Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

cujaysfan wrote:in the least surprising post ever

gtmo has no clue what 'constitutionally protected free speech' is.

It was in the student newspaper, thats freedom of the press. I guess that doesn't count when it's critical of the Blue Jays huh?

RxJay wrote:OK Redman why do you think Mo is guilty of sexual assault?

Did I say he was? Did you read the article? I don't think he's as innocent as the rest of the Jays fans are making him out to be.

NJRedman wrote:

cujaysfan wrote:in the least surprising post ever

gtmo has no clue what 'constitutionally protected free speech' is.

It was in the student newspaper, thats freedom of the press. I guess that doesn't count when it's critical of the Blue Jays huh?

congrats on your equally brain dead response

we got some real legal scholars round these parts

Almost as brain dead as Mcdermott in this case. A big reason why schools need to have employees like those currently under review is because of the long standing cultural and institutional norms that allow and encourage this kind of behavior to occur unabated for years. In this case you could argue it for both sexual assault, as well as favoritism for athletes (I think the assault is a bigger deal but I digress). I'm not privy to the inner workings of CU culture, but I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility for one to assume that these concerns could be easily swept under the rug by administrators. Look no further than the numerous scandals seen around the country regarding campus assaults. So, these individuals chose to write an op-ed instead. Choosing to go after those employees is probably within CU's rights, but it definitely serves to perpetuate the problem and create a longer lasting headache for the school. Especially in the climate of increased awareness of sexual assault, it comes off as incredibly tone deaf

If Mo was expelled, that means the university found him responsible for sexual assault, which is a separate process from the legal system in which the charges were dropped. It wasn't just because there was accusations, there would have been a university investigation and a conduct panel. So in the university's eyes, Mo committed a sexual assault. As a university employee, it was not wise for McD to do what he did. However, it is also not wise of two university employees to be publicly criticizing another university in the paper. Universities have the right to regulate what their employees say in their official capacity as representatives of the university. Private universities even more so.

In the end, no one looks good in this situation.

if Watson wasn't found guilty and the charges were dropped, then whats the big deal of giving him a ring like everyone else on the team? He is a young man and got kicked off his team due to allegations that were later dropped. That's pretty messed up. How do you make that up to him? All that lost time and exclusion from the program... Now, if he had been found guilty it's a completely different story.

The Anti Sexual Violence ladies should have the right to express themselves publicly about the matter... That's fine. But I find them pretty f'cked up for criticizing McD because he sent a ring to Watson when the charges were dropped. Every day there are people that have their lives ruined due to allegations that are later dropped. Its not right. We need to be fair to both parties.

If Watson were to be found guilty then lock him up for years... But if he wasn't found guilty then the right thing is to give him his life back.

ecasadoSBU wrote:if Watson wasn't found guilty and the charges were dropped, then whats the big deal of giving him a ring like everyone else on the team? He is a young man and got kicked off his team due to allegations that were later dropped. That's pretty messed up. How do you make that up to him? All that lost time and exclusion from the program...

The Anti Sexual Violence ladies should have the right to express themselves publicly about the matter... That's fine. But I find them pretty f'cked up for criticizing McD because he sent a ring to Watson when the charges were dropped.

The charges were dropped in the legal process.

He was found responsible (guilty) by the university process. As far as the university is concerned, he committed a sexual assault.

This is pretty common. The state definition of sexual assault and the university definition of sexual assault are often two different things. Universities have a right to hold their students to higher standards than the state does. Universities also have a lower burden of proof than the state does.

TAMU Eagle wrote:

ecasadoSBU wrote:if Watson wasn't found guilty and the charges were dropped, then whats the big deal of giving him a ring like everyone else on the team? He is a young man and got kicked off his team due to allegations that were later dropped. That's pretty messed up. How do you make that up to him? All that lost time and exclusion from the program...

The Anti Sexual Violence ladies should have the right to express themselves publicly about the matter... That's fine. But I find them pretty f'cked up for criticizing McD because he sent a ring to Watson when the charges were dropped.

The charges were dropped in the legal process.

He was found responsible (guilty) by the university process. As far as the university is concerned, he committed a sexual assault.

This is pretty common. The state definition of sexual assault and the university definition of sexual assault are often two different things. Universities have a right to hold their students to higher standards than the state does. Universities also have a lower burden of proof than the state does.

what process?

I never heard the University going through a process. it was never even written about. You are either guilty or not guilty. It would be unfair of the University to find someone guilty when they don't have proof. Again, you are messing up a young student-athlete's life based on allegations with no proof... so wrong!

I think they just kicked him out proactively to avoid potential sanctions.

ecasadoSBU wrote:

TAMU Eagle wrote:

ecasadoSBU wrote:if Watson wasn't found guilty and the charges were dropped, then whats the big deal of giving him a ring like everyone else on the team? He is a young man and got kicked off his
what process?

I never heard the University going through a process. it was never even written about. You are either guilty or not guilty. It would be unfair of the University to find someone guilty when they don't have proof. Again, you are messing up a young student-athlete's life based on allegations with no proof... so wrong!

I think they just kicked him out proactively to avoid potential sanctions.

Universities can't just expel students for being accused, that's a massive violation of their Title IX rights and due process rights. The university must prove that a student violated one of their student rules and that is was a serious enough violation that it warranted an expulsion. There would have been an investigation, a hearing, and an opportunity for appeal. You didn't hear about it because the information is protected by FERPA, a federal privacy law. Universities can't share students' private information, such as rules they are accused of breaking or why they are being expelled.

Universities have their own set of rules, usually called a "student code of conduct." These rules cover everything from making too much noise in the dorm all the way up to murder. If a student breaks a student rule, the university will investigate, judge, and sanction a student in a process separate from the legal process. If the broken university rule was also potentially a violation of criminal law, then law enforcement will run its own process concurrently. Sometimes the two processes come to the same conclusion, other times one finds the student guilty while the other one doesn't.

In Mo's case, law enforcement dropped the charges but the university found him responsible (guilty) and expelled him. There are two likely reasons for the different outcomes. 1. Law enforcement uses a higher standard of proof than the university. DAs typically only bring things to trial when they think they can win a case. 2. Nebraska's definition of sexual assault and Creighton's definition of sexual assault are different. I don't know the specifics in Nebraska but I know a lot of states have outdated definitions of sexual assault. For example, in some states a rape can only happen when a man attacks a woman. If a woman attacks a man, man attacks another man, or woman attacks another woman, they technically can't be charged with rape in some states because of the state's definition. So what Mo was accused of might not have violated Nebraska's definition of sexual assault, but it may have violated Creighton's definition of sexual assault.

cujaysfan wrote:

NJRedman wrote:

cujaysfan wrote:in the least surprising post ever

gtmo has no clue what 'constitutionally protected free speech' is.

It was in the student newspaper, thats freedom of the press. I guess that doesn't count when it's critical of the Blue Jays huh?

congrats on your equally brain dead response

we got some real legal scholars round these parts

And we got the same types of fans like PSU, Notre Dame, Baylor and Oklahoma! Congrats on your tone deaf response.