Big Sky establishes serious misconduct rule

[mtgrizfankb]

I know this question is apples and oranges, but hoping someone has some insight...

If I have a son or daughter attending UM on a full or near-full academic scholarship, and they commit an offense deemed "serious misconduct," does the University revoke the scholarship? How?

Lines of The Student Code of Conduct under Violations of the Student Code of Conduct

19. Homicide, assault, aggravated or felony assault, or threat of the same.
20. Conduct that recklessly or otherwise threatens or endangers the health or safety
of another person.
15. Malicious intimidation or harassment of another. When a student, with the intent to
terrify, intimidate, threaten, or harass (1) causes bodily injury to another, (2) causes
reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in another, (3) damages, destroys, or defaces
any property of another or any public property, or (4) makes repeated, persistent and/or
severe communications, including telephone, digital, or electronic communications, that
are unwelcome to the receiver.

Okay, violation of policy. Does it also say they will automatically lose their scholarship, or get kicked out of school?

Terms of all academic scholarships include any violation of the student code of conduct can result in the removal of eligibility for said scholarship. So yes. Certain code of conduct issues are direct expulsion and others have tiers. It’s all readily avalible for anyone who wants to take the 3 minutes to pull it up and read it on the university website.

 

[SoldierGriz]

I know this question is apples and oranges, but hoping someone has some insight...

If I have a son or daughter attending UM on a full or near-full academic scholarship, and they commit an offense deemed "serious misconduct," does the University revoke the scholarship? How?

Lines of The Student Code of Conduct under Violations of the Student Code of Conduct

19. Homicide, assault, aggravated or felony assault, or threat of the same.
20. Conduct that recklessly or otherwise threatens or endangers the health or safety
of another person.
15. Malicious intimidation or harassment of another. When a student, with the intent to
terrify, intimidate, threaten, or harass (1) causes bodily injury to another, (2) causes
reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in another, (3) damages, destroys, or defaces
any property of another or any public property, or (4) makes repeated, persistent and/or
severe communications, including telephone, digital, or electronic communications, that
are unwelcome to the receiver.

Okay, violation of policy. Does it also say they will automatically lose their scholarship, or get kicked out of school?

Terms of all academic scholarships include any violation of the student code of conduct can result in the removal of eligibility for said scholarship. So yes. Certain code of conduct issues are direct expulsion and others have tiers. It’s all readily avalible for anyone who wants to take the 3 minutes to pull it up and read it on the university website.

That's a good 1st step. But, it would be better if the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities banned those students from ever attending any of the colleges they accredit - for life.

 

[Ringneck]

This whole thing seems like bureaucrats doing bureaucratic things.

The University already removed most of the coach discretion for dealing with misconduct, which was a good move IMO. I'd argue athletes are already held to a much higher standard than the rest of the student body.

Seems like a solution looking for a problem? I agree with PR - there will be some unintended consequences.

Well said; I'm in agreement with you on all your points.

 

[mtgrizfankb]

This whole thing seems like bureaucrats doing bureaucratic things.

The University already removed most of the coach discretion for dealing with misconduct, which was a good move IMO. I'd argue athletes are already held to a much higher standard than the rest of the student body.

Seems like a solution looking for a problem? I agree with PR - there will be some unintended consequences.

Well said; I'm in agreement with you on all your points.

every student will have the opportunity to appeal any issue that may arise. So if there is some...unintended issues. those should be solved with that process

 

[PlayerRep]

This is absolutely a step in the right direction. Is it perfect? Definitely not. But, if your a student athlete and can refrain from doing stupid sh%t you have nothing to worry about. I get the perspective people are talking about on here. College kids do dumb things and most fans would prefer they don't get reprimanded in a way that leaves them with missing playing time or being kicked from the team. Many people can't look past how this will affect the team, but it sets a good example to adopt something like this and live by it. In the end its good for everyone assuming kids can be smart enough not to get themselves in a situation that could possibly leave them getting convicted on a misdemeanor or felony. Its a good PR move too. My guess is there will be a few casualties from this, and that's ok if its what it takes to get kids to behave.

Do UM student athletes commit "serious misconduct" more frequently than other members of the student body? I'd love if someone could post that statistic. I actually have no idea.

Where does the idea that UM student athletes are not held accountable come from?

I just don't understand the notion that this "is a step in the right direction." That implies there are still more steps to take. What additional steps? Why?

By step in the right direction, I meant for the conference and college football as a whole, not specifically for UM. I dont think its too much to ask that student athletes keep themselves out of trouble, and if they find themselves in trouble they suffer consequences. It's really not hard to stay out of trouble, lots of young people never find themselves in trouble with the law.

Of course, athletes should keep out of trouble. That's not the issue. The issue is what should the punishment be? Should it really be banishment from every playing sports in the conference again?

This new policy isn't just related to the law. It's also to university proceedings.

Also, it appears that vehicular assault would be included. If a kid drives off the road and is found to have committed vehicular assault (perhaps for speeding or texting), should the kid be banned from playing sports in the Big Sky conference for life? Would it not depend on the circumstances? What if it was 5 years ago?

What do you think the new policy get the conference that it doesn't already have, or at least that UM doesn't already have? Do you think the Athletic Code of Conduct is not sufficient?

 

[PlayerRep]

Looks like deferred prosecution agreements wouldn't be covered.

 

[mcg]

Suppose someone is convicted of one of the offenses in the policy. Further suppose they complete whatever sentence that is handed down. Wouldn't it be true that at that point they've 'paid their debt to society' and should be able to get a scholarship and play college sports? If I'm reading the policy correctly they would be banned forever, seems not right to me.

 

[PlayerRep]

Suppose someone is convicted of one of the offenses in the policy. Further suppose they complete whatever sentence that is handed down. Wouldn't it be true that at that point they've 'paid their debt to society' and should be able to get a scholarship and play college sports? If I'm reading the policy correctly they would be banned forever, seems not right to me.

Yup, banned forever. I assume that would apply to someone tried in a youth court too, but don't know. I suppose a kid, in theory, could commit a robbery, something like vehicular manslaughter or, who knows, even manslaughter; service their time; and not be banned by this rule.

 

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

Suppose someone is convicted of one of the offenses in the policy. Further suppose they complete whatever sentence that is handed down. Wouldn't it be true that at that point they've 'paid their debt to society' and should be able to get a scholarship and play college sports? If I'm reading the policy correctly they would be banned forever, seems not right to me.

This is a great question for me as a school administrator. The majority of my experience with juvenile courts and tribal courts, the juvenile records are sealed. And as you know, school law varies from state to state as does the age a juvenile can be tried as an adult.

All I can say is wow! Is this going to show up in the MIPs and prevent those kids who get caught with a can of chew from playing three, four or five years later in this conference? This rule just eliminated the Montana state record holder in the high jump from competing in any conference schools when he graduates from high school in two years, if I understand the letter of the conference policy.

 

[PlayerRep]

These Sacred Heart football players had to leave school, when falsely accused.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/05/former-college-student-who-claimed-rape-admits-it-was-all-lies/

 

[EverettGriz]

Lines of The Student Code of Conduct under Violations of the Student Code of Conduct

19. Homicide, assault, aggravated or felony assault, or threat of the same.
20. Conduct that recklessly or otherwise threatens or endangers the health or safety
of another person.
15. Malicious intimidation or harassment of another. When a student, with the intent to
terrify, intimidate, threaten, or harass (1) causes bodily injury to another, (2) causes
reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in another, (3) damages, destroys, or defaces
any property of another or any public property, or (4) makes repeated, persistent and/or
severe communications, including telephone, digital, or electronic communications, that
are unwelcome to the receiver.

Okay, violation of policy. Does it also say they will automatically lose their scholarship, or get kicked out of school?

Terms of all academic scholarships include any violation of the student code of conduct can result in the removal of eligibility for said scholarship. So yes. Certain code of conduct issues are direct expulsion and others have tiers. It’s all readily avalible for anyone who wants to take the 3 minutes to pull it up and read it on the university website.

That's a good 1st step. But, it would be better if the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities banned those students from ever attending any of the colleges they accredit - for life.

Most already do, SG. Try to get accepted to a university with a felony on your record. You'll need to fill out a LOT of college applications.

 

[EverettGriz]

Suppose someone is convicted of one of the offenses in the policy. Further suppose they complete whatever sentence that is handed down. Wouldn't it be true that at that point they've 'paid their debt to society' and should be able to get a scholarship and play college sports? If I'm reading the policy correctly they would be banned forever, seems not right to me.

There are a number of professional industries in which people are statutorily barred if they have a felony conviction (or plead no contest), even if they "have done their time".

It's really pretty f--king simple, people: Don't assault anyone, especially women.

 

[SoldierGriz]

Okay, violation of policy. Does it also say they will automatically lose their scholarship, or get kicked out of school?

Terms of all academic scholarships include any violation of the student code of conduct can result in the removal of eligibility for said scholarship. So yes. Certain code of conduct issues are direct expulsion and others have tiers. It’s all readily avalible for anyone who wants to take the 3 minutes to pull it up and read it on the university website.

That's a good 1st step. But, it would be better if the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities banned those students from ever attending any of the colleges they accredit - for life.

Most already do, SG. Try to get accepted to a university with a felony on your record. You'll need to fill out a LOT of college applications.

Great. Then the recent rule is wholly unnecessary. That was my point all along. It's a solution looking for a problem.

 

[PlayerRep]

Suppose someone is convicted of one of the offenses in the policy. Further suppose they complete whatever sentence that is handed down. Wouldn't it be true that at that point they've 'paid their debt to society' and should be able to get a scholarship and play college sports? If I'm reading the policy correctly they would be banned forever, seems not right to me.

There are a number of professional industries in which people are statutorily barred if they have a felony conviction (or plead no contest), even if they "have done their time".

It's really pretty f--king simple, people: Don't assault anyone, especially women.

Excluding financial services, what are some of them? Just curious.

 

[PlayerRep]

False domestic abuse claims. This is a serious problem in some situations. The system puts the guy at a big disadvantage, and allows women to game the system. See article.

https://www.verywellmind.com/false-domestic-abuse-claims-4100660

https://www.verywellmind.com/false-domestic-abuse-claims-4100660

 

[EverettGriz]

Suppose someone is convicted of one of the offenses in the policy. Further suppose they complete whatever sentence that is handed down. Wouldn't it be true that at that point they've 'paid their debt to society' and should be able to get a scholarship and play college sports? If I'm reading the policy correctly they would be banned forever, seems not right to me.

There are a number of professional industries in which people are statutorily barred if they have a felony conviction (or plead no contest), even if they "have done their time".

It's really pretty f--king simple, people: Don't assault anyone, especially women.

Excluding financial services, what are some of them? Just curious.

Well, Law for one, right? I think you'd be disbarred in nearly every state for a felony or misdemeanor conviction involving corruption or moral turpitude.

In most districts, a felony conviction would prohibit someone from securing a teaching position. Same with Psychology, family counseling, etc.

While not based on statutes, some religious organizations prohibit anyone with a criminal background from serving in any leadership positions.

 

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

Suppose someone is convicted of one of the offenses in the policy. Further suppose they complete whatever sentence that is handed down. Wouldn't it be true that at that point they've 'paid their debt to society' and should be able to get a scholarship and play college sports? If I'm reading the policy correctly they would be banned forever, seems not right to me.

There are a number of professional industries in which people are statutorily barred if they have a felony conviction (or plead no contest), even if they "have done their time".

It's really pretty f--king simple, people: Don't assault anyone, especially women.

Excluding financial services, what are some of them? Just curious.

The military will not accept you for a DUI and if you receive one your career is over. Same standards for education in most states today as well as any form of domestic violence, even Montana includes this for your license-certificate today. Civil Service positions are also jobs you need not bother applying with so much as a DUI on your record. Those are just the places I'm aware of off the top of my head.

 

[poorgriz]

Suppose someone is convicted of one of the offenses in the policy. Further suppose they complete whatever sentence that is handed down. Wouldn't it be true that at that point they've 'paid their debt to society' and should be able to get a scholarship and play college sports? If I'm reading the policy correctly they would be banned forever, seems not right to me.

There are a number of professional industries in which people are statutorily barred if they have a felony conviction (or plead no contest), even if they "have done their time".

It's really pretty f--king simple, people: Don't assault anyone, especially women.

Excluding financial services, what are some of them? Just curious.

The military will not accept you for a DUI and if you receive one your career is over. Same standards for education in most states today as well as any form of domestic violence, even Montana includes this for your license-certificate today. Civil Service positions are also jobs you need not bother applying with so much as a DUI on your record. Those are just the places I'm aware of off the top of my head.

This isn't exactly accurate.

 

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

There are a number of professional industries in which people are statutorily barred if they have a felony conviction (or plead no contest), even if they "have done their time".

It's really pretty f--king simple, people: Don't assault anyone, especially women.

Excluding financial services, what are some of them? Just curious.

The military will not accept you for a DUI and if you receive one your career is over. Same standards for education in most states today as well as any form of domestic violence, even Montana includes this for your license-certificate today. Civil Service positions are also jobs you need not bother applying with so much as a DUI on your record. Those are just the places I'm aware of off the top of my head.

This isn't exactly accurate.

Two years as an S-1 in a Training Division I'd like to state it is an almost certainty the kid gets sent home. There are exceptions due to extenuating circumstances, but they'd better be exceptional. Never saw a single officer make their next promotion board. None.

*Edit I never saw on active duty a single 516, 517 or 520 SSN prefix without a MIP in their 201 file.

 

[PlayerRep]

Suppose someone is convicted of one of the offenses in the policy. Further suppose they complete whatever sentence that is handed down. Wouldn't it be true that at that point they've 'paid their debt to society' and should be able to get a scholarship and play college sports? If I'm reading the policy correctly they would be banned forever, seems not right to me.

There are a number of professional industries in which people are statutorily barred if they have a felony conviction (or plead no contest), even if they "have done their time".

It's really pretty f--king simple, people: Don't assault anyone, especially women.

Excluding financial services, what are some of them? Just curious.

The military will not accept you for a DUI and if you receive one your career is over. Same standards for education in most states today as well as any form of domestic violence, even Montana includes this for your license-certificate today. Civil Service positions are also jobs you need not bother applying with so much as a DUI on your record. Those are just the places I'm aware of off the top of my head.

Maybe you should do some research instead of relying on your head. Almost nothing you said was accurate.

Not true for the military.

"It is perfectly legal for a school to hire and/or retain a person who has a felony or another criminal record. In at least 16 states, educators convicted of sex crimes against students will not automatically lose their licenses; therefore, a teacher who has a history of having sex with students may continue to teach." The very serious felonies like murder do disqualify from teaching.

"Yes, you can work for the government if you are an ex-offender. Being an ex-offender does not prevent you from obtaining Federal Employment.

OPM or the hiring agency considers your criminal conduct in determining your suitability but there are no general prohibitions against hiring you. We consider a number of relevant factors such as the duties of the positions you have applied for, the nature and recency of the misconduct, and any evidence of rehabilitation."