Krakaeur's book "Missoula" to be released April 21

[CDAGRIZ]

It looks like she's hiding a scrunchy down there

Nowadays, 'round my parts, the gals rock that kind of ruching on the back.

Can I just say that you're a hero for even knowing what ruching is and to top it off by restoring order to the universe - incredible. :thumb:

Thank you for the kind words. It was my pleasure.

 

[ranco]

I have a slightly different take on the records request. All of the facts about the rape allegation were already aired to the public during the trial. Anyone with a brain could tell the rape charge was bogus. Despite that, the University kangaroo court voted to expel Johnson. I wouldn't mind seeing that "court" exposed for what it is.

 

[grizatwork]

I have a slightly different take on the records request. All of the facts about the rape allegation were already aired to the public during the trial. Anyone with a brain could tell the rape charge was bogus. Despite that, the University kangaroo court voted to expel Johnson. I wouldn't mind seeing that "court" exposed for what it is.

Possibly, but it sounds like he wants to emphasize the Commissioner of Higher Ed overruling the decision to expel a "star athlete" as special treatment, rather than his ruling that it was a sham of a proceeding with the defendant not given any due process. When you are writing the narrative, you get to decide what the audience sees and hears. By the pre-publishing hype, he is not going to make any reference to the actual process and it's violation of the defendant's rights. He is going after the commissioner and how he decided to overrule the expulsion based on who the defendant was and not the facts in hand.

 

[wbtfg]

I have a slightly different take on the records request. All of the facts about the rape allegation were already aired to the public during the trial. Anyone with a brain could tell the rape charge was bogus. Despite that, the University kangaroo court voted to expel Johnson. I wouldn't mind seeing that "court" exposed for what it is.

Possibly, but it sounds like he wants to emphasize the Commissioner of Higher Ed overruling the decision to expel a "star athlete" as special treatment, rather than his ruling that it was a sham of a proceeding with the defendant not given any due process. When you are writing the narrative, you get to decide what the audience sees and hears. By the pre-publishing hype, he is not going to make any reference to the actual process and it's violation of the defendant's rights. He is going after the commissioner and how he decided to overrule the expulsion based on who the defendant was and not the facts in hand.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I've always been curious why everything was public until it went to the commissioners office. At that point there was was no transparency and everything seemed to happen behind closed doors.

If it played out as you contend, why didn't the commissioner's office come out and say exactly what you just said?

Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't understand the veil of secrecy.

 

[tnt]

I have a slightly different take on the records request. All of the facts about the rape allegation were already aired to the public during the trial. Anyone with a brain could tell the rape charge was bogus. Despite that, the University kangaroo court voted to expel Johnson. I wouldn't mind seeing that "court" exposed for what it is.

Possibly, but it sounds like he wants to emphasize the Commissioner of Higher Ed overruling the decision to expel a "star athlete" as special treatment, rather than his ruling that it was a sham of a proceeding with the defendant not given any due process. When you are writing the narrative, you get to decide what the audience sees and hears. By the pre-publishing hype, he is not going to make any reference to the actual process and it's violation of the defendant's rights. He is going after the commissioner and how he decided to overrule the expulsion based on who the defendant was and not the facts in hand.

Having seen the "former" dean of students in action you can assume that just about any other student would have either taken the standard "leave at the end of the semester" (so he didn't have to investigate or do anything further) or been expelled and that being the end of it. The BOR wouldn't have given it a thought and affirmed the decision if it even got to them.

Whether he was a star athlete or had great lawyer is what made the difference is anyone's guess. You sadly more often than not get the best justice you can afford.

 

[UMGriz75]

On June 13, 2012, the student's attorney appealed the president's decision to the Commissioner of Higher Education. "Under the governance ... of the Board of Regents, the commissioner 'may not substitute his or her judgement for the substantive decision made by the president unless the president's decision was arbitrary and capricious, clearly erroneous based on the facts in the record, or violated some legally protected right of the appellant.' "

1. This was the first such appeal that had gotten to the BOR under the University's "new" policy of "preponderance of the evidence."

2. The University instituted this policy without notice to JJ, in the middle of the proceeding.

3. The BOR had notice that a Federal Judge had already remarked on how poorly the matter had been handled.

4. The University Administration had bungled the only actual on-campus, violent rapes that occurred during this whole debacle by letting the alleged Saudi perpetrator go, giving him a week's head start, and then announcing that "oh whew, maybe it was all for the best." Oddly, "advocates of victim's justice" never got wound up about that; it served no useful political narrative that the University's biggest failing during this time was in regard to actual violent sexual assaults clearly under its jurisdiction because that narrative conflicted with an over-riding multicultural narrative.

5. The BOR knew it had an obvious lawsuit on its hands by the way that Engstrom had handled the whole affair, and in particular by signing off on the "findings" of the embarrassing Kangaroo Court proceeding when he clearly should not have.

6. Publicizing their decision would have brought further embarrassment to UM's already beleaguered administration by bringing attention to the fact that Engstrom had clearly violated "a legally protected right," namely that of due process. Indeed, publicizing that decision would have created a liability on the part of UM and the State of Montana to civil litigation by creating an "admission."

7. Federal privacy law trumps the DOJ "guideline," because one is law and one isn't, overturning Engstrom was a foregone conclusion, and the BOR rightfully held that these proceedings should be confidential.

8. The BOR would have signalled, by releasing any decision, that Engstrom was not a 'disaster waiting to happen,' he was a 'disaster that happened.'

 

[wbtfg]

On June 13, 2012, the student's attorney appealed the president's decision to the Commissioner of Higher Education. "Under the governance ... of the Board of Regents, the commissioner 'may not substitute his or her judgement for the substantive decision made by the president unless the president's decision was arbitrary and capricious, clearly erroneous based on the facts in the record, or violated some legally protected right of the appellant.' "

1. This was the first such appeal that had gotten to the BOR under the University's "new" policy of "preponderance of the evidence."

2. The University instituted this policy without notice to JJ, in the middle of the proceeding.

3. The BOR had notice that a Federal Judge had already remarked on how poorly the matter had been handled.

4. The University Administration had bungled the only actual on-campus, violent rapes that occurred during this whole debacle by letting the alleged Saudi perpetrator go, giving him a week's head start, and then announcing that "oh whew, maybe it was all for the best." Oddly, "advocates of victim's justice" never got wound up about that; it served no useful political narrative that the University's biggest failing during this time was in regard to actual violent sexual assaults clearly under its jurisdiction because that narrative conflicted with an over-riding multicultural narrative.

5. The BOR knew it had an obvious lawsuit on its hands by the way that Engstrom had handled the whole affair, and in particular by signing off on the "findings" of the embarrassing Kangaroo Court proceeding when he clearly should not have.

6. Publicizing their decision would have brought further embarrassment to UM's already beleaguered administration by bringing attention to the fact that Engstrom had clearly violated "a legally protected right," namely that of due process. Indeed, publicizing that decision would have created a liability on the part of UM and the State of Montana to civil litigation by creating an "admission."

7. Federal privacy law trumps the DOJ "guideline," because one is law and one isn't, overturning Engstrom was a foregone conclusion, and the BOR rightfully held that these proceedings should be confidential.

8. The BOR would have signalled, by releasing any decision, that Engstrom was not a 'disaster waiting to happen,' he was a 'disaster that happened.'

So why, this many years later, is Engstrom in office?

 

[WaGriz4life]

On June 13, 2012, the student's attorney appealed the president's decision to the Commissioner of Higher Education. "Under the governance ... of the Board of Regents, the commissioner 'may not substitute his or her judgement for the substantive decision made by the president unless the president's decision was arbitrary and capricious, clearly erroneous based on the facts in the record, or violated some legally protected right of the appellant.' "

1. This was the first such appeal that had gotten to the BOR under the University's "new" policy of "preponderance of the evidence."

2. The University instituted this policy without notice to JJ, in the middle of the proceeding.

3. The BOR had notice that a Federal Judge had already remarked on how poorly the matter had been handled.

4. The University Administration had bungled the only actual on-campus, violent rapes that occurred during this whole debacle by letting the alleged Saudi perpetrator go, giving him a week's head start, and then announcing that "oh whew, maybe it was all for the best." Oddly, "advocates of victim's justice" never got wound up about that; it served no useful political narrative that the University's biggest failing during this time was in regard to actual violent sexual assaults clearly under its jurisdiction because that narrative conflicted with an over-riding multicultural narrative.

5. The BOR knew it had an obvious lawsuit on its hands by the way that Engstrom had handled the whole affair, and in particular by signing off on the "findings" of the embarrassing Kangaroo Court proceeding when he clearly should not have.

6. Publicizing their decision would have brought further embarrassment to UM's already beleaguered administration by bringing attention to the fact that Engstrom had clearly violated "a legally protected right," namely that of due process. Indeed, publicizing that decision would have created a liability on the part of UM and the State of Montana to civil litigation by creating an "admission."

7. Federal privacy law trumps the DOJ "guideline," because one is law and one isn't, overturning Engstrom was a foregone conclusion, and the BOR rightfully held that these proceedings should be confidential.

8. The BOR would have signalled, by releasing any decision, that Engstrom was not a 'disaster waiting to happen,' he was a 'disaster that happened.'

So why, this many years later, is Engstrom in office?

THAT my friend,is the question everyone in the state has been asking. I get what you are saying, that if this is true, theres no way he can keep his job. But it is true, and he does still miraculously have his job.

 

[grizatwork]

I have a slightly different take on the records request. All of the facts about the rape allegation were already aired to the public during the trial. Anyone with a brain could tell the rape charge was bogus. Despite that, the University kangaroo court voted to expel Johnson. I wouldn't mind seeing that "court" exposed for what it is.

Possibly, but it sounds like he wants to emphasize the Commissioner of Higher Ed overruling the decision to expel a "star athlete" as special treatment, rather than his ruling that it was a sham of a proceeding with the defendant not given any due process. When you are writing the narrative, you get to decide what the audience sees and hears. By the pre-publishing hype, he is not going to make any reference to the actual process and it's violation of the defendant's rights. He is going after the commissioner and how he decided to overrule the expulsion based on who the defendant was and not the facts in hand.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I've always been curious why everything was public until it went to the commissioners office. At that point there was was no transparency and everything seemed to happen behind closed doors.

If it played out as you contend, why didn't the commissioner's office come out and say exactly what you just said?

Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't understand the veil of secrecy.

I find that curious as well. I don't know the answer to that. I am asking because I don't know, but was everything public? I know that we knew what was going on because of the message boards, but I don't think any names were mentioned, we all just assumed it was JJ. Maybe as it got bigger and bigger, they thought they should error on the side of privacy. Maybe someone threatened legal action if things were released? I honestly don't know.

 

[grizatwork]

I have a slightly different take on the records request. All of the facts about the rape allegation were already aired to the public during the trial. Anyone with a brain could tell the rape charge was bogus. Despite that, the University kangaroo court voted to expel Johnson. I wouldn't mind seeing that "court" exposed for what it is.

Possibly, but it sounds like he wants to emphasize the Commissioner of Higher Ed overruling the decision to expel a "star athlete" as special treatment, rather than his ruling that it was a sham of a proceeding with the defendant not given any due process. When you are writing the narrative, you get to decide what the audience sees and hears. By the pre-publishing hype, he is not going to make any reference to the actual process and it's violation of the defendant's rights. He is going after the commissioner and how he decided to overrule the expulsion based on who the defendant was and not the facts in hand.

Having seen the "former" dean of students in action you can assume that just about any other student would have either taken the standard "leave at the end of the semester" (so he didn't have to investigate or do anything further) or been expelled and that being the end of it. The BOR wouldn't have given it a thought and affirmed the decision if it even got to them.

Whether he was a star athlete or had great lawyer is what made the difference is anyone's guess. You sadly more often than not get the best justice you can afford.

No argument from me on that point.

 

[grzz]

I think one thing that most people forget, is that most of the redacted file of information became public based on some maneuver Paoli did, so it wasn't UM that released all of that in the first place...

Am I remembering that correctly?

 

[Umista]

At the end at the end of the day....the dumb thing about the entire law/regulation is that if a student makes the accusation against another student the accused student is automatically expelled. Even a male can make the case against another/ female against another female and male against a female and in all cases the accused is expelled? That is dumb! I'm drunk now but the more I drink the dumber I see it. Perhaps some can clue me in after I pass out and return.

If this is a universal regulation lets get some slobs from our most hated teams accused and removed. Due process? Screw em and Kracker 2 boot!

 

[UMGriz75]

At the end at the end of the day....the dumb thing about the entire law/regulation is that if a student makes the accusation against another student the accused student is automatically expelled. Even a male can make the case against another/ female against another female and male against a female and in all cases the accused is expelled? That is dumb! I'm drunk now but the more I drink the dumber I see it.

It gets worse.

I recently assisted a young man who was subjected by administrators at his small liberal arts university in Oregon to a month-long investigation into all his campus relationships, seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them (an immense invasion of his and his friends’ privacy), and who was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away. He was found to be completely innocent of any sexual misconduct and was informed of the basis of the complaint against him only by accident and off-hand. But the stay-away order remained in place, and was so broadly drawn up that he was at constant risk of violating it and coming under discipline for that.

When the duty to prevent a “sexually hostile environment” is interpreted this expansively, it is affirmatively indifferent to the restrained person’s complete and total innocence of any misconduct whatsoever.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[UMGriz75]

If this is a universal regulation lets get some slobs from our most hated teams accused and removed. Due process? Screw em and Kracker 2 boot!

An interesting sidelight was that the accuser was Facebook friends with several Bobcat Football team members, and remained so throughout. It was an odd expression of solidarity for college athletes. She had something of a penchant for Montana quarterbacks and athletes, and whether her social media relationships were incidental or not, they certainly demonstrated an odd pattern for a pharmacy major, involving elite athletes at nearly every Montana university and college.

I understand that collegiate athletes in the major sports now undergo orientation regarding social relationships and social media, that there are always sociopathic and psychopathic personalities out there, willing to fabricate anything to achieve an "objective" and that sometimes that extends beyond peer-group relationships and into booster and fan relationships as well. My "understanding" may not be correct but if it isn't, it should be.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

On June 13, 2012, the student's attorney appealed the president's decision to the Commissioner of Higher Education. "Under the governance ... of the Board of Regents, the commissioner 'may not substitute his or her judgement for the substantive decision made by the president unless the president's decision was arbitrary and capricious, clearly erroneous based on the facts in the record, or violated some legally protected right of the appellant.' "

1. This was the first such appeal that had gotten to the BOR under the University's "new" policy of "preponderance of the evidence."

2. The University instituted this policy without notice to JJ, in the middle of the proceeding.

3. The BOR had notice that a Federal Judge had already remarked on how poorly the matter had been handled.

4. The University Administration had bungled the only actual on-campus, violent rapes that occurred during this whole debacle by letting the alleged Saudi perpetrator go, giving him a week's head start, and then announcing that "oh whew, maybe it was all for the best." Oddly, "advocates of victim's justice" never got wound up about that; it served no useful political narrative that the University's biggest failing during this time was in regard to actual violent sexual assaults clearly under its jurisdiction because that narrative conflicted with an over-riding multicultural narrative.

5. The BOR knew it had an obvious lawsuit on its hands by the way that Engstrom had handled the whole affair, and in particular by signing off on the "findings" of the embarrassing Kangaroo Court proceeding when he clearly should not have.

6. Publicizing their decision would have brought further embarrassment to UM's already beleaguered administration by bringing attention to the fact that Engstrom had clearly violated "a legally protected right," namely that of due process. Indeed, publicizing that decision would have created a liability on the part of UM and the State of Montana to civil litigation by creating an "admission."

7. Federal privacy law trumps the DOJ "guideline," because one is law and one isn't, overturning Engstrom was a foregone conclusion, and the BOR rightfully held that these proceedings should be confidential.

8. The BOR would have signalled, by releasing any decision, that Engstrom was not a 'disaster waiting to happen,' he was a 'disaster that happened.'

So why, this many years later, is Engstrom in office?

THAT my friend,is the question everyone in the state has been asking. I get what you are saying, that if this is true, theres no way he can keep his job. But it is true, and he does still miraculously have his job.

Griz75 sums it up nicely.
So why is Engstrom still there? Probably because it would again highlight that errors were made (potential lawsuits...). Also, why not release all the files. Again, they are potentially evidence for possible lawsuits. I suspect their view is "the less said the better", and if we close our eyes maybe it will all go away.

 

[grizpack]

1. This was the first such appeal that had gotten to the BOR under the University's "new" policy of "preponderance of the evidence."

2. The University instituted this policy without notice to JJ, in the middle of the proceeding.

3. The BOR had notice that a Federal Judge had already remarked on how poorly the matter had been handled.

4. The University Administration had bungled the only actual on-campus, violent rapes that occurred during this whole debacle by letting the alleged Saudi perpetrator go, giving him a week's head start, and then announcing that "oh whew, maybe it was all for the best." Oddly, "advocates of victim's justice" never got wound up about that; it served no useful political narrative that the University's biggest failing during this time was in regard to actual violent sexual assaults clearly under its jurisdiction because that narrative conflicted with an over-riding multicultural narrative.

5. The BOR knew it had an obvious lawsuit on its hands by the way that Engstrom had handled the whole affair, and in particular by signing off on the "findings" of the embarrassing Kangaroo Court proceeding when he clearly should not have.

6. Publicizing their decision would have brought further embarrassment to UM's already beleaguered administration by bringing attention to the fact that Engstrom had clearly violated "a legally protected right," namely that of due process. Indeed, publicizing that decision would have created a liability on the part of UM and the State of Montana to civil litigation by creating an "admission."

7. Federal privacy law trumps the DOJ "guideline," because one is law and one isn't, overturning Engstrom was a foregone conclusion, and the BOR rightfully held that these proceedings should be confidential.

8. The BOR would have signalled, by releasing any decision, that Engstrom was not a 'disaster waiting to happen,' he was a 'disaster that happened.'

So why, this many years later, is Engstrom in office?

THAT my friend,is the question everyone in the state has been asking. I get what you are saying, that if this is true, theres no way he can keep his job. But it is true, and he does still miraculously have his job.

Griz75 sums it up nicely.
So why is Engstrom still there? Probably because it would again highlight that errors were made (potential lawsuits...). Also, why not release all the files. Again, they are potentially evidence for possible lawsuits. I suspect their view is "the less said the better", and if we close our eyes maybe it will all go away.

They want to make sure that he continues the enrollment decline, which is leading to budgetary problems.

 

[signedbewildered]

Well no shit Sherlock.....


Engstrom: Krakauer didn't interview UM officials for book on rapes

• By Keila Szpaller

Best-selling author Jon Krakauer interviewed no one from the University of Montana for his upcoming book about campus rape called "Missoula," according to UM President Royce Engstrom.

"So we really don't know much about it at this point, but I do want to acknowledge that it's out there," Engstrom said Wednesday.

The president briefly mentioned the book, to be released April 21, at his midyear update on campus affairs. He said UM will respond to the content as appropriate when the time comes.
The audience filled a little more than half the seats at the University Center Theater for the event, one Engstrom said is less formal than his state of the university presentation in the fall.

He touted the many highlights at UM, including an academic one announced just 10 minutes before his talk, and he discussed challenges UM will face, namely in its upcoming budget.

"We will be, over the course of the next few months, doing some reallocation with our budget," Engstrom said.

A UM official earlier estimated the 2016 general fund would face a $2.3 million shortfall – not counting new programs that have been proposed.

On Wednesday, Engstrom said the budget is "100 percent tied to enrollment" and "that's an important realization for all of us."

"Our recruitment and our retention strategies are key to improving this budget situation," he said.

In that regard, Engstrom said, UM is making great strides by taking a data-driven and personal approach to boost enrollment. The school is emphasizing "responsiveness and a personal touch" in connecting with potential students, and it is reaching out to individuals with personal emails.

He said the approach is paying off, with new students up 6 percent last year on the main campus. However, he said pushing up enrollment numbers is difficult.

"This frankly continues to be our area of greatest challenge right now," he said.

***

Just minutes before his update, Engstrom received good news he shared with the audience. Five UM students had been named Gates Millennium Scholars, earning more than $43,000 in scholarships.

"That's really good news, very prestigious awards," Engstrom said.

One major highlight at UM is the research taking place and the positive trajectory of research dollars. The president said expenditures in research are up 10 percent over last year, and awards are up this year to $58 million, nearly the amount the university did in the entire previous school year.

"This isn't about the dollars themselves, but it's about the work that those dollars represent," Engstrom said.

More academic stars could be on their way, too. He said he recently attended a reception for some 60 finalists competing to be Presidential Leadership Scholars, and they were "an exceptional set of young people."

Engstrom said just one student counted the following on a list of accomplishments: an interest in ethnomusicology, president of a human rights club, member of a sea turtle conservation trip to Guadalupe, varsity soccer player and flute player.

"Hopefully, we'll get that person to come here," Engstrom said.

The president also touted the following in his talk:
•In just its second year, the family medical residency program achieved full accreditation until 2025.
•Last August, the UM Foundation had a record of private philanthropy, bringing in $53.7 million.
•A recent gift of $1 million will renovate classrooms in the Liberal Arts building to be state-of-the-art.
•UM has adopted many changes to improve campus safety in response to an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, including staffing up campus police, the Student Advocacy Resource Center, and the Title IX office.
•Excavation at Missoula College should begin in two or three weeks, and bids came in favorably.

In his talk, Engstrom also said UM plans to host a conference next fall with regional and national invites. The sessions will explore the role of a liberal arts research university, and he is playing with a working title called "Education for a prosperous and sustainable democracy."

"That, I think, is what we are charged to do here at the University of Montana and in our country," Engstrom said.

 

[RABIDAWG]

His main theses should have included the caveat that when 2 consensual adults bang each other for a while, at least call & go for 2nd's & 3rd's for a week or so. Done deal, no case.

 

[signedbewildered]

Don't bother reading the article if you were expecting more on this topic. The headline says what there is to know.

Furthermore, please read this post before you read my previous post with the context of article attached.

 

[EverettGriz]

The knock on Krakaeur has always been that he's a lazy researcher. Clearly that's the case here if he never spoke to the Administration. I wonder, in fact, if he spoke to anyone in Missoula.