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

[Spanky]

Give Tokyogriz credit for going to Main Hall in an attempt to get answers instead of making fun of him..not cool.

 

[wbtfg]

Give Tokyogriz credit for going to Main Hall in an attempt to get answers instead of making fun of him..not cool.

And he traveled all the way from japan to do it.

 

[br fan]

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.

There may be constitutional issues involved as well, but the conduct code is primarily a contract question. With players, they commit to play football for the Griz, and UM agrees to provide them with a scholarship. The Conduct Code sets forth the conduct required of the players, and the process UM must go through to discipline the players for an alleged violation. A new conduct code will govern all future behavior. Punishing a player for past violations on a new coduct code (assuming the punishment was not in the old code) is a breach of the agreement and could subject UM to damages.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

Give Tokyogriz credit for going to Main Hall in an attempt to get answers instead of making fun of him..not cool.

And he traveled all the way from japan to do it.

Yeah, I was wondering about that. Is he back in Missoula? Should that cop he was going after on this board be concerned?

 

[PTGrizzly]

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?

Giggle. Foundain?

 

[PTGrizzly]

Give Tokyogriz credit for going to Main Hall in an attempt to get answers instead of making fun of him..not cool.

And he traveled all the way from japan to do it.

For a Cat fan, you're a funny guy.

 

[PlayerRep]

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?

The cut and pastes from the original post were quotes from Arnofsky's memo to the president, and were the proposed changes in the Code of Conduct. I should have assumed that would go over your head, and you wouldn't understand.

 

[grizpaws]

"There may be constitutional issues involved as well, but the conduct code is primarily a contract question. With players, they commit to play football for the Griz, and UM agrees to provide them with a scholarship. The Conduct Code sets forth the conduct required of the players, and the process UM must go through to discipline the players for an alleged violation. A new conduct code will govern all future behavior. Punishing a player for past violations on a new coduct code (assuming the punishment was not in the old code) is a breach of the agreement and could subject UM to damages."

Br fan: I agree that there are contractual issues as well as constitutional issues. Even if there isn't an express provision in the scholarship agreement, under Montana law, there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. So, if the U is simply making an example of Mr. Johnson (and I am not saying that is the case because I don't know), the U could well be held liable for damages for breach of contract.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

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.

There may be constitutional issues involved as well, but the conduct code is primarily a contract question. With players, they commit to play football for the Griz, and UM agrees to provide them with a scholarship. The Conduct Code sets forth the conduct required of the players, and the process UM must go through to discipline the players for an alleged violation. A new conduct code will govern all future behavior. Punishing a player for past violations on a new coduct code (assuming the punishment was not in the old code) is a breach of the agreement and could subject UM to damages.

An athletic scholarship is a yearly "contract", and a player can be released from that "contract" for any reason after the school year. Nick Saban is infamous for releasing players from the scholarships and "encouraging" them to seek playing opportunities at other schools. If UM decides to revoke Johnson' scholarship, then that's OK. The vague 'constitutionality' card would apply only to an expulsion, if it applies at all.

 

[grizpaws]

Northwest: agree completely, but under Montana law the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (which applies to every contract entered into within the state of Montana) requires the termination to be in good faith (I have no idea what Alabama contract law provides). So, if the U terminates the scholarship of Mr. Johnson for unjustifiable reasons (and I am in no way suggesting the U doesn't have justification), the U breaches the contract and as Br suggests, can be held liable for damages.

 

[wbtfg]

Give Tokyogriz credit for going to Main Hall in an attempt to get answers instead of making fun of him..not cool.

And he traveled all the way from japan to do it.

For a Cat fan, you're a funny guy.

Im impressed he was able to get his torch and pitchfork on the plane.

 

[PTGrizzly]

Give Tokyogriz credit for going to Main Hall in an attempt to get answers instead of making fun of him..not cool.

And he traveled all the way from japan to do it.

For a Cat fan, you're a funny guy.

Im impressed he was able to get his torch and pitchfork on the plane.

I would have gone with, "I'm impressed his torch didn't burn out as he rode the tsunami over here."

Yours is probably better though.

 

[Growler1]

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.

My main concern is the corrosion of the rights of students to be not guilty without any real evidence. In speaking to the legal department at UM they referred me to the "Dear Colleague Letter" which was put out by the US dept of Education last april. Link - http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was told the burden of proof went from a preponderance of evidence to simply a most likely scenario by the schools now. Well I was told this, even though in the FACT SHEET it says the standard used must still be a preponderance of evidence.

A school’s grievance procedures must use the preponderance of the evidence standard to resolve complaints of sex discrimination.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201104.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What standard is UM actually using?

The Federal goverment is forcing schools to simply decide which case sounds most plausible then punish the supposed offenders based on anything thrown at them. I would have to wonder is any lies, slander or circumstantial evidence is even punishible at these kangaroo courts the Universites are having now to decide the guilt of accused.

If someone lies or is convicted in this UM court then punished, afterwards it is found out the case was based on misleading, circumstantial or outright lies what is the actual punishment for destroying someones life? In a court of law it is clear what you would get for this punishment for the most part, but I am very concerned that now all you have to do is get a few people to go in on a lie with you then bam anyone you dislike will simply be found guilty in this Kangaroo court Universities will now have.

Accoding to what I was told at the UM legal office in mainhall today if its 50.01% or "more likely" that someone seems guilty based on any evidence wether admissable in a court of law or not they will be punished.

This is unacceptable in America. I dont have the money right now to take this on but I really hope someone will back JJ or someone in a similiar situation up. This will need to be taken up the court system until it is found to be the unconstitional piece of garbage this is.

I hope someone with the finances will back up JJ on this and take this to the highest level. Everyone man or woman deserves to be innocent until found guilty in a court of law and have the right to defend themselves accordingly. This is flat out wrong and against everything our founding fathers believed in.

You are like a 45 RPM record stuck on 78.

 

[argh!]

i beg for forgiveness from the egriz gods for the sin of contributing to this thread. please forgive me citay, sunny, and coachtwennysev!

 

[argh!]

i beg for forgiveness from the egriz gods for the sin of contributing to this thread. please forgive me citay, sunny, and coachtwennysev!

...ggg and rainblow being only minor deities...

 

[GrizPony]

There is little difference between "perponderance of evidence" and "most likley scenario" the dear colleague letter is addressing prevention as much as anything, and making sure the "environment" is non discriminatory. Its how it is in the real world, might just as well get used to it. Sexual harrasement in ANY measure can (and often will) lead to immediate dismissal. It could be as simple as a social date between a supervisor and subordinate or even a "dirty joke"

Big difference between losing a job and be denied an education moron. Additionally, the decision will brand the losing party for life. I don't know why anyone would discount the importance of this PC bullshit.

 

[maroonandsilver]

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

Agreed. Jokyo, at least wait until Van Valkenberg decides whether to press charges. If he does, the JJ issue will look a lot different.

 

[Silvertip]

Can there be any credibility in anybody who uses the lame quasi-pejorative word "Dude?" :roll:
...unless the poster is a dudette.

 

[grizcountry420]

Can there be any credibility in anybody who uses the lame quasi-pejorative word "Dude?" :roll:
...unless the poster is a dudette.

Dude... You have no idea what your talking about brah....

 

[Silvertip]

Can there be any credibility in anybody who uses the lame quasi-pejorative word "Dude?" :roll:
...unless the poster is a dudette.

Dude... You have no idea what your talking about brah....

brah?... Equally :lame: . Finish that GED and start growing yourself a vocabulary...