[Cracked Sidewalks] Marquette's PR Nightmare

[ChicosBailBonds]

What DPS did was what we do. Investigate the claim before calling in more resources (MPD) if it does turn out to be serious. Believe me, if they reported every incident they investigated to MPD, you'd see a never-ending parade of squad lights on campus.

I want to jump in, because it's what I do.   

I like your analogy but would question one part.  In your example, you are still sending one truck of qualified, MFD to investigate if the fire is a serious deal.  In the MU example, you're still relying on DPS and not MPD which seems to be the disconnect to me. MU was not doing that.  They were still utilizing DPS and not MPD, which is different than you sending out MFD to ascertain how big the fire is before sending in MORE MPD, not an entirely new entity.

DPS are fine people, good at what they do, but it doesn't make them experts in this area or at the very least, puts them in a difficult situation.  DPS are EMPLOYEES of MU.  Thus, there is conflict of interest potentially that DPS could determine certain people didn't commit a crime and others might have.  Take that decision out of their hands, which is what the new policy does now.  Let MPD and their resources view it from an independent point of view without any conflict of interest.  I think everyone benefits from that...the victims...the accused...certainly the university.

There was a MJS editorial that I think hit is on the nail for me.   http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/124681863.html    "All allegations of sexual assault on a college campus should be immediately reported to police. Period."    "Marquette has about 90 public safety officers, but they are not sworn law enforcement officers. Crimes such as sexual assaults require far more expertise and training than MU's officers have."   "The change in policy protects victims, but it also protects the university - especially in cases involving student-athletes. Under the old policy, Marquette left itself open to the charge that the university was trying to protect a suspect in a sexual assault."

[mu_hilltopper]

I do wish the students would be trained to NOT call DPS for most things.

As a stupid 20 year old, I called DPS twice and neither time were they the right people to call, both times I should have called 911.  One of those calls, the delay could have had a tragic ending.

[brewcity77]

The problem with the article is that it starts with the assumption that this was mainly a PR problem.

Guys, I'd like to focus on this. It isn't the assumption that this was mainly a PR problem, it's that since the incident, Marquette has demonstrated a lack of acumen in terms of crises management. Can we please return this discussion to that topic? I understand everyone wants to talk about the incident itself, but I'm pretty sure we have about a dozen other threads where that is the topic at hand. If we need another one, someone can feel free to start it, or maybe this thread could be split for that discussion, but this is about "Marquette's PR Nightmare". Not referring to PuertoRicanNightmare, not referring to the incident itself, but referring to the mishandling of the crisis management after the incident had already occurred.

The assumption the article makes is that there was an incident. It seems a pretty safe assumption. The topic the article addresses is how that incident was managed after it happened, how it could have been better handled after it happened, and what Marquette can do for the future to make sure that we are better prepared after any similar future incidents happen.

[Marquette84]

I'll probably regret posting this, but am I to believe that Marquette DPS is to report every incident reported to them to police? Yes, Chisholm went nuts on us during his pouting rant that he couldn't press charges. But the law seems to specifically state that you must report when you have a reasonable belief that a crime was committed.

And when a woman comes in claiming that she was sexually assaulted, supported by hospital records of injuries consistent with such a claim--that to me seems to be sufficient enough to support a belief that a crime may have been committed.  

I am extremely curious as to what else you would require from this girl before you would believe that she may have been a crime victim.  

Her story (coupled with the hospital record) was obviously credible enough that DPS launched an internal investigation.

I believe that because it was sufficiently credible that DPS would launch their own investigation, it also rises to the level of being credible enough to get the MPD involved.  

What should bother everyone in the Marquette community is that MU's handling of this matter  precluded the MPD from gathering sufficient evidence to bring this matter to justice.  

And please note that I've consistently said that justice may well have taken the form of exoneration of the athlete following an impartial police investigation.

Short of a confession from the girl (that she made the whole story up) or the athlete (confessing that that he indeed did assault her) we will never know what happened--and that is at least partially (if not mostly) the result of Marquette's handling of this matter.  

In the end, Marquette's handling was inconsistent with the law--and both the DA and Marquette agree with me on this.

[brewcity77]

And...

Please note the previous post and save this for an appropriate thread, which this isn't.

[Pakuni]

Why would MU have conducted the investigation in the first place if they didn't at least start out with reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed?

Yes, that's exactly what happened. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp. The only way to make a determination of whether there's reasonable grounds a crime was committed in such an instance (i.e. a person walking into the office and claiming it's so) is to investigate.
You are consistently and ignorantly putting the cart ahead of the horse. Law enforcement doesn't determine there was an offense and then investigate it. They investigate it to determine whether there was an offense.

p.s, Regarding your later fact-deficient post, the accuser in this case went to the hospital after making her report to public safety, not before, so that played no part in their decision. And, frankly, without getting too graphic, what was found in her hospital evaluation is not necessarily evidence of a crime.

[Marquette84]

Please note the previous post and save this for an appropriate thread, which this isn't.

My post was in direct response to one of your comments.  If you wanted me to reply in a different thread, your comment should have been in a different thread.

Guys, I'd like to focus on this. It isn't the assumption that this was mainly a PR problem, it's that since the incident, Marquette has demonstrated a lack of acumen in terms of crises management.
Can we please return this discussion to that topic? I understand everyone wants to talk about the incident itself, but I'm pretty sure we have about a dozen other threads where that is the topic at hand. If we need another one, someone can feel free to start it, or maybe this thread could be split for that discussion, but this is about "Marquette's PR Nightmare". Not referring to PuertoRicanNightmare, not referring to the incident itself, but referring to the mishandling of the crisis management after the incident had already occurred.

I think your suggested improvements might actually make things worse.  For example:

• Come out with a statement in March when the story was first breaking online announcing that DPS made a thorough investigation but that it has now been forwarded to MPD and all future inquiries should go there.

Three problems.

One, the incident happened in February. Coming out when the story was first breaking at the end of March still leaves you with the problem of explaining why you weren't forthcoming when they occurred.

Second, MU did not forward the incident to the MPD.  The victim did.  Claiming that they forwarded the matter to police when they didn't would cause even more problems for MU.

Third, there is no way that a reporter would ever buy such a ham-handed approach of washing ones hands by referring all future inquiries to the MPD.  You can't take a five weeks to conduct your own investigation, then claim you're not going to answer any questions about it and refer everything to MPD.  You're asking for someone to believe you're trying to hide something.

• If the policy needed to be revised, so be it, but do it under the auspices of helping students rather than admitting a history of law-breaking, especially as it doesn't seem to be illegal to not report a crime you don't believe happened.

First, That's pretty hard, since your prior non-complaint policy was explained under the auspices of helping students.

Second, DA was already on record saying that MU was required to report the incident to police.  So claiming otherwise would immediately put Marquette on the defensive in direct opposition to the DA. 

[brewcity77]

And I made a mistake (and have no problem admitting it) by continuing your completely off-topic discussion. I've asked the mods to split the threads from the point where you first failed to address the initial PR topic. I'd prefer this thread dealing with the topic at hand, which is not what you brought up nor what I continued.

The initial incident Chisholm was talking about, and the reason he cited Marquette's lapse in reporting, occurred in October. And it doesn't matter at that point who forwarded it to MPD. The bottom line is Marquette should have said something in March rather than waiting until May for Chisholm to blast them publicly. And Marquette needed to make it clear they weren't releasing names and that any release of names was in MPD's hands. We've been lambasted publicly for not "clearing the air" when that would have been the worst thing possible. Had we immediately made it clear that any "clearing of the air" would have to go through the (now) investigating authority it would have stemmed Hunt's article before it was written.

And why is it hard? You create one policy under the auspices of helping students. You decide to revise it to better help students. Not that complicated. Second, the DA was posturing and what he said does not go in accordance with the law. Marquette was responsible for reporting a crime if they had reasonable grounds to believe one had been committed. Despite your insinuation that every incident worth investigating is worth reporting (a rather inane statement), that's not he case. If Marquette had violated the law, they would have been liable to face charges. However...

The Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing, Division of Enforcement, reviewed the matter and decided not to take any action against the college.

If Marquette was guilty of violating the law as Chisholm insinuated and the University essentially admitted, action would have been taken against them. It wasn't. This is a PR issue. They made a mistake by admitting to breaking the law when the law was not broken. Regardless of what Chisholm said and what you continue to say, that wasn't the case, and the state's inaction in regards to taking action against Marquette is evidence of that.

Link: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/122682479.html

[Marquette84]

Yes, that's exactly what happened. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp. The only way to make a determination of whether there's reasonable grounds a crime was committed in such an instance (i.e. a person walking into the office and claiming it's so) is to investigate.

And when a woman comes in claiming that she was sexually assaulted, supported by hospital records of injuries consistent with such a claim--that to me seems to be sufficient enough to support a belief that a crime may have been committed. 

And despite the fact that you don't agree with me, l I can say is that Marquette University, the Milwaukee County DA's office do--MU was in violation of the law on this one.

I'd love to know what additional evidence would you need before you would agree that a private security force should reasonably conclude that a crime had been committed and refer this incident to the police for a proper investigation?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the only reason MU DPS investigated is because they thought the woman was telling the truth.  Which by definition means they thought a crime may have occurred.

You are consistently and ignorantly putting the cart ahead of the horse. Law enforcement doesn't determine there was an offense and then investigate it. They investigate it to determine whether there was an offense.

This is quite a novel theory:  Without any belief that you violated any law, law enforcement could walk into your house and start investigating you solely to determine if you committed an offense. 

Thats a new one.  I knew Stalin and Mao operated this way, but I was pretty sure in the US we don't start investigating people unless we have a reasonable expectation that they committed a crime.  That whole "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" thing.

p.s, Regarding your later fact-deficient post, the accuser in this case went to the hospital after making her report to public safety, not before, so that played no part in their decision.

Who's fact deficient?

Girl went to the hospital, then spoke with DPS the following day:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/news/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621_1_sexual-assault-crimes-sexual-attack-allegation
"The woman then went to the hospital at the resident assistant's urging. Medical reports from that visit show the woman had vaginal abrasions, in addition to fresh injuries on her face, hip, foot, knee and both thighs, according to documents obtained by the Tribune.

The following day, a security officer finally contacted her and asked her to come back to the department and give another statement, the woman said. She did, only to be told that police wouldn't want to investigate her case and that the university's internal discipline process would likely cause her more harm than good, she said. The officer did not take an official report, she said."

And, frankly, without getting too graphic, what was found in her hospital evaluation is no necessarily evidence of a crime.

And what was found in the hospital evaluation was consistent with her story.

[Gato78]

If all of these reported allegations of physical injuries are true, it seems to me that DA John Chisholm should have charged the student-athlete involved. Yet, the critics seem to rely on Chisholm's criticisms of MU to fortify their position. Either Chisholm should be the target of all of this criticism or, perhaps, the Tribune report isn't quite accurate.

The critics have disreagrded a few facts: first, MPD and MU Public Safety have worked together for years. They have always had a cooperative agreement whereby MU handles all sorts of law violations without involving MPD--easiest example is underage drinking. Anyone who suggests there is no discretion on the part of MU Public Safety officers is a fool. Second, the critics seem to forget another premise that invalidates their argument, to wit: MU has counseled and assisted sexual assault victims for decades whether or not the events were reported to MPD. Finally, and as well stated by Melinda Hughes of the Healing Center in her recent piece in the JS, MU's new DA generatred policy will have a chilling effect on victim repoprting. Ms. Hughes suggests, because of this policy change, that students entirely bypass the MU mandatory reporting system and call Aurora Sinai instead of MU where they will have counseling options absent mandatory reporting. The blind criticism of people on this issue has caused the institution of policies that may well actually harm sexual assault victims.

So the critics have contibuted to MU's negative image, without considering the DA's own responsibilty vs. the accuser's credibility, which have together caused the institution of a policy which may well discourage sexual assault victims from getting the assistance they need. Nice work...

[Marquette84]

And I made a mistake (and have no problem admitting it) by continuing your completely off-topic discussion. I've asked the mods to split the threads from the point where you first failed to address the initial PR topic. I'd prefer this thread dealing with the topic at hand, which is not what you brought up nor what I continued.

I request that you stop insinuating that I took this off topic. It was already off topic when I got involved.  I directly replied to a comment made by Benny B, who posted in response to YOUR off topic comment:

Well, I'm still wholly unconvinced "assault happened" in the first place. If the girl was really so upset, why did she wait 5 months to come forward? Why didn't she go to MPD when given the opportunity? Why did DPS find insufficient evidence to even think it was worth mentioning to MPD?

Yours wasn't a comment about Public Relations, was it?  And you posted it long before I got involved in the thread.  So please stop saying I took this off topic. Look in the mirror.

Second, the DA was posturing and what he said does not go in accordance with the law. Marquette was responsible for reporting a crime if they had reasonable grounds to believe one had been committed.

When a woman walks in and says she's been assaulted, and has hospital records that document injuries consistent with her story, I think at that point there are reasonable grounds a crime may have been committed.  Thats the point that MU should have referred this.

I'll ask you again, because you've ignored it so far:  What else would she have had to do before you'd actually think that she MIGHT be telling the truth?

If Marquette was guilty of violating the law as Chisholm insinuated and the University essentially admitted, action would have been taken against them. It wasn't.

More likely, charges were not brought because Marquette publicly acknowledged that their policy violated the law and changed it to comply. 

Had MU dug in their heels, Chisholm would have certainly pushed this case.

Think of it this way--if you're speeding but a cop just gives you a warning--you were still  speeding.  Letting you off is not "evidence" that you weren't violating the law--it was a decision not to charge you.

[Gato78]

I request that you stop insinuating that I took this off topic. It was already off topic when I got involved.  I directly replied to a comment made by Benny B, who posted in response to YOUR off topic comment:

Yours wasn't a comment about Public Relations, was it?  And you posted it long before I got involved in the thread.  So please stop saying I took this off topic. Look in the mirror.


When a woman walks in and says she's been assaulted, and has hospital records that document injuries consistent with her story, I think at that point there are reasonable grounds a crime may have been committed.  Thats the point that MU should have referred this.

I'll ask you again, because you've ignored it so far:  What else would she have had to do before you'd actually think that she MIGHT be telling the truth?

More likely, charges were not brought because Marquette publicly acknowledged that their policy violated the law and changed it to comply. 

Had MU dug in their heels, Chisholm would have certainly pushed this case.

Think of it this way--if you're speeding but a cop just gives you a warning--you were still  speeding.  Letting you off is not "evidence" that you weren't violating the law--it was a decision not to charge you.

So Chisholm refused to prosecute a crime and a criminal because MU changed its policies? If true, (and it is not) a violation of the rules of ethics and John Chisholm would be subject to professional discipline. I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. This post demonstrates why I have spoken up in this debate--many opinions offered that are not correct; many taking shots at MU on legal issues that are way off base. Again, I seek someone who can cite me to the statute whereby Marquette's actions "broke the law".

[Lennys Tap]

So Chisholm refused to prosecute a crime and a criminal because MU changed its policies? If true, (and it is not) a violation of the rules of ethics and John Chisholm would be subject to professional discipline. I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. This post demonstrates why I have spoken up in this debate--many opinions offered that are not correct; many taking shots at MU on legal issues that are way off base. Again, I seek someone who can cite me to the statute whereby Marquette's actions "broke the law".

+ 1000. The haters won't be moved by your facts, experience or expertise. Their only interest is spinning each and every situation in a direction most harmful to Marquette. For the rest of us, though, thanks.

[Tugg Speedman]

Brew,

I completely disagree with the premise of this thread. 

You seem to be saying if MU handled this differently that we would have a different perception of this incident.  I would argue that if MU did exactly what you suggest, we would have have the exactly same perception of MU as we do now.  No amount of spinning can change the perceptions of these kind of incidents.

The reason is the same reason you keep asking for the mods to split this thread.  You cannot separate the incident and its specifics from the PR spinning.  People are too smart for that.  So, having a really good BS'er shoveling exactly what you say to the public would change exactly nothing.

I would argue that what you are seeing is the best case scenario.  Like I said in another thread, MU is trying to take a bunch of lemons and make lemonade.   This is bad, and these things do not go away because someone shovels BS to the press.

If this is the best case, what is the worst case?  See Duke Lacrosse.  They were, getting blasted in the national press, multiple 60 Minutes stories and a 20%+ drop in applications for two or three years.  All we have is one bad Chi Tribune story, Michael Hunt writing is 2,437 critical story about MU and Mark Belling take time away from being critical of MU to focus on this story by being critical of MU.  Essentially this amounts to no press at all and will be forgotten when school starts.

Good job MU, this story is essentially old news and forgotten save a few dozens zealots on MU Scoop. 

[ATL MU Warrior]

So Chisholm refused to prosecute a crime and a criminal because MU changed its policies? If true, (and it is not) a violation of the rules of ethics and John Chisholm would be subject to professional discipline. I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. This post demonstrates why I have spoken up in this debate--many opinions offered that are not correct; many taking shots at MU on legal issues that are way off base. Again, I seek someone who can cite me to the statute whereby Marquette's actions "broke the law".

Thank you for interceding and bringing some semblance of reality back to this discussion. 

Unfortunately, no surprise 84 is once again "enlightening" the board with his vast knowledge of all things.  Nice to know that there are some folks who come here that really know what they are talking about. 

Warning:  prepare to deal with the repercussions...lot of word twisting and making up of all kinds of things. 

[Marquette84]

So Chisholm refused to prosecute a crime and a criminal because MU changed its policies? If true, (and it is not) a violation of the rules of ethics and John Chisholm would be subject to professional discipline. I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. This post demonstrates why I have spoken up in this debate--many opinions offered that are not correct; many taking shots at MU on legal issues that are way off base. Again, I seek someone who can cite me to the statute whereby Marquette's actions "broke the law".

Which crime are you suggesting that Chisholm refused to prosecute?

[ChicosBailBonds]

So Chisholm refused to prosecute a crime and a criminal because MU changed its policies? If true, (and it is not) a violation of the rules of ethics and John Chisholm would be subject to professional discipline. I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings. This post demonstrates why I have spoken up in this debate--many opinions offered that are not correct; many taking shots at MU on legal issues that are way off base. Again, I seek someone who can cite me to the statute whereby Marquette's actions "broke the law".

Can you please tell us why Marquette officials ADMITTED to breaking the law yet some here are saying MU broke no law.  I'd like that answered first.  Not with the typical "is is", but a simple explanation why MU admitted to breaking the law and you are implying they didn't...then why did MU admit it?

[Gato78]

Chicos you are the smartest guy in the room, as always. Show me the quote and show me the statute. Glad to deconstrust--just like on Doddsy's board.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos you are the smartest guy in the room, as always. Show me the quote and show me the statute. Glad to deconstrust--just like on Doddsy's board.

No, I'm not the smartest guy in the room.  People here have been saying that MU broke a law for ten years not reporting this information to MPD.  I'd simply like to know is that true or not?  I'm not asking a difficult question.  By the way, welcome to this board.  Here is the pertinent passage from the Chicago Tribune.

The university now acknowledges that failing to notify police was a violation of state law, which requires campus security departments to report any possible crimes to local authorities. School officials also did not tell police about a sexual attack allegation involving four athletes in October.

In fact, Marquette administrators told the Tribune that they have violated their reporting obligations for the past 10 years. And in at least the two most recent cases, the lapse played a role in prosecutors declining to press charges.


Is the Tribune accurate?  Is someone lying to the Tribune?  Was someone misinformed and told the Tribune something incorrectly?  I hear that the law is concrete and only one person has the answer and other lawyers / judges always agree 100% on the law.   

[MUMac]

No, I'm not the smartest guy in the room.  People here have been saying that MU broke a law for ten years not reporting this information to MPD.  I'd simply like to know is that true or not?  I'm not asking a difficult question.  By the way, welcome to this board.  Here is the pertinent passage from the Chicago Tribune.

The university now acknowledges that failing to notify police was a violation of state law, which requires campus security departments to report any possible crimes to local authorities. School officials also did not tell police about a sexual attack allegation involving four athletes in October.

In fact, Marquette administrators told the Tribune that they have violated their reporting obligations for the past 10 years. And in at least the two most recent cases, the lapse played a role in prosecutors declining to press charges.


Is the Tribune accurate?  Is someone lying to the Tribune?  Was someone misinformed and told the Tribune something incorrectly?  I hear that the law is concrete and only one person has the answer and other lawyers / judges always agree 100% on the law.   

As the article is written, not reporting underage drinking violations is a violation of State Law.

So, you tell me, is the article accurate?

[mu_hilltopper]

I speak as a former prosecutor and defense lawyer (including many sexual assault cases) and I currently regularly represent lawyers in disciplinary proceedings.

Psst, Gato.  Your extensive experience in actual law is no match for a forum full of guys who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.  

[Marquette84]

If all of these reported allegations of physical injuries are true, it seems to me that DA John Chisholm should have charged the student-athlete involved. Yet, the critics seem to rely on Chisholm's criticisms of MU to fortify their position. Either Chisholm should be the target of all of this criticism or, perhaps, the Tribune report isn't quite accurate.

If you truly are a former prosecutor, then I'm sure you've personally experienced situations where you were unable to bring a case to trial because of a compromised investigation. 

I'm just curious, since you're quick to blame Chisholm here, did you accept responsibility every time the actions of the police (or a private security force) made errors in the investigation which made it impossible to gather evidence to support a prosecution?

That appears to be the case with Chisholm's decision not to charge the student-athletes.  He specifically said:
"No law enforcement agency was able to adequately investigate this matter at the time it occurred, and the subsequent efforts by the Milwaukee Police Department were inhibited by the fact that it did not receive this information until several months after the incident occurred."

and

"An immediate and thorough police investigation of this incident may have yielded additional compelling evidence.  Unfortunately a police investigation undertaken even four weeks later was not able to produce corroborate evidence that would support a criminal prosecution"


BTW, how many of your successful prosecutions were investigated by a private security force without the involvement of the police?

The critics have disreagrded a few facts: first, MPD and MU Public Safety have worked together for years. They have always had a cooperative agreement whereby MU handles all sorts of law violations without involving MPD--easiest example is underage drinking. Anyone who suggests there is no discretion on the part of MU Public Safety officers is a fool.

Just curious, where do you draw the line personally?

You are making the case that MU should handle Underage Drinking investigations?  What about Possession of pot?  Dealing heroin?  Sexual Assault?  Armed Robbery?  Terrorism?  Homicide?

Your argument seems to that because they deal with underage drinking, then they have discretion to investigate sexual assault.

Where you you draw the line?  You seem to be suggesting that there is no line, that because MU  handles underage drinking, they are equally qualified to handle murder investigations.

[ChicosBailBonds]

As the article is written, not reporting underage drinking violations is a violation of State Law.

So, you tell me, is the article accurate?

Are you equating the two?

[ChicosBailBonds]

If this is the best case, what is the worst case?  See Duke Lacrosse.  They were, getting blasted in the national press, multiple 60 Minutes stories and a 20%+ drop in applications for two or three years.  All we have is one bad Chi Tribune story, Michael Hunt writing is 2,437 critical story about MU and Mark Belling take time away from being critical of MU to focus on this story by being critical of MU.  Essentially this amounts to no press at all and will be forgotten when school starts.

20% drop in applications for 2 or 3 years?  Source!

In the year after the incident, applications dropped 1.1% and could not be attributed to any particular event. 

Duke Lacrosse should not be mentioned in the same breath as the MU situation.  They are not on the same planet in almost every aspect.  The Duke case was a bunch of liberal professors, an out of control DA and a university professor that couldn't wait to make a socio-political statement and they got their asses kicked in the process when those little things called FACTS came out. 

The irony of ironies....there are some people here on this board that were full up anti-Duke Lacrosse players and ready to lynch these guys that are a 180 on the MU situation.  No one here has said MU players committed rape.  Nor has anyone here called for a coaches head, but some posters here sure did back when that event was going on...oh the irony.  The concern here by MU alums that don't have their heads in the sand is how the university acted and should have acted.  We love the university, despite ridiculous claims by Lenny and others that we don't.  It's all they have left in an argument and so that's what they turn to.

[rocky_warrior]

The irony of ironies....there are some people here on this board that were full up anti-Duke Lacrosse players and ready to lynch these guys

To keep this sane, there weren't many members of this board during the Duke Lacross crap, and I'd like to see evidence off those that were ready to lynch.

In a quick search, I didn't find any conversation on the topic, and while I fully expected to find you as one of the "ready to lynch" crowd, I only found a sarcastic comment you made about Mike Nifong.

But hey, I give you credit for trying to throw white gas into the fire, even though you're only holding a glass of water.