Were UM officials protecting the players/coach?

[Tokyogriz]

Looks like a good "letter to the editor" to me.

How about a guest column?

It's probably too long to get by normal newspaper word count limits for a letter to the editor. But it would be PERFECT (or nearly so) for a guest column, particularly if he provides documentary data, which given the verbiage he used shouldn't be difficult.

Starting to look more and more like a rogue "journalist" out to make a name for herself at the expense of other people....

This is exactly what we have here in Missoula Montana now. Take a climate of fear and anger over the penn state child rape accusations on a old coach there then create your own sex scandal here in Missoula to sell your local tabloid. Its obviously increasing sales for the Missoulian as the editors there in fact on a DAILY basis for the last 5-6 months trying to pass off the attacks on UM and mainly UM Football as front page "unbiased" news.

Stop buying the Missoulian, Stop buying advertisments in it (Most have already TBH), Stop visiting their shitty website (this is revenue for them with the ads on it per click) and please spread the word to friends and family.

 

[mtgrizrule]

UMGriz75
Please send your post to Missoulian and Billings gazette as letter to editor. Well written and easily flows to give readers a summary that is long over due. Thank you

If they don't publish it maybe send it to the Kaiman which is just forwarding stories from the Missoulian on "the facebook". Not sure if they are publishing much during the summer. The Trib? Won't be a true letter to the editor but frame it as just a a reality check on what the findings in the report show.

The Kaimin doesn't publish in the summer.

I would like to this published somewhere for Montana citizens to read. It is a solid counter piece to what GF has been putting out.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Looks like a good "letter to the editor" to me.

How about a guest column?

It's probably too long to get by normal newspaper word count limits for a letter to the editor. But it would be PERFECT (or nearly so) for a guest column, particularly if he provides documentary data, which given the verbiage he used shouldn't be difficult.

Starting to look more and more like a rogue "journalist" out to make a name for herself at the expense of other people....

This is exactly what we have here in Missoula Montana now. Take a climate of fear and anger over the penn state child rape accusations on a old coach there then create your own sex scandal here in Missoula to sell your local tabloid. Its obviously increasing sales for the Missoulian as the editors there in fact on a DAILY basis for the last 5-6 months trying to pass off the attacks on UM and mainly UM Football as front page "unbiased" news.

Stop buying the Missoulian, Stop buying advertisments in it (Most have already TBH), Stop visiting their shitty website (this is revenue for them with the ads on it per click) and please spread the word to friends and family.

TG, I admire your persistence here, and not against it. For me, I think our frustration needs to be directed at Florio directly. Why do I think this? Granted, the Missoulian has changed for the worse. It is hard to get too hardcore though. Do you realize how many generations the Missoulian has provided solid jobs to over the years? Do you realize, there are still many good people that work for them? How often have we read on egriz,not to make out the whole team as bad apples, because of a few bad apples?

As upset as I am with GF and questionable journalism recently, I think the same applies here as we apply toward our football team. Sorry, I know a few good people that I don't want to see on the unemployment line, because of all this mess.

 

[UMGriz75]

Hello, there is a scandal. It doesn't matter if there were 1 million 'incidents' on every other campus in the country. It's how those school's administrations, and local law enforcement, dealt with them.

It does matter.

A low rate of such incidents, compared to peer institutions, means the first and most important thing: the incidence is low. That is important.

Either somebody is doing a good job in the first place, or UM students are just "special" and don't rape as much as, say, that other school.

Well, isn't that a plus? Creating an environment where it doesn't happen? Isn't a low rate the key measure of the success of that strategy?

Lowering the rate of such incidents in the first place, should be first and foremost. UM seems to have done that, done it well, and that is the most important part.

I could give a d*** how a school with a high rate "deals" with them after they're committed. The fact of a high rate itself speaks to the "success" of that strategy without further comment needed.

You may think that is the most important part, but that's too late for the victims, isn't it?


...

 

[griz5700]

At some point, the Missoulian may take the time to put the Barz report into perspective.

Right now, the Missoulian appears involved in an outright effort to create a scandal, where in fact the Barz report -- taken in context -- says exactly the opposite.

Here's what it says:

1) Between September, 2010 and May, 2012, there were 8 reports of sexual assault of students, and one report of an attempted assault.

2) Five of those reports specifically identified students as the assailants. Two of those reports identify the assailants as "multiple students."

3) Only one of the reports was reported "on campus."

Now -- and it may be just Judge Barz' somewhat odd way of doing a "report" -- it appears that three of the alleged sexual assault allegations are made against non-University students, in off-campus situations. That's nearly 40% of the known incidents.

Notably, in those cases, the University received little or no cooperation from the alleged victims. That makes it sound like somehow victims are being reticent, but Barz likely should have explained that victims of assault off-campus, by non-University affiliated persons, have little or no reason or purpose to report these attacks to the University.

You go to the police, NOT the University.

In two of those cases, that is exactly what Barz reported happened, and in others Barz received little information from the alleged victims, likely because of the fact that the charges did not involve University students, athletes or otherwise.

So, at the outset, the Missoulian has made no distinction between the alleged rapes OF University students, and rapes alleged to be BY University students. And the difference is significant, 40%.

And that distinction is important, of the eight total incidents, the University had no jurisdiction whatsoever over three of them; University students were not accused, and the incidents did not occur on campus.

That leaves five incidents over a 21 month period. Let's look at them:

1) September, 2010. The student allegedly raped a non-student; an old friend sleeping over at his house. Both had been drinking. She complained. He was charged and his trial is pending. This involved an athlete. He was immediately suspended from UM athletic activities. A Conduct Code proceeding "was applied" in Barz' odd terminology, and presumably the student expelled.

2) October, 2010. Rape reported involved UM students. The University promptly initiated Conduct Code proceedings, but these were terminated at the request of the complaining party.

3) December, 2010. "Multiple students" involved in alleged rape. This was reported to the Missoula Police, not to UM. Missoula Police investigated and refused to file charges, but advised the University (coach) that the incident had been reported to them, and that the Police believed based on eyewitness testimony of another female that no assault had occurred. Nonetheless, the coach imposed disciplinary action on the athletes involved, and called in the MPD to provide a seminar on the dangers of the behavior and the risks. The complaining party wished to pursue Conduct Code proceedings, those were held, and the vote was unanimous that no conduct code violation occurred.

4) February, 2011. Rape reported involving UM students. The University promptly initiated Conduct Code proceedings, and the student, who was no longer enrolled, was banned from UM campuses.

5) October, 2011. An assault occurred on campus. The University promptly initiated Conduct Code proceedings, and the assailant was expelled from the University.

Summary: of the five incidents where University students could be identified as the alleged assailants, the University acted promptly to process Conduct Code violation proceedings in all five incidents, terminated one at the request of the complaining party, found no violations in one case, and imposed expulsion of the students in all the rest. One involved an athlete who was charged; the other involved athletes who were absolved at two levels of investigation.

In all instances involving athletes, including the one in which Conduct Code proceedings found no violations, the Athletic Department imposed disciplinary measures on the student athletes involved.

Notably, and Barz did not address this, the incidences of allegations of sexual assault BY students at UM are lower than nearly any other comparable University in a similar urban setting in the nation.

UM has, in fact, a rate of such assault allegations that is quite low.

The two incidents reported by Barz involving UM students as the accused, for instance, as occurring during 2011 compares with ten such incidents occurring at MSU in the same time period, all of those being reported by MSU as "forcible," and six of which occurred in residence halls on campus, whereas the Barz Report only specifically reports one comparable incident on the UM campus in the same time period.

Now, specifically, what did the University of Montana do "wrong?"

Specifically, what did the Athletic Department do "wrong?"

Where, exactly, is the "scandal?"

Damn, nice work. This is well written, concise and loaded with facts not personal agenda.

So refreshing. Thank you.


Anyone following this situation should read this post.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tokyogriz]

At some point, the Missoulian may take the time to put the Barz report into perspective.

Right now, the Missoulian appears involved in an outright effort to create a scandal, where in fact the Barz report -- taken in context -- says exactly the opposite.

Here's what it says:

1) Between September, 2010 and May, 2012, there were 8 reports of sexual assault of students, and one report of an attempted assault.

2) Five of those reports specifically identified students as the assailants. Two of those reports identify the assailants as "multiple students."

3) Only one of the reports was reported "on campus."

Now -- and it may be just Judge Barz' somewhat odd way of doing a "report" -- it appears that three of the alleged sexual assault allegations are made against non-University students, in off-campus situations. That's nearly 40% of the known incidents.

Notably, in those cases, the University received little or no cooperation from the alleged victims. That makes it sound like somehow victims are being reticent, but Barz likely should have explained that victims of assault off-campus, by non-University affiliated persons, have little or no reason or purpose to report these attacks to the University.

You go to the police, NOT the University.

In two of those cases, that is exactly what Barz reported happened, and in others Barz received little information from the alleged victims, likely because of the fact that the charges did not involve University students, athletes or otherwise.

So, at the outset, the Missoulian has made no distinction between the alleged rapes OF University students, and rapes alleged to be BY University students. And the difference is significant, 40%.

And that distinction is important, of the eight total incidents, the University had no jurisdiction whatsoever over three of them; University students were not accused, and the incidents did not occur on campus.

That leaves five incidents over a 21 month period. Let's look at them:

1) September, 2010. The student allegedly raped a non-student; an old friend sleeping over at his house. Both had been drinking. She complained. He was charged and his trial is pending. This involved an athlete. He was immediately suspended from UM athletic activities. A Conduct Code proceeding "was applied" in Barz' odd terminology, and presumably the student expelled.

2) October, 2010. Rape reported involved UM students. The University promptly initiated Conduct Code proceedings, but these were terminated at the request of the complaining party.

3) December, 2010. "Multiple students" involved in alleged rape. This was reported to the Missoula Police, not to UM. Missoula Police investigated and refused to file charges, but advised the University (coach) that the incident had been reported to them, and that the Police believed based on eyewitness testimony of another female that no assault had occurred. Nonetheless, the coach imposed disciplinary action on the athletes involved, and called in the MPD to provide a seminar on the dangers of the behavior and the risks. The complaining party wished to pursue Conduct Code proceedings, those were held, and the vote was unanimous that no conduct code violation occurred.

4) February, 2011. Rape reported involving UM students. The University promptly initiated Conduct Code proceedings, and the student, who was no longer enrolled, was banned from UM campuses.

5) October, 2011. An assault occurred on campus. The University promptly initiated Conduct Code proceedings, and the assailant was expelled from the University.

Summary: of the five incidents where University students could be identified as the alleged assailants, the University acted promptly to process Conduct Code violation proceedings in all five incidents, terminated one at the request of the complaining party, found no violations in one case, and imposed expulsion of the students in all the rest. One involved an athlete who was charged; the other involved athletes who were absolved at two levels of investigation.

In all instances involving athletes, including the one in which Conduct Code proceedings found no violations, the Athletic Department imposed disciplinary measures on the student athletes involved.

Notably, and Barz did not address this, the incidences of allegations of sexual assault BY students at UM are lower than nearly any other comparable University in a similar urban setting in the nation.

UM has, in fact, a rate of such assault allegations that is quite low.

The two incidents reported by Barz involving UM students as the accused, for instance, as occurring during 2011 compares with ten such incidents occurring at MSU in the same time period, all of those being reported by MSU as "forcible," and six of which occurred in residence halls on campus, whereas the Barz Report only specifically reports one comparable incident on the UM campus in the same time period.

Now, specifically, what did the University of Montana do "wrong?"

Specifically, what did the Athletic Department do "wrong?"

Where, exactly, is the "scandal?"

This is the real story isnt it.

 

[Tokyogriz]

How about a guest column?

It's probably too long to get by normal newspaper word count limits for a letter to the editor. But it would be PERFECT (or nearly so) for a guest column, particularly if he provides documentary data, which given the verbiage he used shouldn't be difficult.

Starting to look more and more like a rogue "journalist" out to make a name for herself at the expense of other people....

This is exactly what we have here in Missoula Montana now. Take a climate of fear and anger over the penn state child rape accusations on a old coach there then create your own sex scandal here in Missoula to sell your local tabloid. Its obviously increasing sales for the Missoulian as the editors there in fact on a DAILY basis for the last 5-6 months trying to pass off the attacks on UM and mainly UM Football as front page "unbiased" news.

Stop buying the Missoulian, Stop buying advertisments in it (Most have already TBH), Stop visiting their shitty website (this is revenue for them with the ads on it per click) and please spread the word to friends and family.

TG, I admire your persistence here, and not against it. For me, I think our frustration needs to be directed at Florio directly. Why do I think this? Granted, the Missoulian has changed for the worse. It is hard to get too hardcore though. Do you realize how many generations the Missoulian has provided solid jobs to over the years? Do you realize, there are still many good people that work for them? How often have we read on egriz,not to make out the whole team as bad apples, because of a few bad apples?

As upset as I am with GF and questionable journalism recently, I think the same applies here as we apply toward our football team. Sorry, I know a few good people that I don't want to see on the unemployment line, because of all this mess.

I worked at the Missoulian in distribution for several years at night in college, my father had routes and large driving routes for 20 plus years, my uncle dan worked as a district manager and had routes for 25 plus years, my grandfather as well etc.

The Missoulian printed an article when my family came home which no doubt helped to an extent as well and it was appreciated.

But that said what Gwen Florio AND HER EDITOR are doing to our University is FLAT OUT WRONG. They are intentionally creating a mostly fabricated crisis to sell their own papers, pad their resumes and in general I truely believe they could give a crap less about UM, Missoula, Montana and even the actual or alleged victims in any of these cases.

As many have pointed out Florio is just the person doing the dirty name calling and mud slinging in this case. She has a whole group of people supporting her at the Missoulian and her editor is no doubt encouraging more of this tablid trash to sell more and more papers. Its obvious Lee Enteprises is making $$$$ on the pain and destruction of innocent lives with these fabricated rape crisis.

 

[BWahlberg]

At some point, the Missoulian may take the time to put the Barz report into perspective.

Right now, the Missoulian appears involved in an outright effort to create a scandal, where in fact the Barz report -- taken in context -- says exactly the opposite.

Here's what it says:

1) Between September, 2010 and May, 2012, there were 8 reports of sexual assault of students, and one report of an attempted assault.

2) Five of those reports specifically identified students as the assailants. Two of those reports identify the assailants as "multiple students."

3) Only one of the reports was reported "on campus."

Now -- and it may be just Judge Barz' somewhat odd way of doing a "report" -- it appears that three of the alleged sexual assault allegations are made against non-University students, in off-campus situations. That's nearly 40% of the known incidents.

Notably, in those cases, the University received little or no cooperation from the alleged victims. That makes it sound like somehow victims are being reticent, but Barz likely should have explained that victims of assault off-campus, by non-University affiliated persons, have little or no reason or purpose to report these attacks to the University.

You go to the police, NOT the University.

In two of those cases, that is exactly what Barz reported happened, and in others Barz received little information from the alleged victims, likely because of the fact that the charges did not involve University students, athletes or otherwise.

So, at the outset, the Missoulian has made no distinction between the alleged rapes OF University students, and rapes alleged to be BY University students. And the difference is significant, 40%.

And that distinction is important, of the eight total incidents, the University had no jurisdiction whatsoever over three of them; University students were not accused, and the incidents did not occur on campus.

That leaves five incidents over a 21 month period. Let's look at them:

1) September, 2010. The student allegedly raped a non-student; an old friend sleeping over at his house. Both had been drinking. She complained. He was charged and his trial is pending. This involved an athlete. He was immediately suspended from UM athletic activities. A Conduct Code proceeding "was applied" in Barz' odd terminology, and presumably the student expelled.

2) October, 2010. Rape reported involved UM students. The University promptly initiated Conduct Code proceedings, but these were terminated at the request of the complaining party.

3) December, 2010. "Multiple students" involved in alleged rape. This was reported to the Missoula Police, not to UM. Missoula Police investigated and refused to file charges, but advised the University (coach) that the incident had been reported to them, and that the Police believed based on eyewitness testimony of another female that no assault had occurred. Nonetheless, the coach imposed disciplinary action on the athletes involved, and called in the MPD to provide a seminar on the dangers of the behavior and the risks. The complaining party wished to pursue Conduct Code proceedings, those were held, and the vote was unanimous that no conduct code violation occurred.

4) February, 2011. Rape reported involving UM students. The University promptly initiated Conduct Code proceedings, and the student, who was no longer enrolled, was banned from UM campuses.

5) October, 2011. An assault occurred on campus. The University promptly initiated Conduct Code proceedings, and the assailant was expelled from the University.

Summary: of the five incidents where University students could be identified as the alleged assailants, the University acted promptly to process Conduct Code violation proceedings in all five incidents, terminated one at the request of the complaining party, found no violations in one case, and imposed expulsion of the students in all the rest. One involved an athlete who was charged; the other involved athletes who were absolved at two levels of investigation.

In all instances involving athletes, including the one in which Conduct Code proceedings found no violations, the Athletic Department imposed disciplinary measures on the student athletes involved.

Notably, and Barz did not address this, the incidences of allegations of sexual assault BY students at UM are lower than nearly any other comparable University in a similar urban setting in the nation.

UM has, in fact, a rate of such assault allegations that is quite low.

The two incidents reported by Barz involving UM students as the accused, for instance, as occurring during 2011 compares with ten such incidents occurring at MSU in the same time period, all of those being reported by MSU as "forcible," and six of which occurred in residence halls on campus, whereas the Barz Report only specifically reports one comparable incident on the UM campus in the same time period.

Now, specifically, what did the University of Montana do "wrong?"

Specifically, what did the Athletic Department do "wrong?"

Where, exactly, is the "scandal?"

Damn, nice work. This is well written, concise and loaded with facts not personal agenda.

So refreshing. Thank you.


Anyone following this situation should read this post.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Agreed - a great summary without any agenda in it. Better than anything I've read in the paper.

 

[Copper Griz]

Isn't it dishonest for the Missoulian to keep bringing up an incident for which the police have apparently refused to pursue twice due to lack of evidence, and the university ultimately ruled in favor of the students, not the accuser. Also note all of those accused were not football players. It would seem that following the law on student confidentiality would be something the university should, and did, do.

When are you going to get it through your thick skull that the Departement of Justice is investigating, in part, why police have refused to pursue cases?

You're an embarrassment, and anybody former or current player who still associates with you probably is also part of the problem.

Not go throw another his fit, and accuse me again of sexual assault, you worthless vulture.

Actually, you sound ridiculous NW Stale. You are indicting the Missoula PD because the JD is investigating them? I have a bit more confidence in the department and believe they do their jobs rather diligently. Was there enough evidence to prosecute? No. Why, because rape is a very tough crime to prove and we as everyday citizens have no damn idea what facts or evidence pertain to this case. Was the victim able to provide anything substantial that would hold up in a court of law? Did the County Attorney's Office review the case/s and determine there was insufficient evidence to pursue the case? Does Missoula have a problem with sexual assaults? I believe they do, but that does not mean the PD necessarily has a problem or that they are not doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. Doubtful, so please shut the F up until this situation has been resolved and let the lead investigator determine where the problem/s are and how they can be rectified. You are pouring gasoline on a fire and not looking at this situation objectively (nor are others who want to blame the accusers/victims).

 

[ordigger]

Looks like a good "letter to the editor" to me.

How about a guest column?

It's probably too long to get by normal newspaper word count limits for a letter to the editor. But it would be PERFECT (or nearly so) for a guest column, particularly if he provides documentary data, which given the verbiage he used shouldn't be difficult.

Starting to look more and more like a rogue "journalist" out to make a name for herself at the expense of other people....

This is exactly what we have here in Missoula Montana now. Take a climate of fear and anger over the penn state child rape accusations on a old coach there then create your own sex scandal here in Missoula to sell your local tabloid. Its obviously increasing sales for the Missoulian as the editors there in fact on a DAILY basis for the last 5-6 months trying to pass off the attacks on UM and mainly UM Football as front page "unbiased" news.

Stop buying the Missoulian, Stop buying advertisments in it (Most have already TBH), Stop visiting their shitty website (this is revenue for them with the ads on it per click) and please spread the word to friends and family.

The Missoulian is about more than football....at least to most people. Are you that dense? How would you propose people get local news if the Missoulian didnt exist? May be morbid, but how do you know who has died? How do you get reviews of local entertainment? How do you get up to date information on high school events, kids who get excited seeing their name in print? The UM, and football are a very small part of what our paper stands for. You dont like it dont read it.

You seem passionate about things, but go find something else to climb on their bandwagon. The world does not rotate around the Missoulians coverage of UM football.

 

['68griz]

The world does not rotate around the Missoulians coverage of UM football.

You're right, it does not. However, for the past six months or so, the Missoulian's focus has revolved around UM football. Jus' sayin'.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

Isn't it dishonest for the Missoulian to keep bringing up an incident for which the police have apparently refused to pursue twice due to lack of evidence, and the university ultimately ruled in favor of the students, not the accuser. Also note all of those accused were not football players. It would seem that following the law on student confidentiality would be something the university should, and did, do.

When are you going to get it through your thick skull that the Departement of Justice is investigating, in part, why police have refused to pursue cases?

You're an embarrassment, and anybody former or current player who still associates with you probably is also part of the problem.

Not go throw another his fit, and accuse me again of sexual assault, you worthless vulture.

Actually, you sound ridiculous NW Stale. You are indicting the Missoula PD because the JD is investigating them? I have a bit more confidence in the department and believe they do their jobs rather diligently. Was there enough evidence to prosecute? No. Why, because rape is a very tough crime to prove and we as everyday citizens have no damn idea what facts or evidence pertain to this case. Was the victim able to provide anything substantial that would hold up in a court of law? Did the County Attorney's Office review the case/s and determine there was insufficient evidence to pursue the case? Does Missoula have a problem with sexual assaults? I believe they do, but that does not mean the PD necessarily has a problem or that they are not doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. Doubtful, so please shut the F up until this situation has been resolved and let the lead investigator determine where the problem/s are and how they can be rectified. You are pouring gasoline on a fire and not looking at this situation objectively (nor are others who want to blame the accusers/victims).

I'm not indicting MPD. I'm saying that PR's typical "police declined to investigate" is irrelevant at this point. I have to laugh at you saying I'm not looking at this "objectively". Clearly the DoJ wasn't sold on MPD, the student board, or even Monte not pursuing cases as meaning there was not merit to it.

Pull your head out of this echo chamber and look at it from a 30k level. MTGRIZ75 had a nice post, but it's not completely on-topic, outside of the very scope of this message board.

 

[ordigger]

The world does not rotate around the Missoulians coverage of UM football.

You're right, it does not. However, for the past six months or so, the Missoulian's focus has revolved around UM football. Jus' sayin'.

I would completely disagree. True if people are looking mainly at Griz stories that is what they will see. A quick sampling shows less than 5%, and probably less than 2% of all stories in regard to the Griz football team. I certainly see very little in regard to the team vs the number of other articles/sections.

 

[UMGriz75]

The lead attorney on the DOJ investigation, Perez, ordinarily is the lead on Muslim discrimination cases for the DOJ.

Last year, at a Mosque Perez told worshippers that the Obama administration, "is committed to responding forcefully to recent incidents of anti-Muslim discrimination and hate crimes." Since September 2001, DOJ has charged 49 people with crimes involving violence, threats, vandalism or arson against "persons perceived to be Muslim or to be of Arab, Middle Eastern, and South-Asian origin," resulting in 45 convictions.

In his introduction of Perez, Wagner interjected that one of the concerns expressed to him by the mosque's imam was congregants "getting into too much debt." Wagner said without qualification that "a lot of that [problem] in this area is due to mortgage fraud and predatory lending or other conduct that may be in violation of federal law," affecting an air of victimhood right off the bat.

Perez and Wagner each spoke briefly and obsequiously before fielding questions. They heaped praise on attendees for the "remarkably important" accomplishments of Muslims. The main message was a call for more dialogue and the building of a "partnership." Perez solicited grievances (even providing his email address) and emphasized the DOJ's readiness to take action against discrimination and other acts of intolerance.

Responding to a question, Wagner made it clear that if money paid to fulfill zakat winds up funding an act of violence overseas, no federal crime has been committed if the almsgiver was unaware of the ill intent.

Perez stated that "it is undeniable that we are sailing into a headwind of intolerance against the Muslim community." At one point he said, "We are a remarkably robust community of immigrants and that's what has made America great.

Of Perez, Byron York wrote, "Of all the transformations that have taken place in the Obama administration, perhaps none is so radical as that within the Civil Rights Division. Under Perez, it is bigger, richer and more aggressive than ever, with a far more expansive view of its authority than at any time in recent history."

Perez , who worked on Barack Obama's campaign and served on his transition team, is a strong proponent of using "disparate impact theory" to prosecute discrimination. Under this approach, no proof of discriminatory intent is necessary and "a practice is said to be illegal if it results in racially disproportionate effects...even if it is neutral on its face, is applied neutrally, and was adopted for race-neutral reasons."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/dojs_thomas_perez_encourages_m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The UM/Missoula case is the test case to extend "disparate impact" theory to any crime involving any allegation regarding "sex" -- and of course rape is one of "disparate impact" right off the bat.

This is a Justice Department that refuses to go after New Black Panthers for blatant voter intimidation of whites, and for creating hate crime and putting bounties on George Zimmerman, but is able to find that it can create a test case regarding disparate impact of "sex crime" investigations in Missoula that it would not want to find, for instance, in more racially "sensitive" settings. Indeed, there is a significant racial angle to this; the DOJ could undoubtedly have an easier case in the many racially mixed settings where reported rape is between three and four times the level of sexual assault reports in Missoula -- and which reflect the "culture" that reflects poorly on inherent attitudes within those subcultures that denigrate women.

But, that is not what this DOJ wants to do. The cynicism involved in this choice is mind-boggling.

So, this is a highly politicized affair. I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudi student figures into some of this as having been treated poorly throughout his ordeal at the University of Montana; possibly UM lacked "sensitivity" in his treatment.

In a similar case, the DOJ is clearly looking to make "a point" and is selecting cases to make "new law" in essence. Here is an example that DOJ recently took on wherein the DOJ is now involved in handling bullying cases in middle schools, including, as prohibited behavior violating federal law, incidents where a boy was called a "girl" by some classmates:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/05115901-a.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This isn't about "mishandling" five rape allegations at a school with an admirably low incidence of such occurrences. These cases are brought for specific, partisan, political purposes, not run-of-the-mill "we received a complaint and are just investigating it."

Compare, for instance, Perez' obsequious behavior at the Mosque, supporting reassurances that sending money to terrorists isn't a federal crime, if, gee, you don't really know that's what money is going for, with his opposite view that, when it comes to the "disparate impact" of rules, regulations and laws -- "intent is irrelevant." He has a nice ability to distinguish between whom he seeks to defend and whom he seeks to attack.

Then look to his threatening treatment of Missoula and University officials who are not, among other things, asking if its OK to send money to terrorists.

The headlines have just begun.

...

 

[UMGriz75]

The world does not rotate around the Missoulians coverage of UM football.

You're right, it does not. However, for the past six months or so, the Missoulian's focus has revolved around UM football. Jus' sayin'.

I would completely disagree. True if people are looking mainly at Griz stories that is what they will see. A quick sampling shows less than 5%, and probably less than 2% of all stories in regard to the Griz football team. I certainly see very little in regard to the team vs the number of other articles/sections.

But 95% of griz stories are in the sports section.

This 5% appears in big headlines on the Front Page.

 

['68griz]

Exactly!!

 

[ordigger]

The world does not rotate around the Missoulians coverage of UM football.

You're right, it does not. However, for the past six months or so, the Missoulian's focus has revolved around UM football. Jus' sayin'.

I would completely disagree. True if people are looking mainly at Griz stories that is what they will see. A quick sampling shows less than 5%, and probably less than 2% of all stories in regard to the Griz football team. I certainly see very little in regard to the team vs the number of other articles/sections.

But 95% of griz stories are in the sports section.

This 5% appears in big headlines on the Front Page.

Not from where I'm sitting. I guess you see what you want to see....and I see a whole lot more in the paper than the Griz.

 

[PTGrizzly]

You're right, it does not. However, for the past six months or so, the Missoulian's focus has revolved around UM football. Jus' sayin'.

I would completely disagree. True if people are looking mainly at Griz stories that is what they will see. A quick sampling shows less than 5%, and probably less than 2% of all stories in regard to the Griz football team. I certainly see very little in regard to the team vs the number of other articles/sections.

But 95% of griz stories are in the sports section.

This 5% appears in big headlines on the Front Page.

Not from where I'm sitting. I guess you see what you want to see....and I see a whole lot more in the paper than the Griz.

Some people only read the Sports and the Comics sections obviously.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I would completely disagree. True if people are looking mainly at Griz stories that is what they will see. A quick sampling shows less than 5%, and probably less than 2% of all stories in regard to the Griz football team. I certainly see very little in regard to the team vs the number of other articles/sections.

But 95% of griz stories are in the sports section.

This 5% appears in big headlines on the Front Page.

Not from where I'm sitting. I guess you see what you want to see....and I see a whole lot more in the paper than the Griz.

Some people only read the Sports and the Comics sections obviously.

Here is to hoping that Gwen, does not Florio up the comics. :thumb: :lol: