More presumption of guilt

[Derec]

She's a member of the UO basketball team? The team that represents UO.

They were also punished by UO itself, not just the basketball team. She is a student of UO as well, so if having drunken sex is against university rules she should be suspended as well.

You are soooo very dense. Repeating your cannard after I specifically pointed out UO athletes have a contract with UO that is more than just a student contract.

Do you know the exact contents of the contract? That there is anything in there against drinking and having sex?
And if so, do you think that if a female basketball player has a drunken hookup with one or more guys that she should be kicked off the team and suspended from school?

 

[fromderinside]

They were also punished by UO itself, not just the basketball team. She is a student of UO as well, so if having drunken sex is against university rules she should be suspended as well.

You are soooo very dense. Repeating your cannard after I specifically pointed out UO athletes have a contract with UO that is more than just a student contract.

Do you know the exact contents of the contract? That there is anything in there against drinking and having sex?
And if so, do you think that if a female basketball player has a drunken hookup with one or more guys that she should be kicked off the team and suspended from school?

Disregarding the apology by one of the perps I see.

By the way students outside the AD have permission to drink and have sex. Within the AD there are restrictions for in season activity and out of season activity which includes drinking activity. In season activity constraints are pretty strict. Out of season activity tend to related to more than one on one activity that could hurt the image of the AD and its programs. Remember these Athletes are stars and some of them are just in training for professional sports. Their activity as a sportsman/woman generally must meet public figure standards.

A student, on the other hand is always a private figure if the student is not publicly associated with university programs that go beyond the university.

Answer to yourself why is a blow job an impeachable offense for a president and not for Dick, the worker, at the dildo factory? Now you are getting there.

By the way, if the university determines she was wilfully lying she will probably be expelled.

 

[Derec]

Disregarding the apology by one of the perps I see.

You call them "perps" even though there is zero evidence that they engaged in any crime. Presumption of guilt as I said.

Their activity as a sportsman/woman generally must meet public figure standards.

I see all kinds of problems with that, especially vulnerability to false accusations (see Duke Lacrosse).

Answer to yourself why is a blow job an impeachable offense for a president and not for Dick, the worker, at the dildo factory? Now you are getting there.

Technically he wasn't impeached for a blow-job (but for lying about it) and even so it was a purely politically motivated affair. Just like here they are being punished because a female accused them of rape, which is the political cause du jour and on which it's ok to sacrifice the lives of male students. That it hasn't been proven doesn't matter. The guilt is presumed.

By the way, if the university determines she was wilfully lying she will probably be expelled.

No way. In our politically correct climate she has nothing to fear.

 

[laughing dog]

If she is contradicted about any part of her testimony that casts doubts on her

What does "casting doubt on her" mean?

If he admitted his guilt about any non-consensual sexual conduct he'd have been arrested.

I realize this is difficult for you, but try to respond to what is actually written. I wrote he tacitly admitted. You are under the delusion that institutions have to follow the protocols of the criminal justice system: they do not.

As to drinking, show me the policy against the drinking. And since the girl was drinking and has sex as well, why isn't she being suspended as well? Remember, the boys weren't just punished by the basketball team but also by the university at large.

FFS, athletic teams have stricter standards of behavior for the athletes. She is not an athlete.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Evil women are once again torturing virginal young boys I see.

 

[arkirk]

Have you ever noticed that this kind of thing seems to mainly happen on basketball, and football, teams? It doesn't seem to happen to the chess team or the debate team. Probably it comes from the rationale of the games themselves and what THEY represent to the psyches of the players and the kind of mindsets present in those particular games. I am not so much interested in punishing these acts as getting to the root cause. These games are all games of physical domination. These games are about the only games that produce for the universities profit. We have seen that there is such a drive to win and to fill the stadium with screaming fans, I suspect that domination seems to spill over from the games into the personal life of the players.

It seems to me a very strong possibility that the training and culture of these particular sports may create conditions that are apt to lead to rape. The international "game" of militarism seems to have the same results, with a large percentage of the women in the military getting raped. These problems seem to persist. Rape is actually a crime of violence that mirrors the physical domination of the games these players are so deeply invested in. What makes it more of an enduring problem is that institutions of higher learning are also deeply invested in these games, and the psyches of many university officials cannot accept there is a relationship between the domination on the field and that in the private lives of their players.

By the blanket punishing of players that get caught, the university seeks to divorce itself from what may well be a consequence of the macho culture it fosters in the games, team organization, and fans. If you deny that these games are violent, just look at the problems players have with physical injuries (including, but not limited to brain injury). To my mind, nothing can be more anti-intellectual than a game that regularly injures human brains, breaks bones, tears tendons, etc.

These games do not contribute to actual fitness in their atheletes, but rather to injury and psychological damage by inculcating narcissistic macho culture. It is not surprising to see that these athletes engage in rape at a higher rate than the general population. The question to me is one of the university dodging its responsibility and its part in the creation of conditions that contribute to rape. A culture that accepts gross physical injury as lightly as football seems to have a desensitizing effect on its members. Not that long ago, we had Michael Vick engaged in dog fighting.

We can argue till the cows come home about "he said, she said," but an institution that engages in its human parallel for profit should not be allowed to merely abuse those they have already misinformed and abused. I do however regard being suspended from the abuse of football could be thought of as a reprieve from injury on the field.

 

[J842P]

They were also punished by UO itself, not just the basketball team. She is a student of UO as well, so if having drunken sex is against university rules she should be suspended as well.

You are soooo very dense. Repeating your cannard after I specifically pointed out UO athletes have a contract with UO that is more than just a student contract.

Do you know the exact contents of the contract? That there is anything in there against drinking and having sex?
And if so, do you think that if a female basketball player has a drunken hookup with one or more guys that she should be kicked off the team and suspended from school?

Disregarding the apology by one of the perps I see.

By the way students outside the AD have permission to drink and have sex. Within the AD there are restrictions for in season activity and out of season activity which includes drinking activity. In season activity constraints are pretty strict. Out of season activity tend to related to more than one on one activity that could hurt the image of the AD and its programs. Remember these Athletes are stars and some of them are just in training for professional sports. Their activity as a sportsman/woman generally must meet public figure standards.

A student, on the other hand is always a private figure if the student is not publicly associated with university programs that go beyond the university.

Answer to yourself why is a blow job an impeachable offense for a president and not for Dick, the worker, at the dildo factory? Now you are getting there.

By the way, if the university determines she was wilfully lying she will probably be expelled.

The blowjob was not impeachable.

 

[Derec]

Evil women are once again torturing virginal young boys I see.

So I guess if the boys aren't "virginal" they deserve whatever punishment the university metes out based on unproved rape allegations?

 

[laughing dog]

Evil women are once again torturing virginal young boys I see.

So I guess if the boys aren't "virginal" they deserve whatever punishment the university metes out based on unproved rape allegations?

While the rape allegations are unproven in a court of law, that does not mean that they are not proven to the satisfaction of the university. And that assumes that players were expelled on the basis of the rape allegations. Your arguments would be more convincing if they were based on facts and not your assumptions.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is not even "preponderance of evidence". It's an uncorroborated allegation contradicted by witnesses.
But let me get your position clear - you are ok with innocent male students being punished just because they have been accused, even if they are actually innocent?

It is very likely the actions the players admitted to, may have violated the college's rules and this is why they were expelled.

Let me make my position perfectly clear. Neither you nor I know why the Athletic Department dismissed these young men, but I do have knowledge of similar incidents at other colleges. The disciplinary record of a student is not public information in the way an arrest of criminal charges are. Are you with me so far?

For these players to be kicked out for this incident, it is most likely there is a history of program violations. It is also likely they were warned to not indulge in specific behaviors, which may not be criminal, but are detrimental to the University. The history of college athletics is full of stories of criminal violations(mostly assault and bar fights) by star players, which were excused, covered up, or forgiven because of their value to the program. There is a large support systems for football programs which reach far outside the official offices of the university.

As personal testimony, I can tell about a phone call I once received from a prominent citizen who asked if I could provide a job for a well
known LSU player. He had plead guilty to assault and would receive probation, if he had a job. I supervised skilled technicians and the janitors who cleaned up after them. After a few minutes of conversation, we both agreed our former college all star would not be happy mopping floors. This was for a guy who was no longer on the team.

Any college has a considerable investment in a scholarship athlete. The Athletic Department does not abandon this investment for frivolous reasons. The simple fact of a criminal accusation would not be enough to warrant this, unless the Department had more information.

 

[fromderinside]

You call them "perps" even though there is zero evidence that they engaged in any crime. Presumption of guilt as I said.

Wow. So you see nothing in his recorded apology as suggestive of actual guilt. By the way, I'd call everyone in the event perps.

(re: public figures) .... I see all kinds of problems with that, especially vulnerability to false accusations (see Duke Lacrosse).

Nevertheless the UO athletes are considered public figures and the standards to which they must adhere are different from private parties(Sterling notwithstanding).

.... it (the Clinton blowjob) was a purely politically motivated affair. Just like here they are being punished because a female accused them of rape, which is the political cause du jour and on which it's ok to sacrifice the lives of male students.

From my point of view rape isn't presumed. Male misbehavior is demonstrated by the number of males involved and the apology of one of them afterward for the events.

By the way, if the university determines she was wilfully lying she will probably be expelled.

No way. In our politically correct climate she has nothing to fear.

I'll just let your presumptions hang out here in all their disgusting ugliness.

 

[fromderinside]

The blowjob was not impeachable.

I was talking about a possible liejob.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Derec, in this case you're in the wrong. While it doesn't seem to be rape it doesn't sound like good behavior, either.

How am I in the wrong? I did not offer an opinion on whether it is "good behavior" or not. But I do not think college administrators should be arbiters of "good behavior" of their adult students and punish them for behavior they deem "bad", even if it is consensual. If the sexual encounter was consensual, then the girl is just as "guilty" of "bad behavior" as the guys. Should she be punished as well?

When you're in a position with a public face there's a general rule that one should not embarrass the company. At higher levels it very well might even be part of your employment agreement. (My wife has had such clauses in contracts before.)

Athletes are a position with a public face, they certainly did make the university look bad.

Note that off the team is not the same as kicking them out of school. Nothing is going to happen to her because she doesn't have the public face.

 

[Derec]

Athletes are a position with a public face, they certainly did make the university look bad.

I'd say the kicking them off the basketball team when there is no evidence they did anything other than drink and have consensual sex at a party makes the university look bad, not the other way around.

Note that off the team is not the same as kicking them out of school. Nothing is going to happen to her because she doesn't have the public face.

They were suspended from school and might end up expelled. It's not like male students accused of rape haven't been expelled before, even though evidence was lacking. University of North Dakota, University of Georgia, Vassar College etc.

 

[Derec]

Wow. So you see nothing in his recorded apology as suggestive of actual guilt.

No. Can you quote the parts that you think indicate guilt?
And if you think they indicate guilt, please explain why there have been no criminal charges despite what you interpret as a confession?

By the way, I'd call everyone in the event perps.

Including the accuser and the college administration?

From my point of view rape isn't presumed. Male misbehavior is demonstrated by the number of males involved and the apology of one of them afterward for the events.

Group sex is not evidence of non-consent (see Hofstra false rape accusation). Neither is an apology, because the girl obviously regretted it afterward. A person can be sorry for their sex partner regretting the encounter without that encounter having been non-consensual.

Now I do think the apology was a tactical mistake precisely because of people like you jumping to conclusions.

By the way, if the university determines she was wilfully lying she will probably be expelled.

Very unlikely they will make that determination because it's politically incorrect.

I'll just let your presumptions hang out here in all their disgusting ugliness.

What presumptions? False rape accusers have nothing to fear. They are very rarely prosecuted (for example Crystal Gail Magnum was never prosecuted for the false rape allegation) and even when they are it's for a misdemeanor "filing a false police report" and thus a slap on the wrist.

 

[laughing dog]

They were suspended from school and might end up expelled. It's not like male students accused of rape haven't been expelled before, even though evidence was lacking. University of North Dakota, University of Georgia, Vassar College etc.

First, they have not been expelled. Second, a more accurate statement is that you think the evidence was lacking.

 

[Derec]

While the rape allegations are unproven in a court of law, that does not mean that they are not proven to the satisfaction of the university.

It is a big problem when universities, pressured by the Obama administration, are satisfied with very little in terms of evidence. So little that it's not enough even for an arrest and indictment, much less conviction. It is also problematic when the accused are largely prevented from defending themselves.

Your arguments would be more convincing if they were based on facts and not your assumptions.

My arguments are based on facts such as universities being pressured to punish male students with very little evidence and no due process protections. I have noticed everyone on your side is steadfastly ignoring the University of North Dakota case. Or the Vassar case. Or the UGA case.
All the feminists and the Obama administration care about is to increase the number of male students expelled over rape allegations. Not whether they are guilty or innocent. Not to have a reasonable burden of proof or due process that protects the accused from false allegations.

 

[Derec]

First, they have not been expelled.

Not yet. But they were suspended and in our present post-Dear-Colleague climate of "it's better to expel a hundred innocent male students than to have one rapist on campus" it is likely they will be expelled. Universities have learned nothing from the shameful treatment of the innocent lacrosse boys at Duke. Quite the opposite - the situation for the falsely accused is infinitely worse today than it was then.

Second, a more accurate statement is that you think the evidence was lacking.

Also the police and the prosecutor thinks the evidence is lacking and that the accuser's story was contradicted by witnesses at the scene.

 

[laughing dog]

Not yet. But they were suspended and in our present post-Dear-Colleague climate of "it's better to expel a hundred innocent male students than to have one rapist on campus" it is likely they will be expelled. Universities have learned nothing from the shameful treatment of the innocent lacrosse boys at Duke. Quite the opposite - the situation for the falsely accused is infinitely worse today than it was then.

In other words, you are making a prediction based on your biases.

Also the police and the prosecutor thinks the evidence is lacking and that the accuser's story was contradicted by witnesses at the scene.

The police and the prosecutor felt the evidence was insufficient to either warrant an arrest or to sustain a conviction. That is not equivalent as implying that the universities did not have evidence for expulsion. You do realize there is a difference between the criminal justice system and private disciplinary procedures.

 

[Derec]

In other words, you are making a prediction based on your biases.

No, I am making a prediction based on what has been happening in academia.

The police and the prosecutor felt the evidence was insufficient to either warrant an arrest or to sustain a conviction. That is not equivalent as implying that the universities did not have evidence for expulsion. You do realize there is a difference between the criminal justice system and private disciplinary procedures.

I do not agree with the assumption that flimsy evidence should be sufficient to expel a male student from a university. I also do not agree that the accused students should not have due process rights and that he should not be allowed to adequately defend himself.
When we have male students expelled even though the police charged the false accuser with a crime we have a problem.
When we have a male student expelled just because a female students accused him of rape a year later and even though he had a Facebook message from her where she said she "had a great time" we have a problem.
When we have a male student expelled after a drunken hookup even though he could demonstrate that she was not too drunk to consent based on her being fully coherent (text messages) and in command of her motor skills (walked to and from his dorm room) we have a problem, especially when then accused is not allowed to confront either his accuser or the alleged (and anonymous) witnesses against him (violation of due process).
Please do not pretend the "standards" currently used to expel male students are in any way adequate.