He is in a group of one even in that elite group. And he is the face of the late 90s teams. Unbelievable that he and Brady were there at the same time even if Brady wasn’t Brady then.
A win today would easily be one of the biggest wins in the history of The Game. Harbaugh and this program desperately need a “we’re back” moment (although we’re steadily moving in the right direction), and having JOK at the helm only adds to the degree of difficulty. Let’s hope JOK has a minor miracle in him.
GO BLUE!!!!!!!
If you believe the point of Title IX is to be a replacement for the legal system (criminal or civil), you and I will simply never agree. It's about institutions advancing their mission and adhering to there main purpose . . . ensuring their students have access to the benefits provided by the institution. If it is as you suggest, there wouldn't be such wide latitude given by the government to set up systems addresssing sex and gender based inequality. We'd have a proscribed system with evolving, universal administrative procedures. And I certainly see your point, none of what you say is new to me. We just disagree on most of it (one exception being I recognize incompetence and a willingness to ignore the rules occurs in every occupation).
And if you want to emphasize the words of a Haaaaavvvad professor. Please also go back and calculate the number of Haaaaavvvad professors who have signed off on her position. It would be quite funny to read your next post saying "The Harvard Law Professor Jeannie Suk Gerson, whose position is supported by ___% of the faculty at Haaaaaaaaaaaavvvad, says etc." [Life tip: What I'm saying may be a trap. /friendly humor]
But you're talking about the people (essentially jury nullification) not the system as it was created. Individuals at MSU could've fallen short w/r/t their responsibilities (which I specifically said is a possibility). It's just not "deceitful" or "criminal" for me to say that the system is not set up to blindly reward accusers . . . as another poster said is the case.
Can you explain the "deceit" involved in me saying the preponderance system is a "tie goes to the accused" system? And how that same statement is a "crime against victims and the accused." And schools are tasked with being neutral, so all that's been created is a forum for people's voices to be heard. The slavery comment is cleary an argument for someone else somewhere else.
But if you say you charged people that "many would not have gone after," aren't you kinda confirming it's unlikely someone will be charged unless they're lucky enough to have someone like you go against the grain? And in cases where there isn't video, a weapon, death, the threat of grave physical injury etc., and where there is alcohol involved (which is the case in the vast majority of sexual assaults) I would ASSUME you faced a ton of headwind if you wanted to pursue it absent an admission, an eye witness willing to testify, or external pressure. I've certainly heard of/seen the exceptions, but I wouldn't say what you're describing is anywhere near the rule. It's certainly laudable though.
where the outcome is a virtual lock (think Alabama-Grambling in a week one matchup) or where their is powerful external pressure to take the case (e.g., a factually limited case of a teacher sexually assaulting their elementary school student). Ignoring the rare exceptions, prosecutors won't seriously consider a case with ANY question marks surrounding the outcome (even the equivalent of an Alabama-Iowa matchup will NEVER be selected, much less an Alabama-Clemson one). This idea that the criminal justice system is accessible to most people in any meaningful way is great for those of us who like that we value our institutions, but terrible if you think that the system is guaranteed, accessible, and the preferred method for resolving conflicts that are not already on the extreme side of egregious.
The requirement that schools investigate is most certainly the law. There's the possibility that the Trump administration reverses the law, and there's a legal challenge that could be brought to address the force of OCR guidance, but what you're suggesting is a "recommendation" is of the "I recommend you eat food if you want to live" variety of suggestions. Schools will lose all federal funding if they treat Title IX as cavalierly as you suggest they can.
their client only lost because of "the system," you may want to be a wee bit more skeptical about the lawyer's motive (especially when that pronouncement is made to the press). And if they say it to you, you may want to take out another loan, because they're getting ready to send you a new wave of legal fees. But I won't be presumptuous and say MSU's investigation was flawless, only that the odds aren't great for the accused students successfully overturning this decision (at the university or in parallel litigation).
And to call Title IX "accuser friendly" is wrong in every way imaginable, unless you're saying that finally creating a system that gives accusers a vehicle to raise their concerns is "accuser friendly." The system is literally set up so that, if both sides are equally believable, the accused prevails.
He follows/followed the Jose Fernandez accident closely, so he should know the estate is being sued by the family of the other people/person who died on the boat.
This is just another example of why Title IX cases don't and shouldn't follow criminal law. The criminal system is designed to go out of its way to NOT find someone responsible unless almost every human being on the planet would agree with the outcome and every known procedural remedy is pursued to the bitter end. I'm not saying I disagree with this outcome in this setting, but trying to apply these standards to employment law disputes or in cases involving Title IX violations completely ignores the context in which the criminal system exists (to only deprive people of their freedom if their guilt is painfully obvious) and the outcomes that derive from such a purposely tilted system. AH is an innocent (dead) man today, and literally nothing supports that he is not guilty . . . except the criminal justice system. /soapbox
I'm happy that reading up on depression helped you out. That's wonderful to hear. As for helpful sources, Rebecca Campbell (from State, unfortunately) speaks on this often. I'm not in a world where I need to cite ruthlessly, so I can't point you to a book/article/presentation of hers from memory. But if you look her up you'll find one. Also, "Trauma and Recovery" by Judith Herman does a great job of addressing the universality of trauma (i.e., sexual assault survivors exhibit behavior and thoughts similar to soldiers with PTSD, similar to etc etc). And I just made up the beer hypothetical, so I don't know if you'll find that specific discussion anywhere.
As to the "take sips" comment. It's interesting. It makes perfect sense to everyone, unless we're talking about sexual assault. Because the "sips" approach in these cases leads to (1) likely being assaulted again (especially if the "server" or person you are drinking with is a sociopath, way stronger than you, and demands/manipulates you to drink more) (2) a drawn out testing period aka a dating/domestic violence situation (etc etc) . . . all of which society frowns upon because "they should know better." And slightly related to that point, you can even see it in the way we speak. Brian is beyond excellent, but over the years he can constantly joke about "rappists" (rappers) with the board coasting along, but if he were to refer to the neggers on our board (people who constantly neg everything and everyone) that comment would break the board. We have a long way to go before we realize "rape culture" is a thing, and even nice people condone or promote it unintentionally. I certainly did, and probably still do somehow. And I only refer to Brian because he's the only person we both know we know. Again, I hold him in high esteem, and love this site.
Thanks! The only thing I would emphasize, although I know you didn't mean it this way, is that "new information" may also be centuries old information (literally) that is finally being shared/internalized.
I won't say it's definitely the case here, but going back immediatley after sexual assault happens A TON. Think of it more like a freshman coming to campus, drinking for the first time ever (by having just one beer), and getting violently ill immediately (because they're actually allergic to almost all forms of alcholic beverages). The chances that freshman drinks the very next night (or the next time they're invited out) is much, much higher than 0% although "they should've know better" or "what happened was clearly fucked up." There's more too (e.g., the dissonance created by finding out a revered person is "evil", trying to control the situation by repeating and thereby redefining it, etc), but thinking of the situation like a person putting their hand in a wood chipper and then putting the other hand in the next day is far from the reality of how our brains work in these situations. Your perspective ignores the devastating effects of trauma. But, to your benefit, it makes you feel safer if the affected person was not being cognitively pristine in their decision-making shortly after a traumatic experience while you, sitting at home watching from the outside and after the fact, can say you'd know better.
To your first point, every university is working hard to improve their response to these situations on campus (and some national legislation is in the pipeline to give extra motivation in the form of financial penalties). Also, Baylor representatives are appearing at national conferences to improve their practices (and yes, it is awkward to know they are sitting and listening to people who are using them as a case study). Oh, and some states have stepped in and require amnesty on ALL drug (and alcohol if you don't already consider alcohol a drug) use when that use is in any way connected to the event or the reporting of the event.
As for your second comment, it's ironically the position exclusivey held by groups looking to undermine advances in Title IX/sexual assault enforcement (some national fraternity groups have even backed away from this position because they did the research and realize what a terrible position that places victims/survivors in). The way the criminal system is set up, prosecutors only pursue clear, slam dunk winners. That's almost never the case in these situations. And if you think people who are caring enough to go into education are worse at dealing with these sensitve issues than cops . . . well, uh, sure. Also, the legal system is less discreet, and it's less flexible than a university system (which is good when people are trained and empathetic, althogh it's obviously problematic when they're not trained and empathetic). And I've talked about this before so I won't go too far into it, but that something is a crime may still make it a civil matter (see the multiple OJ trials, one that lost (criminal) and one that prevailed (civil)), and may yet still be an employment/school/club/team matter. I assure you that you would not want to live in or observe a world that says you can only pursue the arena with the harshest available penalties when seeking to resolve a serious problem you're having. In that case, the school-to-prison pipeline would become even more expansive (and not just for marginalized groups). That practice would drag in all of society when it comes to smaller issues (except for lifelong, pure saints), and there would be little to no traction on the complicated issues that often lack clear proof one way or the other. And, and the article clearly says the person went to the police first, and the police used the school as a tool to silence the victim.
The "conflict of interest" you speak of exists in every group that bothers to analyze whether its members have failed to live up to its standards (from pre-k through college, to sports teams of all ages and levels of seriousness, to non-sports clubs, to employers, etc.). Society would essentially cease to function if everyone with any relationship to a party had to go to an external body to request an analysis of its internal rules (in a non-legal setting of course). If a daycare decided whether to punish a child who allegedly did something to another child, would you be up in arms about the "conflict of interest" associated with the daycare? Probably not, although a daycare making decisions regarding a child who pays money to be there and who may bring in more money in the future necessarily involves a conflict of interest.
And, just because a party sues/settles in civil court, or just because a criminal case is pending/plead out, or just because a school determines that no rules were broken does not mean the government agency overseeing Title IX can't still punish the school for acting in its own self-interest at the expense of the complaining party (which is how I assume you're using the term "conflict of interest"). So all Tennessee did here is resolve a civil lawsuit brought against it by eight individuals. It still has to deal with the government. And the government can independently pursue its own remedies, including withdrawing all federal funding (theoretically). That punishment is unrelated to how much money the complainants have received in a civil suit involvingn sexual assault (btw, this was a "sexual assault" or "sexual harassment" lawsuit not a "Title IX" lawsuit). So your concern about "freeloaders getting money" is largely unrelated to Title IX. So if you hate this settlement, you hate civil litigation in these cases, not Title IX. This article doesn't directly speak to Title IX.
Recent Comments
around here for months now. Let's hope SOMETHING overwhelmingly positive materializes soon.
At the end of the Evans run, the announcer says, "You can't do that." Do you know what he's referring to?
If you believe the point of Title IX is to be a replacement for the legal system (criminal or civil), you and I will simply never agree. It's about institutions advancing their mission and adhering to there main purpose . . . ensuring their students have access to the benefits provided by the institution. If it is as you suggest, there wouldn't be such wide latitude given by the government to set up systems addresssing sex and gender based inequality. We'd have a proscribed system with evolving, universal administrative procedures. And I certainly see your point, none of what you say is new to me. We just disagree on most of it (one exception being I recognize incompetence and a willingness to ignore the rules occurs in every occupation).
And if you want to emphasize the words of a Haaaaavvvad professor. Please also go back and calculate the number of Haaaaavvvad professors who have signed off on her position. It would be quite funny to read your next post saying "The Harvard Law Professor Jeannie Suk Gerson, whose position is supported by ___% of the faculty at Haaaaaaaaaaaavvvad, says etc." [Life tip: What I'm saying may be a trap. /friendly humor]
But you're talking about the people (essentially jury nullification) not the system as it was created. Individuals at MSU could've fallen short w/r/t their responsibilities (which I specifically said is a possibility). It's just not "deceitful" or "criminal" for me to say that the system is not set up to blindly reward accusers . . . as another poster said is the case.
Can you explain the "deceit" involved in me saying the preponderance system is a "tie goes to the accused" system? And how that same statement is a "crime against victims and the accused." And schools are tasked with being neutral, so all that's been created is a forum for people's voices to be heard. The slavery comment is cleary an argument for someone else somewhere else.
But if you say you charged people that "many would not have gone after," aren't you kinda confirming it's unlikely someone will be charged unless they're lucky enough to have someone like you go against the grain? And in cases where there isn't video, a weapon, death, the threat of grave physical injury etc., and where there is alcohol involved (which is the case in the vast majority of sexual assaults) I would ASSUME you faced a ton of headwind if you wanted to pursue it absent an admission, an eye witness willing to testify, or external pressure. I've certainly heard of/seen the exceptions, but I wouldn't say what you're describing is anywhere near the rule. It's certainly laudable though.
where the outcome is a virtual lock (think Alabama-Grambling in a week one matchup) or where their is powerful external pressure to take the case (e.g., a factually limited case of a teacher sexually assaulting their elementary school student). Ignoring the rare exceptions, prosecutors won't seriously consider a case with ANY question marks surrounding the outcome (even the equivalent of an Alabama-Iowa matchup will NEVER be selected, much less an Alabama-Clemson one). This idea that the criminal justice system is accessible to most people in any meaningful way is great for those of us who like that we value our institutions, but terrible if you think that the system is guaranteed, accessible, and the preferred method for resolving conflicts that are not already on the extreme side of egregious.
The requirement that schools investigate is most certainly the law. There's the possibility that the Trump administration reverses the law, and there's a legal challenge that could be brought to address the force of OCR guidance, but what you're suggesting is a "recommendation" is of the "I recommend you eat food if you want to live" variety of suggestions. Schools will lose all federal funding if they treat Title IX as cavalierly as you suggest they can.
their client only lost because of "the system," you may want to be a wee bit more skeptical about the lawyer's motive (especially when that pronouncement is made to the press). And if they say it to you, you may want to take out another loan, because they're getting ready to send you a new wave of legal fees. But I won't be presumptuous and say MSU's investigation was flawless, only that the odds aren't great for the accused students successfully overturning this decision (at the university or in parallel litigation).
And to call Title IX "accuser friendly" is wrong in every way imaginable, unless you're saying that finally creating a system that gives accusers a vehicle to raise their concerns is "accuser friendly." The system is literally set up so that, if both sides are equally believable, the accused prevails.
He follows/followed the Jose Fernandez accident closely, so he should know the estate is being sued by the family of the other people/person who died on the boat.
This is just another example of why Title IX cases don't and shouldn't follow criminal law. The criminal system is designed to go out of its way to NOT find someone responsible unless almost every human being on the planet would agree with the outcome and every known procedural remedy is pursued to the bitter end. I'm not saying I disagree with this outcome in this setting, but trying to apply these standards to employment law disputes or in cases involving Title IX violations completely ignores the context in which the criminal system exists (to only deprive people of their freedom if their guilt is painfully obvious) and the outcomes that derive from such a purposely tilted system. AH is an innocent (dead) man today, and literally nothing supports that he is not guilty . . . except the criminal justice system. /soapbox
Pu - ram - us.
And if that's not clear, it's "pu" as in "punt" without the "nt".
Brian really struggles with that one.
That winning percentage isn't looking so good of late.
Michigan 29 - Rutgers 0. Next week Bryan MacKenzie has to give us more than just the score at the end of the first half.
I laughed out loud at that.
I'm happy that reading up on depression helped you out. That's wonderful to hear. As for helpful sources, Rebecca Campbell (from State, unfortunately) speaks on this often. I'm not in a world where I need to cite ruthlessly, so I can't point you to a book/article/presentation of hers from memory. But if you look her up you'll find one. Also, "Trauma and Recovery" by Judith Herman does a great job of addressing the universality of trauma (i.e., sexual assault survivors exhibit behavior and thoughts similar to soldiers with PTSD, similar to etc etc). And I just made up the beer hypothetical, so I don't know if you'll find that specific discussion anywhere.
As to the "take sips" comment. It's interesting. It makes perfect sense to everyone, unless we're talking about sexual assault. Because the "sips" approach in these cases leads to (1) likely being assaulted again (especially if the "server" or person you are drinking with is a sociopath, way stronger than you, and demands/manipulates you to drink more) (2) a drawn out testing period aka a dating/domestic violence situation (etc etc) . . . all of which society frowns upon because "they should know better." And slightly related to that point, you can even see it in the way we speak. Brian is beyond excellent, but over the years he can constantly joke about "rappists" (rappers) with the board coasting along, but if he were to refer to the neggers on our board (people who constantly neg everything and everyone) that comment would break the board. We have a long way to go before we realize "rape culture" is a thing, and even nice people condone or promote it unintentionally. I certainly did, and probably still do somehow. And I only refer to Brian because he's the only person we both know we know. Again, I hold him in high esteem, and love this site.
Thanks! The only thing I would emphasize, although I know you didn't mean it this way, is that "new information" may also be centuries old information (literally) that is finally being shared/internalized.
I won't say it's definitely the case here, but going back immediatley after sexual assault happens A TON. Think of it more like a freshman coming to campus, drinking for the first time ever (by having just one beer), and getting violently ill immediately (because they're actually allergic to almost all forms of alcholic beverages). The chances that freshman drinks the very next night (or the next time they're invited out) is much, much higher than 0% although "they should've know better" or "what happened was clearly fucked up." There's more too (e.g., the dissonance created by finding out a revered person is "evil", trying to control the situation by repeating and thereby redefining it, etc), but thinking of the situation like a person putting their hand in a wood chipper and then putting the other hand in the next day is far from the reality of how our brains work in these situations. Your perspective ignores the devastating effects of trauma. But, to your benefit, it makes you feel safer if the affected person was not being cognitively pristine in their decision-making shortly after a traumatic experience while you, sitting at home watching from the outside and after the fact, can say you'd know better.
To your first point, every university is working hard to improve their response to these situations on campus (and some national legislation is in the pipeline to give extra motivation in the form of financial penalties). Also, Baylor representatives are appearing at national conferences to improve their practices (and yes, it is awkward to know they are sitting and listening to people who are using them as a case study). Oh, and some states have stepped in and require amnesty on ALL drug (and alcohol if you don't already consider alcohol a drug) use when that use is in any way connected to the event or the reporting of the event.
As for your second comment, it's ironically the position exclusivey held by groups looking to undermine advances in Title IX/sexual assault enforcement (some national fraternity groups have even backed away from this position because they did the research and realize what a terrible position that places victims/survivors in). The way the criminal system is set up, prosecutors only pursue clear, slam dunk winners. That's almost never the case in these situations. And if you think people who are caring enough to go into education are worse at dealing with these sensitve issues than cops . . . well, uh, sure. Also, the legal system is less discreet, and it's less flexible than a university system (which is good when people are trained and empathetic, althogh it's obviously problematic when they're not trained and empathetic). And I've talked about this before so I won't go too far into it, but that something is a crime may still make it a civil matter (see the multiple OJ trials, one that lost (criminal) and one that prevailed (civil)), and may yet still be an employment/school/club/team matter. I assure you that you would not want to live in or observe a world that says you can only pursue the arena with the harshest available penalties when seeking to resolve a serious problem you're having. In that case, the school-to-prison pipeline would become even more expansive (and not just for marginalized groups). That practice would drag in all of society when it comes to smaller issues (except for lifelong, pure saints), and there would be little to no traction on the complicated issues that often lack clear proof one way or the other. And, and the article clearly says the person went to the police first, and the police used the school as a tool to silence the victim.
.
The "conflict of interest" you speak of exists in every group that bothers to analyze whether its members have failed to live up to its standards (from pre-k through college, to sports teams of all ages and levels of seriousness, to non-sports clubs, to employers, etc.). Society would essentially cease to function if everyone with any relationship to a party had to go to an external body to request an analysis of its internal rules (in a non-legal setting of course). If a daycare decided whether to punish a child who allegedly did something to another child, would you be up in arms about the "conflict of interest" associated with the daycare? Probably not, although a daycare making decisions regarding a child who pays money to be there and who may bring in more money in the future necessarily involves a conflict of interest.
And, just because a party sues/settles in civil court, or just because a criminal case is pending/plead out, or just because a school determines that no rules were broken does not mean the government agency overseeing Title IX can't still punish the school for acting in its own self-interest at the expense of the complaining party (which is how I assume you're using the term "conflict of interest"). So all Tennessee did here is resolve a civil lawsuit brought against it by eight individuals. It still has to deal with the government. And the government can independently pursue its own remedies, including withdrawing all federal funding (theoretically). That punishment is unrelated to how much money the complainants have received in a civil suit involvingn sexual assault (btw, this was a "sexual assault" or "sexual harassment" lawsuit not a "Title IX" lawsuit). So your concern about "freeloaders getting money" is largely unrelated to Title IX. So if you hate this settlement, you hate civil litigation in these cases, not Title IX. This article doesn't directly speak to Title IX.