• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

The Real Problem - "Dear Colleague Letter" US Dept Ed

Status
Not open for further replies.
NorthwestFresh said:
tampa_griz said:
Tokyogriz said:
I went to main hall today and spoke my displeasure about the current situation, the handling of the situation by Engstrom, the arbitrary firings of our long-time AD Oday and coach Pflugrad.

I don't always agree with you. In fact I probably disagree more often than I agree. But the fact that you went to the office without the luxury of anonymity afforded in a message board to discuss your concerns is pretty cool.

I was wondering who the guy was standing on the steps of main hall, waving the "Dear Colleague" letter in one hand, the US Constitution in the other, and trying to rally people to march with him to support Jordy Johnson, the alleged rapist.

Burning Bras?
 
tnt said:
You guys are little late to be waving the constitution in regards to student rights in disciplinary hearings. Its been discussed at great length in any number of court decisions. If anything the U of M has gone above and beyond. All the cases in this paper can be read at findlaw. but the few I checked some consistent with the claims in the paper:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_1_39/ai_n13620069/pg_2/?tag=content;col1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Depending on the facts (which I do not know), I can see how compelling arguments might be made with regard to #2, #3 and #7, at a minimum.
 
tnt said:
You guys are little late to be waving the constitution in regards to student rights in disciplinary hearings. Its been discussed at great length in any number of court decisions. If anything the U of M has gone above and beyond. All the cases in this paper can be read at findlaw. but the few I checked some consistent with the claims in the paper:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_1_39/ai_n13620069/pg_2/?tag=content;col1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


That article is from 2005. That predates the new lower standard. Many Constitutional experts believe the lower standard is problematical and will be challenged in court. You really are the foundation of misinformation. From your old article, this is what it concludes:

"While the due process rights afforded students in disciplinary proceedings do not have to mimic the judicial model, they must be adequate to ensure the fundamental purposes of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments...."
 
Ursa Major said:
Tokyo, you are starting to remind me of Charles Whitman. Easy dude.

No kidding, dude needs to get a grip. It's Hilarius someone can have such a strong opinion without having the facts
 
There is no case law - yet. Case law with even lower standards going back to 1961 has yet to be overturned. Which established criteria have been ignored here? Let alone in the highly theoretical JJ expulsion? Unless I am entirley wrong PR have not the previous expulsions been over turned through the established appeals process?

Perhaps you could share what occured and how it occured in JJ's hearing that indicates his rights were violated?

My understanding from extensive discuussion among the more conservative folk in this country, is that Obama has suspended the constitution anyway :mrgreen: ......
 
tnt said:
There is no case law - yet. Case law with even lower standards going back to 1961 has yet to be overturned. Which established criteria have been ignored here? Let alone in the highly theoretical JJ expulsion? Unless I am entirley wrong PR have not the previous expulsions been over turned through the established appeals process?

Perhaps you could share what occured and how it occured in JJ's hearing that indicates his rights were violated?

There is no standard lower than preponderance of the evidence. That's 50.1%. You are the foundain of misinformation.

I assume JJ's lawyer has been doing a good job of pointing out the constitutional and other problems that the university has. I suppose that may be giving the university (or university system) pause, and could explain that very curious press release earlier this week.

Do you think it's okay to change the standard (and applicability of the code to offcampus matters) after-the-fact, and try to apply it after-the-fact, i.e. ex post facto?
 
PlayerRep said:
A further problem is that UM didn't change its official policies and procedures, i.e. Student Conduct Code, until sometime after a Feb. 28, 2012 memo from UM's general counsel David Aronofsky. See below excerpts from the Aronofsky memo (the bold and underlining to show the changes were in the Aronofsky memo, which is linked below). Thus, it looks like UM is trying to impose changed policies and procedures on the JJ matter, which I believe occurred in mid-February, according to press reports. Talk about lack of due process and ex post facto issues, as well as fairness problems.


http://www.umt.edu/president/sexualassault/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Recommendations.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

there is most likely a clause somewhere in the conduct code or student handbook that states students are always subject to the most recent set of rules, regardless of when the event at issue occurred.
 
argh! said:
PlayerRep said:
A further problem is that UM didn't change its official policies and procedures, i.e. Student Conduct Code, until sometime after a Feb. 28, 2012 memo from UM's general counsel David Aronofsky. See below excerpts from the Aronofsky memo (the bold and underlining to show the changes were in the Aronofsky memo, which is linked below). Thus, it looks like UM is trying to impose changed policies and procedures on the JJ matter, which I believe occurred in mid-February, according to press reports. Talk about lack of due process and ex post facto issues, as well as fairness problems.


http://www.umt.edu/president/sexualassault/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Recommendations.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

there is most likely a clause somewhere in the conduct code or student handbook that states students are always subject to the most recent set of rules, regardless of when the event at issue occurred.

I doubt that. That would not be a best practice. Again, ex post facto. Do you think tuition could be raised without notice?
 
tampa_griz said:
NorthwestFresh said:
tampa_griz said:
Tokyogriz said:
I went to main hall today and spoke my displeasure about the current situation, the handling of the situation by Engstrom, the arbitrary firings of our long-time AD Oday and coach Pflugrad.

I don't always agree with you. In fact I probably disagree more often than I agree. But the fact that you went to the office without the luxury of anonymity afforded in a message board to discuss your concerns is pretty cool.

I was wondering who the guy was standing on the steps of main hall, waving the "Dear Colleague" letter in one hand, the US Constitution in the other, and trying to rally people to march with him to support Jordy Johnson, the alleged rapist.

I know you're cracking a joke. And it made me laugh. But on a serious note, if two people were arguing different positions and one was doing it as himself and other was doing it anonymously, which person would you put more stock in?

Then again, I think Growler1's identity is known. I heard there's a video of him floating around somewhere.

I think it's fine that TokyoGriz made his concerns known. I saw an easy joke and took it, but the guy clearly cares a lot about UM, and I do respect that. I just don't think his tact does him any favors at times, but his posts do come from a good intention, at least in terms of defending UM.
 
The "preponderance of the evidence" standard is the standard used in civil matters. If you sue someone in state district court for negligence, for example, you have the burden of proving your allegations by a preponderance of the evidence (the greater weight or 51%). I think what Player Rep is saying in terms of the constitutional problems lies in the fact that the proceedings under the Student Code of Ethics may be punitive in nature: if you are found "guilty" you are subject to punishment, including dismissal from the U. The burden of proof in criminal matters is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which I believe is the highest standard of proof of them all. So I don't think PR is out of line suggesting that the standard being used by the U may indeed be unconstitutional.
 
PlayerRep said:
argh! said:
PlayerRep said:
A further problem is that UM didn't change its official policies and procedures, i.e. Student Conduct Code, until sometime after a Feb. 28, 2012 memo from UM's general counsel David Aronofsky. See below excerpts from the Aronofsky memo (the bold and underlining to show the changes were in the Aronofsky memo, which is linked below). Thus, it looks like UM is trying to impose changed policies and procedures on the JJ matter, which I believe occurred in mid-February, according to press reports. Talk about lack of due process and ex post facto issues, as well as fairness problems.


http://www.umt.edu/president/sexualassault/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Recommendations.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

there is most likely a clause somewhere in the conduct code or student handbook that states students are always subject to the most recent set of rules, regardless of when the event at issue occurred.

I doubt that. That would not be a best practice. Again, ex post facto. Do you think tuition could be raised without notice?

You do realize that ex post facto has nothing to do with a Student Board, and that the Student Board is not a court of law?

Right?
 
Ex post facto doesn't just apply to courts: it applies to states and therefore state agencies (which includes the U) regardless of what the proceedings are. No state can act in an unconstitutional manner. That is what the 14th amendment is all about.
 
grizpaws said:
Ex post facto doesn't just apply to courts: it applies to states and therefore state agencies (which includes the U) regardless of what the proceedings are. No state can act in an unconstitutional manner. That is what the 14th amendment is all about.


well i agree with the other grizpaw! :shock: :clap:
 
PlayerRep said:
argh! said:
PlayerRep said:
A further problem is that UM didn't change its official policies and procedures, i.e. Student Conduct Code, until sometime after a Feb. 28, 2012 memo from UM's general counsel David Aronofsky. See below excerpts from the Aronofsky memo (the bold and underlining to show the changes were in the Aronofsky memo, which is linked below). Thus, it looks like UM is trying to impose changed policies and procedures on the JJ matter, which I believe occurred in mid-February, according to press reports. Talk about lack of due process and ex post facto issues, as well as fairness problems.


http://www.umt.edu/president/sexualassault/Legal%20Issues%20and%20Recommendations.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

there is most likely a clause somewhere in the conduct code or student handbook that states students are always subject to the most recent set of rules, regardless of when the event at issue occurred.

I doubt that. That would not be a best practice. Again, ex post facto. Do you think tuition could be raised without notice?

conduct codes are not the equivalent of tuition fees. they need to be more labile in order to react to egregious violations that for some reason aren't specifically in the code when the violation occurred.
 
grizpaws said:
Ex post facto doesn't just apply to courts: it applies to states and therefore state agencies (which includes the U) regardless of what the proceedings are. No state can act in an unconstitutional manner. That is what the 14th amendment is all about.

Students get expelled from every school in the country for a variety of reasons.

Why don't we let this one play out before we all start plotting Jordan Johnson's fundraiser to sue the UM. :shock:
 
NorthwestFresh said:
grizpaws said:
Ex post facto doesn't just apply to courts: it applies to states and therefore state agencies (which includes the U) regardless of what the proceedings are. No state can act in an unconstitutional manner. That is what the 14th amendment is all about.

Students get expelled from every school in the country for a variety of reasons.

Why don't we let this one play out before we all start plotting Jordan Johnson's fundraiser to sue the UM. :shock:

Should we also let games be played before we discuss them? Chris, what do you think?
 
Northwest: I am not suggesting that Mr. Johnson cannot or should not be expelled. I have no knowledge one way or the other relative to his conduct. I interpreted your post, perhaps incorrectly, to suggest that the proceedings at the U didn't have to comply with the constitution because the panel is not a court. My point was simply that the U has to comply with both the federal and state constitutions, and that Player Rep has a valid point in suggesting that the proceedings don't meet the constitutional requirements.
 
grizpaws said:
Northwest: I am not suggesting that Mr. Johnson cannot or should not be expelled. I have no knowledge one way or the other relative to his conduct. I interpreted your post, perhaps incorrectly, to suggest that the proceedings at the U didn't have to comply with the constitution because the panel is not a court. My point was simply that the U has to comply with both the federal and state constitutions, and that Player Rep has a valid point in suggesting that the proceedings don't meet the constitutional requirements.

That wasn't my intention, and as usual, I have no idea what PR's point was, other than it seemed even more disjointed and abstract than usual. This happens when a reader has to interpret a bunch of cut/pastes from Colonel Cut/Paste, with a long rambling commentary that is cloaked in equal parts of legalese and gibberish.

You did summarize what the point apparently was supposed to be, and I do appreciate it.

Bringing up constitutional issues while the DoJ is investigating the UM and other Missoula institutions seems like whistling in the dark to me. I guess that's my point. Also, PR's post on the "game" seems detached from reality. A football game is a game. We're dealing with real lives here, real investigations, and the ramifications for UM are going to go far beyond the football field.

Maybe this thread should be in a different forum?
 
Look on the bright side, we are getting some legal education for nothing. Maybe, inspiring a few to attend Law School. This sucks, we are talking more law, than football anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top