DOJ announcement today at 11

[Umista]

So it was old Growler that shot his foot while guarding the UM law bldg. I thought it was one of the many msu posters with two guns and a knife that was being talked about on the front page of the Missoulian today.

If it was old Growler it makes perfect sense. But the msu posters keep putting one foot in the mouth so it may be one of these bright msu posters....missed his mouth and shot his foot instead!

 

[garizzalies]

Five University of Montana football players were wrongly accused, and one pleaded guilty as he should have.
None of those involved violence whatsoever.
...
Indeed, 100% of accusations involving violent sexual assault were committed by one single student [i'm assuming you're talking about the Saudi here]...

PR/75, your whole post falls flat because you totally lack credibility with your "theme."
You can't claim 100% of the althletes accused did not involve violence.
Rape = violence.
Donaldson = rape
Donaldson = violence.

Oh wait, i see what you're trying to say: Donaldson didn't punch her. You're right, that makes it all better.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Here's the rub in the "DOJ Report," over the three year period there was exactly two violent or forcible sexual assaults on the UM campus, committed by one person in the same weekend, who was not an athlete.

Here's the statistics for MSU over the same three year period:

Total Forcible Sex Offenses on campus: 12
Total occurrences, Forcible Sex Offenses in residence halls: 10
Total occurrences, non campus, Forcible Sex Offenses: 4

http://www2.montana.edu/policy/security_report/crime_report.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a result, at UM, the coach who introduced sexual assault prevention seminars to the players was fired, as was the athletic director who supported that training.

At MSU, everyone continued on in their jobs.

True, but the flaw in your logic is that noone outside of Bozoland even knows MSU exists.

 

[Jerry Punch]

Here's the rub in the "DOJ Report," over the three year period there was exactly two violent or forcible sexual assaults on the UM campus, committed by one person in the same weekend, who was not an athlete.

Here's the statistics for MSU over the same three year period:

Total Forcible Sex Offenses on campus: 12
Total occurrences, Forcible Sex Offenses in residence halls: 10
Total occurrences, non campus, Forcible Sex Offenses: 4

http://www2.montana.edu/policy/security_report/crime_report.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a result, at UM, the coach who introduced sexual assault prevention seminars to the players was fired, as was the athletic director who supported that training.

At MSU, everyone continued on in their jobs.

True, but the flaw in your logic is that noone outside of Bozoland even knows MSU exists.

Except for the wealthy Boeing engineers who provide the expendable income necessary to employ theater arts majors in travelling theater troupes in Seattle, to name a few.

 

[Jerry Punch]

Here's the rub in the "DOJ Report," over the three year period there was exactly two violent or forcible sexual assaults on the UM campus, committed by one person in the same weekend, who was not an athlete.

Here's the statistics for MSU over the same three year period:

Total Forcible Sex Offenses on campus: 12
Total occurrences, Forcible Sex Offenses in residence halls: 10
Total occurrences, non campus, Forcible Sex Offenses: 4

http://www2.montana.edu/policy/security_report/crime_report.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a result, at UM, the coach who introduced sexual assault prevention seminars to the players was fired, as was the athletic director who supported that training.

At MSU, everyone continued on in their jobs.

So what did administrators at MSU fail to do then?

 

[grzz]

Montana’s Commissioner of Higher Education Clay Christian said in an interview after the press conference that the investigation will serve as a learning experience for all of the state’s colleges.

He said his office and the Board of Regents, which governs Montana’s public institutions of higher education, will take a close look at the recommendations and implement them in other Montana schools.

“This issue truly is not unique to Missoula – it unfortunately is a bit unique to higher ed,” he said. “We need to make sure that we do our part to see that these improvements and recommendations get spread throughout higher ed.”

From the Kaimin

 

[UMGriz75]

Five University of Montana football players were wrongly accused, and one pleaded guilty as he should have.
None of those involved violence whatsoever.
...
Indeed, 100% of accusations involving violent sexual assault were committed by one single student [i'm assuming you're talking about the Saudi here]...

PR/75, your whole post falls flat because you totally lack credibility with your "theme."
You can't claim 100% of the althletes accused did not involve violence.
Rape = violence.
Donaldson = rape
Donaldson = violence.

Oh wait, i see what you're trying to say: Donaldson didn't punch her. You're right, that makes it all better.

The actual statement made:

Here's the rub in the "DOJ Report," over the three year period there was exactly two violent or forcible sexual assaults on the UM campus, committed by one person in the same weekend, who was not an athlete.

Of course the key to your elastic honesty was achieved only by leaving out the part about "on the UM campus," because something else would fall apart, e.g, your credibility would have been destroyed by knowing or pretending to know that Donaldson was off campus, in his own apartment at the time.

But, because you surely are only interested in honest discussion, the overt misrepresenting of the specific statement "makes it all right," right?

And of course, I did include MSU's "off campus" occurences of forcible assault, just for you, so that you could compare Donaldson with the four such incidents at MSU, which of course shows that MSU must be doing everything "right" even though it was at UM where the student was immediately suspended, he was convicted by plea, and he was expelled, which means that UM needed a DOJ investigation, whereas women students at MSU have nothing to worry about in your odd world because they "handle" things so much better there that they have four times the rate of such assaults.

 

[tnt]

The constant "but they didn't do it" is tiresome whether they did it or not was never the issue.

 

[UMGriz75]

The constant "but they didn't do it" is tiresome whether they did it or not was never the issue.

Less tiresome as an honest assessment than the tiresome and mendacious accusation that if nothing was proven, then they must have done it anyway.

 

[KoolMoeDee]

And of course, I did include MSU's "off campus" occurences of forcible assault, just for you, so that you could compare Donaldson with the four such incidents at MSU, which of course shows that MSU must be doing everything "right" even though it was at UM where the student was immediately suspended, he was convicted by plea, and he was expelled, which means that UM needed a DOJ investigation, whereas women students at MSU have nothing to worry about in your odd world because they "handle" things so much better there that they have four times the rate of such assaults.

are you using this ?

http://www.ope.ed.gov/security/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[UMGriz75]

are you using this ?

http://www.ope.ed.gov/security/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www2.montana.edu/policy/security" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... eport.html

 

[Jerry Punch]

are you using this ?

http://www.ope.ed.gov/security/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www2.montana.edu/policy/security" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... eport.html

So, again, are you saying that MSU did something wrong?

 

[PlayerRep]

It could have ended a year before it did. But instead coaches and whoever decided it had no merit the girls involved were threatened ostracised etc while on the other side resentment built towards the players and the programing general. As a result a flury ended up as a full blown shit storm. it has never been about who was guilty or who wasn't. It has been about how things were/are handled at the University of Montana and the environment fostered there.

***

This portion of your statement is incorrect. Nothing was started or known about this incident at the university, and the incident was not widely known. Is there any indication that the woman involved in this incident was ostracized? That was just a general statement in the DOJ summary. I thought I had once read that the woman dropped out of school after the incident, and moved back home, so if true, she wouldn't have been on campus to be ostracized. There wasn't any resentment building up towards players and the program over this incident, because nothing was known about the incident (which had occurred in Dec. 2010). The incident first became public about January 2012, when the woman went to the university to start her process, and then started talking to and in the press. The whole athlete sexual assault stuff didn't get going until mid-Dec. 2011. The police/prosecutors declined to pursue this case twice. The guys, or some of them, won their university process in a 7-0 vote. Why is such emphasis being placed on what appears to have been a false allegation. Is this one not the epitome of 75 said in an earlier post? "The moronic duplicity of this process is to proclaim that UM does not take false reports seriously enough."

As has already been stated in other posts in this thread, in Dec. 2010, there was no requirement to report something like this up (especially what appeared to be a false claim); the UM code didn't apply to off-campus activity; the UM code had the higher clear and convincing standard; the new student-athlete code was not yet in place; and the coaches had more authority to take action, or not take action. It's also been stated by some posters that the coach wasn't provided the name of the accuser, nor told whether or not she was a student, by the police. He'd apparently just been told the basics of the matter, and that the police were not going to pursue it (presumably because they didn't believe the accusation). I just tried to find the exact wording of the applicable Title IX section/regs on reporting, but didn't it in a quick search. My question is how does it become subject to Title IX, if it's not known the accuser is a student. In a different set of facts, if a UM college student had been similarly accused, but no charges brought, during the summer in say Florida--and something was made know to a UM employee--would that be subject to Title IX?

 

[UMGriz75]

are you using this ?

http://www.ope.ed.gov/security/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www2.montana.edu/policy/security" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... eport.html

So, again, are you saying that MSU did something wrong?

Are you saying that a much higher incidence of "forcible sexual assaults" both on and off campus means that MSU is doing something right?

And what would that be? How is that achieved? Do you think MSU should be investigated, avoided, or offered an award? What is that "something wrong" is a meaningless phrase to you when women on campus are being sexually assaulted at a high rate? Or that it "makes it right" that no one bothers to investigate it?

Whereas, at UM, a coach was fired because he failed to report something that he was advised by the officials in charge of making such determinations (police detectives) that nothing was chargeable because likely nothing happened.

Is that the daily report to the President? "No one was sexually assaulted today, it didn't rain today, Adams Center didn't catch on fire today, nobody flunked physics tests today, no burglaries were committed at the Lomasson Center, nobody got arrested in Aber Hall today for possession, nobody got parking tickets in the East Lot, or that the police investigated a traffic accident by the business school but haven't issued any citations yet, etc etc?" At what point does this baloney begin to consume the institution's time when the government agencies charged with investigations make a decision not to charge, but that the entire staff is busy telling Main Hall what hasn't been charged?

If there is a need to report things that are determined to have NOT happened, then fine, make that a policy, but don't fire someone when it isn't the policy, and when it is perfectly reasonable, for the long list of crimes that can be committed, that any given faculty member, department chair, coach, or RA isn't "reporting" to someone else the crimes that he has been told likely weren't committed.

 

[tnt]

PR, She was around for a year or so after and faced plenty

And not widley known???? The coaches had a meeting with individual players after getting the word from the MPD (at an out of town game as i recall - playoff?) I started hearing about it from my granddaughters care takers pretty quickly all were students. It was all over campus along with "the football players can do no wrong talk" (nothing new about that) There were other incidents roofie rumors etc etc all of which got blown up leading to the eventual Barz investigation. The shit storm started long before the Donaldson and JJ. Whether the was a obligation on the coaches and other staff members to report what they were hearing or NOT common sense would dictate they should have.

As a result of not using their brains and keeping it in house we now have "rules"

You final example really DOES sum it up. If a UM employee knew a student was accused of rape and didn't make it known title IX or not , there is a problem. I believe there are a bunch of hearings going on in DC involving should you say what you know and let those involved know or should face the fall out from a bombing because you didn't. I'm thinking the folks in Boston don't care whether otr not there was LEGAL obligation to let the locals know these guys were of concern......

 

[Jerry Punch]

are you using this ?

http://www.ope.ed.gov/security/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www2.montana.edu/policy/security" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... eport.html

So, again, are you saying that MSU did something wrong?

Are you saying that a much higher incidence of "forcible sexual assaults" both on and off campus means that MSU is doing something right?

And what would that be? How is that achieved? Do you think MSU should be investigated, avoided, or offered an award? What is that "something wrong" is a meaningless phrase to you when women on campus are being sexually assaulted at a high rate? Or that it "makes it right" that no one bothers to investigate it?

UMGriz75, I've seen this one before. It was in the 3rd grade. Go ahead and answer the question first, please.

 

[grizbrokebacker1]

Here's the rub in the "DOJ Report," over the three year period there was exactly two violent or forcible sexual assaults on the UM campus, committed by one person in the same weekend, who was not an athlete.

Here's the statistics for MSU over the same three year period:

Total Forcible Sex Offenses on campus: 12
Total occurrences, Forcible Sex Offenses in residence halls: 10
Total occurrences, non campus, Forcible Sex Offenses: 4

http://www2.montana.edu/policy/security_report/crime_report.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As a result, at UM, the coach who introduced sexual assault prevention seminars to the players was fired, as was the athletic director who supported that training.

At MSU, everyone continued on in their jobs.

You might want to take a gander at page 9-10 of this report. This is for 2008-2010 on the UM campus but there were more forcible rapes on campus than you stated. And before PlayerRep gets his nose all a twitter, the report does say none of the cases were prosecuted so that officially means they "didn't happen".

http://umt.edu/publicsafety/docs/2011_Public_Safety_Booklet.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[UMGriz75]

http://www2.montana.edu/policy/security" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... eport.html

So, again, are you saying that MSU did something wrong?

Are you saying that a much higher incidence of "forcible sexual assaults" both on and off campus means that MSU is doing something right?

And what would that be? How is that achieved? Do you think MSU should be investigated, avoided, or offered an award? What is that "something wrong" is a meaningless phrase to you when women on campus are being sexually assaulted at a high rate? Or that it "makes it right" that no one bothers to investigate it?

UMGriz75, I've seen this one before. It was in the 3rd grade. Go ahead and answer the question first, please.

You were dealing with rape questions in the third grade?

Was someone trying to "bring down your grade school by planting false reports of rape?"

Now your histrionics on this subject begins to make sense.

 

[garizzalies]

Five University of Montana football players were wrongly accused, and one pleaded guilty as he should have.
None of those involved violence whatsoever.
...
Indeed, 100% of accusations involving violent sexual assault were committed by one single student [i'm assuming you're talking about the Saudi here]...

PR/75, your whole post falls flat because you totally lack credibility with your "theme."
You can't claim 100% of the althletes accused did not involve violence.
Rape = violence.
Donaldson = rape
Donaldson = violence.

Oh wait, i see what you're trying to say: Donaldson didn't punch her. You're right, that makes it all better.

The actual statement made:

Here's the rub in the "DOJ Report," over the three year period there was exactly two violent or forcible sexual assaults on the UM campus, committed by one person in the same weekend, who was not an athlete.

Of course the key to your elastic honesty was achieved only by leaving out the part about "on the UM campus," because something else would fall apart, e.g, your credibility would have been destroyed by knowing or pretending to know that Donaldson was off campus, in his own apartment at the time.

But, because you surely are only interested in honest discussion, the overt misrepresenting of the specific statement "makes it all right," right?

And of course, I did include MSU's "off campus" occurences of forcible assault, just for you, so that you could compare Donaldson with the four such incidents at MSU, which of course shows that MSU must be doing everything "right" even though it was at UM where the student was immediately suspended, he was convicted by plea, and he was expelled, which means that UM needed a DOJ investigation, whereas women students at MSU have nothing to worry about in your odd world because they "handle" things so much better there that they have four times the rate of such assaults.

I don't give a shit about what you think is the "actual comment" nor the "on campus" distinction because we are dealing with FB players, not just some random student (and you never made that distinction in the post i am targeting). Nor do i care about your goofy analysis for MSU. I was addressing your prior post that incorrectly claimed "None of [the allegations against football players] invovled violence." You even added the word "whatsoever" at the end and went on to say "Indeed 100%...." Clearly that post is patently wrong on its face no matter how you try to fudge it. Maybe you should go back and edit that post to add the "on campus" distinction. Again, that'll make it better. Or maybe argue that rape isn't violent. Good luck with that too.

 

[Jerry Punch]

So, again, are you saying that MSU did something wrong?

Are you saying that a much higher incidence of "forcible sexual assaults" both on and off campus means that MSU is doing something right?

And what would that be? How is that achieved? Do you think MSU should be investigated, avoided, or offered an award? What is that "something wrong" is a meaningless phrase to you when women on campus are being sexually assaulted at a high rate? Or that it "makes it right" that no one bothers to investigate it?

UMGriz75, I've seen this one before. It was in the 3rd grade. Go ahead and answer the question first, please.

You were dealing with rape questions in the third grade?

Was someone trying to "bring down your grade school by planting false reports of rape?"

Now your histrionics on this subject begins to make sense.

Wow. Just wow. Sometimes immature people, sometimes third graders, will respond to a pointed question by asking another. It seems as though you've mastered 3rd grade psychology. Well done.