|
Post by preschooler on Jun 13, 2019 8:27:33 GMT -5
You are correct the NCAA dose not run schools. The NCAA has kept an appallingly rear position on the issue. They could do more - still waiting.
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Jun 13, 2019 8:34:07 GMT -5
Agree such agreements should never happened without legal representation on both sides. The student is a vulnerable party and needs some type of advocate or advise which the university has in spades. I guess that’s one way NCAA could lead have membership pay into a fund for legal counsel for student athletes could use in such cases
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 13, 2019 9:18:49 GMT -5
The power is actually with the victim to decide where this goes. Strickland did not want this to become a thing. Right or wrong, it's her decision. Wrong. The university knew a crime happened. Strickland was in a position of vulnerability. The police MUST be informed. Period. An employee commits a crime and the university decides to PAY the victim to keep quiet. Your premise that the victim decides is total bull. The reason this is bull is what happened after the assault. He gets a better job at another university. THAT's why the police and any and all authorities must know about the assault; it cannot live in a vacuum. If this is your opinion of things, fine, but this is neither federal law nor what experts in the field think should happen. (emphasis mine) www.knowyourix.org/college-resources/title-ix/
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Jun 13, 2019 10:17:34 GMT -5
Not much new, but the Phoenix New Times has picked up the story: HERE'S THE LINK
|
|
|
Post by future on Jun 13, 2019 10:19:03 GMT -5
Then you have this trend.... www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/06/13/florida-state-says-privatizing-athletics-wont-change-anything-skeptics-arent-so-sure/?utm_term=.f209351a4b02he story was about Florida State creating a private nonprofit organization to oversee its athletic department, a move that will effectively shield athletic officials at one of Florida’s flagship public universities from having to comply with public records law. Once the transition is complete later this year, Florida State athletics officials — just like their colleagues at Florida and Central Florida, who made similar structural changes years ago — will no longer be required by law to turn over internal financial documents, emails, text messages and other records to inquiring journalists and citizens. Petersen remains skeptical.
“When you take a college program, a state university program, and privatize it, there’s only one reason you’re going to do that, and that’s to hide things. Why else would you do it?” she said. “There’s no advantage to it, other than avoiding oversight and accountability.”
Petersen’s skepticism is informed, in part, by how officials in athletic departments at public universities across the country over the years have deployed an array of strategies that transparency advocates view as attempts to avoid scrutiny.
In Georgia, a law passed in 2016 gave university athletic departments up to 90 days to respond to records requests, up from the previous three-day limit. Although Georgia football coach Kirby Smart has denied any involvement with the effort to get the legislation passed, some have taken to calling it “Kirby’s Law.” In Pennsylvania, Penn State and Pitt have taken advantage of a quirk in that state’s laws that defines those schools as “state-related,” permitting them to avoid open records requirements, refusing to release even basic financial information such as budgets, revenue figures, and coach contracts. And at public universities in other states, some officials simply have avoided creating any public records for journalists to request. During the controversy at Ohio State last year over allegations officials ignored domestic violence accusations lodged against an assistant football coach, records requests for Athletic Director Gene Smith’s emails produced no records because, according to university officials, Smith doesn’t use email. In Florida, where the open records law is particularly expansive, the state government effectively has left a loophole for public universities by allowing them to create independent “direct support organizations” to oversee athletic departments. Florida’s athletic department has operated as a direct support organization since 1929, according to athletics spokesman Steve McClain. Despite being exempt from the state’s open records law, Florida athletics routinely releases records when requested, usually with a boilerplate explanation that, even though the department doesn’t have to release any records, “we generally will provide nonconfidential records … as an accommodation to the public.” “Out of every 100 records requests . . . there might be two or three we might consider confidential, a private personal employee information, or something in a personnel file,” McClain said. “It’s pretty rare that we don’t provide what is requested.” Over at UCF, however, the athletic department sometimes has taken a different stance. From 2009 until 2015, when George O’Leary was head football coach, UCF declined to release his contract, citing the fact that state public records law doesn’t apply to direct support organizations. In 2010, former UCF athletic director Keith Tribble was asked, during a deposition, if there were any advantages to running an athletic department that was part of a direct support organization. “Sure,” said Tribble, who then cited the “flexibility” to conduct athletic department business, “without having it, you know, be public.”
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jun 13, 2019 10:23:52 GMT -5
You are correct the NCAA dose not run schools. The NCAA has kept an appallingly rear position on the issue. They could do more - still waiting. What can the NCAA do that is within their authority?
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Jun 13, 2019 10:44:46 GMT -5
Two troubling parts of this story,IM0: Shick called Strickland at least once after the assault asking if she had talked to anyoneone about it.
But the AD may have also been putting some pressure on Strickland to resolve the issue quietly.
If I was the University President I might have to consider whether that is someone I'd want on my 'team'.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 13, 2019 11:02:52 GMT -5
Ah, the passive voice. "She felt pressured" is not the same thing as "the university was pressuring her". Those three sentences you quoted do not actually say the UW or AD Cohen was pressuring Strickland to sign the therapy agreement. They just say Strickland "felt pressure" from some source. They also say that Strickland herself "wanted to put what happened behind her".
|
|
|
Post by pancakes on Jun 13, 2019 11:16:13 GMT -5
Wrong. The university knew a crime happened. Strickland was in a position of vulnerability. The police MUST be informed. Period. An employee commits a crime and the university decides to PAY the victim to keep quiet. Your premise that the victim decides is total bull. The reason this is bull is what happened after the assault. He gets a better job at another university. THAT's why the police and any and all authorities must know about the assault; it cannot live in a vacuum. If this is your opinion of things, fine, but this is neither federal law nor what experts in the field think should happen. (emphasis mine) www.knowyourix.org/college-resources/title-ix/Since neither you, nor I were in the room where their conversation happened, we have no idea how these options were presented, and, more than likely, shaded to the victim. A victim of a university employee, who was being counseled by the university. i think you get my point.
|
|
|
Post by salsolomon on Jun 13, 2019 11:26:53 GMT -5
There are 2 distinct venues here with different goals, procedures, and results. In the university/Title IX arena, the goal is to remedy the problem, and try to make sure it doesn't happen again. The rules of evidence and procedures in a criminal case are very different from what a college can use in its own process.
For example, under the existing rules (but not the proposed new ones) a college does not have to require the reporting party to give testimony in front of the responding party, nor does the college have to allow the responding party to cross examine the reporting party. In addition, statements made to the police ("He touched me without consent") could be considered by the investigator or decision-maker without the reporting party testifying or cooperating in any way during the process.
For example: a student is raped, reports that to friends and university police, but then later decides that continuing with the process will be too traumatic and chooses not to participate. The school is required by Title IX to investigate and may decide to take action against the responding party. They can hold a hearing in which the reporting party's friends and the police recount everything the remember, include the reporting party's statements to them. The college can then punish the offender on the basis of that testimony.
In a court of law (and under the new proposed rules) testimony from the friends and police of what the reporting party said while reporting the rape will be inadmissible as hearsay. So without the reporting party's cooperation, it is highly unlikely the police could do anything to punish the responding party.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 13, 2019 13:25:26 GMT -5
Since neither you, nor I were in the room where their conversation happened, we have no idea how these options were presented, and, more than likely, shaded to the victim. A victim of a university employee, who was being counseled by the university. i think you get my point. Sorry, should’ve been more specific with the quote function. I was only responding to your statement that the university should have told the police. Totally agree that we don’t know what the conversations between Strickland and the university officials were like.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jun 13, 2019 14:05:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Jun 13, 2019 15:37:16 GMT -5
You are correct the NCAA dose not run schools. The NCAA has kept an appallingly rear position on the issue. They could do more - still waiting. What can the NCAA do that is within their authority? There is a clearinghouse for athletes how about a clearinghouse for coaches and administrators with a list of anyone who has been invested and found to have a credible allegation of misconduct?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 15:52:37 GMT -5
What can the NCAA do that is within their authority? There is a clearinghouse for athletes how about a clearinghouse for coaches and administrators with a list of anyone who has been * invested* and found to have a credible allegation of misconduct? *investigated, I presume?* Btw, I agree wholeheartedly!
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jun 13, 2019 18:27:12 GMT -5
What can the NCAA do that is within their authority? There is a clearinghouse for athletes how about a clearinghouse for coaches and administrators with a list of anyone who has been invested and found to have a credible allegation of misconduct? What you are proposing is quite different from the current Clearinghouse. The current one is to ensure that incoming recruits meet the NCAA scholastic standards for incoming student athletes. It has nothing to do with conduct or any type of non-scholastic activity.
While your proposal might be a decent idea, it would take approval by the member schools for the NCAA to implement something like this.
|
|