[jonnyss]

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.

as i read the piece there are claims that established procedures of the time were not followed in at least 3 ways:

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.

[jonnyss]

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.

as i read the piece there are claims that established procedures of the time were not followed in at least 3 ways:

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.