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

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Sure, we all would have liked to see Engstrom tell the DOJ and DOE to take a hike. No student should be expelled based on mere allegations of criminal conduct. Even the most odious criminals in society are afforded due process before they're deprived of life, liberty or property.

But I'm not sure any of us could honestly say that, if we were in Engstrom's shoes at that particular time in Missoula's history, we would have done things any differently. It's easy to criticize from the cheap seats, but it's hard to be the one who makes the tough decisions.

If you have a spine and any balls or pride what so ever...ya I think those people would do it differently. The best thing that could come from this book would be Engstrom getting so exposed and embarrassed that he quits and crawls back into his hole like the coward he is.

 

[go96griz]

gg, I don't agree with this statement of yours at all. I don't believe Krakauer will do this. See my above post.

"it's not like whatever facts you run into that don't go along with a that notion are cast aside. they're either explained away or acknowledged."

The real book should be written about the lynch mob mentality that gripped the "feminist" community, the travesty of injustice that gripped the UM Administration, the widespread impact of the "DOJ Settlement" that Engstrom signed that has now embroiled over 57 Universities in Title IX discrimination suits by male students for the lack of due process and the overt "disparate impact" of the imposition of the guidelines.

The Missoulian's awful coverage that was the equivalent of egging on the lynch mob with manufactured "expert opinion" quotes by friends of the reporter's to enable the stories -- friends who were not experts. The agreement impairing student rights everywhere that Engstrom later, astonishingly, admitted to a Kaimin reporter that he had not actually read when he signed it.

The fact that the President of the University did not rise to defend his institution because it would have been politically incorrect to do so and who was proven to be more than willing to sacrifice his staff and students to protect himself.

Great start. Would also like to see chapters on the initial knee jerk reaction by Engstrom to shut down the football program for a year or so without any facts. Also, this book can't be a best seller without a significant discussion into the absurd behavior of the former dean of students. I wonder how many innocent people have been bullied into just leaving without any due process or representation or an opportunity for impartial investigation and hearings? There would also need to be some facts provided about the initial deal offered to JJ where he could just disappear from campus without any further charges.

I think there is a lot of material for a great book, just not what Krakaeur is attempting to spin.

 

[UMGriz75]

It's easy to criticize from the cheap seats, but it's hard to be the one who makes the tough decisions.

He refused to make tough decisions. Just as he "signed off" on an explusion order that violated all of JJ's rights, with a Federal Judge's opinion sitting on his desk, he didn't even read the DOJ settlement agreement, and he didn't know what was in it, that's how "tough" this ordeal was for him.

The likely "toughest" decision he had to make was, with evidence of two or more violent sexual assaults occurring on campus, he "decided" not to have the Saudi student arrested immediately, waiting comfortably until the student had his airline ticket home. Because "victim justice" or something ... required stalling a decision until somebody else finally did something relieving Engstrom of making a decision that was the easiest of all of them to actually make.

Ultimately, the campus culture here was that in the case of violent sexual assault, multicultural timidity refused protection or justice to women, and complete injustice, whereas in the case of a "he said, she said" situation which was more than demonstrated to be a concoction by the female involved, but which also involved a standard target for those same multicultural sensitivities -- a white, male, Christian athlete -- Engstrom was more than willing to act in violation of well-known constitutional protections and in a proceeding of embarrassing star chamber aspects, and punish the offender for who he was, not for what he had not done.

 

[JBS]

Sure, we all would have liked to see Engstrom tell the DOJ and DOE to take a hike. No student should be expelled based on mere allegations of criminal conduct. Even the most odious criminals in society are afforded due process before they're deprived of life, liberty or property.

But I'm not sure any of us could honestly say that, if we were in Engstrom's shoes at that particular time in Missoula's history, we would have done things any differently. It's easy to criticize from the cheap seats, but it's hard to be the one who makes the tough decisions.

See, this is where your argument falls apart. It has been shown that not long before the JJ situation, he DID do something very differently. He, or someone in his administration, gave an accused VIOLENT RAPIST a heads up, and gave him the opportunity to not only avoid possible expulsion by a kanagroo court, but also to flee criminal prosecution. So 2 different actions in 2 seperate cases shows he had a choice to do something different. All he was doing was covering up for his first, and more serious, mistake.

I am positive JJ would not have fled.

 

[grizpack]

It's easy to criticize from the cheap seats, but it's hard to be the one who makes the tough decisions.

He refused to make tough decisions. Just as he "signed off" on an explusion order that violated all of JJ's rights, with a Federal Judge's opinion sitting on his desk, he didn't even read the DOJ settlement agreement, and he didn't know what was in it, that's how "tough" this ordeal was for him.

The likely "toughest" decision he had to make was, with evidence of two or more violent sexual assaults occurring on campus, he "decided" not to have the Saudi student arrested immediately, waiting comfortably until the student had his airline ticket home. Because "victim justice" or something ... required stalling a decision until somebody else finally did something relieving Engstrom of making a decision that was the easiest of all of them to actually make.

I believe he is paid very well to make the "tough" decisions.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Look, I'm not being an apologist for RE. The the incident with the Saudi student is low-hanging fruit - go ahead and pluck that - although a one-way trip back to the homeland may have been the best result possible. But if you are saying you would have told both the DOJ and DOE to pound sand, I don't think you're being completely honest.

Flame on, brothers.

 

[Umista]

People in high places can make tough decisions or hide. In many cases top liners ask others to obtain information, ideas and solutions. One will always wonder if Royce sat with Pat Williams and his group of feminist nuts and made his dumb decision based on information from the likes of them? I'd like it much better if I new that was the influence he used. If not, he acted like a scared and weak administrator.

Poor Royce should leave and allow a leader to come over and lead! He is in way over his head!

 

[PlayerRep]

Sure, we all would have liked to see Engstrom tell the DOJ and DOE to take a hike. No student should be expelled based on mere allegations of criminal conduct. Even the most odious criminals in society are afforded due process before they're deprived of life, liberty or property.

But I'm not sure any of us could honestly say that, if we were in Engstrom's shoes at that particular time in Missoula's history, we would have done things any differently. It's easy to criticize from the cheap seats, but it's hard to be the one who makes the tough decisions.

Are you serious, or is this another one of your lame jokes? Most of the people posting on this subject would have done things differently. I can list what I would have done differently.

1. Would not have overreacted and hired an independent counsel. Hiring Barz at that time and based on minimum information and rumor was a mistake. Overly highlighted matters that didn't need that much attention, in the press.

2. Would have exercised more leadership in defending the university at various times, including pointing out comparative sexual assault stats for comparable universities, like MSU. Would have made sure the staff was more careful with press releases. Wouldn't have hinted that athletes were involved in sexual assaults--especially when it turned out that absolutely nothing came of any of those rumored incidents. Wouldn't have listened to the wrong people. Again, would have exercised leadership and gotten on top of some issues, and not overreacted so may times.

3. Would have gone quickly to the Missoulian, to meet with the editor, to complain about biased and unfair coverage. What the Missoulian and Florio were doing was very biased and inappropriate. Wouldn't have waited so long to threaten to pull advertising.

4. Wouldn't have fired the AD/coach. This added fuel to the national bad press storm. Would have consulted legal counsel before firings, in any event. Would have known checked the contacts and policy to find out remaining time on AD's contract.

5. Wouldn't have hitched wagon to Pat Williams.

6. Would have immediately hired experienced ncaa counsel when the ncaa investigation began. (Wouldn't have waited 6 months.) Would have fought key aspects of the investigation harder. Would not have volunteered the loss of 4 scholarships for 3 years. Would have done some investigation to find out which insider leaked information to the ncaa that caused them to start an investigation.

7. Would have pushed back on some aspects of the settlement with the DOJ.

8. Wouldn't have allowed an aging and seemingly incompetent dean to conduct sexual assault investigations.

9. Wouldn't have allowed the university to apply the lower preponderance standard before it was officially adopted by UM and placed in its written policies.

10. Would have gotten on top of declining enrollment problem sooner.

11. Wouldn't have allowed UM to hire Florio as an adjunct.

 

[PlayerRep]

Look, I'm not being an apologist for RE. The the incident with the Saudi student is low-hanging fruit - go ahead and pluck that - although a one-way trip back to the homeland may have been the best result possible. But if you are saying you would have told both the DOJ and DOE to pound sand, I don't think you're being completely honest.

Flame on, brothers.

Yes, you are being an apologist for Engstrom. That's okay, but at least be honest about it. Engstrom did an absolutely horrible job of leading and managing what was going on at the time. He didn't have a clue. He listened to the wrong people. There are lots of other things he should have done, and shouldn't have done, other than taking on the DOJ an DOE. Some parts of his agreement with the DOJ will go down in infamy.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Sure, we all would have liked to see Engstrom tell the DOJ and DOE to take a hike. No student should be expelled based on mere allegations of criminal conduct. Even the most odious criminals in society are afforded due process before they're deprived of life, liberty or property.

But I'm not sure any of us could honestly say that, if we were in Engstrom's shoes at that particular time in Missoula's history, we would have done things any differently. It's easy to criticize from the cheap seats, but it's hard to be the one who makes the tough decisions.

Are you serious, or is this another one of your lame jokes? Most of the people posting on this subject would have done things differently. I can list what I would have done differently.

1. Would not have overreacted and hired an independent counsel. Hiring Barz at that time and based on minimum information and rumor was a mistake.

2. Would have exercised more leadership in defending the university at various times, including pointing out comparative sexual assault stats for comparable universities, like MSU. Would have made sure the staff was more careful with press releases. Wouldn't have hinted that athletes were involved in sexual assaults--especially when it turned out that absolutely nothing came of any of those rumored incidents. Wouldn't have listened to the wrong people.

3. Would have gone quickly to the Missoulian, to meet with the editor, to complain about biased and unfair coverage. What the Missoulian and Florio were doing was very biased and inappropriate. Wouldn't have waited so long to threaten to pull advertising.

4. Wouldn't have fired the AD/coach. This added fuel to the national bad press storm. Would have consulted legal counsel before firings, in any event. Would have known checked the contacts and policy to find out remaining time on AD's contract.

5. Wouldn't have hitched wagon to Pat Williams.

6. Would have immediately hired experienced ncaa counsel when the ncaa investigation began. (Wouldn't have waited 6 months.) Would have done some investigation to find out which insider leaked information to the ncaa that caused them to start an investigation.

7. Would have pushed back on some aspects of the settlement with the DOJ.

8. Wouldn't have allowed an aging and seemingly incompetent dean to conduct sexual assault investigations.

9. Wouldn't have allowed the university to apply the lower preponderance standard before it was officially adopted by UM and placed in its written policies.

10. Would have gotten on top of declining enrollment problem sooner.

11. Wouldn't have allowed UM to hire Florio as an adjunct.

PR, that is your best and most logical post ever. We agree on this one. :thumb: :clap:

 

[JBS]

Look, I'm not being an apologist for RE. The the incident with the Saudi student is low-hanging fruit - go ahead and pluck that - although a one-way trip back to the homeland may have been the best result possible. But if you are saying you would have told both the DOJ and DOE to pound sand, I don't think you're being completely honest.

Flame on, brothers.

I doubt that was the best result possible for the alleged victim and her family. What, just ignoring something will make it go away? I'm sure this kid is doing fine over in Saudi, but if it had been an American over there they would have cut his dick off, if not his head. What you said there is one of the stupidist and most insensitive things I have ever read.

 

[PlayerRep]

Sure, we all would have liked to see Engstrom tell the DOJ and DOE to take a hike. No student should be expelled based on mere allegations of criminal conduct. Even the most odious criminals in society are afforded due process before they're deprived of life, liberty or property.

But I'm not sure any of us could honestly say that, if we were in Engstrom's shoes at that particular time in Missoula's history, we would have done things any differently. It's easy to criticize from the cheap seats, but it's hard to be the one who makes the tough decisions.

Are you serious, or is this another one of your lame jokes? Most of the people posting on this subject would have done things differently. I can list what I would have done differently.

1. Would not have overreacted and hired an independent counsel. Hiring Barz at that time and based on minimum information and rumor was a mistake.

2. Would have exercised more leadership in defending the university at various times, including pointing out comparative sexual assault stats for comparable universities, like MSU. Would have made sure the staff was more careful with press releases. Wouldn't have hinted that athletes were involved in sexual assaults--especially when it turned out that absolutely nothing came of any of those rumored incidents. Wouldn't have listened to the wrong people.

3. Would have gone quickly to the Missoulian, to meet with the editor, to complain about biased and unfair coverage. What the Missoulian and Florio were doing was very biased and inappropriate. Wouldn't have waited so long to threaten to pull advertising.

4. Wouldn't have fired the AD/coach. This added fuel to the national bad press storm. Would have consulted legal counsel before firings, in any event. Would have known checked the contacts and policy to find out remaining time on AD's contract.

5. Wouldn't have hitched wagon to Pat Williams.

6. Would have immediately hired experienced ncaa counsel when the ncaa investigation began. (Wouldn't have waited 6 months.) Would have done some investigation to find out which insider leaked information to the ncaa that caused them to start an investigation.

7. Would have pushed back on some aspects of the settlement with the DOJ.

8. Wouldn't have allowed an aging and seemingly incompetent dean to conduct sexual assault investigations.

9. Wouldn't have allowed the university to apply the lower preponderance standard before it was officially adopted by UM and placed in its written policies.

10. Would have gotten on top of declining enrollment problem sooner.

11. Wouldn't have allowed UM to hire Florio as an adjunct.

PR, that is your best and most logical post ever. We agree on this one. :thumb: :clap:

All of my posts are my best and logical. Ha. Thx.

 

[getgrizzy]

i tend to base my predictions of the future in large part on past events.

So that would explain why you thought Walcott would be a no. 2 WR, right?

yep. he'd been a 2 as in working with the 2s, which is football jargon for a second stringer. had you followed that thread more thoroughly (done your research) you wouldn't have had to ask.

 

[getgrizzy]

Sure, we all would have liked to see Engstrom tell the DOJ and DOE to take a hike. No student should be expelled based on mere allegations of criminal conduct. Even the most odious criminals in society are afforded due process before they're deprived of life, liberty or property.

But I'm not sure any of us could honestly say that, if we were in Engstrom's shoes at that particular time in Missoula's history, we would have done things any differently. It's easy to criticize from the cheap seats, but it's hard to be the one who makes the tough decisions.

Are you serious, or is this another one of your lame jokes? Most of the people posting on this subject would have done things differently. I can list what I would have done differently.

1. Would not have overreacted and hired an independent counsel. Hiring Barz at that time and based on minimum information and rumor was a mistake.

2. Would have exercised more leadership in defending the university at various times, including pointing out comparative sexual assault stats for comparable universities, like MSU. Would have made sure the staff was more careful with press releases. Wouldn't have hinted that athletes were involved in sexual assaults--especially when it turned out that absolutely nothing came of any of those rumored incidents. Wouldn't have listened to the wrong people.

3. Would have gone quickly to the Missoulian, to meet with the editor, to complain about biased and unfair coverage. What the Missoulian and Florio were doing was very biased and inappropriate. Wouldn't have waited so long to threaten to pull advertising.

4. Wouldn't have fired the AD/coach. This added fuel to the national bad press storm. Would have consulted legal counsel before firings, in any event. Would have known checked the contacts and policy to find out remaining time on AD's contract.

5. Wouldn't have hitched wagon to Pat Williams.

6. Would have immediately hired experienced ncaa counsel when the ncaa investigation began. (Wouldn't have waited 6 months.) Would have done some investigation to find out which insider leaked information to the ncaa that caused them to start an investigation.

7. Would have pushed back on some aspects of the settlement with the DOJ.

8. Wouldn't have allowed an aging and seemingly incompetent dean to conduct sexual assault investigations.

9. Wouldn't have allowed the university to apply the lower preponderance standard before it was officially adopted by UM and placed in its written policies.

10. Would have gotten on top of declining enrollment problem sooner.

11. Wouldn't have allowed UM to hire Florio as an adjunct.

PR, that is your best and most logical post ever. We agree on this one. :thumb: :clap:

All of my posts are my best and logical. Ha. Thx.

even a broken clock is right twice a day. :thumb:

 

[argh!]

i celebrate um75's entire catalog.

Ultimately, the campus culture here was that in the case of violent sexual assault, multicultural timidity refused protection or justice to women, and complete injustice, whereas in the case of a "he said, she said" situation which was more than demonstrated to be a concoction by the female involved, but which also involved a standard target for those same multicultural sensitivities -- a white, male, Christian athlete -- Engstrom was more than willing to act in violation of well-known constitutional protections and in a proceeding of embarrassing star chamber aspects, and punish the offender for who he was, not for what he had not done.

delete that, lack-of-title.

 

[CV Griz Fan]

Are you serious, or is this another one of your lame jokes? Most of the people posting on this subject would have done things differently. I can list what I would have done differently.

1. Would not have overreacted and hired an independent counsel. Hiring Barz at that time and based on minimum information and rumor was a mistake.

2. Would have exercised more leadership in defending the university at various times, including pointing out comparative sexual assault stats for comparable universities, like MSU. Would have made sure the staff was more careful with press releases. Wouldn't have hinted that athletes were involved in sexual assaults--especially when it turned out that absolutely nothing came of any of those rumored incidents. Wouldn't have listened to the wrong people.

3. Would have gone quickly to the Missoulian, to meet with the editor, to complain about biased and unfair coverage. What the Missoulian and Florio were doing was very biased and inappropriate. Wouldn't have waited so long to threaten to pull advertising.

4. Wouldn't have fired the AD/coach. This added fuel to the national bad press storm. Would have consulted legal counsel before firings, in any event. Would have known checked the contacts and policy to find out remaining time on AD's contract.

5. Wouldn't have hitched wagon to Pat Williams.

6. Would have immediately hired experienced ncaa counsel when the ncaa investigation began. (Wouldn't have waited 6 months.) Would have done some investigation to find out which insider leaked information to the ncaa that caused them to start an investigation.

7. Would have pushed back on some aspects of the settlement with the DOJ.

8. Wouldn't have allowed an aging and seemingly incompetent dean to conduct sexual assault investigations.

9. Wouldn't have allowed the university to apply the lower preponderance standard before it was officially adopted by UM and placed in its written policies.

10. Would have gotten on top of declining enrollment problem sooner.

11. Wouldn't have allowed UM to hire Florio as an adjunct.

PR, that is your best and most logical post ever. We agree on this one. :thumb: :clap:

All of my posts are my best and logical. Ha. Thx.

even a broken clock is right twice a day. :thumb:

You can jump PR for many things but he has been on the right side of this issue since the beginning. In particular, his "unflinching" defense of Pflu and O'Day has been admirable IMO.
His legal commentary has been "nails".

 

[JBS]

Look, I'm not being an apologist for RE. The the incident with the Saudi student is low-hanging fruit - go ahead and pluck that - although a one-way trip back to the homeland may have been the best result possible. But if you are saying you would have told both the DOJ and DOE to pound sand, I don't think you're being completely honest.

Flame on, brothers.

Wrong. There are many, many towns, townships, cities, countys, and states that have told the DOJ to "pound sand" and won. DA's and Judges have basically told them to fuck off many times and they won. Van Valkenburg started out with a spine, but it wasn't stiff enough and he was forced into that ridiculous prosecution. RE, on the other hand, wasn't forced into anything unless it was from the BOR (Pat Williams). Pansy ass cave in to cover his own ass.

The only ones who care about the DOE are University presidents, school districts, High School and Elementary pricipals, and teachers unions. If you don't give them any power, they have none, because there are always options with private schools and home schooling. Anyone who is afraid of taking on the DOE in defense of their own University does not deserve the job.

The DOJ has nothing to do with Engstroms decisions, and should have had nothing to do with Van Valkenburgs. The alleged rape didn't happen on campus, and didn't cross state lines. What the hell were the Feds involved for in the first place? '75, can you explain?
f

 

[UMGriz75]

What the hell were the Feds involved for in the first place? '75, can you explain?

Title IX has given the Federal Government unprecedented control of University procedures for those schools that receive federal funding. It is why we have women's softball and golf teams, but no wrestling. The current Administration has expanded this control to every minor detail of sexual harassment policy, implementing every pipe dream of the "social justice" crowd.

 

['68griz]

PR, that is your best and most logical post ever. We agree on this one. :thumb: :clap:

All of my posts are my best and logical. Ha. Thx.

even a broken clock is right twice a day. :thumb:

You can jump PR for many things but he has been on the right side of this issue since the beginning. In particular, his "unflinching" defense of Pflu and O'Day has been admirable IMO.
His legal commentary has been "nails".

+1

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Excellent hindsight vision! :lol: