[winflop]

Maybe this is one of many reasons I'm not a college baseball head coach, but I would refuse to play a game where he pitches. Might forfeit the entire series.

If I were an Oregon taxpayer I'd be furious that my tax dollars are paying for his scholarship. And I'm ticked the Pac-12 has done nothing about this - even if they really can't, they still should.

[winflop]

Maybe this is one of many reasons I'm not a college baseball head coach, but I would refuse to play a game where he pitches. Might forfeit the entire series.

If I were an Oregon taxpayer I'd be furious that my tax dollars are paying for his scholarship. And I'm ticked the Pac-12 has done nothing about this - even if they really can't, they still should.

[2006alum]

If I were an Oregon taxpayer I'd be furious that my tax dollars are paying for his scholarship. And I'm ticked the Pac-12 has done nothing about this - even if they really can't, they still should.

Winflop, I respect your opinion tremendously on a wide range of issues, but I respectfully disagree here. I am from Oregon and couldn't be prouder of my state. Although the article suggests some questions as to what exactly even happened, the young man took responsibility for his crime, pled guilty, and paid the time (and presumably went through the extremely arduous parole conditions that accompany most sex offenders). Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

I am glad my state shares my view that once he has completed his punishment and any accompanying re-entry requirements, he should have the same access to opportunities as any other citizen. If anything, I question the Oregonian's motives here, because typically crimes committed by a minor should not be made public and are under seal, even if in this case they weren't sealed.

Would you seriously prefer that this guy be barred from pursuing an education and a career? And meanwhile, if you're a Casino magnet, a Hollywood producer, or even the President of the United States (and you can pick your partisan poison, Trump or Clinton, B., same statement applies) you can do far worse to far more people and face no legal consequences whatsoever? There are a lot of messed up things in the world, but this one that I'm not going to lose sleep about.

[2006alum]

If I were an Oregon taxpayer I'd be furious that my tax dollars are paying for his scholarship. And I'm ticked the Pac-12 has done nothing about this - even if they really can't, they still should.

Winflop, I respect your opinion tremendously on a wide range of issues, but I respectfully disagree here. I am from Oregon and couldn't be prouder of my state. Although the article suggests some questions as to what exactly even happened, the young man took responsibility for his crime, pled guilty, and paid the time (and presumably went through the extremely arduous parole conditions that accompany most sex offenders). Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

I am glad my state shares my view that once he has completed his punishment and any accompanying re-entry requirements, he should have the same access to opportunities as any other citizen. If anything, I question the Oregonian's motives here, because typically crimes committed by a minor should not be made public and are under seal, even if in this case they weren't sealed.

Would you seriously prefer that this guy be barred from pursuing an education and a career? And meanwhile, if you're a Casino magnet, a Hollywood producer, or even the President of the United States (and you can pick your partisan poison, Trump or Clinton, B., same statement applies) you can do far worse to far more people and face no legal consequences whatsoever? There are a lot of messed up things in the world, but this one that I'm not going to lose sleep about.

[Mick]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16966.msg224204#msg224204 date=1518924210]
If I were an Oregon taxpayer I'd be furious that my tax dollars are paying for his scholarship. And I'm ticked the Pac-12 has done nothing about this - even if they really can't, they still should.

Winflop, I respect your opinion tremendously on a wide range of issues, but I respectfully disagree here. I am from Oregon and couldn't be prouder of my state. Although the article suggests some questions as to what exactly even happened, the young man took responsibility for his crime, pled guilty, and paid the time (and presumably went through the extremely arduous parole conditions that accompany most sex offenders). Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

I am glad my state shares my view that once he has completed his punishment and any accompanying re-entry requirements, he should have the same access to opportunities as any other citizen. If anything, I question the Oregonian's motives here, because typically crimes committed by a minor should not be made public and are under seal, even if in this case they weren't sealed.

Would you seriously prefer that this guy be barred from pursuing an education and a career? And meanwhile, if you're a Casino magnet, a Hollywood producer, or even the President of the United States (and you can pick your partisan poison, Trump or Clinton, B., same statement applies) you can do far worse to far more people and face no legal consequences whatsoever? There are a lot of messed up things in the world, but this one that I'm not going to lose sleep about.
[/quote]

+1.  I absolutely agree that all appropriate criminal penalties should apply.  But I draw the line at losing one's job or educational opportunities.  Otherwise the ex-con becomes a magnate for problems outside of their criminal penalties.

[Mick]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16966.msg224204#msg224204 date=1518924210]
If I were an Oregon taxpayer I'd be furious that my tax dollars are paying for his scholarship. And I'm ticked the Pac-12 has done nothing about this - even if they really can't, they still should.

Winflop, I respect your opinion tremendously on a wide range of issues, but I respectfully disagree here. I am from Oregon and couldn't be prouder of my state. Although the article suggests some questions as to what exactly even happened, the young man took responsibility for his crime, pled guilty, and paid the time (and presumably went through the extremely arduous parole conditions that accompany most sex offenders). Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

I am glad my state shares my view that once he has completed his punishment and any accompanying re-entry requirements, he should have the same access to opportunities as any other citizen. If anything, I question the Oregonian's motives here, because typically crimes committed by a minor should not be made public and are under seal, even if in this case they weren't sealed.

Would you seriously prefer that this guy be barred from pursuing an education and a career? And meanwhile, if you're a Casino magnet, a Hollywood producer, or even the President of the United States (and you can pick your partisan poison, Trump or Clinton, B., same statement applies) you can do far worse to far more people and face no legal consequences whatsoever? There are a lot of messed up things in the world, but this one that I'm not going to lose sleep about.
[/quote]

+1.  I absolutely agree that all appropriate criminal penalties should apply.  But I draw the line at losing one's job or educational opportunities.  Otherwise the ex-con becomes a magnate for problems outside of their criminal penalties.

[DC 86]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16966.msg224204#msg224204 date=1518924210]
If I were an Oregon taxpayer I'd be furious that my tax dollars are paying for his scholarship. And I'm ticked the Pac-12 has done nothing about this - even if they really can't, they still should.

Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

[/quote]

Being barred from obtaining an education and receiving an athletic scholarship are two different things.

Brock Turner has the right to continue his life somewhere, and I hope he obtains a good education for his own benefit and for society's sake, but it would sicken me if Stanford chose to honor his athletic grant in aid and reincorporate him into a team that represents our university.

[DC 86]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16966.msg224204#msg224204 date=1518924210]
If I were an Oregon taxpayer I'd be furious that my tax dollars are paying for his scholarship. And I'm ticked the Pac-12 has done nothing about this - even if they really can't, they still should.

Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

[/quote]

Being barred from obtaining an education and receiving an athletic scholarship are two different things.

Brock Turner has the right to continue his life somewhere, and I hope he obtains a good education for his own benefit and for society's sake, but it would sicken me if Stanford chose to honor his athletic grant in aid and reincorporate him into a team that represents our university.

[2006alum]

Being barred from obtaining an education and receiving an athletic scholarship are two different things.

Why? A state university subsidizes a student's education either way. Why is an athletic scholarship different from a merit scholarship? Should he not qualify for need-based financial aid? I'm not sure where one draws the line.

I would encourage you to read this very interesting story about a young man who was imprisoned for car-jacking at 16 and went on to graduate from Harvard, Yale Law School, write award-winning books of poetry, and raise two sons. Yet he still was initially denied admission to the Connecticut Bar because of his past crime, until the state bar eventually changed its position after a lengthy campaign by his friends and colleagues. Did Yale Law make a mistake admitting him? Does he not represent the university well? I'd say he represents everything that is best about the idea of equality of opportunity and of rewarding merit and hard work. Child sexual molestation is a different crime than car jacking, but that should be reflected in the punishment and the conditions of supervised release. It should not merit a life sentence to be prohibited from pursuing your passion and talent.

Brock Turner has the right to continue his life somewhere, and I hope he obtains a good education for his own benefit and for society's sake, but it would sicken me if Stanford chose to honor his athletic grant in aid and reincorporate him into a team that represents our university.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The OSU pitcher had to apply to colleges with his conviction on his record. Brock Turner has since been expelled from Stanford. If he completes his sentence, shows remorse for his actions, and genuinely seems to have turned a corner, I don't see why he should be categorically barred from returning. I think your feelings are clouded by the fact that he does not seem to have shown remorse and continues to deny the crime. But that isn't the case for the OSU pitcher, and I don't think it's helpful to draw comparisons where the salient facts are radically different.

[2006alum]

Being barred from obtaining an education and receiving an athletic scholarship are two different things.

Why? A state university subsidizes a student's education either way. Why is an athletic scholarship different from a merit scholarship? Should he not qualify for need-based financial aid? I'm not sure where one draws the line.

I would encourage you to read this very interesting story about a young man who was imprisoned for car-jacking at 16 and went on to graduate from Harvard, Yale Law School, write award-winning books of poetry, and raise two sons. Yet he still was initially denied admission to the Connecticut Bar because of his past crime, until the state bar eventually changed its position after a lengthy campaign by his friends and colleagues. Did Yale Law make a mistake admitting him? Does he not represent the university well? I'd say he represents everything that is best about the idea of equality of opportunity and of rewarding merit and hard work. Child sexual molestation is a different crime than car jacking, but that should be reflected in the punishment and the conditions of supervised release. It should not merit a life sentence to be prohibited from pursuing your passion and talent.

Brock Turner has the right to continue his life somewhere, and I hope he obtains a good education for his own benefit and for society's sake, but it would sicken me if Stanford chose to honor his athletic grant in aid and reincorporate him into a team that represents our university.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The OSU pitcher had to apply to colleges with his conviction on his record. Brock Turner has since been expelled from Stanford. If he completes his sentence, shows remorse for his actions, and genuinely seems to have turned a corner, I don't see why he should be categorically barred from returning. I think your feelings are clouded by the fact that he does not seem to have shown remorse and continues to deny the crime. But that isn't the case for the OSU pitcher, and I don't think it's helpful to draw comparisons where the salient facts are radically different.

[Snorlax94]

I think dc’s point nails it on the head.

Receiving an athletic scholarship is different from having the chance to go to college
somewhere.  College athletes are representatives of their university and even if he did his time for the original crimes, he then proceeded to fail to register.

As a college athlete, the school is paying for him to travel the country, and athletes are often put in a position of trust around children — at camps, after games.

It feels bizarre thay some people consider very different crimes to be the same thing. It’s much worse if there is a pattern over decades involvomg dozens of women. It is much worse if it involves violence, threats, or an incapcitated party (especially if that incapacitation was pre-meditated). And it is much worse if it involves children or minors.

If someone committed sex crimes against children over a span of years, did their time, then failed to register, I think it’d be unwise to make that person a representative of your university, to send them around the country unmonitored, and to put him in a position of trust as an OSU athlete around children at camps, and young adoring fans after games.

College athletes have trust and access as representatives of their university so they should be held to a high standard.

[Snorlax94]

I think dc’s point nails it on the head.

Receiving an athletic scholarship is different from having the chance to go to college
somewhere.  College athletes are representatives of their university and even if he did his time for the original crimes, he then proceeded to fail to register.

As a college athlete, the school is paying for him to travel the country, and athletes are often put in a position of trust around children — at camps, after games.

It feels bizarre thay some people consider very different crimes to be the same thing. It’s much worse if there is a pattern over decades involvomg dozens of women. It is much worse if it involves violence, threats, or an incapcitated party (especially if that incapacitation was pre-meditated). And it is much worse if it involves children or minors.

If someone committed sex crimes against children over a span of years, did their time, then failed to register, I think it’d be unwise to make that person a representative of your university, to send them around the country unmonitored, and to put him in a position of trust as an OSU athlete around children at camps, and young adoring fans after games.

College athletes have trust and access as representatives of their university so they should be held to a high standard.

[DC 86]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16966.msg224226#msg224226 date=1518975504]
Being barred from obtaining an education and receiving an athletic scholarship are two different things.

Why? A state university subsidizes a student's education either way. Why is an athletic scholarship different from a merit scholarship? Should he not qualify for need-based financial aid? I'm not sure where one draws the line.

I would encourage you to read this very interesting story about a young man who was imprisoned for car-jacking at 16 and went on to graduate from Harvard, Yale Law School, write award-winning books of poetry, and raise two sons. Yet he still was initially denied admission to the Connecticut Bar because of his past crime, until the state bar eventually changed its position after a lengthy campaign by his friends and colleagues. Did Yale Law make a mistake admitting him? Does he not represent the university well? I'd say he represents everything that is best about the idea of equality of opportunity and of rewarding merit and hard work. Child sexual molestation is a different crime than car jacking, but that should be reflected in the punishment and the conditions of supervised release. It should not merit a life sentence to be prohibited from pursuing your passion and talent.

Brock Turner has the right to continue his life somewhere, and I hope he obtains a good education for his own benefit and for society's sake, but it would sicken me if Stanford chose to honor his athletic grant in aid and reincorporate him into a team that represents our university.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The OSU pitcher had to apply to colleges with his conviction on his record. Brock Turner has since been expelled from Stanford. If he completes his sentence, shows remorse for his actions, and genuinely seems to have turned a corner, I don't see why he should be categorically barred from returning. I think your feelings are clouded by the fact that he does not seem to have shown remorse and continues to deny the crime. But that isn't the case for the OSU pitcher, and I don't think it's helpful to draw comparisons where the salient facts are radically different.
[/quote]

We will have to disagree, no problem with that. But my view is that:

1. Need based financial aid and an athletic scholarship are clearly not the same. You took winflop's statement about being on the baseball team and took it to mean that he was arguing for termination of Heimlich's educational/professional opportunities in their entirety, which is a big and unfair jump. Certainly I support need based aid; an athletic scholarship is granted in exchange for a student publicly representing the university, in a sense being part of the public image of the university, and I believe a school should be selective in who it chooses for this function.

2. Sexual crimes are uniquely different from other crimes, sexual crimes against pre-adoloscents especially so. I am very familiar with the Connecticut case you cited as well as the more recent Harvard case (Michelle Jones, a murderer who I feel was unjustly denied admission into their PhD program in history), those are different situations for me.

3. Oregon State was not aware of Heimlich's conviction when he was recruited and offered a place on their team; he did not disclose this when he applied. Contrary to your inference, I suspect that they would not have recruited him if his case was public knowledge, if for public relations reasons alone.

4. Despite your assumptions, my feelings about Turner are not clouded by and have nothing to do with his public statements (or lack thereof) about remorse. As I stated, I hope that he pursues a good education, but simply would not want him as a representative of my university on its sports teams, in the same way that every MLB franchise passed on him in last year's amateur draft even though he had been graded as a first round talent. I recently hired an ex-con in one of my businesses and believe in second chances, but every case is different, and working in an office is not the same as being the public image of an organization, and child sexual molestation is not the same as carjacking.

[DC 86]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16966.msg224226#msg224226 date=1518975504]
Being barred from obtaining an education and receiving an athletic scholarship are two different things.

Why? A state university subsidizes a student's education either way. Why is an athletic scholarship different from a merit scholarship? Should he not qualify for need-based financial aid? I'm not sure where one draws the line.

I would encourage you to read this very interesting story about a young man who was imprisoned for car-jacking at 16 and went on to graduate from Harvard, Yale Law School, write award-winning books of poetry, and raise two sons. Yet he still was initially denied admission to the Connecticut Bar because of his past crime, until the state bar eventually changed its position after a lengthy campaign by his friends and colleagues. Did Yale Law make a mistake admitting him? Does he not represent the university well? I'd say he represents everything that is best about the idea of equality of opportunity and of rewarding merit and hard work. Child sexual molestation is a different crime than car jacking, but that should be reflected in the punishment and the conditions of supervised release. It should not merit a life sentence to be prohibited from pursuing your passion and talent.

Brock Turner has the right to continue his life somewhere, and I hope he obtains a good education for his own benefit and for society's sake, but it would sicken me if Stanford chose to honor his athletic grant in aid and reincorporate him into a team that represents our university.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The OSU pitcher had to apply to colleges with his conviction on his record. Brock Turner has since been expelled from Stanford. If he completes his sentence, shows remorse for his actions, and genuinely seems to have turned a corner, I don't see why he should be categorically barred from returning. I think your feelings are clouded by the fact that he does not seem to have shown remorse and continues to deny the crime. But that isn't the case for the OSU pitcher, and I don't think it's helpful to draw comparisons where the salient facts are radically different.
[/quote]

We will have to disagree, no problem with that. But my view is that:

1. Need based financial aid and an athletic scholarship are clearly not the same. You took winflop's statement about being on the baseball team and took it to mean that he was arguing for termination of Heimlich's educational/professional opportunities in their entirety, which is a big and unfair jump. Certainly I support need based aid; an athletic scholarship is granted in exchange for a student publicly representing the university, in a sense being part of the public image of the university, and I believe a school should be selective in who it chooses for this function.

2. Sexual crimes are uniquely different from other crimes, sexual crimes against pre-adoloscents especially so. I am very familiar with the Connecticut case you cited as well as the more recent Harvard case (Michelle Jones, a murderer who I feel was unjustly denied admission into their PhD program in history), those are different situations for me.

3. Oregon State was not aware of Heimlich's conviction when he was recruited and offered a place on their team; he did not disclose this when he applied. Contrary to your inference, I suspect that they would not have recruited him if his case was public knowledge, if for public relations reasons alone.

4. Despite your assumptions, my feelings about Turner are not clouded by and have nothing to do with his public statements (or lack thereof) about remorse. As I stated, I hope that he pursues a good education, but simply would not want him as a representative of my university on its sports teams, in the same way that every MLB franchise passed on him in last year's amateur draft even though he had been graded as a first round talent. I recently hired an ex-con in one of my businesses and believe in second chances, but every case is different, and working in an office is not the same as being the public image of an organization, and child sexual molestation is not the same as carjacking.

[2006alum]

DC, read this article. Does this change how you feel at all? The accusations came from his brother's ex-wife, he denied the allegations, going to trial would have put his niece and his family in a terrible position, he took and passed a polygraph test, his records were sealed in accordance with law, and he legally reported his moves within Washington state as required by law. The only reason this came up at all is because Oregon authorities improperly believed he was an Oregon resident and that he had violated Oregon law. I am not sure how Oregon State would have been unaware of his conviction unless the law did not require he report it in accordance with the terms of his records being sealed. If he lied and misled them in his application, I agree that he should be expelled simply for being dishonest with the university. The fact that that has not happened makes me think he followed the rules. I just think this case is much murkier the more you know about it, and the rush to judgment is, IMHO, premature.

On principle, however, I don't think it's necessary to get into the facts of the individual case. If you think that child sexual assault is different, then the law should treat it as such. And it does, in so many ways. But denying him an athletic scholarship could possibly deny him the funding to pursue a degree, and also probably a career in baseball. I simply don't think it's the court of public opinion's job to decide that that should be taken away from him. If the court of law did not, then we should forgive, but not forget, and support him in making good choices going forward.

'Nuff said from me on this one.

[2006alum]

DC, read this article. Does this change how you feel at all? The accusations came from his brother's ex-wife, he denied the allegations, going to trial would have put his niece and his family in a terrible position, he took and passed a polygraph test, his records were sealed in accordance with law, and he legally reported his moves within Washington state as required by law. The only reason this came up at all is because Oregon authorities improperly believed he was an Oregon resident and that he had violated Oregon law. I am not sure how Oregon State would have been unaware of his conviction unless the law did not require he report it in accordance with the terms of his records being sealed. If he lied and misled them in his application, I agree that he should be expelled simply for being dishonest with the university. The fact that that has not happened makes me think he followed the rules. I just think this case is much murkier the more you know about it, and the rush to judgment is, IMHO, premature.

On principle, however, I don't think it's necessary to get into the facts of the individual case. If you think that child sexual assault is different, then the law should treat it as such. And it does, in so many ways. But denying him an athletic scholarship could possibly deny him the funding to pursue a degree, and also probably a career in baseball. I simply don't think it's the court of public opinion's job to decide that that should be taken away from him. If the court of law did not, then we should forgive, but not forget, and support him in making good choices going forward.

'Nuff said from me on this one.

[winflop]

Winflop, I respect your opinion tremendously on a wide range of issues, but I respectfully disagree here. I am from Oregon and couldn't be prouder of my state. Although the article suggests some questions as to what exactly even happened, the young man took responsibility for his crime, pled guilty, and paid the time (and presumably went through the extremely arduous parole conditions that accompany most sex offenders). Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

I never meant to imply that he should be denied the opportunity receive an education, and I'm sorry if that's how my comment was interpreted. I'm talking about his scholarship which is funded by taxpayers. I have no issue with him attending the university if he is admitted and pays for it, but I have a world of issue with tax money paying his tuition room & board.

[winflop]

Winflop, I respect your opinion tremendously on a wide range of issues, but I respectfully disagree here. I am from Oregon and couldn't be prouder of my state. Although the article suggests some questions as to what exactly even happened, the young man took responsibility for his crime, pled guilty, and paid the time (and presumably went through the extremely arduous parole conditions that accompany most sex offenders). Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

I never meant to imply that he should be denied the opportunity receive an education, and I'm sorry if that's how my comment was interpreted. I'm talking about his scholarship which is funded by taxpayers. I have no issue with him attending the university if he is admitted and pays for it, but I have a world of issue with tax money paying his tuition room & board.

[qwerty49]

That’s a very compelling article. The whole case sounds pretty murky. I’m in the camp that the young man has paid his legal debt to society. His emotional debt to his family is another thing entirely and will be with him forever.

Yes, sex crimes are heinous. But there’s way too much going on here for me to feel I have to be declaratively judgmental about it. I honestly can’t subscribe to the notion of being indignant about the expenditure of taxpayer money for his scholarship. If there’s some hard NCAA statute prohibiting the awarding of scholarships to someone in Heimlich’s position, then someone can correct me, but to be frank I think that issue mixes way too many personal feelings and legal concepts.

DC, read this article. Does this change how you feel at all? The accusations came from his brother's ex-wife, he denied the allegations, going to trial would have put his niece and his family in a terrible position, he took and passed a polygraph test, his records were sealed in accordance with law, and he legally reported his moves within Washington state as required by law. The only reason this came up at all is because Oregon authorities improperly believed he was an Oregon resident and that he had violated Oregon law. I am not sure how Oregon State would have been unaware of his conviction unless the law did not require he report it in accordance with the terms of his records being sealed. If he lied and misled them in his application, I agree that he should be expelled simply for being dishonest with the university. The fact that that has not happened makes me think he followed the rules. I just think this case is much murkier the more you know about it, and the rush to judgment is, IMHO, premature.

On principle, however, I don't think it's necessary to get into the facts of the individual case. If you think that child sexual assault is different, then the law should treat it as such. And it does, in so many ways. But denying him an athletic scholarship could possibly deny him the funding to pursue a degree, and also probably a career in baseball. I simply don't think it's the court of public opinion's job to decide that that should be taken away from him. If the court of law did not, then we should forgive, but not forget, and support him in making good choices going forward.

'Nuff said from me on this one.

[qwerty49]

That’s a very compelling article. The whole case sounds pretty murky. I’m in the camp that the young man has paid his legal debt to society. His emotional debt to his family is another thing entirely and will be with him forever.

Yes, sex crimes are heinous. But there’s way too much going on here for me to feel I have to be declaratively judgmental about it. I honestly can’t subscribe to the notion of being indignant about the expenditure of taxpayer money for his scholarship. If there’s some hard NCAA statute prohibiting the awarding of scholarships to someone in Heimlich’s position, then someone can correct me, but to be frank I think that issue mixes way too many personal feelings and legal concepts.

DC, read this article. Does this change how you feel at all? The accusations came from his brother's ex-wife, he denied the allegations, going to trial would have put his niece and his family in a terrible position, he took and passed a polygraph test, his records were sealed in accordance with law, and he legally reported his moves within Washington state as required by law. The only reason this came up at all is because Oregon authorities improperly believed he was an Oregon resident and that he had violated Oregon law. I am not sure how Oregon State would have been unaware of his conviction unless the law did not require he report it in accordance with the terms of his records being sealed. If he lied and misled them in his application, I agree that he should be expelled simply for being dishonest with the university. The fact that that has not happened makes me think he followed the rules. I just think this case is much murkier the more you know about it, and the rush to judgment is, IMHO, premature.

On principle, however, I don't think it's necessary to get into the facts of the individual case. If you think that child sexual assault is different, then the law should treat it as such. And it does, in so many ways. But denying him an athletic scholarship could possibly deny him the funding to pursue a degree, and also probably a career in baseball. I simply don't think it's the court of public opinion's job to decide that that should be taken away from him. If the court of law did not, then we should forgive, but not forget, and support him in making good choices going forward.

'Nuff said from me on this one.

[Mick]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16966.msg224214#msg224214 date=1518959017]
Winflop, I respect your opinion tremendously on a wide range of issues, but I respectfully disagree here. I am from Oregon and couldn't be prouder of my state. Although the article suggests some questions as to what exactly even happened, the young man took responsibility for his crime, pled guilty, and paid the time (and presumably went through the extremely arduous parole conditions that accompany most sex offenders). Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

I never meant to imply that he should be denied the opportunity receive an education, and I'm sorry if that's how my comment was interpreted. I'm talking about his scholarship which is funded by taxpayers. I have no issue with him attending the university if he is admitted and pays for it, but I have a world of issue with tax money paying his tuition room & board.
[/quote]

In your world, would he be eligible for social security when he comes of age?  That's paid with tax money.  And will he be paying taxes?

[Mick]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16966.msg224214#msg224214 date=1518959017]
Winflop, I respect your opinion tremendously on a wide range of issues, but I respectfully disagree here. I am from Oregon and couldn't be prouder of my state. Although the article suggests some questions as to what exactly even happened, the young man took responsibility for his crime, pled guilty, and paid the time (and presumably went through the extremely arduous parole conditions that accompany most sex offenders). Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

I never meant to imply that he should be denied the opportunity receive an education, and I'm sorry if that's how my comment was interpreted. I'm talking about his scholarship which is funded by taxpayers. I have no issue with him attending the university if he is admitted and pays for it, but I have a world of issue with tax money paying his tuition room & board.
[/quote]

In your world, would he be eligible for social security when he comes of age?  That's paid with tax money.  And will he be paying taxes?

[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16966.msg224253#msg224253 date=1518992990]
[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16966.msg224214#msg224214 date=1518959017]
Winflop, I respect your opinion tremendously on a wide range of issues, but I respectfully disagree here. I am from Oregon and couldn't be prouder of my state. Although the article suggests some questions as to what exactly even happened, the young man took responsibility for his crime, pled guilty, and paid the time (and presumably went through the extremely arduous parole conditions that accompany most sex offenders). Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

I never meant to imply that he should be denied the opportunity receive an education, and I'm sorry if that's how my comment was interpreted. I'm talking about his scholarship which is funded by taxpayers. I have no issue with him attending the university if he is admitted and pays for it, but I have a world of issue with tax money paying his tuition room & board.
[/quote]

In your world, would he be eligible for social security when he comes of age?  That's paid with tax money.  And will he be paying taxes?
[/quote]

That question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Social Security, but this is starting to skirt the edge on politics so I'll just stop there

[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16966.msg224253#msg224253 date=1518992990]
[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16966.msg224214#msg224214 date=1518959017]
Winflop, I respect your opinion tremendously on a wide range of issues, but I respectfully disagree here. I am from Oregon and couldn't be prouder of my state. Although the article suggests some questions as to what exactly even happened, the young man took responsibility for his crime, pled guilty, and paid the time (and presumably went through the extremely arduous parole conditions that accompany most sex offenders). Despite that, you think he should continue to be punished for the rest of his life and denied even basic opportunities like the ability to obtain an education?

I never meant to imply that he should be denied the opportunity receive an education, and I'm sorry if that's how my comment was interpreted. I'm talking about his scholarship which is funded by taxpayers. I have no issue with him attending the university if he is admitted and pays for it, but I have a world of issue with tax money paying his tuition room & board.
[/quote]

In your world, would he be eligible for social security when he comes of age?  That's paid with tax money.  And will he be paying taxes?
[/quote]

That question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Social Security, but this is starting to skirt the edge on politics so I'll just stop there