Who is running MU today?

[Litehouse]

Like you said, MU was put in this position because some athletes screwed up.  Even if it didn't rise to the level of a crime, the athletes still screwed up and did something inappropriate if they put themselves in a position for someone to make these allegations.  However, I still think MU has made some mistakes in how they've handled it since then.

1) Stating that the previous policy broke the law for the past 10 years.  I don't think it necessarily did, it was up to DPS to make a judgement call if they had reason to believe a crime had been committed.  I think they would have been better off just saying they're working with MPD and the DA to make sure the policy is in compliance.  The way they said it, now people think they've been illegally covering up athletes raping students for 10 years.

2) Including the quote from Cotttingham's letter in the press release about his resignation.  I don't know what ultimately led to Cottingham leaving, but including that quote made it look like MU was throwing Cottingham under the bus for this whole thing.  They should have just left that part out.

3) The Broeker/Buzz press conference.  They can't say anything anyway, so why put them up there and make them refuse to answer questions?  It only makes it look like they're still trying to cover something up.  Also, by putting Buzz up there after he was just given a very public, and very big raise, they make it look like the decision to get rid of Cottingham while keeping Buzz is all money driven.  If anyone was doing a press conference, it should have been Fr. Wild or the head of DPS to show this was a university-wide issue, not just athletics.

[Tugg Speedman]

Like you said, MU was put in this position because some athletes screwed up.  Even if it didn't rise to the level of a crime, the athletes still screwed up and did something inappropriate if they put themselves in a position for someone to make these allegations.  However, I still think MU has made some mistakes in how they've handled it since then.

1) Stating that the previous policy broke the law for the past 10 years.  I don't think it necessarily did, it was up to DPS to make a judgement call if they had reason to believe a crime had been committed.  I think they would have been better off just saying they're working with MPD and the DA to make sure the policy is in compliance.  The way they said it, now people think they've been illegally covering up athletes raping students for 10 years.

2) Including the quote from Cotttingham's letter in the press release about his resignation.  I don't know what ultimately led to Cottingham leaving, but including that quote made it look like MU was throwing Cottingham under the bus for this whole thing.  They should have just left that part out.

3) The Broeker/Buzz press conference.  They can't say anything anyway, so why put them up there and make them refuse to answer questions?  It only makes it look like they're still trying to cover something up.  Also, by putting Buzz up there after he was just given a very public, and very big raise, they make it look like the decision to get rid of Cottingham while keeping Buzz is all money driven.  If anyone was doing a press conference, it should have been Fr. Wild or the head of DPS to show this was a university-wide issue, not just athletics.

Are you suggesting that if MU did what you suggest here, we view this differently?  You might be correct in what you say but none of it matters, the case would be viewed exactly the same.

You cannot talk your way out of something like this and to keep analyzing words and posturing is not the problem.

[mu03eng]

Are you suggesting that if MU did what you suggest here, we view this differently?  You might be correct in what you say but none of it matters, the case would be viewed exactly the same.

You cannot talk your way out of something like this and to keep analyzing words and posturing is not the problem.

Actually I disagree, because if MU had followed Litehouse's item #1 this entire discussion is framed differently.  Instead of MU having done something illegally for 10 years, MU simply updated their policies to be more transparent and beneficial to potential victims.

Additionally, item #3 is an example of perception is reality, now MU looks like it has something to hide all because legally they couldn't say anything.

Its all about how the situation was framed, and I think this discuss is entirely different with Litehouse's suggestions.

[ringout]

Marquette never gets out ahead of an issue.  The issue is always framed by others, and we all know what happens then. 

A competent PR executive should be able to anticipate SOME of the time (not expecting ALL the time), and place the issue in a light more favorable to MU.

We all know that DPS had been breaking the law, but it should have been framed as DPS assisting MPD, or DPS protecting MU Students, (just brainstorming.  I'm NOT a competent PR executive), or whatever.

[Tugg Speedman]

Actually I disagree, because if MU had followed Litehouse's item #1 this entire discussion is framed differently.  Instead of MU having done something illegally for 10 years, MU simply updated their policies to be more transparent and beneficial to potential victims.

So MU does #1, and they admit they broke the law.  Then they pay millions in legal fees to those that feel they were wronged by this policy over the years and sue.

If this happened, you would be so proud of MU you would donate until it hurts to help offset their costs?  This is what I read you to say.

Please stop assuming that a competent PR person can talk their way out of this problem.  They cannot.  The problem was DPS' policy and it was bound to happen.  No amount of talking was going to change this.  And opening the entire university to lawsuits is not going to make it better.

It's a bad situation and their is no magic way to handle it.  As I said before, MU is trying to make Lemonade out of Lemons and doing about as well as they can.

[Litehouse]

So MU does #1, and they admit they broke the law.  Then they pay millions in legal fees to those that feel they were wronged by this policy over the years and sue.

Lets make sure we're on the same page here.  Some of the newspaper stories state that MU did admit the old policy broke the law.  I'm saying that was a mistake.

[GGGG]

A mistake that they admitted they broke the law?  Why?  They broke the law.

[mu03eng]

So MU does #1, and they admit they broke the law.  Then they pay millions in legal fees to those that feel they were wronged by this policy over the years and sue.

If this happened, you would be so proud of MU you would donate until it hurts to help offset their costs?  This is what I read you to say.

Please stop assuming that a competent PR person can talk their way out of this problem.  They cannot.  The problem was DPS' policy and it was bound to happen.  No amount of talking was going to change this.  And opening the entire university to lawsuits is not going to make it better.

It's a bad situation and their is no magic way to handle it.  As I said before, MU is trying to make Lemonade out of Lemons and doing about as well as they can.

Well you should read it again because thats not what I'm  saying at all, in fact the opposite.

Start from the standpoint that the way the law reads allows interpretation(paraphrasing and going off memory cause I can't find where someone pasted the actual law) , basically it is up to MU to determine if the event reached the sexual assault threshold.

Reality:  MU came out and said it had been violating a law for the past 10 years.
My suggestion:  MU come out and say it had re-evaluated there position on a law so that MU was now more transparent

MU is basically saying the same thing but one has a much more positive connotation.  It doesn't eliminate the issue but it will certainly reduce the impact.  You have to view the public as the customer and MU as a company delivering a product.  When there is a quality issue with the product there are good and bad ways to deliver that information to the customer.  In this case MU chose a bad way to deliver it.  The news was always going to be bad, but there are much better ways to deliver it to reduce both the impact and longevity of the issue.

[GGGG]

Well you should read it again because thats not what I'm  saying at all, in fact the opposite.

Start from the standpoint that the way the law reads allows interpretation(paraphrasing and going off memory cause I can't find where someone pasted the actual law) , basically it is up to MU to determine if the event reached the sexual assault threshold.

But that isn't what MU did.  MU's previous policy left it completely up to the student.  DPS basically never reported them.

[Litehouse]

But that isn't what MU did.  MU's previous policy left it completely up to the student.  DPS basically never reported them.

My understanding was DPS would use their judgement in deciding what to report or not, and tell the student they have the option of going to MPD if DPS decided not to.

Some would say that's the better policy.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/125043819.html

Either way, everything always looks easier in hindsight.  Of the 3 things I mentioned, #1 seemed the least damaging to me.  #2 and #3 are what fanned the flames even more and lead to the 2 Mike Hunt articles that got everyone riled up.

[GGGG]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/124379168.html

"Previously, officials with Marquette's public safety department left it up to the student who reported a sexual assault whether to report that assault to the Milwaukee Police Department. But that was against Wisconsin law, which mandates that a private security firm that believes a crime has been committed has to promptly notify police. Now students will be told the incident will be reported, but they have a choice of whether to talk to police."


1. MU's "change in policy" that is referrenced in the opinion piece does not impact the entire university, only DPS as it is a "private security firm."  Students can still approach the University HAVEN project without it rising to a police matter.

2. The article I posted above says nothing about DPS using their judgement or not.  It says that it was up to the student.