Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 150

Thread: Yale basketball alleged sexual assault

  1. #1

    Yale basketball alleged sexual assault

    Am I reading this correctly? She spent the night with him after the alleged sexual assault, and he got expelled?

    What am I missing? This is worse than mattress girl.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/us/jac...ale/index.html

  2. #2
    A poor corrupt official CaptRenault's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Casablanca
    Posts
    976
    Quote Originally Posted by Patron View Post
    Am I reading this correctly? She spent the night with him after the alleged sexual assault, and he got expelled?
    What am I missing? This is worse than mattress girl.
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/us/jac...ale/index.html
    Patron, it's a familiar story these days. All it takes to get a guy expelled from a place like Yale is an accusation by a girl of "nonconsensual" sex. The university conducts a perfunctory investigation and holds a disciplinary proceeding in front of a panel of a few faculty and staff during which the accused player has no due process rights. If the panel finds the girl's story to be more believable than the guy's story, then he is convicted and expelled. It's a great system for a girl to get revenge on a guy whom she feels has wronged her.

    It's important to note that there was criminal investigation of the incident and there were no criminal charges filed.

    The player plans to sue Yale. Below is the statement issued today by the player's attorney.

    I don't think the player has a good chance to win his suit, because Yale is a private university. If this had happened a state university, then it would be easier for a court to find that the state had deprived him of his rights.

    STATEMENT OF MAX STERN, COUNSEL FOR JACK MONTAGUE Boston, MA
    March 14, 2016
    Todd & Weld LLP • Attorneys at Law • One Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110 • T: 617.720.2626 • F: 617.227.5777 •
    www.toddweld.com

    Jack Montague was expelled from Yale University on February 10, 2016 after a panel of the Yale University-Wide Committee found that he had unconsented-to sex 15 months earlier, in October 2014, with a female student who is currently a junior at Yale. He was expelled during the second semester of his senior year. Last week, the media widely reported on statements made by Yale students and posters put up on campus which condemned Jack Montague directly as the named culprit and as a rapist, thus slandering him with this accusation. He was never accused of rape and Yale took no steps to correct these actions. As a result, Mr. Montague has no choice but to correct the record. The University hired an independent investigator to investigate this matter and, as reported by her, the facts not in dispute and as stated in the female student’s account are these: The two students developed a relationship that led to them sleeping together in Jack’s room on four occasions in the fall of 2014. On the first occasion, the woman joined Jack in bed and stayed the night. On the second occasion, she entered his bed voluntarily, removed all of her clothes and, during the night, woke him to perform oral sex. On the third occasion, she joined him in bed, voluntarily took off all her clothing, and they had sexual intercourse by consent. On the fourth occasion, she joined him in bed, voluntarily removed all of her clothes, and they had sexual intercourse. Then they got up, left the room and went separate ways. Later that same night, she reached out to him to meet up, then returned to his room voluntarily, and spent the rest of the night in his bed with him. The sole dispute is as to the sexual intercourse in the fourth episode. She stated that she did not consent to it. He said that she did.

    Statement of Max Stern, Counsel for Jack Montague March 14, 2016 Page 2 of 2

    A year later she reported the incident to a Title IX coordinator. A Title IX official
    not her filed a formal complaint with the University-Wide Committee. Only two persons could have known what happened on that fourth night. The panel chose to believe the woman, by a “preponderance of the evidence.” We believe that it defies logic and common sense that a woman would seek to re-connect and get back into bed with a man who she says forced her to have unwanted sex just hours earlier. And yet the Dean accepted this conclusion and ordered Jack to be expelled. His decision was then upheld by the Provost. We strongly believe that the decision to expel Jack Montague was wrong, unfairly determined, arbitrary, and excessive by any rational measure. Yale has been oblivious to the catastrophic and irreparable damage resulting from these allegations and determinations. The expulsion not only deprives Jack of the degree which he was only three months short of earning, but has simultaneously destroyed both his educational and basketball careers. We cannot help but think it not coincidental that the decision by Yale officials to seek expulsion of the captain of its basketball team followed by little more than a month the report of the Association of American Universities (AAU) which was highly critical of the incidence of
    sexual assault on the Yale campus, and the Yale President’s promise, in response, to “redouble our efforts.” From what appears, Jack has been pilloried as a “whipping boy” for a campus
    problem that has galvanized national attention. There is no doubt that institutions of higher learning must take the problem of sexual abuse seriously and take effective steps to protect its women students. But that obligation cannot justify imposing so drastic a punishment on the basis of such flimsy evidence. Mr. Montague intends to sue Yale University to vindicate his rights.
    Strasser: You see, Captain, the situation is not as much under control as you believe.
    Renault: My dear Major, we are trying to cooperate with your government, but we cannot regulate the feelings of our people.
    Strasser: Captain Renault, are you entirely certain which side you're on?
    Renault: I have no conviction, if that's what you mean. I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy.

  3. #3
    I share the implied concerns here--of a young man pilloried, expelled, and unable to defend himself. I'm especially put off by some of the student reaction on campus, angry with the dean and the basketball team; that's pc-ness run amok. And there are indeed cases where the charges (the "she said") have turned out to be grossly exaggerated or simply mendacious. (See, for example, the UVA story or the complex Harvard Law School fiasco.) But just as we don't want students to rush to judgment, vilifying the basketball captain without evidence, we should be cautious here as well. I know Yale and I know Title IX, and this seems like a complicated situation; and we all know the history of sexual abuse in this country, often by male athletes. By its own policy, the college cannot comment on the specifics of the case; almost all of the "facts" being provided in the story come either from frenzied students who are rushing to condemn Montague or from the player's attorney, making his case in the court of public opinion. This is hardly enough for us to base a judgment on. According to a Yale spokesman, only one in ten students charged with sexual misconduct is expelled, and the student was allowed legal counsel during the review. In other words, there was a review, both sides presented their case, and there was enough evidence to convince the committee on sexual misconduct. Intelligent people heard both sides and we can assume that they believed there was *some* reason to expel him.

    Was it fair? Was it the right decision? Was Jack Montague guilty of sexual misconduct? At this point there is only the "evidence" supplied by Montague's attorney; the victim (or alleged victim) has not yet made a statement, and the college has not provided any information about its deliberations. I'm with you guys here: it's outrageous when a person's life is shattered by false charges. But no one can come to that--or any conclusion--yet.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptRenault View Post
    I don't think the player has a good chance to win his suit, because Yale is a private university. If this had happened a state university, then it would be easier for a court to find that the state had deprived him of his rights.
    Respectfully, I disagree, in the sense that due process is due process, i.e., was the individual denied an opportunity in which to present their proofs/evidence concerning the actions they're accused of that led to the proceedings as ascribed by the Student Code of Conduct, and whether the convening board acted in an unfair and capricious manner based on the facts presented. Second, this is a civil, not criminal proceeding, so the standard is less, normally either a "clear and convincing" or a "preponderance" of the evidence.

    In a civil proceeding in a state/federal court, I believe a jury will sided with the player, provided the police conducted a fair and impartial investigation and concluded there wasn't evidence of a crime, or that a prosecutor evaluated the investigation and determined that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could not be proven and decided not to prosecute. But here again I presented another standard of evidence that is used only in a criminal proceeding, and not a civil. However, be it a state or private educational institution, if your due process proceedings/hearings are "f-up" the consequences can/will be disastrous, as the link to a recent example points out: http://womentalksports.com/sixth-cir...mination-case/

  5. #5
    Veteran of Misadventures EagerBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,879
    Guys, I live in Connecticut and this story slowly built into a feeding frenzy in the last few weeks with the local media. The player in question, Jack Montague, was the captain of the Yale team and in his second semester of his senior year. He is a very good 3 point shooter and in fact hit a game winning 3 at the buzzer to beat UConn last year which was the first time Yale had beaten UConn in around 30 years. The Yale team is very very good I saw them play and they are in the NCAA tournament this year.

    Two things created the media frenzy. Montague disappeared from the team second week of February and when asked where he was the Yale coach repeatedly issued cryptic no comments which of course he had to do, but the media knew something up. Then about 2 weeks ago Montague's father told the New Haven Register that his son had been expelled and on advice of counsel couldn't comment further except to say the reasons for the expulsion were "absurd" and "ridiculous."

    From there it exploded.

    Guys Yale is by far the largest employer in the City of New Haven and the largest property owner through various shell corporations. They are a gigantic heart that beats the local economy of New Haven. Yale New Haven Hospital is by far the best hospital in Connecticut due to the huge sums of money donated there into the facilities and research.

    All of which is to say Yale will settle this case and cut a check to this kid at some point just as Duke did with the Lacrosse kids. The civil courts are a great tool of revenge. Yale can afford the settlement. They won't even care if they pay something in 6 figures to make this go away.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver View Post
    Guys, I live in Connecticut and this story slowly built into a feeding frenzy in the last few weeks with the local media. The player in question, Jack Montague, was the captain of the Yale team and in his second semester of his senior year. He is a very good 3 point shooter and in fact hit a game winning 3 at the buzzer to beat UConn last year which was the first time Yale had beaten UConn in around 30 years. The Yale team is very very good I saw them play and they are in the NCAA tournament this year.

    Two things created the media frenzy. Montague disappeared from the team second week of February and when asked where he was the Yale coach repeatedly issued cryptic no comments which of course he had to do, but the media knew something up. Then about 2 weeks ago Montague's father told the New Haven Register that his son had been expelled and on advice of counsel couldn't comment further except to say the reasons for the expulsion were "absurd" and "ridiculous."

    From there it exploded.

    Guys Yale is by far the largest employer in the City of New Haven and the largest property owner through various shell corporations. They are a gigantic heart that beats the local economy of New Haven. Yale New Haven Hospital is by far the best hospital in Connecticut due to the huge sums of money donated there into the facilities and research.

    All of which is to say Yale will settle this case and cut a check to this kid at some point just as Duke did with the Lacrosse kids. The civil courts are a great tool of revenge. Yale can afford the settlement. They won't even care if they pay something in 6 figures to make this go away.
    The problem in my opinion is that this kind of thing cannot continue and happen in large numbers without causing major problems.

    Women accuse men of sexual assault, even after the woman literally crawls into the dorm room bed with him, the college expels the guy by acting as a court even though they are not a court of law (something that never pleases an actual judge), and the guy successfully sues for significant money damages. Christ, I wish I could invest in this scenario, but if enough attorneys take this on contingency, they do not even need any seed money.

    But even if I stop being cynical about the money, the oppressive treatment by the colleges has a chilling effect on relationships. When Anita Hill complained about Clarence Thomas long ago, American workplaces began actively discouraging workplace romances. Personally, I have observed fewer couples who originally met in the workplace among those under 45 than those over 45. The workplace used to be a major matchmaking place. And I am not sure that is a good thing for modern society, nor do I think that Anita Hill's goals regarding the workplace represent all women. It has contributed to the decline in marriage. Even more importantly, this trend really should be stretched to colleges because guys are cautious about the consequences of a complaint. Locking people into finding "the one" in high school limits the mobility of education and the workforce, and puts way too much pressure on high school kids. The women that are pushing this anti-male agenda on college campuses are a minority and they get way too much attention from administrators.

    It is good for sex workers from a demand perspective, bu not good for the U.S. as a whole.

  7. #7
    Veteran of Misadventures EagerBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,879
    Not too long ago, I took the deposition of a guy who had worked at Starbucks and admitted under oath he had been fired from his job. When I asked him why, he admitted that it was due to being involved in a consensual romantic relationship with a coworker (while employed as her manager), in violation of Starbucks company rules. Until I heard this testimony, I did not know Starbucks had such a policy. The policy exists, I believe, to protect them from sexual harassment lawsuits.

    The only time in my life I ever had, or thought about having, a consensual sexual involvement with a coworker was when I managed a pizzeria while in my early 20s, before law school. I had a 2 year sexual relationship with one of the the phone girls, while I was her manager.

    Since I graduated law school, I have had attractions to some coworkers, but obeyed the unspoken rule in law firm culture in my jurisdiction that you just don't engage in dalliances with any coworkers. It would be unthinkable. Fortunately, at this point, all my female coworkers are middle aged women, and married, and not particularly attractive. But if such were not the case, I would refrain.

    Meanwhile, in other college basketball news, Cal Assistant Coach Yann Hufnagel was fired for attempting to solicit sex from a reporter covering the team:

    http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...t-reporter-sex

  8. #8
    A generation before you, plenty of make lawyers married their secretaries (when they were called secretaries and they were women).

    And even in your generation, it was fine for a couple of kids at the pizza place to hook up, even if one of them was responsible for making sure she was answering the phone. And it you were nailing her and she missed an order, life went on.

    Now that system is largely gone, even though most people work longer hours and more jobs than ever before. So all the people in the workforce need to be meeting people online, even though they have less opportunity to get to know each other than if they interacted in the work place. Seems fucked up to me.

    But not as fucked up as colleges evaluating the appropriateness of what happens behind closed doors with a clear bias towards one party. I would be very reluctant to hook up with a college girl if I was a college guy if she went to that same university based on these media reports. College campuses seem to be trending the direction of the workplace.

    One more reason to not criticize younger guys who see sex workers. It always pisses me off when posters do that.

  9. #9
    A poor corrupt official CaptRenault's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Casablanca
    Posts
    976
    Quote Originally Posted by dbiz2 View Post
    Respectfully, I disagree, in the sense that due process is due process, be it a state or private educational institution, if your due process proceedings/hearings are "f-up" the consequences can/will be disastrous..
    As explained in this Wikpedia article (below) the Constitution only guarantees due process in a judicial proceeding conducted by the state, i.e. the government. A private corporation, a private university or any other non-governmental organization is under no obligation to follow due process in setting rules for internal "judicial" proceedings for employees or students over whom the organization has authority. Private organizations also are not obligated to guarantee free speech or to protect other Constitutional rights. The Constitution only obligates governments to respect Constitutional rights. Congress can pass laws that force private organizations to respect Constitutional rights but there is no law that stops universities from setting up kangaroo courts.

    A school like Yale can set up an internal kangaroo court with whatever rules and procedures it wants to use. The rules and procedures are generally kept secret. Good luck trying to find them on the Yale web site. Ironically, the rules and procedures are shaped with the active participation of the federal Office of "Civil Rights" of the U.S. Department of Education. Based on reports of how these "judicial" procedures work in a typical university, the procedures violate all of the aspects (see below) of what due process generally means in the context of the Constitutional guarantee of due process. Unfortunately for many young men these days they only discover this fact when it's too late--when they find themselves trapped in some university's fake court with fake judges and fake promises of fairness.

    Wikipedia

    State actor
    Main article: State actor
    The prohibitions of the due process clauses apply only to the actions of state actors, and not against private citizens.

    Procedural due process

    This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual's deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. The article "Some Kind of Hearing" written by Judge Henry Friendly created a list of basic due process rights "that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority."[16] These rights, which apply equally to civil due process and criminal due process, are:[16]


    1. An unbiased tribunal.
    2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
    3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
    4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
    5. The right to know opposing evidence.
    6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
    7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
    8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
    9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
    10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
    Strasser: You see, Captain, the situation is not as much under control as you believe.
    Renault: My dear Major, we are trying to cooperate with your government, but we cannot regulate the feelings of our people.
    Strasser: Captain Renault, are you entirely certain which side you're on?
    Renault: I have no conviction, if that's what you mean. I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy.

  10. #10
    There is no more classic a saga regarding this than my favorite basketball coach Tarkanian.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...cnair/2114469/

    The case, that went to the Supreme Court, established that a college can set up a kangaroo court system just like Capt. described, but this does not protect them from civil lawsuits in the same manner as true law enforcement is protected. Tarkanian lost on the principle that the NCAA could not legally do what they did, but they still settled and paid him $2.5 million (granted I think the civil case settlement occurred before the Supreme Court case came down) as a civil settlement for harassment.

    Maybe EB can explain this clusterfuck, but I do not understand what keeps a boyfriend and girlfriend from having sex, her claiming it was nonconsensual, the college expelling him in this kangaroo court, him suing in a civil matter that the kangaroo court did not properly operate in a manner consistent with how a legal proceeding should occur, and the boyfriend and girlfriend then splitting any civil settlement that he would collect.

    In a true law enforcement case, they would both be in prison for a long time for doing something like that. False police reports, perjury, conspiracy, etc. But these internal college proceedings are so private that they do not even appear to involve the real police or established courts, until the guy files the civil suit. I must be missing something, but there is never an action against an accuser, such as mattress girl, when it turns out an accusation is false. And when it turns out the accusation is false, it just strengthens the guy's civil case.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    70
    While I wouldn't quote Wikepedia as a valid source, private universities establish procedural rights via a contract, i.e., a method, or often called "the rules of the game" by which they adjudicate student disciplinary proceedings. Thus while the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are to ensure to due process in state, or public institutions, there is case law that addresses procedural due process in private universities, i.e., Dixon v. Ala. State Board. Of Ed., 294 F.2d at 157 ; Fellheimer v. Middlebury Coll., 869 F. Supp. 238, 244 (D. Vt. 1999); Holert v.Univ. of Chi., 751 F. Stipp. 1294, 1301 (N.D. Ill. 1990); Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 735 N.E.2d373, 381 (Mass. 2000); Anderson, 1995 WL 813188, at *4; Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., 404N.E.2d 1302, 1306 (NY 1980) ("[W]hen a university has adopted a rule or guideline establishing the procedure to be followed ... that procedure must be substantially observed.").

    I would also strongly suggest a review of the attach Boston College Law Review article that is on point and a solid review of how courts historically have reviewed student misconduct hearings at private colleges and universities up to the point when the article was written: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? rticle=2179&context=bclr ,i.e., did the private college/university, play by its established rules.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    NY State
    Posts
    2,809
    It seems that the article you posted and the last case cited does require private schools to give fair hearings and those hearings can be brought to Courts just like public based on how the hearings are conducted.

    Look at the conclusion of the article you provided a link to:

    CONCLUSION

    In his dissent in Schaer v. Brandeis, Justice Ireland cogently articulated
    the difficulty faced by private schools that are confronted with
    the competing interests inherent in student-on-student sexual misconduct
    cases:

    While the university's obligation to keep members of its
    community safe from sexual assault and other crimes is of
    great importance, at the same time the university cannot tell
    its students that certain procedures will be followed and then
    fail to follow them. In a hearing on a serious disciplinary
    matter there is simply too much at stake for an individual
    student to countenance the university's failure to abide by
    the rules it has itself articulated.

    Without question it is imperative that private schools protect victims
    of sexual misconduct, but this protection must not come at the expense
    of procedural safeguards designed to resolve credibility questions
    and lead to a reliable determination of the factual issues. Although
    the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause is not
    availing to a private school student, concerns for fundamental fairness
    should not be sacrificed. Indeed, a good student disciplinary procedure
    should go beyond the constitutional minimum to avoid arbitrariness and
    to promote reasonable decision making and bask fairness.
    So when will Hillary go to Prison?

    Only the Democrats would have a potential CONVICT as their Top Presidential Candidate. Simply Pathetic

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    70
    You are correct. But the emphasis is on the court's interpretation of "fair." While the courts appear to be moving towards making sure that the substantive and procedural due process in student conduct hearing is not arbitrary or capricious at private colleges/universities, and that administrators adhere to "the contract" they state is implied by the respective college/university code of student conduct, they still fall short of incorporating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections (although the history of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement demonstrated where an activist U.S. Supreme Court incorporated constitutional safeguards once believed as applying only to public actions to private acts as well, i.e., Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (379 U.S. 241, 1964)). I also thought the BC Law Review article was timely, given that it addresses the procedural safeguards in place relevant to the issue that created the thread, i.e., the allegations facing the Yale basketball player.

  14. #14
    Why are you all automatically assuming the woman is lying?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by blkone View Post
    Why are you all automatically assuming the woman is lying?
    It is really less about lying to me, than the fact that the system should not exist.

    With respect to an existing relationship, it will always be a "degree of truth" matter instead of lying.

    The police would never touch a case of what happened on a fourth encounter in his (not even her) dorm room.

    But as a result of some noise-making feminists who March and put up pamphlets, colleges create this kangaroo court system to try cases that true law enforcement would never hear (as a result of decades of experience that no twelve jurors could ever agree on an outcome).

    What is the result?

    No one is ever happy, since no one can ever truly know what happens behind closed doors. This is not like a true "stranger rape" case in which it is possible to agree that the convicted person should go to prison.

    All these kangaroo court systems do is create an environment of fear and hassle with respect to male/female relationships and increase the administrative costs at colleges and universities, not only as a result of operating the actual kangaroo court system, but also in the payouts of the civil lawsuits. It just adds to the student debt problem and decreases the enjoyment of life for everyone.

    Colleges should simply not be in the law enforcement or court business. God knows the U.S. has a big enough system in that area anyway.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •