Williams NOT confirmed by Senate

[BWahlberg]

To me the saddest thing out of this whole debacle is that violence against and rape of women is a SERIOUS problem that demands attention. It simply cannot be tolerated and everybody needs to be part of the solution. However, in an apparently desperate attempt to call attention to the problem, certain groups and individuals latched on to the UM football team as their cause. Instead of accepting rather obvious (and granted some not so obvious) truths they were blinded by their rage and fired indiscriminately at any nearby target. In the process they have completely shifted the conversation away from where it should be and at the same time alienated so many people who really believe in the cause and would want to be a part of the solution. So many months of wasted time and wasted dollars and far less focus on the actual problem then their could have been. It borders on tragic.

Very well said. There are far more alleged and confirmed sexual assault issues on and off campus than the athletes have been involved with and I support all efforts to curtail those events. MY problem is that Williams and the University focused, and continues to focus the issue entirely on the Football team. A BIG mistake in my book. It takes the emphasis off of what some call "widespread" sexual abuse of women at the University of Montana and puts it totally on the backs of the football players. Stupid and nonsensical if we are truly interested in the welfare of women, as Williams wants us to believe is his concern.

Good posts. It's time to rightfully shift attention to where it should have been all along. Rape/Date Rape wasn't just a problem that occurred with 1 football player but the Barz report showed a lot of undocumented/unreported cases campus wide. Women's safety on campus has been put front and center I do believe the UM has taken some good steps to move forward with better awareness and activism with that.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

After reading Pat William's so called apology I was quite surprised to learn the Saudi guy raping students was on the football team.

Do we often recruit in the middle east? :ugeek:

 

[EverettGriz]

While Williams is clearly unfit to serve as a Regent, and I worked hard to see him defeated, I think we need to be careful not to fully rewrite history and suggest that there were no problems with the UM football program. The Barz report wasn't exactly flattering toward the team.

The key is that the program and the administration have taken steps to minimize those things in the future.

 

[PlayerRep]

While Williams is clearly unfit to serve as a Regent, and I worked hard to see him defeated, I think we need to be careful not to fully rewrite history and suggest that there were no problems with the UM football program. The Barz report wasn't exactly flattering toward the team.

The key is that the program and the administration have taken steps to minimize those things in the future.

Did the Barz report say anything about the team?

 

[PlayerRep]

To me the saddest thing out of this whole debacle is that violence against and rape of women is a SERIOUS problem that demands attention. It simply cannot be tolerated and everybody needs to be part of the solution. However, in an apparently desperate attempt to call attention to the problem, certain groups and individuals latched on to the UM football team as their cause. Instead of accepting rather obvious (and granted some not so obvious) truths they were blinded by their rage and fired indiscriminately at any nearby target. In the process they have completely shifted the conversation away from where it should be and at the same time alienated so many people who really believe in the cause and would want to be a part of the solution. So many months of wasted time and wasted dollars and far less focus on the actual problem then their could have been. It borders on tragic.

Very well said. There are far more alleged and confirmed sexual assault issues on and off campus than the athletes have been involved with and I support all efforts to curtail those events. MY problem is that Williams and the University focused, and continues to focus the issue entirely on the Football team. A BIG mistake in my book. It takes the emphasis off of what some call "widespread" sexual abuse of women at the University of Montana and puts it totally on the backs of the football players. Stupid and nonsensical if we are truly interested in the welfare of women, as Williams wants us to believe is his concern.

What sexual assault issues involving athletes went anywhere? Donaldson. Johnson. Incident apparently involving blow jobs, which apparently resulted in 7-0 honor court vote in favor of the players (and their being allowed to graduate). Anything else that went anywhere? If nothing else, the sum total involving athletes looks like Donaldson. The single biggest problem involving athletes and sexual assault was the former dean, who did biased and incomplete investigations and appears not to have gotten a positive honor code result in any of the matters (and who also goofed up the Saudi incident).

 

[EverettGriz]

While Williams is clearly unfit to serve as a Regent, and I worked hard to see him defeated, I think we need to be careful not to fully rewrite history and suggest that there were no problems with the UM football program. The Barz report wasn't exactly flattering toward the team.

The key is that the program and the administration have taken steps to minimize those things in the future.

Did the Barz report say anything about the team?

No. But it didn't name any of the students.

But we know that no less than three of the cases cited involved football players. One of course was guilty of rape, another acquitted and one was not pursued for lack of evidence. But even that case did not reflect well on the football team. It's worthy of note that the Barz report specifically recommended changes to the student-athelete code of conduct, which suggests that she may have believed there were issues.

Look, I don't think our program is worse than most. But to deny that there were issues is simply not reality, and isn't serving anyone well, particularly the University. The administration did a nice job of taking Barz recommendations and dealing with them up-front and in full view of the public, and then they have let the issue die down, which is exactly the plan of action I prefer.

 

[PlayerRep]

While Williams is clearly unfit to serve as a Regent, and I worked hard to see him defeated, I think we need to be careful not to fully rewrite history and suggest that there were no problems with the UM football program. The Barz report wasn't exactly flattering toward the team.

The key is that the program and the administration have taken steps to minimize those things in the future.

Did the Barz report say anything about the team?

No. But it didn't name any of the students.

But we know that no less than three of the cases cited involved football players. One of course was guilty of rape, another acquitted and one was not pursued for lack of evidence. But even that case did not reflect well on the football team. It's worthy of note that the Barz report specifically recommended changes to the student-athelete code of conduct, which suggests that she may have believed there were issues.

Look, I don't think our program is worse than most. But to deny that there were issues is simply not reality, and isn't serving anyone well, particularly the University. The administration did a nice job of taking Barz recommendations and dealing with them up-front and in full view of the public, and then they have let the issue die down, which is exactly the plan of action I prefer.

Don't think Barz recommended or said anything about the student-athlete code. Can't find it online, but will look at it tomorrow.

Which poster or posters do you think is/are denying that there were issues? I can't imagine anyone would deny that there were/are issues.

Wasn't Donaldson not in school and off the team by the start of the spring semester? I don't think a proceeding can be brought against someone who isn't a student. So I'm not so sure he was one the incidents.

Still don't see any support for your statement that the Barz report was unflattering towards the team.

 

[EverettGriz]

We agree there were issues. That's good enough for me.

 

[srgrizizen]

Unfortunately the vote was pretty much on party lines. All Democrats voted for confirmation and all but two (I think) Republicans voted against confirmation.

Too bad it turned into a Right v Left thing....

Does this mean that Republicans are pro thug? :lol:

 

[Fahque]

The conduct committee (or whatever they call themselves) holds JJ accountable. The University President holds the head coach accountable (as well as the AD.) Probably 90% of the people on this messageboard (probably including yourself) want to hold the President accountable. In the same breath those same 90% want to hold Pat Williams accountable, but you my friend will vote party, club, good old boy (cause I'm party affiliated) and not hold Senators accountable?

There are FAR more important issues to base a vote on and hold people accountable on than whether or not a Senator voted to confirm PW or not.

 

[Ursa Major]

The conduct committee (or whatever they call themselves) holds JJ accountable. The University President holds the head coach accountable (as well as the AD.) Probably 90% of the people on this messageboard (probably including yourself) want to hold the President accountable. In the same breath those same 90% want to hold Pat Williams accountable, but you my friend will vote party, club, good old boy (cause I'm party affiliated) and not hold Senators accountable?

There are FAR more important issues to base a vote on and hold people accountable on than whether or not a Senator voted to confirm PW or not.

This!

Like my right to spear hunt big game!!

 

[MrTitleist]

Someone please change the lightbulb in this thread... it's become quite dim in here.

If you'd like we can remove you from the forum so you don't have to read it anymore. You don't add anything to the threads but insults anyways.

 

[Fahque]

The conduct committee (or whatever they call themselves) holds JJ accountable. The University President holds the head coach accountable (as well as the AD.) Probably 90% of the people on this messageboard (probably including yourself) want to hold the President accountable. In the same breath those same 90% want to hold Pat Williams accountable, but you my friend will vote party, club, good old boy (cause I'm party affiliated) and not hold Senators accountable?

There are FAR more important issues to base a vote on and hold people accountable on than whether or not a Senator voted to confirm PW or not.

This!

Like my right to spear hunt big game!!

:thumb:

 

[cclarkblues]

The conduct committee (or whatever they call themselves) holds JJ accountable. The University President holds the head coach accountable (as well as the AD.) Probably 90% of the people on this messageboard (probably including yourself) want to hold the President accountable. In the same breath those same 90% want to hold Pat Williams accountable, but you my friend will vote party, club, good old boy (cause I'm party affiliated) and not hold Senators accountable?

There are FAR more important issues to base a vote on and hold people accountable on than whether or not a Senator voted to confirm PW or not.

This!

Like my right to spear hunt big game!!

There's no feeling quite like jumping out of a tree onto a bull elk wearing only a loincloth and carrying a sharp stick. :thumb:

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

sadly, but not surprisingly, this was purely a political vote by both parties and had nothing to do with what he said. same old game in helena. :roll:

If this was a true statment the multiple other regents and department apointees would all be going down, on the same party line vote. Fact is, this legislature is more cooperative than it's been in a long time. What was said before is true. PW gave folks a reason to vote him down.

i disagree. if there was more of a mix of dems and repubs voting ya or na then i would agree. this was a pure and simple political vote on a high profile democrat. same helena garbage, by both sides.

I think it was the Dems that voted FOR a high profile dem regardless of his indescresions.
I think the R's voted FOR what they thought was the right thing to do.

So you have one group representing the people and the other, representing themselves.

Why are we surprised by this?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Fahque]

sadly, but not surprisingly, this was purely a political vote by both parties and had nothing to do with what he said. same old game in helena. :roll:

If this was a true statment the multiple other regents and department apointees would all be going down, on the same party line vote. Fact is, this legislature is more cooperative than it's been in a long time. What was said before is true. PW gave folks a reason to vote him down.

i disagree. if there was more of a mix of dems and repubs voting ya or na then i would agree. this was a pure and simple political vote on a high profile democrat. same helena garbage, by both sides.

I think it was the Dems that voted FOR a high profile dem regardless of his indescresions.
I think the R's voted FOR what they thought was the right thing to do.

So you have one group representing the people and the other, representing themselves.

Why are we surprised by this?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

If you think the Republicans voted against him because it was the right thing to do you must live under a rock. A majority of them likely voted no because he is a high profile Democrat.

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

If this was a true statment the multiple other regents and department apointees would all be going down, on the same party line vote. Fact is, this legislature is more cooperative than it's been in a long time. What was said before is true. PW gave folks a reason to vote him down.

i disagree. if there was more of a mix of dems and repubs voting ya or na then i would agree. this was a pure and simple political vote on a high profile democrat. same helena garbage, by both sides.

I think it was the Dems that voted FOR a high profile dem regardless of his indescresions.
I think the R's voted FOR what they thought was the right thing to do.

So you have one group representing the people and the other, representing themselves.

Why are we surprised by this?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

If you think the Republicans voted against him because it was the right thing to do you must live under a rock. A majority of them likely voted no because he is a high profile Democrat.

What was the right thing to do? Keep PW or throw him out? I think we agree it was to throw him out. Yet the Dems didn't do the right thing. Why? The only explaination is that PW is a high profile Dem who thought he was beyond reproach and the Dems fell in line. No I don't live under a rock. Maybe you do, but you probably shouldn't try to throw that rock in your house.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[EverettGriz]

I think that -- sadly -- we're far, far beyond the point where we can expect EITHER party to do something because it's the right thing to do....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grizmayor]

i disagree. if there was more of a mix of dems and repubs voting ya or na then i would agree. this was a pure and simple political vote on a high profile democrat. same helena garbage, by both sides.

I think it was the Dems that voted FOR a high profile dem regardless of his indescresions.
I think the R's voted FOR what they thought was the right thing to do.

So you have one group representing the people and the other, representing themselves.

Why are we surprised by this?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

If you think the Republicans voted against him because it was the right thing to do you must live under a rock. A majority of them likely voted no because he is a high profile Democrat.

What was the right thing to do? Keep PW or throw him out? I think we agree it was to throw him out. Yet the Dems didn't do the right thing. Why? The only explaination is that PW is a high profile Dem who thought he was beyond reproach and the Dems fell in line. No I don't live under a rock. Maybe you do, but you probably shouldn't try to throw that rock in your house.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

LTCF wins by a TKO... Williams should have never been there in the first place.

 

[Fahque]

i disagree. if there was more of a mix of dems and repubs voting ya or na then i would agree. this was a pure and simple political vote on a high profile democrat. same helena garbage, by both sides.

I think it was the Dems that voted FOR a high profile dem regardless of his indescresions.
I think the R's voted FOR what they thought was the right thing to do.

So you have one group representing the people and the other, representing themselves.

Why are we surprised by this?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

If you think the Republicans voted against him because it was the right thing to do you must live under a rock. A majority of them likely voted no because he is a high profile Democrat.

What was the right thing to do? Keep PW or throw him out? I think we agree it was to throw him out. Yet the Dems didn't do the right thing. Why? The only explaination is that PW is a high profile Dem who thought he was beyond reproach and the Dems fell in line. No I don't live under a rock. Maybe you do, but you probably shouldn't try to throw that rock in your house.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I never said not confirming him wasn't the right thing to do because IMO it was. All I'm saying is that a lot of the R's likely voted against him because he is a high profile Dem. Some of them ended up on the "right thing to do" side just merely for that reason. That's politics.