Sweeping sex assault suit filed against University of Tennessee
Could passages from the lawsuit itself:
UT intentionally acted by an official policy of deliberate indifference to known sexual assaults so as to create a hostile sexual environment. UT had actual notice (and itself created) a long-standing, severely hostile sexual environment of rape by male athletes (particularly football players) that was condoned and completely unaddressed by UT officials, including Chancellor Jimmy Cheek ("Cheek"), Athletic Department Director and Vice-Chancellor Dave Hart ("Hart"), and head football coach Butch Jones ("Jones").
Athletes knew in advance that UT would: support them even after a complaint of sexual assault; arrange for top quality legal representation; and then direct them to the TUAPA process, which was and continues to be a one-sided and unfair system of adjudication. Varsity athletes knew that they (not victims) would be fully supported by the UT athletic department and administration's process and that the perpetrators and athletic department could deter and discourage victims from pursuing complaints by: having their lawyers depose female victims; subjecting victims to extensive discovery; cross-examining sexual assault victims in a full blown hearing before an administrative law judge(appointed by Cheek); and delaying the investigation process until the athlete perpetrators transferred to another school or graduated without sanction or discipline. This is precisely what happened in the cases of Does I, II, IV, and VI and is the very reason that UT Vice-Chancellor Tim Rogers resigned from UT in March 2013 in protest over the violation of Title IX and the UT administration's and athletic department's deliberate indifference to the clear and present danger of sexual assaults by UT athletes.
Not really much to add here, as it kind of speaks for itself. If true, its pretty despicable that an Athletic Department would do this, but not surprising. There's also a report from the Knoxville paper that one football player was assaulted by other players for having the audacity to help out a woman who accused another football player of having sexually assaulted her.
Comments
Those are steep allegations.
That's despicable. I don't think we should ever say something this disturbing is "not surprising" no matter which university it is.
Are they part of the DOJ probe that UVA is?
It's a dumb lawsuit, the case even goes into complaining that we play rap music in the stadium. One thing Butch has been strict on is sexual assault. Any player accused of it has been suspended indefinitely until it was handled by police. It cause us to lose our best linebacker for a season a couple years ago, and if he's innocent (hasn't gone to trial yet) cost him an NFL career.
Long time employee at UT disagrees.
Well, I cant comment on the chancellor, honestly most people at UT would love him gone anyway. I can say that I know for a fact, as far as the football program and Butch, they jump on these things and discipline when there's even the slightest accusation.
Sounds like if it's taken a couple of years for him to even go to trial, that's exactly what part of this lawsuit is about.
That is often what defense attorneys do though. Im not sticking up for the school but when a defense attorneys job is to keep their client out of jail they often get trials pushed for years for various stupid reasons to at least delay the impending consequences.
A college hearing is not a criminal hearing.
Were criminal accusations placed? If not, why?
Yes. It's in the article. The alleged victims filed for "administrative proceedings," which is how they do it at UT. I'm not sure if they could file a police report or if the administrative procedure was a necessary precedent to filing a police report. Or, whether the University did not inform them that they could file police reports.
Based on this excerpt (I haven't read the whole thing, yet), the whole lawsuit looks shaky at best. Due process is one of the fundamental principles of our nation's justice system. Now, the university is being sued for allowing the accused to defend him/herself? I say, let the accused defend himself, and if found guilty, throw the book at him. I'm not defending the all-too-common practice of letting a star athlete off the hook with a stern warning, or a discreet payoff to the accuser, but far too often, at colleges across the country, they're skipping the "if found guilty" part and just throwing the book at anyone accused of sexual misconduct.
The case is alleging, in essence, that the University deprived the victims of due process. If true, that's just as important as the perpetrators due process.
If these accusations are true, it's a very sad and disappointing situation. Even more discomforting is that this type of thing probably happens at many prominent schools around the country.
I am a strong believer in innocent until proven guilty. Could be a massive problem, or people seeking big money via settlement, or a grudge against someone. Not a UT fan, but will not pile on anyone without more to go on than "filed a suit".
I also believe in innocent until prove guilty, but that assumes an even playing field for both parties. The problem here and with many similar cases at universities across the country is that the accused benefit from the institutional resources of the athletic department. In this case, these players got the benefit of an expensive attorney courtesy of the athletic department. I doubt the victims were furnished with legal representation. This puts the accused players at a significant advantage regardless of their guilt or innocence.
If these players are guilty, it is deplorable that the university allowed a culture like that to exist at all. If the players are innocent, there is still a major problem with how cases like these are handled and not just at Tennessee.
Of course the source I read was that the accused were actually afforded the ability to call witnesses and essentially have rights similar to a court where they could do something in their own defense.
Not all of the defendants were athletes.
This is opposed to other places that do not allow the defendant much by way of civil rights.
We'll see how it plays out.
BullCity,
ONLY addressing:
I am not in favor of policies that discourage the prosecution of sexual offenders. That being said, I have no issues with the players getting the benefit of legal counsel. Many have preached on this board that the players deserve more than a scholarship, housing, and food. I believe legal counsel is among the benefits of the scholarship athlete, and I don't take issue with it. That's just like saying rich people shouldn't be allowed to have expensive lawyers. It's capitalism with all the rights and privileges.
all students should have access to the same legal services...unless the athletes are considered employees, which the universities and NCAA assure us they are not
The problem isn't that athletes get any legal counsel, it's that they get legal counsel well beyond what a typical student could afford. I'm not saying athletes don't deserve any kind of attorney, but the article stated they got the benefit of a top quality attorney. I doubt the victims have the resources to hire the same.
So I agree, the athletes deserve the ability to defend themselves, but victims deserve the equal ability to have their complaints heard.
They do in a court of law.
They get a prosecuting attorney.
This is complaining that the athletes get support at a non law court.
Who the heck knows what the rules are there. If what you say is the case, then their beef is with the state not providing counsel, not with the defendants or the athletic department that may provide counsel.
Get the accuser a state's attorney or send the cases too a real court.
This is a civil case, not criminal. So, there's no guilt/innocence. Just liability.
As mentioned above, this type of thing happens at a lot of schools. Maybe the administrations aren't "enabling" in quite the same way, but coaches and people in Athletic Departments around the country know.
I think that, in the mind of many, it is easier to simply ignore situations like this rather than meet them head on.
Well this certainly doesn't help matters.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/13/release-of-13-year-old-c...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-peyton-manning-squeaky-cle...
How many pages is that document?
I don't think the article mentions that, at least, not that I noticed, I read it twice too.
74 pages. The NBC article makes a big deal of that like 6 times in two paragraphs.
It should be made clear that UT, the athletic department and coaches supporting accused players is not a bad thing. Innocent before proven guilty. They deserve all the support they can muster.
What is at issue is the apparent persecution of those accusing the players. It's one thing to be rigorously defended and another to rigorously defame the victims.
For me that is the central issue. Likewise, I take issue that the victim if also a student is not afforded the same support from the school as the athlete. They presumably do not have coaches and athletic department to support them and so the school should play no favorites and offer the same support. Unfortunately there is clearly a contemporary trend that schools struggle with this. This is not something that is unique to UT. This is something that is unique to schools today in general. And this is the larger issue in my view.
I also read the Peyton article. And while that disappoints me greatly, I think the larger, and more pressing issue this article proves (if all true), is that this culture has been pervasive for quite some time at UT and likely throughout American universities in general.
I was fortunate to see VT's internal operations for these type of things in person and in my dealings always felt VT did a great job with these sensitive and important cases. Does that mean VT is always infallible? I seriously doubt it, but things that I saw were consistently handled well.
Innocent before proven guilty is relevant in a criminal context.
In this civil suit, however, it's about whether or not they were liable in fostering the type of environment in which accusers did not feel that they had the safety or support to come forward. Innocence or guilt is not really relevant, so it is completely appropriate for people to form an opinion on this matter, especially because as you mentioned it seems to be a pervasive sentiment on a lot of major university campuses.
I never spoke to this case, rather I specifically spoke about university systems themselves and my experience with VT's. In rape and sexual assault, both of which are criminal offenses if proven, innocence before proven guilty holds true.
I agree mostly, but i must be missing something. The alleged rape victims simply need to file a police report, then the state will pursue criminal charges if they find adequate evidence. The victim then has representation via the states attorney, again given there is evidence to support the claim.
It's probably not that simple. But it does not appear official "police reports" were filed. It appears the victims relied solely on the UT "Administrative Proceedings." If UT made it well known to the victims that they could and should file police reports, then I'd agree. If UT made it seem like that the victims would receive proper justice by the Administrative proceedings that ultimately failed them due to alleged corruption, then the issue is murkier. If UT required that Administrative proceedings are required before a police report is filed, then it's probably really bad for UT.
Most likely, just from what I can gather from the articles, it's UT offered the victims the administrative proceeding in lieu of police reports, which ultimately failed the victims and offered the perpetrators an escape from prosecution. It's a murky situation, and while UT will probably ultimately win, it won't be because that UT was right. UT will likely win because the burden is so high on the plaintiffs to prove every allegation is true. I truly doubt they will be able to prove that UT officials had the "intention" to obstruct the victims' claims.
They simply need a hard and fast rule, wherein any potential criminal act that is alleged to occur is immediately referred to local police.
Anything else is bound to be abused in one way or another.
The issue there is if the Commenwealths Attorney/District Attorney decide the case is not worth taking to court. The colleges need some kind of system also.
No, they do not.
There is the criminal system and a civil system (which as lower standards than criminal).
anything less than the preponderance of evidence which the civil system uses as a benchmark must be less than that.
I do not want a system wherein an accused is protected by something akin to "Some Evidence".
Yes colleges do need a system, if someone says Mr. Smith sexual assaulted her the college should have to make sure that they can try and accommodate the victim. Whether by moving class schedules around to keep accuser and victim apart up to and including explusion for an attacker. If the school were to just wait on the results of criminal or civil trials the accused could be done with school before any resolution.
Ok, I gave an incomplete answer because I did not consider that we were speaking at this level so, yes, I agree. As long as the accused's name does not enter any record anywhere. At this level, the accused would have no ability nor recourse to clear theur name and that could have significant implications in the future.
That being said, that's not what's being addressed here.
They do have these. They descend into kangaroo courts where men are assumed to be guilty rapists. Look at UVA or Duke where the men were just assumed to be guilty and some professors even called for them to be thrown out of school before any guilt is established.
We should throw someone out of school without a criminal investigation?
No, but we also shouldn't assume the accusers are lying for some reason. The issue here is fairness, both parties should be taken seriously and given the equal opportunity to make their case. The problem at UT and many other schools is that an athlete has the resources of the university to defend themselves while the victims have to make due on their own.
What happened to the duke lacrosse players is terrible, but we can't let one case like that color how we see every case of someone accusing an athlete of sexual assault. Until both parties are afforded equal quality of legal counsel, there will be a problem with the system.
There is whole departments dedicated to supporting the accuser.
Saying that it is unfair because the defendant has representation is amazing.
The alternative is to limit the defense to the perceived level of the competence of the offense.
That is just nutz.
what departments would those be?
The Office of Equity and Diversity / Title IX
http://sexualassault.utk.edu/
Within it find:
http://sexualassault.utk.edu/sexual-assault-response-team/
The UT Sexual Assault Response Team and also their Title IX coordinators.
sexualassault.utk.edu/title-ix-coordinators/
There is no coordinating or similar team for those accused.
so the purported victim gets trauma counseling and is given guidance on how to report the incident and the accused is given top legal counsel.
the complaint is that this is an unbalanced system, that the eligibility of the perpetrator is given greater deference than injuries suffered by the victim.
honestly, the system doesn't appear to be particularly balanced.
We'll have to agree to disagree. You wanted proof that there was support for accusers. I provided it. there would be no way to satisfy you on this point.
There is an entire segment of the University administration to support th accuser, none for the accused with the exception of what is provided as part of their contract.
The state will provide whatever legal representation is required to gain a conviction, free of charge to the accuser and facilitated by the support staff at the school.
Now imagine you are a regular student and had the weight of that administration down on you.
The school does not provide defense assistance to the masses.
False accusations stay with you, for a long time. The stakes are really high.
10-4. To be clear, I have no objection to the representation available to the accused. And I have come down against the rush to judgement on athletes many times. False accusations can ruin one's life.
But I will say that the only time in my public sector career that I had a judge rule against an action I had taken, was when I relied upon a system of rules and regulations to produce certain results. The judge said, there has to be more than just a system in place, in order to rely upon it as the basis for a decision, I had to show that in practice it actually works. He remanded it back to me to either demonstrate that it worked, or change the decision.
While it is apples and oranges (or perhaps grenades) in terms of subject matter, I think there is a similar question at UT. They clearly have a system in place to deal with the issues. But does it actually work? And if it doesn't, why?
My problem is not that the defendant has representation, my problem is that they are supported by the resources of the athletic department and it seems in UT's case, the broader university. UT appears to be a particularly egregious case where the institution went to great lengths to offer support to accused athletes. This is wrong because it becomes the victim fighting against the university to have their complaints fairly heard.
So no, it's not unfair because the defendant has representation, it's unfair because they are benefitting from the resources of the university in a way victims are not.
Agree with you completely. But the reality is, this lawsuit is not about the accused having representation. To sue over the fact that someone had defense available to them is ridiculous.
What is also ridiculous is creating an environment in which the accusers were not comfortable in bringing accusations forward (its alleged that even another player was harassed for trying to do the right thing), or their concerns were not taken seriously by the university. Whether those items are true or not remains to be seen, but neither of them have anything to do with an attorney for the defense being available.
I think they are related though. The university fosters an atmosphere in which victims feel unable to come forward or feel as though their complaints were not heard by throwing their support behind the accused athletes. Hiring top attorneys is just one visible example of this.
I have no problem with the accused athletes having representation. I have a problem with the university supporting the accused athletes having more support for the university than the victims.
This is the core issue, IMHO. The arguments about representation and burdens of proof are important, and I'm glad folks are thinking about those issues and not just spouting off. But there is a perception in some of these cases, and I for one find it believable (which is certainly not the same as "proven") that in the minds of many college football fans, winning football games is more important than holding young men accountable for rape. To the extent that is true, it is barbaric and disgusting, and any part of any system that supports that attitude should be rooted out.
As I see it, that's the bottom line for the movement that has led to Title IX lawuits like this one. If I had to choose between VT losing the best player it ever had, or allowing that player to play after he raped a fellow student, there is absolutely no way I would support protecting the player. I would rather see the team forfeit every game than see the University protect a rapist.
"We should throw someone out of school without a criminal investigation?" Is this what happened to CJ Reavis?
As much as I dislike the shadowy nature of such proceedings, we need to distinguish between (1) a school making a decision about student's alleged criminal activities and (2) a student's alleged violations of the school's code of conduct. If any university is acting in case (1) before or simultaneous with real court proceedings, that is wrong. But if there are no criminal charges and the violations may not be criminal in nature, e.g. case (2), then the actions by the university can be appropriate.
A little OT here I suppose. Not directly related to the case. But things are going south in Vol land very quickly.
Everything else is defensible, this is not. Just dumb.
I agree. I wish there was a way to spin this in a more positive manner but it just isn't possible. Has very little to do with the University and football team and everything to do with the kid. IMO, this is a case where you can't judge a school based on its students. Some people are just messed up. Just an upsetting situation.
hold up... you "wish there was a way to spin this in a more positive manner"? seriously?
come on dude. University reputations are not the highest priority here. If you want to wish for something, then wish there was a way to go back in time to prevent this from happening. Who cares if this is viewed in a negative manner. It should be.
That's what I'm saying. It's terrible. My wording wasn't great but that was my point. I was just trying to say that I wasn't bashing the University because this could happen anywhere. Bad people exist everywhere. Of course it should be viewed in a negative manner. It's despicable. No other way around it.
ah, gotcha. my bad. definitely agree
No big deal. I should have worded it better. Have a leg.
If I read correctly, there was no actual kid in this case. It was someone posing as a 14 year old. Not good, but at least there was no real child in this situation.
Looks like he bumped his noggin' on the way into the squad car.
Anddd..... another one
EDIT: More news from a source on r/cfb
LINK
Reading on twitter, he's also accused of strangulation, unlawful imprisonment, and being a sack of human shit. Dude has been at UT a month or so. Don't know if he exactly should be a stain on UT's reputation but on the other hand, UT were the ones who signed him.
we also signed Marcus Vick. And he was in the Burg longer than a month. I don't pin the actions of individuals on the university. How the university decides to handle that is a different story.
Marcus was also the final straw in what had been (at least publicly) a series of minor incidents. Once we dealt with him, those in charge realized we needed to make changes because the continual actions of the individuals were creating a reputation we did not want nor need.
Even with that said, there seems to be a lot of individuals right now that shouldn't be a stain on UT's reputation.
At a certain point, you have to wonder if there's a reason why Tennessee seems to be attracting these kind of shady individuals to their athletic programs.
Just a lot of messed up stuff man. You're right though.
Yep.... In a vacuum I completely agree that you can't judge an entire program based on the acts of a couple individuals. But unfortunately, we're not in a vacuum, and the big picture right now is showing this kind of thing happening quite a bit with that school right now, and it does raise some questions.
There's a reason they call it the Fulmer Cup.
http://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/college/ut/2016/02/20/butch-jones...
Response to Lawsuit from Butch Jones.
More news.
that's not a good look.....
so are we just gonna hold a second spring game in bristol then?
Definitely not. Things just keep getting worse. I'm interested to see how all of this ends of playing out.
The player accusing him of that testified differently last year, also the player has not been convicted of rape. (Not yet anyway he probably will, but he's that's the only case that has had any evidence against the defendant. Every other case has been cleared with no charges.
As I said, I'm just interested to see how this all ends up playing out. I'm not trying to point fingers here or anything. Just simply pointing out another news story related to the thread topic.
http://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/college/vols/2016/02/24/lawsuit-t...
Yea, he also had a different story last summer.
UT coaches panel discussing how serious sexual harassment is, and then this comes out the next day.
The entire title IX case is a witch hunt so far. It originated from some women's sports fans that were mad we took away the "Lady" in "Lady Vols". This is their way of revenge. They're theowing everything they can in this lawsuit, and also releasing little pieces every few days to make it stick around longer (actually a smart move on their part to keep the story going).
Yea witch hunt, keep up with that narrative.
what would you say is legit about the suit? A 20 yr old case from a crazy lady that sues for money or every player that has even been accused of anything suspended until cleared? Maybe it's them complaining that we play rap music in the stadium? The women's sports program at Tennessee is one of the best in the country, they've been given everything they've ever asked for, now they're mad because of a name.
Seriously? You act like it's not even possible that a crime was committed. Protect your football team at all costs I guess
Maybe you should learn some facts. Hes changed his story. I already said that its most likely that the player (AJ Johnson) will be found guilty. However in the other cases, theyve been cleared every time.
If you would like to provide some sources (news articles, etc) that point out the other side of these claims, those would be appreciated. But in reading your string of comments, complete with phrasing like "witch hunt," "crazy lady," etc. you seem immediately dismissive of anything that might cast your program in a negative light. It comes off as reactionary homerism. As with most things, the truth likely lies somewhere in between. But until the facts are heard, fairness dictates one should keep an open mind.
I have no reason to defend rape, I don't care if it's my team or not. I'm just telling you all stuff I know. The Title IX stuff is spearheaded by the Lady Vols crowd. They're mad at Dave Hart. The crazy lady is referring to Jamie Naighright, accuser of Peyton. Countless stories have come about how she wants Peyton to say he's gay, has sued other famous people in dumb lawsuits, and asked Shaun King to stir up the Peyton story to make more money. Those phone calls have been recorded. I don't have time to link everything, it's not hard to find. As far as the newest claim, I at least have that link on hand https://t.co/5BUufF6o0u .
I'm just telling you guys how it is. When the Vols screw up I'll admit it. One had 1 bonehead who will most likely be guilty, the rest have been cleared and I know details about most of those. There is no cover up, the police in Knoxville don't like the football team, it's the opposite of Bama, they look for anything they can to charge them with. If they can nail someone, they will.
The player gave an interview NOT a sworn testimony, I wouldn't tell the media that will inform a rabid fan base that I was ratting out a coach and players of said fan base. His sworn testimony has been given that Butch Jones and at least one Tenn player didn't like that he supported someone outside the team.
Bingo
Can you link the "countless stories" that have come out about Jamie Naighright? Would be interested to read those and see where that source material is from and what other dumb lawsuits she has. Specifically if those reporting these claims have ties to UT or not. I would do so but having VPN issues with the great firewall.
http://bsndenver.com/the-mind-blowing-truth-about-peyton-mannings-accuser/
The original AP story from the original lawsuit, which she settled in 97 for $300,000 the report concluded that in her own reports she participated in the behavior and in some did not report the behavior as offensive,
4 of her complaints had merit.
I'm sorry, for some reason I cannot link to the article from my iPad.
(this post turned out to be much longer than what I originally intended. whoops.)
Well, the original AP article is far from damning as Mr Spano, a reporter for the Denver Broncos, makes it out to be. The fact that she made 33 claims is also not damning. She could have reached her tolerance limit and listed as many claims as she had on her mind at the time. Or she could have fabricated them. The problem is that is all speculation and not evidence. While Spano spins a tale of distrust it fails to prove anything. And the fact is the school settled.
I am not saying I believe one side or the other, but for sake of argument lets say this lady is as vulgar as they say and can "talk like the boys", let's say she dresses suggestively, let's say she was vague on facts in claims. Does any of that prove that her claim is false? More to the point does any of that mean that harassment was welcomed, invited or warranted?
Let's go beyond and say she was actively sexual within the Athletic Department having multiple partners. Does that matter? Does it mean she should be subject to harassment? The answer is no. Women shouldn't be ashamed from being sexually active, nor should they be treated as lower morality than others if they are. None of that has any bearing on whether or not this one incident took place. Even if every one of her other claims are falsified it doesn't prove this one is. It just calls it into suspect, which again Spano fails to prove.
It's easy for things to get out of hand in environments like this. Young boys/girls in peer pressure environments like sports can get out of hand quickly. But there is too much polarity in blame in these cases. Maybe this did happen and Peyton thought that she really did want him to expose his junk to her. Is it irrational to believe that? A star qb who likely gets his way as the big man on campus with a woman that clearly can swear like a sailor and from time to time partake and dish out vulgar and suggestive banter, dresses scantily accentuating her sexuality, drops innuendo and double entendres believes that she really wants him. A mindset, reinforced by his daily environment, like that can in itself be suggestive making him think "of course she wants me". That's not irrational either. That can and does happen every single day with young men and women. Doesn't make what he did, if he did it, not harassment but it also doesn't mean he is some sexual deviant with deep rooted issues with women. It could just mean he was an irrational young man that did something incredibly stupid and took things way, way to far.
In my speculation, the fault here likely is on both sides and on the leaders of the Athletic department and teams. A) if she was really this bad and coaches saw it then they could have made claims against her behavior. Instead it seems that the behavior was enabled through a cavalier attitude until it reached its boiling point. And like all things cavalier it went off like the Hindenberg. B) If they did make claims against her and no action was taken then they could have made claims against that. Universities are not despot, banana republics. Everyone has a boss and even the president has to answer to the board of regents and beyond. C) This is, despite all the rehashing, still a he said / she said case until real evidence comes to light. Which is to say, beyond the salaciousness of a future hall of fame, superbowl winning QB it would not be news as it all happened and was settled long ago. D) no matter how vulgar, how many claims proved or unproven, how sexually suggestive this woman is it doesn't justify harassment.
The last point is what I feel the real conversation should be about. Not the blame, but the question of "where is the line" which I often discuss with friends and old colleagues in the field. Factually, any overt, unwanted sexual overture could be considered harassment at any moment. But in a situation like this with a woman that perhaps partook and contributed to sexual overtures and a persistent sexual environment, is the threshold of what is considered harassment moved? If so, to where? How does one define that personally if you are in that environment and how do you define it legally if considering the case? That to me is the much more interesting and much more relevant topic.
I agree wholehearted with your last couple of sentences. Not, of course, to demean any of your previous points.
The difficult part here, is that this young lady seems to be able to push and then to pull this same line back and forth at her own will. That is the crux of the matter.seemingly, according go to her own mood as it varies from day to day, in the present and in the last, she draws and then redraws the line. Her actions do not seem to matter, only her recollections and feeling about things as they happened on the past.
Now, do not mistake that I condone any actions by any individual involved.
If there really was 33 cases of sexual assault ( not rape) we should expect more accusers to come out of the woodwork on this. If it is true, she's not going to be the only victim.
just tryin' to lighten the mood a bit.
Can you spot the WVU graduate?
that went splendidly
Pretty impressive aiming, to hit him as squarely as that.
Butch Jones just got fired according to Dan Wolken, can't embedded on phone.
Edit: Fake account, sorry guys.
Update: Tennessee has reached a settlement to pay the plaintiffs $2.48 million in return for dropping the case. This ensures that nobody from the university takes the stand and that whatever truly happened remains a secret at least for the time being.
Wow, this has me conflicted. On one hand this makes me question how serious the claims were. The settlement, $186,000 after attorney fees (civil and class action lawsuits seem to only help attorneys), makes this feel like pride was the only thing that was hurt. If I was truly exposed to some of the things the plaintiffs claimed, I would want justice for those responsible and to make sure that what happened to me did not happen to others.
On the other hand, I don't know what happened behind the legal curtain, but this could be the best justice the plaintiffs thought they would receive in TN going up against the beloved UT Athletics dept. I am not sure which of the two is worse, but I am struggling not to take a cynical point of view at this point.
This also means the plaintiffs don't have to go through the trial process and all it entails. Humiliting depositions, humiliating discovery, high priced attorneys for UT going through their entire lives including sexual history, interviews of friends and family. Just to get to a trial filled with Tenn people.
There is that as well. That is necessary evil of the trial system, making the victims relive the crime to get to the truth.
Agreed. Evil, but necessary (to protect the innocent).
I think it would be too much to ask that UTenn internally punish these individuals (I mean, they just cost the university $2.6 million)
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're insinuating that a settlement means that university is guilty? Don't forget - in a civil case, the standard of proof is NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt," but just "the preponderance of the evidence." Basically, in a criminal case, the plantiff must prove that the defendant is guilty with ~99% confidence. In a civil case, that number is more like 51%.
Even if this case went perfectly for UT, and the accusations were completely debunked, it would still cost the school far more than $2.5 mil in legal fees. A settlement DOES NOT imply guilt in any way, shape or form.
All but 2 of the accusations have either been tried or investigated and they have been found innocent. One of the cases is over 20 yrs old. The 2 left may or may not be found guilty in trial next year. The whole suit has been a reaction by a select group of former lady Vol AD members who don't like our AD (not many people do). The biggest reason to settle is that you don't want a college coach or members of the AD under oath where anything can be asked. That goes for any school. Anything shady that they have done (paying players, changing a grade, etc) can be uncovered. Our coach folds in close games, I can't imagine how quick he would fold under oath.
Anybody got any laundry that needs doin'?