Voice of the Cats Sexually Harassed Just, MSU Investigation Says

[PlayerRep]

Reading the creepy shitbag comments in this thread.

Funny coming from one of the creepiest shitbags on egriz. You need to learn something about self-awareness, or keep you trap shut.

 

[Copper Griz]

I did some quick research. Asked this question of my 29 year old lawyer daughter in NYC.

Question: How’s often do you think girls' butts get grabbed by guys?

Answer: Quite frequently, but depends on the situation. College and high school lots. Law school way less frequently. Especially in crowded bars, subways, etc.

I didn't asked her about work situations, but I assume her answer would be never (certainly in at work or in a work situation).

You simply have to be trolling with this commentary. WTH does this have to do with anything? It happens all the time - so that makes it ok? Stupid.

 

[PlayerRep]

I did some quick research. Asked this question of my 29 year old lawyer daughter in NYC.

Question: How’s often do you think girls' butts get grabbed by guys?

Answer: Quite frequently, but depends on the situation. College and high school lots. Law school way less frequently. Especially in crowded bars, subways, etc.

I didn't asked her about work situations, but I assume her answer would be never (certainly in at work or in a work situation).

You simply have to be trolling with this commentary. WTH does this have to do with anything? It happens all the time - so that makes it ok? Stupid.

It's data. Are you anti data or what? Are you against facts? No one said happens all the time makes it right. It happens all the time is just a fact. Deal with it.

Do you think every guy who has grabbed a girls' butt should be fired, charged with sexual harassment or called a douche, creep, etc? Do you think every guy who has done that has been so charged?

Just answer the questions. I"m not looking for anymore of your BS.

 

[Copper Griz]

I did some quick research. Asked this question of my 29 year old lawyer daughter in NYC.

Question: How’s often do you think girls' butts get grabbed by guys?

Answer: Quite frequently, but depends on the situation. College and high school lots. Law school way less frequently. Especially in crowded bars, subways, etc.

I didn't asked her about work situations, but I assume her answer would be never (certainly in at work or in a work situation).

You simply have to be trolling with this commentary. WTH does this have to do with anything? It happens all the time - so that makes it ok? Stupid.

It's data. Are you anti data or what? Are you against facts? No one said happens all the time makes it right. It happens all the time is just a fact. Deal with it.

Do you think every guy who has grabbed a girls' butt should be fired, charged with sexual harassment or called a douche, creep, etc? Do you think every guy who has done that has been so charged?

Just answer the questions. I"m not looking for anymore of your BS.

The trolling may have worked with others, but no. You shot yourself in the foot with the word data. Anyone who has attended an institution of higher learning understands what constitutes data. We are done here.

 

[PlayerRep]

I did some quick research. Asked this question of my 29 year old lawyer daughter in NYC.

Question: How’s often do you think girls' butts get grabbed by guys?

Answer: Quite frequently, but depends on the situation. College and high school lots. Law school way less frequently. Especially in crowded bars, subways, etc.

I didn't asked her about work situations, but I assume her answer would be never (certainly in at work or in a work situation).

You simply have to be trolling with this commentary. WTH does this have to do with anything? It happens all the time - so that makes it ok? Stupid.

It's data. Are you anti data or what? Are you against facts? No one said happens all the time makes it right. It happens all the time is just a fact. Deal with it.

Do you think every guy who has grabbed a girls' butt should be fired, charged with sexual harassment or called a douche, creep, etc? Do you think every guy who has done that has been so charged?

Just answer the questions. I"m not looking for anymore of your BS.

The trolling may have worked with others, but no. You shot yourself in the foot with the word data. Anyone who has attended an institution of higher learning understands what constitutes data. We are done here.

From Merriam Webster dictionary:

"Definition of data
1 : factual information ... used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation"

Yes, what I provided was data, a small sample.

I like how posters like you run and hide when they can't support what they have said.

 

[tourist]

Copper, would you ask your adult daughter questions like that? I wouldn't. Of course, its under the guise of 'research' and 'data' gathering, so that would make it 'legitimate research,' a sample of one. I think my daughter would have, 1) told me to STFU, 2) told me to sober up, and then, 3) hung up.

 

[AZGrizFan]

You simply have to be trolling with this commentary. WTH does this have to do with anything? It happens all the time - so that makes it ok? Stupid.

It's data. Are you anti data or what? Are you against facts? No one said happens all the time makes it right. It happens all the time is just a fact. Deal with it.

Do you think every guy who has grabbed a girls' butt should be fired, charged with sexual harassment or called a douche, creep, etc? Do you think every guy who has done that has been so charged?

Just answer the questions. I"m not looking for anymore of your BS.

The trolling may have worked with others, but no. You shot yourself in the foot with the word data. Anyone who has attended an institution of higher learning understands what constitutes data. We are done here.

From Merriam Webster dictionary:

"Definition of data
1 : factual information ... used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation"

Yes, what I provided was data, a small sample.

Boy howdy was it a small sample.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I believe that's called "anecdotal evidence"

Anecdotal Evidence:

1: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses...

 

[PlayerRep]

It's data. Are you anti data or what? Are you against facts? No one said happens all the time makes it right. It happens all the time is just a fact. Deal with it.

Do you think every guy who has grabbed a girls' butt should be fired, charged with sexual harassment or called a douche, creep, etc? Do you think every guy who has done that has been so charged?

Just answer the questions. I"m not looking for anymore of your BS.

The trolling may have worked with others, but no. You shot yourself in the foot with the word data. Anyone who has attended an institution of higher learning understands what constitutes data. We are done here.

From Merriam Webster dictionary:

"Definition of data
1 : factual information ... used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation"

Yes, what I provided was data, a small sample.

Boy howdy was it a small sample.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I believe that's called "anecdotal evidence"

Anecdotal Evidence:

1: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses...

If it was from just one person's experience, I might agree. However, it came from my daughter and her many friends and classmates over the, and was often first hand experience over a period of 15 ears. A small amount of data. There is no weakness to this data.

Does anyone doubt what my daughter said were the facts?

 

[EverettGriz]

JFC.

 

[tourist]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[AllWeatherFan]

 

[PlayerRep]

JFC.

Do you dispute that girls' butts get grabbed quite frequently? Particularly, girls/women from ages 15-30.

Could you possibly answer the question, instead of making the same meaningless post over and over? Try providing something of substance for a change, other than the conference sucks.

 

[garizzalies]

There is no weakness to this data.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

All one has to do is read the texts that he sent directly to Just.....which are public and outlined in the articles....and you know 100% he is guilty. If you can’t see that I can’t help you.

I remember several years ago I was on a business trip, employee and customer conference. There was a reception dinner\drinks the first night and one of my co workers (female) told me about one of our customers that was hitting on her right off the bat. She told me a couple of the lines he used, one of them was something like, "I love that outfit, it would look great crumpled up on the floor of my room" or something similar. We laughed about it. Later that night her and I texted back and forth a couple times about meeting for breakfast to go over a presentation. I texted something like, "Make sure you're on time, I know it will take you some time to find your outfit that will obviously be crumpled up on somebody's floor." That text could have completely gotten me in deep shit, but in context that was not harassment on my part in any way shape or form.

You sir are the biggest f*** stain Bobcat apologist I’ve ever seen. Get the f*** out of here with that bullshit. Two completely different conversations and you’re comparing apples to oranges. If that’s what you took away from Samdersons texts then you areca bigger idiot than I thought, which is saying everything because I already think you’re the king of idiots.

Lighten up Francis. The only point of my post was to prove that things are not always as they seem. You have no idea what texts or discussions came before the txts that were made public. Maybe she flirted with him in the beginning and quickly realized he was a creep and she wasn't going there. Nobody on here knows. My personal opinion is that he's probably a creep, but these assertions from the txts that were made public prove that he's a monster that was "grooming" for something... I think that might be overblown. Yes it's possible, but no way to know from that exchange.

You tell 'em, Poor. In the span of several months, I went from thinking you were a Griz fan who was also a poor, to learning that you are actually a Bobcat fan who was recently named one of the 'Top 110,000 Most Influential People' in Gallatin County by Lost Dakota Magazine.

 

[SoldierGriz]

JFC.

Do you dispute that girls' butts get grabbed quite frequently? Particularly, girls/women from ages 15-30.

Could you possibly answer the question, instead of making the same meaningless post over and over? Try providing something of substance for a change, other than the conference sucks.

Ageism. Plain and simple.

 

[br fan]

MSU has said they don't have to furnish the records of the proceedings, because this guy was not in a position of trust under MT law. I continue to wonder (not doubt) what MSU's jurisdiction was for conducting a Title IX. While I am not a Title IX expert, this just doesn't seem like a Title IX situation. Neither party was employed by MSU, to my knowledge. This isn't a big deal; I'm just curious.

MSU had jurisdiction because Amy Just filed a complaint with MSU. I'm not a Title IX expert either,but it appears MSU did what they were supposed to do. Without listing the exceptions, Title IX provides:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

When the complaint was filed MSU had the obligation investigate it under IX, and they couldn't avoid the investigation merely because neither was employed by MSU. As this situation itself shows one can violate Title IX regardless of whether one is employed by or is a student of the institution. Regardless though, MSU had the obligation to investigate the complaint involving MSU, and MSU does have actions it can take, i.e. bar admission at events ala AG1, policies, etc., to minimize the chance of it occurring or from it happening again.

The only criticism I can see might be that it took so long for MSU to complete its investigation, but from the articles it appears that the delay was due to MSU insuring Sanderson's due process rights weren't violated, both in determining Sanderson violated Title IX and in not releasing information to the press. Although not mentioned in the article, however, I'm sure the investigation also looked into whether MSU should have or could have done something different.

 

[PlayerRep]

MSU has said they don't have to furnish the records of the proceedings, because this guy was not in a position of trust under MT law. I continue to wonder (not doubt) what MSU's jurisdiction was for conducting a Title IX. While I am not a Title IX expert, this just doesn't seem like a Title IX situation. Neither party was employed by MSU, to my knowledge. This isn't a big deal; I'm just curious.

MSU had jurisdiction because Amy Just filed a complaint with MSU. I'm not a Title IX expert either,but it appears MSU did what they were supposed to do. Without listing the exceptions, Title IX provides:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

When the complaint was filed MSU had the obligation investigate it under IX, and they couldn't avoid the investigation merely because neither was employed by MSU. As this situation itself shows one can violate Title IX regardless of whether one is employed by or is a student of the institution. Regardless though, MSU had the obligation to investigate the complaint involving MSU, and MSU does have actions it can take, i.e. bar admission at events ala AG1, policies, etc., to minimize the chance of it occurring or from it happening again.

The only criticism I can see might be that it took so long for MSU to complete its investigation, but from the articles it appears that the delay was due to MSU insuring Sanderson's due process rights weren't violated, both in determining Sanderson violated Title IX and in not releasing information to the press. Although not mentioned in the article, however, I'm sure the investigation also looked into whether MSU should have or could have done something different.

Filing a complaint doesn't create jurisdiction. There has been be jurisdiction under the law/rules.

Title IX doesn't apply to the the Missoulian or radio broadcast companies. It applies to schools.

How was Just excluded from, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under an educational program or activity? She didn't work for MSU. She wasn't in school. She wasn't an MSU athlete. The hook had to come from the other side, as the announcer worked for a third party, which had a contract with MSU. Maybe the contract has some provision.

Yes, if neither was employed by MSU, there wouldn't haven't have been jurisdiction. There needs to be a hook. Yes, MSU could probably bar the guy from campus, but note that none of what's been made public appeared on campus.

 

[garizzalies]

Why does MSpoo need jurisdiction to investigate a complaint and issue a finding on some scumbag that’s long gone and there’s no punishment?
It’s not like they ordered a public stoning, which I would have driven my old pickup over to see, after making a quick stop at Pioneer Concrete

 

[zootownrox]

Too bad. Really for both of them.

Seriously are you saying this is too bad for the harasser? Tell me I am not understanding you. It’s like the horrible “fine people on both sides” quote. Jeezus PlayerRep.

 

[br fan]

MSU has said they don't have to furnish the records of the proceedings, because this guy was not in a position of trust under MT law. I continue to wonder (not doubt) what MSU's jurisdiction was for conducting a Title IX. While I am not a Title IX expert, this just doesn't seem like a Title IX situation. Neither party was employed by MSU, to my knowledge. This isn't a big deal; I'm just curious.

MSU had jurisdiction because Amy Just filed a complaint with MSU. I'm not a Title IX expert either,but it appears MSU did what they were supposed to do. Without listing the exceptions, Title IX provides:

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

When the complaint was filed MSU had the obligation investigate it under IX, and they couldn't avoid the investigation merely because neither was employed by MSU. As this situation itself shows one can violate Title IX regardless of whether one is employed by or is a student of the institution. Regardless though, MSU had the obligation to investigate the complaint involving MSU, and MSU does have actions it can take, i.e. bar admission at events ala AG1, policies, etc., to minimize the chance of it occurring or from it happening again.

The only criticism I can see might be that it took so long for MSU to complete its investigation, but from the articles it appears that the delay was due to MSU insuring Sanderson's due process rights weren't violated, both in determining Sanderson violated Title IX and in not releasing information to the press. Although not mentioned in the article, however, I'm sure the investigation also looked into whether MSU should have or could have done something different.

Filing a complaint doesn't create jurisdiction. There has been be jurisdiction under the law/rules.

Title IX doesn't apply to the the Missoulian or radio broadcast companies. It applies to schools.

How was Just excluded from, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination under an educational program or activity? She didn't work for MSU. She wasn't in school. She wasn't an MSU athlete. The hook had to come from the other side, as the announcer worked for a third party, which had a contract with MSU. Maybe the contract has some provision.

Yes, if neither was employed by MSU, there wouldn't haven't have been jurisdiction. There needs to be a hook. Yes, MSU could probably bar the guy from campus, but note that none of what's been made public appeared on campus.

MSU found that Sanderson's actions were "...sufficiently severe to limit Ms. Just's participation in university programs, services, opportunities, activities..." That finding violates the statute I quoted above.

I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming only a university employee can violate the statute; the statute itself does not limit its applicability to only university employees.