teaching-well right after you state that, you proceed to state how well you've done(i am commending you here, not mocking) you've researched and written a thesis on said subject and TRAINED law enforcement officers...in other words you TAUGHT law enforcement and i'm sure you did very well and your students appreciated it.  law enforcement needs people like you to keep them up on this fairly new and evolving law enforcement issue

the problem i have with title IX is it seems the federal government had an end game in mind before the investigations were even started.  when you tie money to something, it becomes advocacy-like. the feds held the universities hostage to curing sexual assault on campus and it sure seemed to take on the "carpenters rule" every male looked like a nail and the school held the hammer.  keep in the back of your mind where this directive came from.  well, if it's part of a legacy, it's at least on strike 2(the ACA will be #1) with a lot of foul ticks.  there are many fighting to keep any semblance of a legacy even if that means getting it wrong or establishing a "quota-like" system.  how many reported assaults were actual rape, etc etc.  the USC story seemed to fit this one perfectly.  you can also add the "mattress girl" to the list.  let's look at these 2 and i'm sure there are more the same as we look at the wrongly incarcerated prisoner or much worse, the wrongly convicted who receive the death penalty. 

   our world of politics has grown so heatedly partisan that many times, fighting for the same goal becomes who gets the credit as opposed to getting the actual job done right.  also, the special interest groups getting involved further muck it up

ok, the schools can walk and chew gum, but they are/should be best at research, teaching, training, etc.  let the big dogs come in to do the dirty work.  the school can act as an adjunct.  then, law enforcement comes to their conclusions-jail, prison, electronic monitoring, put on a list of offenders if needed, etc.  the schools can then base their discipline on what law enforcement and the court of law came up with. 

  ya see here, the school still does play a role, but get the title IX part out of it.  title IX seems to march to a different drummer.  it makes it seem as if there is a whole different set of procedure and laws and that's what opens it up to litigation.  now who's paying for that?  i mean the multi-million $$ settlements.  there doesn't need to be separate laws or categories for the same offense-degrees? yes.  a crime committed on a college campus is a crime is a crime is a crime.  allegedly

with all due respect tamu!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

For me there's a big difference between teaching and training. I can train all day long but put me in a classroom and ask me to develop a semester long curriculum and I will spontaneously. combust.

We do let law enforcement in. We encourage students to report to law enforcement. If we become aware of potential violation of the law we are mandated to call law enforcement. No one is keeping law enforcement out. We can't base our decisions based on what law enforcement finds because they cannot investigate violations of the student code of conduct. They can only investigate violations of the law. The student code of conduct requires a higher standard of behavior on this topic than criminal law does. There are many cases, if not most cases that universities see where it is a violation of the student code of conduct but not a violation of the law. If we based our decision on law enforcement in these cases than we would incorrectly be allowing students responsible for sexual assault to walk away without being held accountable for their actions.

I didn't understand all of your post but I think there is something about money being tied in with Title IX. Money is tied in everywhere. Criminal justice system, private companies conduct policies, professional sports teams policies. In fact, money is less of a factor in Title IX because despite 1000s of Title IX complaints being filed with the Department of Education exactly zero of them have resulted in loss of federal funding. Even a sh*tstorm like Baylor didn't result in loss of federal fundings (though there are still new complaints coming forward there so theoretically it could still happen...but it won't). The only way a university will actually loss their federal funding is if they publicly tell the DOE to go F themselves and that they won't be adhering to Title IX.

I'm also curious what you think make's law enforcement's investigations so much better. What evidence do you think they are gathering the universities are not? The vast majority of sexual assault cases comes to down to the interviews of the accused and the accuser. There usually aren't witnesses of the actual act, there's usual no video or audio, its between two people behind closed doors. What magical evidence do you think there is that law enforcement is getting that universities are not?

You said if this happened to someone you loved you would want the best investigation. Fine, let's just say that I agree that law enforcement's investigation is significantly better than what a university can offer. What do you say when law enforcement comes back and says "I'm sorry, we know something terrible happened to you, and that person is a scumbag, but the law in this state is out of date, and technically you weren't assaulted. We know you were so drunk that you pissed yourself and vomited in the bed, but we couldn't find any evidence that you actively resisted their advances, so you must have wanted it to happen." Would you tell your loved one "Sorry sweetheart, I guess you weren't assaulted. Go back so school now and see the person you think of as your rapist everyday in class and in your dorm. Everything's fine."? No, you would want the university to hold that student accountable for their violation of the student code of conduct.

Honest question, are you upset the NFL suspended Ezekiel Elliott? The police declined to charge him, said there wasn't enough evidence of domestic violence. The NFL did its own investigation with a lower standard of evidence and determined that he was responsible for the actions he was accused of and suspended him. He will lose millions of dollars as a result and his process was extremely public and embarrassing. That is much worse than anything a university can dole out.  Or is it only universities that are unqualified to do these investigations?

[Jay Bee]

And given that you can't legally be held to a contract you signed while above .08, it seems there is some precedent for no longer being held responsible for a form of consent at that level of intoxication.

This is patently false. #Lies

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is patently false. #Lies

This is patently false. #Lies.

I can find you dozens of examples where contracts were voided because one party was intoxicated.

[Jay Bee]

This is patently false. #Lies.

I can find you dozens of examples where contracts were voided because one party was intoxicated.

What does that have to do with your lie?