Report: FBI Investigated Claims That Bob Knight Groped Women

[Lennys Tap]

This isn't what I said at all. We don't believe the victim automatically. We start at 0% and the burden of proof is on the university. We must get from 0% in our belief all the way to a preponderance of the information (50.1%). The fact that multiple studies show that only 3% - 8% of accusations end up being false reports is a separate set of facts that has no bearing on the disciplinary system.

When the investigators admit that they believe a) that the woman almost never lies when she's the accuser, b) that she frequently lies when she says she's not been abused, c) that due process is unnecessary, d) that sex between two people whose blood alcohol level is .08 constitutes rape by the male, etc., etc., that is not starting at 0%. And it makes 50.1% a very low bar.

The nature of he said/she said accusations makes them difficult to prove. No doubt more guilty perps go free than innocent folks are incarcerated. But don't your preconceived notions, methodology and your 50.1% threshold tip the scales unfairly in the other direction?

[mu03eng]

When the investigators admit that they believe a) that the woman almost never lies when she's the accuser, b) that she frequently lies when she says she's not been abused, c) that due process is unnecessary, d) that sex between two people whose blood alcohol level is .08 constitutes rape by the male, etc., etc., that is not starting at 0%. And it makes 50.1% a very low bar.

The nature of he said/she said accusations makes them difficult to prove. No doubt more guilty perps go free than innocent folks are incarcerated. But don't your preconceived notions, methodology and your 50.1% threshold tip the scales unfairly in the other direction?

While conceptually you might be correct, I believe some of the context is that this culture of acceptance of sexual violence has been going on far too long on college campuses and it really needs to be checked.....and checking it means more than likely "overcorrecting". It's not fair, but it isn't fair the other way either.

I think the problem is that instead of addressing this cultural process in a "focused" manner, government has shoe horned it into the Title IX legislation and it's created a sub-optimal solution. It's not for lack of good intent.

[mu03eng]

I don't know what to tell you Eng. Domestic violence is a funny thing. I once met a victim at the hospital after they were sent there by their boyfriend with a broken arm and several broken ribs. She told me that her and her boyfriend had gotten into a fight and he had beaten her senseless. A little over a month later, she was screaming at me and told me I was ruining her life because my investigation had led to her boyfriend being expelled. They had stayed together and apparently all had been forgiven.

The woman from the story above was not an isolated incident. Honestly, I see more domestic violence cases where the abused (usually a woman) defends their abuser (usually a man) or at least pleads for leniency than I do ones where the abused participates against their abuser. There are many reasons for this and I would be happy to supply some research and anecdotals on why abused often defend their abuser.

If the statement by the young woman is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth than USC royally screwed up. If it had been my case, I wouldn't have let it proceed past investigation much less bring it through the conduct process. I don't know anyone personally at USC but I can't imagine that they are that incompetent. Its possible, but it is very likely that there is a lot more to the story than what is being shared. Without seeing the report it is impossible to know. But I understand why a reasonable person would have the opinion that USC screwed up.

My position isn't necessarily that USC screwed up, but that this one seems awfully difficult to understand a logical conclusion that gets the kicker kicked out. You are correct, we don't have the whole story, and I am assuming that the girlfriend is telling the truth but that's probably a cultural blindspot on my part as I don't know any domestic abuse victims (at least that I know about).

But this story is one of the reasons I'd be concerned about the overall process, simply because this is a culture change on campus that needs to take place and I'm not sure the way we are going about it will effectively make that change.....especially when you look at this story compared to something like the Baylor stories.

[Lennys Tap]

While conceptually you might be correct, I believe some of the context is that this culture of acceptance of sexual violence has been going on far too long on college campuses and it really needs to be checked.....and checking it means more than likely "overcorrecting". It's not fair, but it isn't fair the other way either.

Sadly the pendulum only pauses briefly in the middle and "overcorrecting" is what those in power do reflexively. Advocacy wins at the expense of justice. Nothing new.

[GGGG]

Sadly the pendulum only pauses briefly in the middle and "overcorrecting" is what those in power do reflexively. Advocacy wins at the expense of justice. Nothing new.

Cmon...

You really have no idea what is going on here and you make wide, sweeping allegations like this? 

[Lennys Tap]

Cmon...

You really have no idea what is going on here and you make wide, sweeping allegations like this?

Speaking in general terms.

[jsglow]

This is a great conversation probably worthy of a thread.  Otherwise somebody might end up thinking that Bobby Knight beat up the USC kicker's girlfriend (or maybe didn't).  And so it goes.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

When the investigators admit that they believe a) that the woman almost never lies when she's the accuser, b) that she frequently lies when she says she's not been abused, c) that due process is unnecessary, d) that sex between two people whose blood alcohol level is .08 constitutes rape by the male, etc., etc., that is not starting at 0%. And it makes 50.1% a very low bar.

The nature of he said/she said accusations makes them difficult to prove. No doubt more guilty perps go free than innocent folks are incarcerated. But don't your preconceived notions, methodology and your 50.1% threshold tip the scales unfairly in the other direction?

a) Has no bearing on the disciplinary process. All crimes have very low false reporting rates. Most people who report ANY crime are telling the truth. Anyone in law enforcement or the judicial system can tell you that. That doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof needs to be met, at both universities and the courts.
b) Everyone frequently lies. Abusers. Abused. Witnesses. It happens no matter who we are interviewing. Why would we give special treatment to one side? We need to balance all the facts and determine a witnesses credibility, just like any other investigation.
c) Who the hell said this? Students accused of Title IX violations enjoy more due process than students accused of any other violation.
d) Who said sex with .08 BAC automatically means the male is guilty? Someone is responsible but it is not always the male. I know this one makes you uncomfortable but .08 is the point where we as a culture have decided that someone is no longer capable of making rational decisions. Someone cannot legally be held to a contract that they sign while intoxicated. Consent is a verbal contract.

50.1% isn't as low of a bar as you think. Most cases I investigate do get sent through the conduct process but once they are there only a little more than half are actually found responsible. Which if I we follow national statistics that means there are a lot of responsible students who are walking away without any consequences.'

Also, as an investigator my beliefs don't have a bearing on the outcome of the conduct process. My role is to interview those involved and compile a summary of the information (evidence). I do not comment on whether or not I think the person is responsible or not, I simply record the evidence. I do recommend whether or not the case should be brought to a conduct panel or dismissed outright but they don't have to take my recommendation. Investigators don't take part in the actual conduct panel that is taken care of by the conduct staff and three randomly assigned (but trained) panel members.

[jsglow]

a) Has no bearing on the disciplinary process. All crimes have very low false reporting rates. Most people who report ANY crime are telling the truth. Anyone in law enforcement or the judicial system can tell you that. That doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof needs to be met, at both universities and the courts.
b) Everyone frequently lies. Abusers. Abused. Witnesses. It happens no matter who we are interviewing. Why would we give special treatment to one side? We need to balance all the facts and determine a witnesses credibility, just like any other investigation.
c) Who the hell said this? Students accused of Title IX violations enjoy more due process than students accused of any other violation.
d) Who said sex with .08 BAC automatically means the male is guilty? Someone is responsible but it is not always the male. I know this one makes you uncomfortable but .08 is the point where we as a culture have decided that someone is no longer capable of making rational decisions. Someone cannot legally be held to a contract that they sign while intoxicated. Consent is a verbal contract.

50.1% isn't as low of a bar as you think. Most cases I investigate do get sent through the conduct process but once they are there only a little more than half are actually found responsible. Which if I we follow national statistics that means there are a lot of responsible students who are walking away without any consequences.

I don't know that's true TAMU.  We as a nation have stated that's the threshold where one shouldn't drive.  You yourself have said the consent threshold in Texas is something pretty close to pass out drunk.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

While conceptually you might be correct, I believe some of the context is that this culture of acceptance of sexual violence has been going on far too long on college campuses and it really needs to be checked.....and checking it means more than likely "overcorrecting". It's not fair, but it isn't fair the other way either.

I think the problem is that instead of addressing this cultural process in a "focused" manner, government has shoe horned it into the Title IX legislation and it's created a sub-optimal solution. It's not for lack of good intent.

There was a time where people thought the government mandating seatbelts was an overcorrection. But people got used to it and the younger generation grew up with it and now it is a no brainer that you should wear a seatbelt. That's how culture changes. The government sets a standard, its messy at first and people push back. But then they get used to it and the younger generation grows up knowing that was always the standard.

While there are parts of Title IX that can absolutely be improved, I don't think there has been an overcorrection at all. The Dear Colleague letter of 2011 honestly didn't change much. It just reminded universities that it has a responsibility to fairly investigate and respond to accusations of sexual assault. It didn't really change any definitions or make something sexual assault that wasn't sexual assault before. In fact, the only things that really changed were that it added more layers of due process to both complainants and accused. The biggest difference is that the DOE is actually following up on complaints and holding universities accountable.

If there are specific parts about Title IX that you think are an overcorrection I'd be happy to try and speak on them. But saying Title IX is an overcorrection is so big I wouldn't know where to start.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I don't know that's true TAMU.  We as a nation have stated that's the threshold where one shouldn't drive.  You yourself have said the consent threshold in Texas is something pretty close to pass out drunk.

Keep reading. I didn't say it was where we decided a person could no longer consent to sex. Its where we've decided you can't drive and where you can't be held to a contract that you signed. Personally, I'm flexible on the .08 standard. There are scientific arguments for why it could be higher or lower. Honestly, a few BAC points isn't going to matter because no one is being breathalyzed. Its always going to be about whether or not a reasonable person should have known the person was incapacitated.

And the standard in Texas is that they most have lost consciousness. The person could be vomiting uncontrollably and pissing themselves drunk but as long as they are conscious and they don't say no or try to resist than it is not a sexual assault. That's how far the law has to catch up in some states.

[jsglow]

I know we don't want to argue TAMU and you're a really smart guy and I acknowledge the issue with contracts as you mentioned.  But here's where we have parted company in the past and I would believe but have no statistical back-up to support my belief.

If one were to put the .08% threshold for sexual consent to a vote and by extension criminalized all sexual contact beyond that, you'd get a vast majority of Americans (somewhere north of 80%, maybe 90%) disagreeing with that threshold as appropriate.  I sincerely believe the vast majority of Americans would view that as a fringe position.

Now falling down drunk as you mention in Texas, that's another story that I think we can all agree on.

[mu03eng]

I know we don't want to argue TAMU and you're a really smart guy and I acknowledge the issue with contracts as you mentioned.  But here's where we have parted company in the past and I would believe but have no statistical back-up to support my belief.

If one were to put the .08% threshold for sexual consent to a vote and by extension criminalized all sexual contact beyond that, you'd get a vast majority of Americans (somewhere north of 80%, maybe 90%) disagreeing with that threshold as appropriate.  I sincerely believe the vast majority of Americans would view that as a fringe position.

Now falling down drunk as you mention in Texas, that's another story that I think we can all agree on.

Glow, I think you'll find your guesstimate to be pretty regionally dependent. I also have no hard evidence for this, but having traveled all over in the US the drinking culture that would vote with you (as would I) is going to be the deep South, the northern plains and the Midwest+ Kansas (I don't care what anyone says, Kansas isn't in the midwest). West coast is going to be at a much lower agreement level with you as well as a lot of the northern original colonies (except Boston, holy s%^t they drink a lot). I think the overall agreement level is going to be closer to 50/50.

[mu03eng]

There was a time where people thought the government mandating seatbelts was an overcorrection. But people got used to it and the younger generation grew up with it and now it is a no brainer that you should wear a seatbelt. That's how culture changes. The government sets a standard, its messy at first and people push back. But then they get used to it and the younger generation grows up knowing that was always the standard.

While there are parts of Title IX that can absolutely be improved, I don't think there has been an overcorrection at all. The Dear Colleague letter of 2011 honestly didn't change much. It just reminded universities that it has a responsibility to fairly investigate and respond to accusations of sexual assault. It didn't really change any definitions or make something sexual assault that wasn't sexual assault before. In fact, the only things that really changed were that it added more layers of due process to both complrightnts and accused. The biggest difference is that the DOE is actually following up on complaints and holding universities accountable.

If there are specific parts about Title IX that you think are an overcorrection I'd be happy to try and speak on them. But saying Title IX is an overcorrection is so big I wouldn't know where to start.

Me being inarticulate as usual I think. My argument is not really that Title IX is an overcorrection itself, as an overcorrection is in order. As you point out, you don't change culture by going just where you want it, you do have to overcorrect to a certain degree (any fair argument is bunk since no one promised us fair in life).

My issue with Title IX is that it feels to me (as a wildly unqualified person) that it is an inefficient means by which to correct. The fact that it is a redundancy to the criminal system bothers me, as well as that it is a creation of another level of bureaucracy to be managed and navigated. I'd feel much more comfortable if campus were responsible for creating a safe place to report and then tied their punishment system when criminal matters are concerned to whatever the outcomes of the criminal process is.

Don't get me wrong, it's probably the best way to go right now and we can't judge the process simply by handpicked outcomes that seem wrong, but I do think if we were serious about this sort of stuff we would address it in totality with a revamp of the whole system.

[jsglow]

Glow, I think you'll find your guesstimate to be pretty regionally dependent. I also have no hard evidence for this, but having traveled all over in the US the drinking culture that would vote with you (as would I) is going to be the deep South, the northern plains and the Midwest+ Kansas (I don't care what anyone says, Kansas isn't in the midwest). West coast is going to be at a much lower agreement level with you as well as a lot of the northern original colonies (except Boston, holy s%^t they drink a lot). I think the overall agreement level is going to be closer to 50/50.

Let's bet two beers on that eng!  Who knows, you might end up with a little bro for #nored!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I know we don't want to argue TAMU and you're a really smart guy and I acknowledge the issue with contracts as you mentioned.  But here's where we have parted company in the past and I would believe but have no statistical back-up to support my belief.

If one were to put the .08% threshold for sexual consent to a vote and by extension criminalized all sexual contact beyond that, you'd get a vast majority of Americans (somewhere north of 80%, maybe 90%) disagreeing with that threshold as appropriate.  I sincerely believe the vast majority of Americans would view that as a fringe position.

Now falling down drunk as you mention in Texas, that's another story that I think we can all agree on.

Like Eng said, its very regionally dependent. And the area that would probably have the highest level of disagreement is our home region of the midwest. I had no idea how big the drinking culture was at Marquette until I started working for other universities. I thought a big football schools like Utah and  TAMU would be party city but I'm pretty sure most of the students would clutch their pearls and faint if they saw how we partied at Marquette. I think that plays into a lot of how we view this question.

More importantly, I don't really care what peoples' opinions are. There was a time when the popular opinion was the Earth was flat (Kyrie still believes!) and slavery was cool. I care what be can be justified with science. And the reality is that our decision making ability is significantly impaired at .08 BAC. There are other thresholds that you could argue (.04, .10, etc) and I'm open to having that discussion. I like the .08 standard because its one that most people understand (or think they understand) and because the symmetry with written contracts and consent being a verbal contract. But again it doesn't matter, because no one is being breathalyzed. Its always going to be about whether a reasonable person should have known their partner was incapacitated.

When people drink and drive people don't always get hurt. Sometimes the drinker manages to drive home safely without hurting anyone. But people get hurt enough that we have made it illegal. When people have sex with someone who is that drunk people don't always get hurt. Sometimes the person wakes up the next morning and is fine, even happy with what happened. But enough people do get hurt and are forever traumatized that I think we at least need to reevaluate how we think about alcohol and sex.  The more we can untangle alcohol and sex from each other the better off as a society I think we will be. That's why I think the most important part of the Dear Colleague Letter isn't about the conduct process. Its all the requirements for prevention education that universities now need to provide to students. That is where we will get the culture change that Eng was talking about.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'd feel much more comfortable if campus were responsible for creating a safe place to report and then tied their punishment system when criminal matters are concerned to whatever the outcomes of the criminal process is.

See I don't feel comfortable with this at all. Universities have the right to set their own standards for their students' behavior. And law enforcement does not have the capacity to handle both violations of the law and violations of the student code of conduct. If you get rid of the student code of conduct then you would have to use whatever the state laws were on some of these issues. That means that in Texas, if someone you cared about was so drunk that they didn't know where they were much less what they were doing, someone could have sex with them and walk away with no consequences. I don't care what the law says, that is not right. Plus the judicial system is not set up well to handle sexual assault cases. A vast majority of sexual assault accusations that are brought to the police don't result in charges being filed. Its not because there's no evidence it's because DAs will only bring charges when they are certain that they can win a case. And with a beyond reasonable doubt standard and often little evidence other than statements from the complrightnt and the accused, no DA is going to take that case. All it takes is one juror to think "she was asking for it" and the case is over. Plus, criminal trials can take months, even years to complete.

Universities are much better equipped to handle violations of the student code of conduct. We have a lower standard of proof (which is acceptable when the worst thing we can do is expel a student), we have an obligation to to take on any case regardless of the likelihood of the student being found responsible, and we have an obligation to complete cases within 60 days (though we [and the students] can request extensions when warranted). Also, while the media focuses on students who were expelled, that is only used in the most heinous of cases. Cases where we truly believe the student is a predator who is a danger to others. We have a host of other sanctions at our disposal that focus on education and helping the student. Law enforcement can only offer punitive sanctions, that is not appropriate for an educational environment.

[jsglow]

So a question for you TAMU.  Does a university have the ability to exercise a self determined standard with respect to internal discipline procedure?  In other words, could (not would) TAMU have the 'right' to dismiss a student for 'sexual assault' because his partner had one beer and was 'unable' to grant consent? (I'm purposefully trying to be extreme.)  Or more reasonable, could a TAMU Eagle set policy and simply codify .08% on your campus because you think it the appropriate threshold?  I know all students are always bound by the standards of conduct and that the threshold of proof can be lower than in a criminal case but what I'm trying to do here is discuss a university's ability to operate independent of a third party check. 

I need to go back to review that Paul Nungesser case because there must be a line where the university faces liability with respect to disciplinary measures.  Interesting legal principle. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So a question for you TAMU.  Does a university have the ability to exercise a self determined standard with respect to internal discipline procedure?  In other words, could (not would) TAMU have the 'right' to dismiss a student for 'sexual assault' because his partner had one beer and was 'unable' to grant consent? (I'm purposefully trying to be extreme.)  Or more reasonable, could a TAMU Eagle set policy and simply codify .08% on your campus because you think it the appropriate threshold?  I know all students are always bound by the standards of conduct and that the threshold of proof can be lower than in a criminal case but what I'm trying to do here is discuss a university's ability to operate independent of a third party check. 

I need to go back to that review that Paul Nungesser case because there must be a line where the university faces liability with respect to disciplinary measures.  Interesting legal principle.

Yes and no. Universities have the right to set their standards within reason. If a student thinks the standard set is unreasonable they could file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education. The OCR would then determine whether or not the standard was reasonable per Title IX.

[jsglow]

Yes and no. Universities have the right to set their standards within reason. If a student thinks the standard set is unreasonable they could file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education. The OCR would then determine whether or not the standard was reasonable per Title IX.

Makes perfect sense.  Thanks.

[mu03eng]

See I don't feel comfortable with this at all. Universities have the right to set their own standards for their students' behavior. And law enforcement does not have the capacity to handle both violations of the law and violations of the student code of conduct. If you get rid of the student code of conduct then you would have to use whatever the state laws were on some of these issues. That means that in Texas, if someone you cared about was so drunk that they didn't know where they were much less what they were doing, someone could have sex with them and walk away with no consequences. I don't care what the law says, that is not right. Plus the judicial system is not set up well to handle sexual assault cases. A vast majority of sexual assault accusations that are brought to the police don't result in charges being filed. Its not because there's no evidence it's because DAs will only bring charges when they are certain that they can win a case. And with a beyond reasonable doubt standard and often little evidence other than statements from the complrightnt and the accused, no DA is going to take that case. All it takes is one juror to think "she was asking for it" and the case is over. Plus, criminal trials can take months, even years to complete.

My intent wouldn't be to eliminate the code of conduct, but more closely align it with law enforcement in issues where alleged student misconduct would also be considered felony criminal behavior. Admittedly, I'm speaking out of my a$$ somewhat here as I'm neither a student compliance expert nor a legal expert (I've stayed at multiple Holiday Inns with no impact on my intelligence). However, I would point out two of your objections are very valid and I have the same concerns, but instead of wall papering over them with another layer of bureaucracy which creates special bubbles like campuses we should be working towards reforming the criminal justice system. Yes, Texas has horrible sex offense laws, we should fix that for the whole state, not just the kids who go to college. Additionally, this DA mentality of only charging if I can win needs to go away. People need to see the justice system working for them to make them feel like they are safe to report things, especially with sex based crimes.

Universities are much better equipped to handle violations of the student code of conduct. We have a lower standard of proof (which is acceptable when the worst thing we can do is expel a student)

I have a sneaking suspicion that the financial and societal impact of being expelled for a sex based offense from college would be similar to serving a 5 year sentence upon being convicted of the same crime.

Universities are much better equipped to handle violations of the student code of conduct. We have a lower standard of proof (which is acceptable when the worst thing we can do is expel a student), we have an obligation to to take on any case regardless of the likelihood of the student being found responsible, and we have an obligation to complete cases within 60 days (though we [and the students] can request extensions when warranted). Also, while the media focuses on students who were expelled, that is only used in the most heinous of cases. Cases where we truly believe the student is a predator who is a danger to others. We have a host of other sanctions at our disposal that focus on education and helping the student. Law enforcement can only offer punitive sanctions, that is not appropriate for an educational environment.

One thing that needs to be said in this whole discussion is that the vast majority of the time I'm sure the student conduct system works and works well. I think your last sentence is extremely important for context of the discussion as a lot of the university student conduct system is intended to provide disciplined, learning environment where students can make mistakes and learn from them in a way that doesn't permanently impact them that the legal system might. It is easy to forget that when you see stories like the one I linked in juxtaposition with the on-going fiasco at  Baylor...one might conclude the system is broken when really that is something like 0.1% of the situations that the system has to deal with. 


**quick side note, there is no snark/sarcasm/pejoratives intended in any of my response, I simply am not smart enough to craft the same message with better/more useful words.

[GGGG]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the financial and societal impact of being expelled for a sex based offense from college would be similar to serving a 5 year sentence upon being convicted of the same crime.

I don't think that's the case at all.  Code of conduct violations aren't public information and don't have to be disclosed on a job application.  TAMU correct me if I am wrong, but I am not even sure schools would require you to disclose on a transfer application if you had a code of conduct issue.  It certainly would not be indicated on your transcript or something like that.

The only reason we knew about the USC one is because he is a football player and the girlfriend was very public with her objections. 

[StillAWarrior]

When people drink and drive people usually don't always get hurt. Sometimes It happens countless times every day, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, the drinker manages to drive home safely without hurting anyone. But people get hurt enough that we have made it illegal. When people have sex with someone who is that drunk people usually don't always get hurt. SometimesMore often than not, the person wakes up the next morning and is fine, even happy with what happened. But enough people do get hurt and are forever traumatized that I think we at least need to reevaluate how we think about alcohol and sex.

I tend to disagree with you on this issue.  However, I think that your comment -- particularly as modified by me (which I think is true) -- is very thought provoking.  While I'm not sure it's a mind-changing moment for me -- it might be -- it's certainly something for me to think about.  Thank you. 

Edited to add:  Honestly, I think the "overwhelming majority of cases" probably applies in both scenarios.  Bear in mind, I'm not offering that as a reason to abolish the rule in the DUI case, and I wouldn't offer it as a reason to abolish a rule in the sexual assault case.  That's the reason this got me thinking.

[jsglow]

I tend to disagree with you on this issue.  However, I think that your comment -- particularly as modified by me (which I think is true) -- is very thought provoking.  While I'm not sure it's a mind-changing moment for me -- but it might be -- it's certainly something for me to think about.  Thank you. 

Edited to add:  Honestly, I think the "overwhelming majority of cases" probably applies in both scenarios.  Bear in mind, I'm not offering that as a reason to abolish the rule in the DUI case, and I wouldn't offer it as a reason to abolish a rule in the sexual assault case.  That's the reason this got me thinking.

That's pretty good stuff there stilla.

[Jockey]

This is a great conversation probably worthy of a thread.  Otherwise somebody might end up thinking that Bobby Knight beat up the USC kicker's girlfriend (or maybe didn't).  And so it goes.

Bobby wouldn't want to dirty his hands that way. He would pick up the kicking tee and throw it across the field at her.