[Griffins78]

Pretty damning piece on Notre Dame.

Why I won’t be cheering for old Notre Dame

I don't know if Melinda Henneberger's earlier article about ND's mishandling of the case was posted in March:

Reported sexual assault at Notre Dame campus leaves more questions than answers

ND tries to "pretend" that they are different - clearly they are not unless different means horrible. And many "try" to put them in the same class as Stanford. I truly hope that we never have to deal with a problem like this AND that if we do that we handle it in completely the opposite way.

I respect and applaud Melinda's courage and moral compass (100 times greater than the football players, coaches, administrators, alums, etc.). She was willing to stand up for what is right knowing that she would receive abuse and hatred from a community (a political and cultural machine) she once loved. Ironically, her stand is what would be best and right for ND - only they don't believe it.

[Griffins78]

Pretty damning piece on Notre Dame.

Why I won’t be cheering for old Notre Dame

I don't know if Melinda Henneberger's earlier article about ND's mishandling of the case was posted in March:

Reported sexual assault at Notre Dame campus leaves more questions than answers

ND tries to "pretend" that they are different - clearly they are not unless different means horrible. And many "try" to put them in the same class as Stanford. I truly hope that we never have to deal with a problem like this AND that if we do that we handle it in completely the opposite way.

I respect and applaud Melinda's courage and moral compass (100 times greater than the football players, coaches, administrators, alums, etc.). She was willing to stand up for what is right knowing that she would receive abuse and hatred from a community (a political and cultural machine) she once loved. Ironically, her stand is what would be best and right for ND - only they don't believe it.

[fullmetal]

I read this article earlier and remember when the original incident finally(!) made its way into mainstream media.  The lack of transparency, accountability, and moral courage displayed in this case is astounding and unbecoming of what one should expect from Notre Dame.  And if they'll do this to one person, they'll surely do it to others.

[fullmetal]

I read this article earlier and remember when the original incident finally(!) made its way into mainstream media.  The lack of transparency, accountability, and moral courage displayed in this case is astounding and unbecoming of what one should expect from Notre Dame.  And if they'll do this to one person, they'll surely do it to others.

[BigAppleBucky]

Too bad they're not playing Stanford in a bowl game where the Stanford band couldn't be excluded.

The band could wear "Lizzy" patches, or some such.

[BigAppleBucky]

Too bad they're not playing Stanford in a bowl game where the Stanford band couldn't be excluded.

The band could wear "Lizzy" patches, or some such.

[M T]

Sorry to reopen this a bit late.  After reading the recent blog and the March article, I felt that one of the contributing factors to the controversy over the handling of the incidents is the appearance of conflict of interest of the law enforcement agency who was responsible for investigating.  If it had been, say, the Indiana state police (or some such agency) conducting the investigation, there would be less chance that the school would have even appeared to influence the investigation.

If (when) such a situation happens at Stanford, would it be the Stanford University Dept of Public Safety that would do the investigation?  Doesn't that allow for questions as to whether they are representing the law or the university, when the investigation could potentially reflect poorly on the University.  It might be good if Stanford had predefined procedures for asking oversight by Santa Clara Sheriffs in certain situations.  (As seen in one of the cases, a delay of 10 days in the investigation was apparently significant.  Under predefined conditions, the oversight might kick in more quickly.  If you have to wait for administrative wheels to turn, it may take longer, and those turns of the wheels might be mistaken for indication of substance to the claims.)

While this incident was about allegations against athletes, one can imagine similar or very different allegations made against other representatives of the University (coaches, professors, administrators,...).

I will also note that the controversy wasn't just over the investigations, but also about comments attributed to administration or supporters of the school.

[M T]

Sorry to reopen this a bit late.  After reading the recent blog and the March article, I felt that one of the contributing factors to the controversy over the handling of the incidents is the appearance of conflict of interest of the law enforcement agency who was responsible for investigating.  If it had been, say, the Indiana state police (or some such agency) conducting the investigation, there would be less chance that the school would have even appeared to influence the investigation.

If (when) such a situation happens at Stanford, would it be the Stanford University Dept of Public Safety that would do the investigation?  Doesn't that allow for questions as to whether they are representing the law or the university, when the investigation could potentially reflect poorly on the University.  It might be good if Stanford had predefined procedures for asking oversight by Santa Clara Sheriffs in certain situations.  (As seen in one of the cases, a delay of 10 days in the investigation was apparently significant.  Under predefined conditions, the oversight might kick in more quickly.  If you have to wait for administrative wheels to turn, it may take longer, and those turns of the wheels might be mistaken for indication of substance to the claims.)

While this incident was about allegations against athletes, one can imagine similar or very different allegations made against other representatives of the University (coaches, professors, administrators,...).

I will also note that the controversy wasn't just over the investigations, but also about comments attributed to administration or supporters of the school.

[Farm93]

The whole situation is so sad.

The Wall Street Journal printed the work of some professor (in Indiana I believe) that calculated the value of different college football programs.  The methods were certain flawed in ways, but the conclusion was clear that there are now many football programs with franchise values approaching and even exceeding $500 million.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...43588.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...07806.html

I would not want to be an individual trying to bring forward a complaint that might impact the value of a business that size and have to bring that complaint forward through the very people with a vested personal interest in the viability of that enterprise.

Sadly, I don't think this is an isolated problem.  My guess is that many BCS programs have dirty secrets tucked away at this point.

[Farm93]

The whole situation is so sad.

The Wall Street Journal printed the work of some professor (in Indiana I believe) that calculated the value of different college football programs.  The methods were certain flawed in ways, but the conclusion was clear that there are now many football programs with franchise values approaching and even exceeding $500 million.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...43588.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...07806.html

I would not want to be an individual trying to bring forward a complaint that might impact the value of a business that size and have to bring that complaint forward through the very people with a vested personal interest in the viability of that enterprise.

Sadly, I don't think this is an isolated problem.  My guess is that many BCS programs have dirty secrets tucked away at this point.

[Griffins78]

If (when) such a situation happens at Stanford, would it be the Stanford University Dept of Public Safety that would do the investigation?  Doesn't that allow for questions as to whether they are representing the law or the university, when the investigation could potentially reflect poorly on the University.  It might be good if Stanford had predefined procedures for asking oversight by Santa Clara Sheriffs in certain situations.

The Stanford University Dept. of Public Safety (Stanford Police) has the following webpage: The Stanford University Safety & Security Report - Sexual Assault which seems to answer your questions and explains what to do and the process, including pledges from the Stanford Police.

Also, the website explains that:

The Stanford University Department of Public Safety is a multi-service agency providing law enforcement, security, safety, crime prevention, and emergency services on the Stanford campus 24 hours a day....
....Stanford Deputy Sheriffs derive their peace officer powers through an agreement between Stanford University and the Sheriff of Santa Clara County...
...Criminal arrest cases occurring on the main campus are submitted to the Office of the Santa Clara County District Attorney, which possesses the legal authority to commence prosecution.

So there is a connection between the Stanford Police and Santa Clara County, especially for criminal arrest cases; but administration and employment is with the University and the Stanford Police will be doing the investigation.

[Griffins78]

If (when) such a situation happens at Stanford, would it be the Stanford University Dept of Public Safety that would do the investigation?  Doesn't that allow for questions as to whether they are representing the law or the university, when the investigation could potentially reflect poorly on the University.  It might be good if Stanford had predefined procedures for asking oversight by Santa Clara Sheriffs in certain situations.

The Stanford University Dept. of Public Safety (Stanford Police) has the following webpage: The Stanford University Safety & Security Report - Sexual Assault which seems to answer your questions and explains what to do and the process, including pledges from the Stanford Police.

Also, the website explains that:

The Stanford University Department of Public Safety is a multi-service agency providing law enforcement, security, safety, crime prevention, and emergency services on the Stanford campus 24 hours a day....
....Stanford Deputy Sheriffs derive their peace officer powers through an agreement between Stanford University and the Sheriff of Santa Clara County...
...Criminal arrest cases occurring on the main campus are submitted to the Office of the Santa Clara County District Attorney, which possesses the legal authority to commence prosecution.

So there is a connection between the Stanford Police and Santa Clara County, especially for criminal arrest cases; but administration and employment is with the University and the Stanford Police will be doing the investigation.

[Redrum]

even with an internal investigation (a REAL investigation) that would have ended not in legal prosecution,  but with dismissal (or more pathetically, suspension) of the accused parties.  ND has some published code of student conduct,  a fundamental standard, that would have allowed it to move based on ethical standard,  not some legal standard for criminality.  They were unwilling to even take that route, probably because  1)  It would have admitted there was a  problem... and not a problem with a depressed, mentality unstable "victim" as they re-cast it.  2)  Protecting the football program was more important to several parties and the best, most tolerant interpretation of university action was:  there was an internal debate and those who wanted to protect the program won out.  The worst interpretation is that at every step along the way,  the interests of the woman and the ethical standing of Notre Dame were subordinated without dissent (or much dissent) to the views of the football worshippers.

[Redrum]

even with an internal investigation (a REAL investigation) that would have ended not in legal prosecution,  but with dismissal (or more pathetically, suspension) of the accused parties.  ND has some published code of student conduct,  a fundamental standard, that would have allowed it to move based on ethical standard,  not some legal standard for criminality.  They were unwilling to even take that route, probably because  1)  It would have admitted there was a  problem... and not a problem with a depressed, mentality unstable "victim" as they re-cast it.  2)  Protecting the football program was more important to several parties and the best, most tolerant interpretation of university action was:  there was an internal debate and those who wanted to protect the program won out.  The worst interpretation is that at every step along the way,  the interests of the woman and the ethical standing of Notre Dame were subordinated without dissent (or much dissent) to the views of the football worshippers.

[Redrum]

I sifted through NDNation, where the posters are never reluctant to ready, fire, aim on any subject.  Not a peep, not a post on this subject...except one: by the board Godhead saying they were not going to post anything about the article because it was "one-sided drivel."  End of controversy,  time to move on to trashing Johnny Manziel for Voldemort, and 5,000,000 posts on tickets, ticket lotteries for the national championship game.    On NDNation's "open' board (Cartier Field)  not even a posting from the board ops people.  Just...nothing.

Good  ol' Notre Dame.

[Redrum]

I sifted through NDNation, where the posters are never reluctant to ready, fire, aim on any subject.  Not a peep, not a post on this subject...except one: by the board Godhead saying they were not going to post anything about the article because it was "one-sided drivel."  End of controversy,  time to move on to trashing Johnny Manziel for Voldemort, and 5,000,000 posts on tickets, ticket lotteries for the national championship game.    On NDNation's "open' board (Cartier Field)  not even a posting from the board ops people.  Just...nothing.

Good  ol' Notre Dame.

[terry]

I'm not surprised that there's no comment on the NotreDame message boards. From NotreDame's perspective, this is old news. They successfully swept Lizzy Seeberg's death under the rug two years ago. The same with the rape of the other student -- they evaded any fallout from that issue a year and a half ago. From their perspective, they are free and clear of responsibility of those issues. Their attitude is "there's nothing to see here; it's over, move on." And you know what? They're right. If the NCAA or the criminal authorities were going to do anything about these issues, they would have done it by now. NotreDame has succeeded in putting these things in the rear view mirror. They are back to claiming God is on their side.

[terry]

I'm not surprised that there's no comment on the NotreDame message boards. From NotreDame's perspective, this is old news. They successfully swept Lizzy Seeberg's death under the rug two years ago. The same with the rape of the other student -- they evaded any fallout from that issue a year and a half ago. From their perspective, they are free and clear of responsibility of those issues. Their attitude is "there's nothing to see here; it's over, move on." And you know what? They're right. If the NCAA or the criminal authorities were going to do anything about these issues, they would have done it by now. NotreDame has succeeded in putting these things in the rear view mirror. They are back to claiming God is on their side.

[fullmetal]

ah, omerta.

[fullmetal]

ah, omerta.

[Griffins78]

Found this recent article by Brendan O'Byrne in the Stanford Daily which helps give insight into our process and how effectively it works: Culture of silence surrounds sexual assault

[Griffins78]

Found this recent article by Brendan O'Byrne in the Stanford Daily which helps give insight into our process and how effectively it works: Culture of silence surrounds sexual assault

[fullmetal]

Absolutely terrible :( 

“It’s not that they don’t believe the survivor,” said Kelly Ramirez, chief development officer of the YWCA Silicon Valley. “It’s just that the legal requirements are not there.”

Legal requirements, gah.

[fullmetal]

Absolutely terrible :( 

“It’s not that they don’t believe the survivor,” said Kelly Ramirez, chief development officer of the YWCA Silicon Valley. “It’s just that the legal requirements are not there.”

Legal requirements, gah.

[dabigv13]

The thing that stands out about so many of these cases is the likelihood that extreme drunkenness is involved. If I ever have children, I hope can teach them to avoid getting blackout drunk with any regularity.

Also "preponderance of evidence" is a pretty worrisome threshold for me.

[dabigv13]

The thing that stands out about so many of these cases is the likelihood that extreme drunkenness is involved. If I ever have children, I hope can teach them to avoid getting blackout drunk with any regularity.

Also "preponderance of evidence" is a pretty worrisome threshold for me.