Did we know about this? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Did we know about this? (/thread-17751.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Did we know about this? (/thread-17751.html)
Did we know about this? - BostonCard - 06-05-2019
https://apnews.com/aa5aaa2570724ebd8127edcf69fe6a04
The allegation occurred in 2015, and "A five-member university panel decided not to punish Okereke and no criminal charges were filed." I saw no other details.
BC
RE: Did we know about this? - Treefence - 06-05-2019
(06-05-2019, 12:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://apnews.com/aa5aaa2570724ebd8127edcf69fe6a04
The allegation occurred in 2015, and "A five-member university panel decided not to punish Okereke and no criminal charges were filed." I saw no other details.
BC
I believe I remember this being discussed on the boards few years back, but it wasn't known who the player was. I pretty vividly remember hearing the detail about 3/5 professors thought he was guilty but Stanford required 4/5.
RE: Did we know about this? - SamuelMcF - 06-05-2019
A little blurb on the Colts' process with this:
https://twitter.com/HolderStephen/status/1136296624395816960
RE: Did we know about this? - 82lsju - 06-05-2019
the Fountain Hopper article
https://mailchi.mp/fountainhopper/foho-80football-captain-nfl-draftee-bobby-okereke-accused-of-sexual-assault-okereke-represented-by-brock-turner-lawyer-in-2015-legal-action?e=%5BUNIQID
RE: Did we know about this? - BobK - 06-05-2019
Article ? That’s a kind word.
Yes some knew. But not someone one would post
RE: Did we know about this? - 82lsju - 06-05-2019
the NYTimes article from 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/sports/football/stanford-football-rape-accusation.html
and Stanford's statement on the article
https://web.archive.org/web/20190601171838/https://news.stanford.edu/2016/12/29/stanford-university-statement-new-york-times-story-dec-29-2016/
RE: Did we know about this? - shakrat - 06-06-2019
This is shameful. The program and the university should be better than this. The consequences to the young woman will last many years, and I don't see mention of the young man taking responsibility for his actions.
Success has its challenges, for an individual or an institution. One of those is to hold to values, even at the cost of forfeiting continued success. I worry that we are not meeting this challenge.
RE: Did we know about this? - BostonCard - 06-06-2019
Quote:This is shameful. The program and the university should be better than this. The consequences to the young woman will last many years, and I don't see mention of the young man taking responsibility for his actions.
Success has its challenges, for an individual or an institution. One of those is to hold to values, even at the cost of forfeiting continued success. I worry that we are not meeting this challenge.
None of us are privy to the details of the case, and I don't know what aspect of the case is shameful to you.
The question, as always, is what threshold of certainty is needed in order to sanction someone. For a criminal trial, it would require a unanimous verdict of a jury of a 12 peers, on the basis of an evidentiary threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt". The Stanford Title IX process required 4/5 individuals on a panel of faculty, administrators, and students based on an evidentiary threshold of a "preponderance of evidence" (it now requires a unanimous finding on a panel of three). This case did not meet the threshold, and there were two people on the panel who felt the the preponderance of evidence did not show that the accused committed the assault. I don't know that any of us know how the majority came to its conclusion or how the minority came to its conclusions, nor do we know the composition of the panel.
As best I can tell, there is no allegation that Stanford deviated from its procedures due to the fact that he was a football player. There was no allegation that Stanford covered this up. The New York Times article suggests that Stanford's threshold for conviction is too high (though it is more an insinuation than an argument) and they don't talk about what they think the threshold should be (though you might deduce from the heading that they think a simple majority is adequate).
I don't claim to know what the right threshold ought to be. To the extent that I have seen studies on this, they have suggested that far more assaults go unreported or unpunished than false accusations are made. For criminal trials, that seems to be a tradeoff we as a society are willing to make; "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" and all that. For Title IX allegations, that threshold is very much in flux these days, and again, I don't have a right answer. Victims have a right to feel safe on campus. The accused have a right to some semblance of due process. And no matter where the threshold is set it will be impossible to get every single case right.
BC
RE: Did we know about this? - martyup - 06-06-2019
(06-06-2019, 09:23 AM)shakrat Wrote: This is shameful. The program and the university should be better than this. The consequences to the young woman will last many years, and I don't see mention of the young man taking responsibility for his actions.
Success has its challenges, for an individual or an institution. One of those is to hold to values, even at the cost of forfeiting continued success. I worry that we are not meeting this challenge.
I don't know why you would condemn "the program" in this case. I haven't heard any claim that there was a cover-up or that established procedures were not followed. This was handled on the University level according to established procedures in place at the time.
RE: Did we know about this? - jonnyss - 06-06-2019
(06-06-2019, 01:19 PM)martyup Wrote:as i read the piece there are claims that established procedures of the time were not followed in at least 3 ways:(06-06-2019, 09:23 AM)shakrat Wrote: This is shameful. The program and the university should be better than this. The consequences to the young woman will last many years, and I don't see mention of the young man taking responsibility for his actions.
Success has its challenges, for an individual or an institution. One of those is to hold to values, even at the cost of forfeiting continued success. I worry that we are not meeting this challenge.
I don't know why you would condemn "the program" in this case. I haven't heard any claim that there was a cover-up or that established procedures were not followed. This was handled on the University level according to established procedures in place at the time.
1) the university instituted a keep-away order for the life of the investigation, but then repeatedly failed to act or investigate when the woman called in to say okereke was violating the order. if true, this is much more tolerant / hands-off than i have seen stanford act in another, earlier case where a male student (not a promising athlete) was ordered to keep away.
2) the university failed to investigate okereke for allegedly tampering with a witness. this is not he said / she said about consent; this is testimony from a 3rd party. i'm pretty sure that interfering with an investigation is a violation of both the university ethics code and of title 9. (i know for a fact that faculty are prohibited from discussing title 9 investigations with witnesses, much less attempting to influence their testimony)
3) the university failed to investigate okereke's claim (apparently on record) that the woman was "black-out drunk." seems to me that, in accusing her of being black-out drunk (and therefore having unreliable memory), he admits that he himself thought she was unable to grant consent. certainly, the brock turner case emphasized too-drunk-to-consent.
i don't know if the article is accurate on any of these 3, but they certainly are claims.