br fan said:PlayerRep said:br fan said:PlayerRep said: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.
An entity or court can find or do what it wants if no one challenges it. Have you seen any indication the announcer had a lawyer involved?
Where are you getting your first para from? Don't think I've seen that.
Just wasn't enrolled at MSU and didn't work there. I don't get that. Are you saying that a fan who wants to come to a game is covered by Tittle IX?
The statute does in fact limit itself to education. Employee or student.