Can we talk about the USA today article?
I didn’t see the original thread title or any of the comments before it was shut down. I’m assuming people were naming players.
We don’t have to do that when we have no evidence, but I think it’s a topic we should be able to discuss, particularly:
- the program’s response, including Harbaugh’s, and
- the university’s response.
It’s a touchy subject to say the least, but this is obviously bigger than football, and it involves the program we cheer for and support. We should be able to talk about it.
You can warn them that there is an allegation. You read worse than me (and I forgot that the thing I was complaining about was in the story I just read). It's not false, so it can't possibly be libel or slander.
Michigan's Title IX coordinator/investigator DID call the players new school and spoke with the Title IX director there. It even says that in the story - if you had bothered to read it...
WTF?
Not saying you're wrong but I read the article over and couldn't find that -- can you give me the quote? I don't want to be out here making a case when I'm misunderstanding the situation.
Sorry, my bad - Michigan (Seney) called, but got no answer:
"Seney told Moffett she had tried to report the information to the university where the alleged perpetrator had transferred but was unable to reach anyone, emails show. Moffett managed to get ahold of the school’s Title IX coordinator herself and told him the whole story, she said, but never heard back."
Not sure how hard she tried, it doesn't seem plausible to not get hold of anyone...
Thanks, I don't know how I missed that. Doesn't make a huge difference, but it is better.
There very well may be reasons to contact the other University in this situation, but the poster at top implied the University needed to contact the other University in order to keep their students safe.
Taking actions to keep people safe against someone who has not been charged? Think about that and everything that could entail.
In my opinion this is a potential slippery slope to opening the door to the court of public opinion and implying guilt on someone, who again, has not been charged with a crime.
Did read it. I'll give you that I forgot that part. But also, they should've created a paper trail instead of letting it go at a phone call that elicited no apparent reaction.
Yes, under these circumstances the police couldn’t prosecute: One victim is dead, one refuses to cooperate clearly (based on history) because of the backlash and abuse she will get, both were drugged/roofied and couldn’t remember anything at first, a team member who went public and who was a friend of a victim was blocked from entering the crime scene as it was happening by the three alleged rapists.
And also, apparently you cannot pursue a title IX case the alleged perpetrator because they transferred.
Those are not defenses. Those are ways to get away with a crime.
So clearly something has to be done differently. For one, the Trump administration‘s new limits on title nine went too far. Also, maybe someone shouldn’t be eligible for the transfer portal if they are under a title 9 investigation or alternatively, those investigations should follow them to their new school.
I do think Harbaugh, did what he could do. Could he have kicked the other two players off the team without a title nine investigation against them? Maybe he could.
what should happen is that, even though the police and administration did what they were supposed to do, they need to look at this example and identify what changes they need to make so that this happens less and less and less in the future.
I agree with most of this. I do believe a crime probably occurred, and I do believe the victim's account. The procedures in place are clearly inadequate to address these situations and have been for a long time. Things were arguably made even worse in 2020.
But there are people here who want the University's football program and Title IX Cooridnator to bridge the gap between "something terrible occurred" and "we have evidence to pursue legal action against this person." That's naive. This is about the weakest case of sexual assault you could possibly bring.
Your posts are full of assumptions. There is no proof the girl was drugged/roofied. She suspects she was, but she doesn't know. I for one can say with confidence that I have been intoxicated on alcohol to the point where it's like someone flipped a switch on my memory. I was awake and conscious but I have no recollection of the rest of that night or how I got home. Luckily for me it was just a bachelor party with my family.
Im not saying that was the case with Quinn. I'm saying I don't know, and you don't know, and frankly she didn't KNOW either.
It's also an assumption that the other witness in refusing to cooperate for fear of backlash. You have no idea why the other girl isn't "cooperating." No one can have an actual discussion about it if you're just going to assume facts where there aren't any.
She said she didn't think she drank nearly enough to be that blacked out. And the rest of the behavior she described seems consistent with being drugged.
The behavior is also consistent with being black out drunk, or on drugs, and the article acknowledges she had done drugs on occasions prior to the incident that happened.
On the night of my bachelor party, the night I described in my last comment, I also didn't think I drank enough to have that happen. That's kind of how memory loss works.
Im not saying she wasnt drugged. I'm not discounting her story at all. But to say "the truth is she was drugged" is not an accurate thing to say.
Your one bachelor party is not a good reference point.
All the circumstances of the situation point to being drugged. You are probably not aware of how often women are raped like this and how often they are drugged. It’s epidemic. For someone to say directly that she was under the influence of her own doing, given everything we know about this situation (if you read the article) and about the “epidemic”, is a complete fabrication. To suggest the truth is she was drugged as a counter to these other comments is fully supported by everything we know. I did not say proven.
...but drugged, or drunk of your own accord doesn't really matter - you can't give consent in either case.
What else was JH supposed to do? He spoke with the mother (more than most coaches would have done IMO) and forwarded the information he up the chain as required.
If he knew one of his players was accused of serious sexual misconduct, he could have elected to not play them. People were clamoring for Juwan Howard to be fired because he pushed another coach in the face after an aggressive confrontation. People were calling Nate Oats a scumbag for playing a player who delivered a murder weapon to a teammate. I think, all things considered, there is an argument for a higher moral standard when folks are being paid millions of dollars to portray leadership and integrity.
I really detest the guilty until proven innocent attitude.
I really detest the guilty claiming innocence because, the victim can be shamed, rich parents can threaten the victim, or because the guilty can hire an expensive legal team and claim the glove doesnt fit.
From the article: "Federal Title IX regulations adopted by the U.S. Department of Education in 2020 also forbid coaches from disciplining players without a finding of fault in a disciplinary proceeding."
Another hack job by Betsy De’Vos and her former boss
doesn't blaming Trump for everything ever get tedious?
it get tedious reading...
De’Vos took a hacksaw to just about everything. She did this.She can’t be held accountable? Do you not think people should be held accountable?
I'm certainly not Betsy DeVos fan, but due process is not a "hack job".
You clearly didn't actually read the article. Just commenting to comment...
It's emphatically against the "rules" for a coach to discipline a player before the results of any potential investigation. That said, he clearly was trying to find out who it was, and clearly stated he doesn't want that kind of person on the team.
So again, what more should Jim Harbaugh have done?
WTF??? He did exactly what her mother asked him to do - investigate (he passed the letter to the proper authorities because he has no rights/jurisdiction to investigate criminal behavior) and instructed them in what happened (I forget the term she used in the letter). Staffers shared the letter, and read the girls speech aloud directly to the players involved, and shared her story with the entire team. He even followed up with a second phone call!
Do you really think that Jim Harbaugh, with all of his professed (and demonstrated) care about his players and people in general and his publicly devout religion, did not read these guys the fucking riot act?
And how do you know they didn't sit, or run stadium steps, or whatever, earlier in the year? The program will never talk about that, let alone tell us a reason ('hey, we're just punishing this guy because we think he was part of a rape but don't have any evidence to prove it').
Jim comes off really well in this story. He did everything right in his power and went above and beyond to contact the mother and educate his players. It reads like he genuinely cared about the situation.
The title 9 investigator not so much
He didn't respond to subsequent attempts to contact him, however. I think he's in a tough spot and most coaches would've totally blown her off and circled the wagons to protect his players. But, I think he could've done more. He had some type of "educational" conversations with them, but what does that mean? Especially after the fact? Did he ask them about what happened? Encourage them to come forward or contact the police/investigators with evidence or information?
And I'm sorrry - is running the stadium steps an appropriate punishment here? Hey, you guys may have filmed your teammate roofying and raping a girl who later was so traumatized she basically killed herself with drugs - hit those steps!
I like the way Harbaugh handles the program but this is potentially really bad shit here and it seems like everyone involved was reluctant to thoroughly investigate the case because they were football players. We are highly critical of Penn State/Baylor/Michigan State for this type of stuff and rightfully so. Brian Kelly basically had almost the exact same situation when he was at ND. We should hold Michigan to the highest standard.
I responded to what the article actually stated - I will not get into hypotheticals, suspicion, conspiracy, or any forms of comparison with other situations. The article stated that Harbaugh performed each of the actions mom requested. As others have stated so eloquently (or not), the article wasn't necessarily congratulatory towards the school - yet it appeared fairly forgiving to Harbaugh himself. Take that however you decide to read it, but I read it as saying he did everything mom asked in support of a girl that didn't even go to Michigan, and simply cannot be held to a higher standard because both the law and Title IX administrators refused to hold the players to a higher standard.
This is exactly what I'm talking about - JFC dude, innocent until proven guilty - but you want to put people on the stake for an accusation. Bullshit.
Innocent until proven guilty is the way to go when determining whether a person should go to jail or not. Donning the Michigan uniform is a privilege. Jim Harbaugh could have asked the two guys to transfer. Sit them out of games if they do not transfer. Coaches have sat players out for way more minor infringements and have asked players to transfer for not being a ball player. Rape or not, these players have put themselves in a bad situation.
Pasted from above
From the article: "Federal Title IX regulations adopted by the U.S. Department of Education in 2020 also forbid coaches from disciplining players without a finding of fault in a disciplinary proceeding."
A very naive reading of this regulation just sounds insane.
"You didn't block out the shooter on that free throw. Go run some laps."
"Uh, coach, you can't make me run laps without a finding of fault in a disciplinary proceeding."
Even better is if "coach" here is the player's dad.
I assume there is context to this regulation that is missing, and I don't expect your average journalist to help supply that whole context appropriately.
It's punishment in a Title IX context, and yes that's what it says.
I mean, in this context a Title IX hearing has to do with sexual assault claims against someone, as Title IX is an update to the Civil Rights Act as it pertains to schools receiving government funding and how they deal with sex-based discrimination. So no, a coach punishing a player for not boxing out isn't under the purview of Title IX unless some type of gender-based discrimination or mistreatment is the root cause of it. So your "naive" reading of the regulation is pretty far afield of what it actually is and how most readers, I assume, understand those regulations to be.
I've learned not to trust Wikipedia on complex legal matters, but this strikes me as equally insane. Specifically limiting a university's ability to respond to allegations of sexual discrimination (which, as a term of art apparently includes sexual assault by its students, staff, and faculty), and only sexual discrimination, just sounds like a massive lawsuit waiting to happen.
Those other situations you mentioned the misconduct actually happened. We don't know if serious sexual misconduct occurred.
He honestly shouldn't have even contacted her... While ethically it seems like the right thing to do, this is how you accidently get yourself into meddling in the investigation.
Kind of like Izzo moving Payne/Appling out of their dorm after the accusations. Seems like it would be good to separate them from the alleged victim at the time, but it also screwed up the Title IX investigation process.
Yeah I don't think that's why Izzo moved them out of their dorm... think evidence.
I don't know what Harbaugh should have done. I mean literally I'm not sure what the correct response is there. On the one hand, yes, he may have meddled (inadvertently or otherwise) in the investigation. On the other hand, this woman obviously was going through an awful trauma, and I think a pretty reasonable argument can be made that giving that woman some sympathy was more important than any investigation.
The article low key try to slam him but thought what he did is way beyond necessary and obviously FAR more than the coach at the unnamed school who seems to get a completely free pass. Did she ever contact him or even, for that matter, the author of the report?
Harbaugh asked her to name the players. She could not.
Very sad story. I feel sorry for the girl and her mother. Can't imagine losing your child in at that age.
I'm glad Harbaugh took her calls and listened to her. Really hope the police did a complete investigation but not talking to the players seems like a bad idea. Not sure what was done by the university but not knowledgeable to comment on what they should do.
The article says that he has to this day ignored the mother's second letter, which noted that one of the people present during the alleged assault was on the field making plays against OSU in 2021.
Maybe that was a bad approach. Maybe it was not. He obviously cared about the situation. But at some point, a person, especially a leader, might just have to conclude that it’s time to move on.
I don’t know if this was one of those times. I’ll likely never know.
I'm also guessing that the university authorities would tell Harbaugh not to respond to any contact from her after he initially reported it. Sad and probably goes against his internal moral compass but I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. But it's all speculation unfortunately. We may never know.
Yeah, when I read that Harbaugh spoke with the mother for 17 minutes I could just imagine a University lawyer running through the halls afterwards and telling him "Jim, don't ever do that again" because while as a human it's the right thing to do as a potentially-liable legal entity the absolute last thing you do is talk to someone involved in a potential situation like this. It's awful but it's the legal system we have in this country.
i'm sorry - what does this mean: "but at some point, a person, especially a leader might have to conclude that it's time to move on."
a person in a leadership position who has the authority to act and can compel others to act is more not less responsible to direct others to do the right thing. If said "leader" concluded that it's time to move on, then that leader could have and should have done a much better job communicating that, and could have and should have held responsible (however the "leader" deemed appropriate) those individuals who had acted in a reprehensible way, even if others (police department, athletic department) did not.
You don't continue to allow them to play.
I missed the part in the article where the mother got the names of the players (I looked twice), but I did see that it was considered hearsay. In addition to the Title IX stuff that supposedly says you can't punish a player for things that they haven't been convicted of, it is hard to know what is true in a situation like that. As an RA I had two different situations with residents involving domestic abuse and and rape. In both cases it was he said/she said. Both were turned over to people who were not me, but it was clear that there aren't clear cut answers. ...and that's when the people involved are alive to tell their side of the story.
For better or worse you can't punish someone because you suspect that they might have done something. I get the priviledge vs. right thing, but you still can't take away priviledges based on suspicions.
Absolutely a terrible situation.
The University, City, Title IX, and rest did what they should do 'by the book." That book also has the presumption of innocence as a core principle. Not sure there is a happy ending, but there are limits on what can be done without any proof, supporting testimony, or corroboration. Her friend stated that she didn't see any crime committed.
Coach is extremely limited in what they can do for fear of "interfering" in the investigation or influencing the outcome. Two different calls, engagement along the way, read Quinn's speech to them. While the alleged perpetrator was no longer at the University, the sour ending of the article is that players that were not accused of rape, presumably with the friend who didn't see a crime, were allowed to play after significant interventions.
So many things are wrong here, but I can't say that University, Police, or prosecutor's office did anything wrong. The untreated depression and escalating drug use are also terrible.
Actually, I recall otherwise. There was a. 2nd call between mom/JH that lasted 38(?) minutes.