Minutes would take 6 months to prepare - isn't that the standard BOR number?NoBSU said:DC answered your question. They certainly controlled key positions. Point me in the direction of some minutes and I will be happy to look up the votes.57Bear said:Was the ruling elite in the majority?NoBSU said:
... The last two boards had a ruling elite who were allowed to talk. All the others could do is rubber stamp and cry put to God. ...
Here is Baylor's Letter To Briles
141,508 Views |
978 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by Malbec
Which group was wailing the elitist or the commoners?Keyser Soze said:
The ruling elite wanted to keep Briles because he wins football games, but a large majority of common folk regents rose up and voted him out based on the evidence presented by PH.
.... maybe
Based on what Richard Willis presented in HIS FOF..Keyser Soze said:
The ruling elite wanted to keep Briles because he wins football games, but a large majority of common folk regents rose up and voted him out based on the evidence presented by PH.
.... maybe
No mention that PH viewed Sam U's conviction as unjust. No mention of PH's questions as to why people who were no longer on the Board (Jones, Dary) were in constant communication with RR.
I quickly read this and assumed you were talking about message boardsNoBSU said:Applemac_G4 said:
I wonder if this letter was in the aftermath of UH taking a look at Briles for their head coaching position only to have a rogue regent(s) call their (I forget if it was the President or the AD over there) and badmouth Coach Briles off the record.
There were no rogue regents. The last two boards had a ruling elite who were allowed to talk. All the others could do is rubber stamp and cry put to God. Hopefully we have in the current board a ruling elite that will phase out both the wolves and the sheep.
Even Tom Penders has questions...
boognish_bear said:
Even Tom Penders has questions...
Someone get him a towel...
Robemcdo said:Based on what Richard Willis presented in HIS FOF..Keyser Soze said:
The ruling elite wanted to keep Briles because he wins football games, but a large majority of common folk regents rose up and voted him out based on the evidence presented by PH.
.... maybe
No mention that PH viewed Sam U's conviction as unjust. No mention of PH's questions as to why people who were no longer on the Board (Jones, Dary) were in constant communication with RR.
The BOR have stated very specifically that the FoF reflects what PH said. So we are left with assuming that is true (most likely) or a willful deliberate fraud. Gonna need more than you to buy deliberate fraud.
PH was hired to investigate Baylor's response to Title IX. Now I really have a hard time understanding why so many people fail to understand that the criminal court system is completely independent of Title IX.
Just for those who need more, a University can do T9 right or wrong, and a student can later be found innocent in a criminal court. A University can do T9 right or wrong, and a student can later be found guilty in a criminal court. The outcome of the criminal court or even absence of a criminal court really had no impact on PH's report of Baylor's T9 compliance.
Anyone who is holding his hand up and saying "look how few convictions" is telling the world he really does not understand the issues.
PH certainly said plenty was wrong on the admin side, but I have seen nothing about Buddy & RR
The criminal court system is independent of Title IX.Keyser Soze said:Robemcdo said:Based on what Richard Willis presented in HIS FOF..Keyser Soze said:
The ruling elite wanted to keep Briles because he wins football games, but a large majority of common folk regents rose up and voted him out based on the evidence presented by PH.
.... maybe
No mention that PH viewed Sam U's conviction as unjust. No mention of PH's questions as to why people who were no longer on the Board (Jones, Dary) were in constant communication with RR.
The BOR have stated very specifically that the FoF reflects what PH said. So we are left with assuming that is true (most likely) or a willful deliberate fraud. Gonna need more than you to buy deliberate fraud.
PH was hired to investigate Baylor's response to Title IX. Now I really have a hard time understanding why so many people fail to understand that the criminal court system is completely independent of Title IX.
Just for those who need more, a University can do T9 right or wrong, and a student can later be found innocent in a criminal court. A University can do T9 right or wrong, and a student can later be found guilty in a criminal court. The outcome of the criminal court or even absence of a criminal court really had no impact on PH's report of Baylor's T9 compliance.
Anyone who is holding his hand up and saying "look how few convictions" is telling the world he really does not understand the issues.
PH certainly said plenty was wrong on the admin side, but I have seen nothing about Buddy & RR
So what?
The public narrative is that we are Rape U, not the we are "Didn't Implement Title IX properly U."
As for the BOR perpetrating a deliberate fraud, we know that the administration and BOR have lied on a variety of occasions in the past. Is there any compelling reason to trust them on this occasion?
The Findings of Fact are long on innuendo and short on supporting data for the governance failures they found. There is nothing to contradict the claim about former regent meddling, and it would fit a pattern we have seen in other instances. A written report would have cleared that up.
You should pay attention to the post I was replying to.D. C. Bear said:The criminal court system is independent of Title IX.Keyser Soze said:Robemcdo said:Based on what Richard Willis presented in HIS FOF..Keyser Soze said:
The ruling elite wanted to keep Briles because he wins football games, but a large majority of common folk regents rose up and voted him out based on the evidence presented by PH.
.... maybe
No mention that PH viewed Sam U's conviction as unjust. No mention of PH's questions as to why people who were no longer on the Board (Jones, Dary) were in constant communication with RR.
The BOR have stated very specifically that the FoF reflects what PH said. So we are left with assuming that is true (most likely) or a willful deliberate fraud. Gonna need more than you to buy deliberate fraud.
PH was hired to investigate Baylor's response to Title IX. Now I really have a hard time understanding why so many people fail to understand that the criminal court system is completely independent of Title IX.
Just for those who need more, a University can do T9 right or wrong, and a student can later be found innocent in a criminal court. A University can do T9 right or wrong, and a student can later be found guilty in a criminal court. The outcome of the criminal court or even absence of a criminal court really had no impact on PH's report of Baylor's T9 compliance.
Anyone who is holding his hand up and saying "look how few convictions" is telling the world he really does not understand the issues.
PH certainly said plenty was wrong on the admin side, but I have seen nothing about Buddy & RR
So what?
The public narrative is that we are Rape U, not the we are "Didn't Implement Title IX properly U."
As for the BOR perpetrating a deliberate fraud, we know that the administration and BOR have lied on a variety of occasions in the past. Is there any compelling reason to trust them on this occasion?
The Findings of Fact are long on innuendo and short on supporting data for the governance failures they found. There is nothing to contradict the claim about former regent meddling, and it would fit a pattern we have seen in other instances. A written report would have cleared that up.
I did, I'm making a different point.Keyser Soze said:You should pay attention to the post I was replying to.D. C. Bear said:The criminal court system is independent of Title IX.Keyser Soze said:Robemcdo said:Based on what Richard Willis presented in HIS FOF..Keyser Soze said:
The ruling elite wanted to keep Briles because he wins football games, but a large majority of common folk regents rose up and voted him out based on the evidence presented by PH.
.... maybe
No mention that PH viewed Sam U's conviction as unjust. No mention of PH's questions as to why people who were no longer on the Board (Jones, Dary) were in constant communication with RR.
The BOR have stated very specifically that the FoF reflects what PH said. So we are left with assuming that is true (most likely) or a willful deliberate fraud. Gonna need more than you to buy deliberate fraud.
PH was hired to investigate Baylor's response to Title IX. Now I really have a hard time understanding why so many people fail to understand that the criminal court system is completely independent of Title IX.
Just for those who need more, a University can do T9 right or wrong, and a student can later be found innocent in a criminal court. A University can do T9 right or wrong, and a student can later be found guilty in a criminal court. The outcome of the criminal court or even absence of a criminal court really had no impact on PH's report of Baylor's T9 compliance.
Anyone who is holding his hand up and saying "look how few convictions" is telling the world he really does not understand the issues.
PH certainly said plenty was wrong on the admin side, but I have seen nothing about Buddy & RR
So what?
The public narrative is that we are Rape U, not the we are "Didn't Implement Title IX properly U."
As for the BOR perpetrating a deliberate fraud, we know that the administration and BOR have lied on a variety of occasions in the past. Is there any compelling reason to trust them on this occasion?
The Findings of Fact are long on innuendo and short on supporting data for the governance failures they found. There is nothing to contradict the claim about former regent meddling, and it would fit a pattern we have seen in other instances. A written report would have cleared that up.
The whole "didn't implement Title IX" thing is a complete farce, as is the hiring of PH. The DOJ has opined that the institution has the duty of protecting women from discrimination in education on the basis of sex. To that end, they have the duty to provide a student who has experienced such discrimination (somehow by virtue of sexual assault, domestic violence, harassment, etc.) on their campus with accommodation to mitigate that discrimination, and to determine whether another student, faculty, staff or affiliate is responsible for the discrimination (so as to create further accommodation for the victim).
How they choose to do this is not law. The OCR guidance in the "Dear Colleague Letter" is nothing more than a suggested algorithm, or road map if you will, for ONE way that they think can be used to reach the end result. A school can implement any program or course of action that they see fit, as long as the end result is that the victim receives that accommodation, if a discrimination has been shown to have occurred. All that is required of the institution is that they do SOMETHING, that they implement SOMETHING that will provide that accommodation and protection.
Asking a law firm to investigate the school's adherence to Title IX, is not about who is required to report, or how many investigators does the school have, or even whether the school's code of conduct discourages reporting. The school can use any roadmap it chooses, as long as it fulfills the purpose of Title IX. Baylor's problem was that during much of this time, they didn't have a roadmap at all, and any policies that they did have were not reasonably conveyed to its employees. They did not have a policy that said, "if you hear of some story that some student may have been sexually assaulted, even if it comes to you from people that should have already reported it, you are required to contact X and report what you heard." And, they are not required to have such a policy either.
Title IX simply says that you cannot discriminate in education on the basis of sex. It does not say how you have to implement programs to avoid that discrimination. PH's charge should have simply been to determine whether Baylor did enough to determine whether students had been discriminated against, and if so, were they offering reasonable accommodation to mitigate that discrimination. And if they determined that Baylor had failed in that regard, recommend protocols and procedures to meet that burden. Instead what Baylor sought and got was a sordid, one-sided expose of its football program, spiced with innuendo totally unrelated to Title IX, including cases related to university rules that didn't even involve women or were interactions with non-students. It was a ruse, and everybody fell for it; the media, the alumni, the public, even a lot of regents.
How they choose to do this is not law. The OCR guidance in the "Dear Colleague Letter" is nothing more than a suggested algorithm, or road map if you will, for ONE way that they think can be used to reach the end result. A school can implement any program or course of action that they see fit, as long as the end result is that the victim receives that accommodation, if a discrimination has been shown to have occurred. All that is required of the institution is that they do SOMETHING, that they implement SOMETHING that will provide that accommodation and protection.
Asking a law firm to investigate the school's adherence to Title IX, is not about who is required to report, or how many investigators does the school have, or even whether the school's code of conduct discourages reporting. The school can use any roadmap it chooses, as long as it fulfills the purpose of Title IX. Baylor's problem was that during much of this time, they didn't have a roadmap at all, and any policies that they did have were not reasonably conveyed to its employees. They did not have a policy that said, "if you hear of some story that some student may have been sexually assaulted, even if it comes to you from people that should have already reported it, you are required to contact X and report what you heard." And, they are not required to have such a policy either.
Title IX simply says that you cannot discriminate in education on the basis of sex. It does not say how you have to implement programs to avoid that discrimination. PH's charge should have simply been to determine whether Baylor did enough to determine whether students had been discriminated against, and if so, were they offering reasonable accommodation to mitigate that discrimination. And if they determined that Baylor had failed in that regard, recommend protocols and procedures to meet that burden. Instead what Baylor sought and got was a sordid, one-sided expose of its football program, spiced with innuendo totally unrelated to Title IX, including cases related to university rules that didn't even involve women or were interactions with non-students. It was a ruse, and everybody fell for it; the media, the alumni, the public, even a lot of regents.
And on top of that, we paid Pepper-Hamilton $5 million to focus on and destroy the football program. Our Baylor donation dollars have worked hard these last sixteen months!Malbec said:
The whole "didn't implement Title IX" thing is a complete farce, as is the hiring of PH. The DOJ has opined that the institution has the duty of protecting women from discrimination in education on the basis of sex. To that end, they have the duty to provide a student who has experienced such discrimination (somehow by virtue of sexual assault, domestic violence, harassment, etc.) on their campus with accommodation to mitigate that discrimination, and to determine whether another student, faculty, staff or affiliate is responsible for the discrimination (so as to create further accommodation for the victim).
How they choose to do this is not law. The OCR guidance in the "Dear Colleague Letter" is nothing more than a suggested algorithm, or road map if you will, for ONE way that they think can be used to reach the end result. A school can implement any program or course of action that they see fit, as long as the end result is that the victim receives that accommodation, if a discrimination has been shown to have occurred. All that is required of the institution is that they do SOMETHING, that they implement SOMETHING that will provide that accommodation and protection.
Asking a law firm to investigate the school's adherence to Title IX, is not about who is required to report, or how many investigators does the school have, or even whether the school's code of conduct discourages reporting. The school can use any roadmap it chooses, as long as it fulfills the purpose of Title IX. Baylor's problem was that during much of this time, they didn't have a roadmap at all, and any policies that they did have were not reasonably conveyed to its employees. They did not have a policy that said, "if you hear of some story that some student may have been sexually assaulted, even if it comes to you from people that should have already reported it, you are required to contact X and report what you heard." And, they are not required to have such a policy either.
Title IX simply says that you cannot discriminate in education on the basis of sex. It does not say how you have to implement programs to avoid that discrimination. PH's charge should have simply been to determine whether Baylor did enough to determine whether students had been discriminated against, and if so, were they offering reasonable accommodation to mitigate that discrimination. And if they determined that Baylor had failed in that regard, recommend protocols and procedures to meet that burden. Instead what Baylor sought and got was a sordid, one-sided expose of its football program, spiced with innuendo totally unrelated to Title IX, including cases related to university rules that didn't even involve women or were interactions with non-students. It was a ruse, and everybody fell for it; the media, the alumni, the public, even a lot of regents.
Even with all the title IX mistakes, it doesn't make up for the stupid and bad decisions on many parts of the athletic department and our former head coach.
By the way, he cannot even get hired as an offense of coordinator in another country. He is done and no one credible outside the bubble wants to associate with him business wise. I think that is a finding of fact.
By the way, he cannot even get hired as an offense of coordinator in another country. He is done and no one credible outside the bubble wants to associate with him business wise. I think that is a finding of fact.
Briles and his staff certainly could have handled things better. Most major college programs have similar problems and issues, but don't see dismantling the football program as the solution. Football is finished at Baylor. Our leadership chose this. It is what it is. Things change. Time to move on.xiledinok said:
Even with all the title IX mistakes, it doesn't make up for the stupid and bad decisions on many parts of the athletic department and our former head coach.
By the way, he cannot even get hired as an offense of coordinator in another country. He is done and no one credible outside the bubble wants to associate with him business wise. I think that is a finding of fact.
80sBEAR said:Briles and his staff certainly could have handled things better. Most major college programs have similar problems and issues, but don't see dismantling the football program as the solution. Football is finished at Baylor. Our leadership chose this. It is what it is. Things change. Time to move on.xiledinok said:
Even with all the title IX mistakes, it doesn't make up for the stupid and bad decisions on many parts of the athletic department and our former head coach.
By the way, he cannot even get hired as an offense of coordinator in another country. He is done and no one credible outside the bubble wants to associate with him business wise. I think that is a finding of fact.
No, it isn't.
We will have a team. As far as being relevant in major college football, we will not be. It will be a time when alums can gather at Homecoming once a year and get together. We may get to a bowl game every five or six years. Not sure if you know it or not, but Parents Weekend was last weekend, while football was out of town. Now they call it Family Weekend. First time in forever I can remember that happening but that is just another message that is being sent by Baylor. We are not an institution of football. Baylor is making that pretty clear. I don't like it, but that is reality.D. C. Bear said:80sBEAR said:Briles and his staff certainly could have handled things better. Most major college programs have similar problems and issues, but don't see dismantling the football program as the solution. Football is finished at Baylor. Our leadership chose this. It is what it is. Things change. Time to move on.xiledinok said:
Even with all the title IX mistakes, it doesn't make up for the stupid and bad decisions on many parts of the athletic department and our former head coach.
By the way, he cannot even get hired as an offense of coordinator in another country. He is done and no one credible outside the bubble wants to associate with him business wise. I think that is a finding of fact.
No, it isn't.
80sBEAR said:We will have a team. As far as being relevant in major college football, we will not be. It will be a time when alums can gather at Homecoming once a year and get together. We may get to a bowl game every five or six years. Not sure if you know it or not, but Parents Weekend was last weekend, while football was out of town. Now they call it Family Weekend. First time in forever I can remember that happening but that is just another message that is being sent by Baylor. We are not an institution of football. Baylor is making that pretty clear. I don't like it, but that is reality.D. C. Bear said:80sBEAR said:Briles and his staff certainly could have handled things better. Most major college programs have similar problems and issues, but don't see dismantling the football program as the solution. Football is finished at Baylor. Our leadership chose this. It is what it is. Things change. Time to move on.xiledinok said:
Even with all the title IX mistakes, it doesn't make up for the stupid and bad decisions on many parts of the athletic department and our former head coach.
By the way, he cannot even get hired as an offense of coordinator in another country. He is done and no one credible outside the bubble wants to associate with him business wise. I think that is a finding of fact.
No, it isn't.
The institution is spending like it wants to be a relevant major college football program. If we are not relevant it will be because of failures on the part of our coaches, and they can be replaced.
Baylor Football will NEVER again be bigger than the huge egos on the Baylor Board of Regents as it became during the Briles era. They will be sure of that. And when it comes to the Regents, nothing has changed. You should know by now that these people have no qualms at throwing big money around at anything and everything. It is what they do. Too bad a little more of it can't be spent on students and academics.D. C. Bear said:80sBEAR said:We will have a team. As far as being relevant in major college football, we will not be. It will be a time when alums can gather at Homecoming once a year and get together. We may get to a bowl game every five or six years. Not sure if you know it or not, but Parents Weekend was last weekend, while football was out of town. Now they call it Family Weekend. First time in forever I can remember that happening but that is just another message that is being sent by Baylor. We are not an institution of football. Baylor is making that pretty clear. I don't like it, but that is reality.D. C. Bear said:80sBEAR said:Briles and his staff certainly could have handled things better. Most major college programs have similar problems and issues, but don't see dismantling the football program as the solution. Football is finished at Baylor. Our leadership chose this. It is what it is. Things change. Time to move on.xiledinok said:
Even with all the title IX mistakes, it doesn't make up for the stupid and bad decisions on many parts of the athletic department and our former head coach.
By the way, he cannot even get hired as an offense of coordinator in another country. He is done and no one credible outside the bubble wants to associate with him business wise. I think that is a finding of fact.
No, it isn't.
The institution is spending like it wants to be a relevant major college football program. If we are not relevant it will be because of failures on the part of our coaches, and they can be replaced.
Malbec said:
The whole "didn't implement Title IX" thing is a complete farce, as is the hiring of PH. The DOJ has opined that the institution has the duty of protecting women from discrimination in education on the basis of sex. To that end, they have the duty to provide a student who has experienced such discrimination (somehow by virtue of sexual assault, domestic violence, harassment, etc.) on their campus with accommodation to mitigate that discrimination, and to determine whether another student, faculty, staff or affiliate is responsible for the discrimination (so as to create further accommodation for the victim).
How they choose to do this is not law. The OCR guidance in the "Dear Colleague Letter" is nothing more than a suggested algorithm, or road map if you will, for ONE way that they think can be used to reach the end result. A school can implement any program or course of action that they see fit, as long as the end result is that the victim receives that accommodation, if a discrimination has been shown to have occurred. All that is required of the institution is that they do SOMETHING, that they implement SOMETHING that will provide that accommodation and protection.
Asking a law firm to investigate the school's adherence to Title IX, is not about who is required to report, or how many investigators does the school have, or even whether the school's code of conduct discourages reporting. The school can use any roadmap it chooses, as long as it fulfills the purpose of Title IX. Baylor's problem was that during much of this time, they didn't have a roadmap at all, and any policies that they did have were not reasonably conveyed to its employees. They did not have a policy that said, "if you hear of some story that some student may have been sexually assaulted, even if it comes to you from people that should have already reported it, you are required to contact X and report what you heard." And, they are not required to have such a policy either.
Title IX simply says that you cannot discriminate in education on the basis of sex. It does not say how you have to implement programs to avoid that discrimination. PH's charge should have simply been to determine whether Baylor did enough to determine whether students had been discriminated against, and if so, were they offering reasonable accommodation to mitigate that discrimination. And if they determined that Baylor had failed in that regard, recommend protocols and procedures to meet that burden. Instead what Baylor sought and got was a sordid, one-sided expose of its football program, spiced with innuendo totally unrelated to Title IX, including cases related to university rules that didn't even involve women or were interactions with non-students. It was a ruse, and everybody fell for it; the media, the alumni, the public, even a lot of regents.
On September 2, 2015, the Board of Regents announced it had retained Pepper Hamilton's services. The law firm's charge was to conduct an independent external review of Baylor's response to Title IX and related compliance issues through the lens of specific cases. Pepper Hamilton was not assigned to probe every single sexual assault allegation at Baylor. It was not charged with determining the total number of alleged sexual assaults that were reported or allegedly occurred during a set time period. And it was not asked to determine the guilt or innocence of any or all of those accused of sexual assault. For this reason, Pepper Hamilton did not interview any of the accused.
The vehicle for Pepper Hamilton's task was a "stress test" of Baylor's institutional response under Title IX. To conduct this stress test, Pepper Hamilton would identify and review a subset of specific cases focusing on Baylor's institutional response and compliance (or lack thereof) with Title IX. After analyzing these test cases, Pepper Hamilton would provide detailed recommendations for improving Baylor's Title IX compliance in responding to sexual and domestic assault allegations. Baylor granted Pepper Hamilton unfettered access to personnel and University records, and instructed the law firm to follow the facts wherever they might lead.
I believe they did more or less what you said they should have.
While examining how the University responded to Title IX requirements, Pepper Hamilton kept coming across examples of other misconduct within the football program. It found that such player misconduct had been systematically brushed off or kept away from Judicial Affairs
At some point, Pepper Hamilton stopped collecting such examples, which were not directly within the scope of its engagement. There could be dozens more, but Pepper Hamilton believed it had compiled enough to support a conclusion that those in charge of the football program, including Shillinglaw, improperly covered up disciplinary problems other than sexual assault.
It does not look like non-T9 issues were an intended focus. It is very reasonable to report such thing if discovered.
(and yes I know this is from Shillinglaw and what that means)
Okay Keyser.
"Pepper Hamilton was not assigned to probe every single sexual assault allegation at Baylor. It was not charged with determining the total number of alleged sexual assaults that were reported or allegedly occurred during a set time period. And it was not asked to determine the guilt or innocence of any or all of those accused of sexual assault. For this reason, Pepper Hamilton did not interview any of the accused."
So the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases (football) and never interviewed the accused. Why is this acceptable to you? Why is this acceptable to ANYBODY at Baylor?
"Pepper Hamilton was not assigned to probe every single sexual assault allegation at Baylor. It was not charged with determining the total number of alleged sexual assaults that were reported or allegedly occurred during a set time period. And it was not asked to determine the guilt or innocence of any or all of those accused of sexual assault. For this reason, Pepper Hamilton did not interview any of the accused."
So the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases (football) and never interviewed the accused. Why is this acceptable to you? Why is this acceptable to ANYBODY at Baylor?
If the highlighted text were true, there would be no need for regents to hear the details of any incident unrelated to Title IX, nor to hear anything other than the university's specific response to a Title IX case. In other words, just because it was uncovered, doesn't mean it should be part of the presentation of the results of the investigation when it is unrelated to the purpose. It would be well outside of professional ethics to present any minutia that would cause "crying out", as its only purpose would be to effect change through emotional manipulation.
PS: Out of that whole post, you focused on that?
PS: Out of that whole post, you focused on that?
Malbec said:
If the highlighted text were true, there would be no need for regents to hear the details of any incident unrelated to Title IX, nor to hear anything other than the university's specific response to a Title IX case. In other words, just because it was uncovered, doesn't mean it should be part of the presentation of the results of the investigation when it is unrelated to the purpose. It would be well outside of professional ethics to present any minutia that would cause "crying out", as its only purpose would be to effect change through emotional manipulation.
PS: Out of that whole post, you focused on that?
I agree with a great deal of your post - that was where I differ
80sBEAR said:
Okay Keyser.
"Pepper Hamilton was not assigned to probe every single sexual assault allegation at Baylor. It was not charged with determining the total number of alleged sexual assaults that were reported or allegedly occurred during a set time period. And it was not asked to determine the guilt or innocence of any or all of those accused of sexual assault. For this reason, Pepper Hamilton did not interview any of the accused."
So the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases (football) and never interviewed the accused. Why is this acceptable to you? Why is this acceptable to ANYBODY at Baylor?
The guilt or innocence of the accused is not a relevant factor.
The issue is how Baylor responded to accusations. Even a false accusation creates an obligation to investigate. The results of an investigation are not important, only that there was an investigation.
Also "the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases" you just made up - stop
Keyser Soze said:80sBEAR said:
Okay Keyser.
"Pepper Hamilton was not assigned to probe every single sexual assault allegation at Baylor. It was not charged with determining the total number of alleged sexual assaults that were reported or allegedly occurred during a set time period. And it was not asked to determine the guilt or innocence of any or all of those accused of sexual assault. For this reason, Pepper Hamilton did not interview any of the accused."
So the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases (football) and never interviewed the accused. Why is this acceptable to you? Why is this acceptable to ANYBODY at Baylor?
The guilt or innocence of the accused is not a relevant factor.
The issue is how Baylor responded to accusations. Even a false accusation creates an obligation to investigate. The results of an investigation are not important, only that there was an investigation.
Also "the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases" you just made up - stop
This. All of the sexual assault allegations could have been false and that would not have changed Baylor's obligations to students alleging that an assault occurred. Because of that, there was no point in interviewing any students as long as an assault had been reported to anyone in the administration of the university.
Remember, the issue isn't whether assaults did or did not occur - the issue was whether Baylor's responses to allegations of assault were appropriate, which, by all accounts, they were not.
"On September 2, 2015, the Board of Regents announced it had retained Pepper Hamilton's services. The law firm's charge was to conduct an independent external review of Baylor's response to Title IX and related compliance issues through the lens of specific cases."Keyser Soze said:80sBEAR said:
Okay Keyser.
"Pepper Hamilton was not assigned to probe every single sexual assault allegation at Baylor. It was not charged with determining the total number of alleged sexual assaults that were reported or allegedly occurred during a set time period. And it was not asked to determine the guilt or innocence of any or all of those accused of sexual assault. For this reason, Pepper Hamilton did not interview any of the accused."
So the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases (football) and never interviewed the accused. Why is this acceptable to you? Why is this acceptable to ANYBODY at Baylor?
The guilt or innocence of the accused is not a relevant factor.
The issue is how Baylor responded to accusations. Even a false accusation creates an obligation to investigate. The results of an investigation are not important, only that there was an investigation.
Also "the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases" you just made up - stop
It doesn't say how the cases were selected, but his interpretation isn't unreasonable. Telling him he made it up is just being dishonest.
Right. And what would a Baylor employee's responsibility have been in one of those situations? To follow their Title IX training from Baylor? The same training Dr. Garland had?Aberzombie1892 said:Keyser Soze said:80sBEAR said:
Okay Keyser.
"Pepper Hamilton was not assigned to probe every single sexual assault allegation at Baylor. It was not charged with determining the total number of alleged sexual assaults that were reported or allegedly occurred during a set time period. And it was not asked to determine the guilt or innocence of any or all of those accused of sexual assault. For this reason, Pepper Hamilton did not interview any of the accused."
So the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases (football) and never interviewed the accused. Why is this acceptable to you? Why is this acceptable to ANYBODY at Baylor?
The guilt or innocence of the accused is not a relevant factor.
The issue is how Baylor responded to accusations. Even a false accusation creates an obligation to investigate. The results of an investigation are not important, only that there was an investigation.
Also "the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases" you just made up - stop
This. All of the sexual assault allegations could have been false and that would not have changed Baylor's obligations to students alleging that an assault occurred. Because of that, there was no point in interviewing any students as long as an assault had been reported to anyone in the administration of the university.
Remember, the issue isn't whether assaults did or did not occur - the issue was whether Baylor's responses to allegations of assault were appropriate, which, by all accounts, they were not.
Aberzombie1892 said:Keyser Soze said:80sBEAR said:
Okay Keyser.
"Pepper Hamilton was not assigned to probe every single sexual assault allegation at Baylor. It was not charged with determining the total number of alleged sexual assaults that were reported or allegedly occurred during a set time period. And it was not asked to determine the guilt or innocence of any or all of those accused of sexual assault. For this reason, Pepper Hamilton did not interview any of the accused."
So the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases (football) and never interviewed the accused. Why is this acceptable to you? Why is this acceptable to ANYBODY at Baylor?
The guilt or innocence of the accused is not a relevant factor.
The issue is how Baylor responded to accusations. Even a false accusation creates an obligation to investigate. The results of an investigation are not important, only that there was an investigation.
Also "the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases" you just made up - stop
This. All of the sexual assault allegations could have been false and that would not have changed Baylor's obligations to students alleging that an assault occurred. Because of that, there was no point in interviewing any students as long as an assault had been reported to anyone in the administration of the university.
Remember, the issue isn't whether assaults did or did not occur - the issue was whether Baylor's responses to allegations of assault were appropriate, which, by all accounts, they were not.
But this is where it gets interesting . If they are lying about the assaults then do you think there might be a chance they are also lying about notifying coaches ,AD , their version about JA meetings etc. Keeping in mind if they can't tie Baylor admin to this they don't get paid
That is far from the truth. The results of the investigation are the trigger for the institution's most important duty under Title IX; to provide accommodation to the discriminated. It is the minutia of the evidence presented in the investigation that is immaterial (or should have been) to PH. The only concerns should have been: was the allegation investigated, and if a connected party was found responsible, did the university provide proper accommodation?Keyser Soze said:
The guilt or innocence of the accused is not a relevant factor.
The issue is how Baylor responded to accusations. Even a false accusation creates an obligation to investigate. The results of an investigation are not important, only that there was an investigation.
Also "the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases" you just made up - stop
That is fair ( but I certainly think he made it up )Dungeon Athletics said:"On September 2, 2015, the Board of Regents announced it had retained Pepper Hamilton's services. The law firm's charge was to conduct an independent external review of Baylor's response to Title IX and related compliance issues through the lens of specific cases."Keyser Soze said:80sBEAR said:
Okay Keyser.
"Pepper Hamilton was not assigned to probe every single sexual assault allegation at Baylor. It was not charged with determining the total number of alleged sexual assaults that were reported or allegedly occurred during a set time period. And it was not asked to determine the guilt or innocence of any or all of those accused of sexual assault. For this reason, Pepper Hamilton did not interview any of the accused."
So the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases (football) and never interviewed the accused. Why is this acceptable to you? Why is this acceptable to ANYBODY at Baylor?
The guilt or innocence of the accused is not a relevant factor.
The issue is how Baylor responded to accusations. Even a false accusation creates an obligation to investigate. The results of an investigation are not important, only that there was an investigation.
Also "the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases" you just made up - stop
It doesn't say how the cases were selected, but his interpretation isn't unreasonable. Telling him he made it up is just being dishonest.
lens (normal person) = sampling
lens (conspiracy crowd) = cherry picking
That's what happens when your employer uses you as a scapegoat and then piles on nation TV and to the WSJ.xiledinok said:
Even with all the title IX mistakes, it doesn't make up for the stupid and bad decisions on many parts of the athletic department and our former head coach.
By the way, he cannot even get hired as an offense of coordinator in another country. He is done and no one credible outside the bubble wants to associate with him business wise. I think that is a finding of fact.
Malbec said:That is far from the truth. The results of the investigation are the trigger for the institution's most important duty under Title IX; to provide accommodation to the discriminated. It is the minutia of the evidence presented in the investigation that is immaterial (or should have been) to PH. The only concerns should have been: was the allegation investigated, and if a connected party was found responsible, did the university provide proper accommodation?Keyser Soze said:
The guilt or innocence of the accused is not a relevant factor.
The issue is how Baylor responded to accusations. Even a false accusation creates an obligation to investigate. The results of an investigation are not important, only that there wasan investigation.an appropriate response
Also "the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases" you just made up - stop
That's better
Not sure if you understand how difficult it is to find a coach the caliber of Briles. We didn't even know how good Briles was until after his 1st season. Briles turned out to be a top 4 coach in the nation. It took us a hundred years to find the caliber of coach. Don't tell me about Teaff. Teaff was good for Baylor, but not great. I don't want to be a .500 team that may occasionally beat a top team or make a bowl game. I want to be that team that is a top contender where recruits want to attend and we are supposed to win and make bowl games. We may go through another 10 coaches before we find that "guy." You probably won't even be alive by the time we find anyone comparable to Briles.D. C. Bear said:80sBEAR said:We will have a team. As far as being relevant in major college football, we will not be. It will be a time when alums can gather at Homecoming once a year and get together. We may get to a bowl game every five or six years. Not sure if you know it or not, but Parents Weekend was last weekend, while football was out of town. Now they call it Family Weekend. First time in forever I can remember that happening but that is just another message that is being sent by Baylor. We are not an institution of football. Baylor is making that pretty clear. I don't like it, but that is reality.D. C. Bear said:80sBEAR said:Briles and his staff certainly could have handled things better. Most major college programs have similar problems and issues, but don't see dismantling the football program as the solution. Football is finished at Baylor. Our leadership chose this. It is what it is. Things change. Time to move on.xiledinok said:
Even with all the title IX mistakes, it doesn't make up for the stupid and bad decisions on many parts of the athletic department and our former head coach.
By the way, he cannot even get hired as an offense of coordinator in another country. He is done and no one credible outside the bubble wants to associate with him business wise. I think that is a finding of fact.
No, it isn't.
The institution is spending like it wants to be a relevant major college football program. If we are not relevant it will be because of failures on the part of our coaches, and they can be replaced.
Possibly, but, from the information publicly available, PH's investigation did result in interviews with administrators and staff, so it would be extremely unlikely that PH would arrive at the conclusions that it did if those interviewees indicated that the students claiming that they reported the alleged sexual assaults were lying. In addition, PH's professional reputation and outsider status (from Baylor) lends validity to their findings.Robemcdo said:Aberzombie1892 said:Keyser Soze said:80sBEAR said:
Okay Keyser.
"Pepper Hamilton was not assigned to probe every single sexual assault allegation at Baylor. It was not charged with determining the total number of alleged sexual assaults that were reported or allegedly occurred during a set time period. And it was not asked to determine the guilt or innocence of any or all of those accused of sexual assault. For this reason, Pepper Hamilton did not interview any of the accused."
So the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases (football) and never interviewed the accused. Why is this acceptable to you? Why is this acceptable to ANYBODY at Baylor?
The guilt or innocence of the accused is not a relevant factor.
The issue is how Baylor responded to accusations. Even a false accusation creates an obligation to investigate. The results of an investigation are not important, only that there was an investigation.
Also "the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases" you just made up - stop
This. All of the sexual assault allegations could have been false and that would not have changed Baylor's obligations to students alleging that an assault occurred. Because of that, there was no point in interviewing any students as long as an assault had been reported to anyone in the administration of the university.
Remember, the issue isn't whether assaults did or did not occur - the issue was whether Baylor's responses to allegations of assault were appropriate, which, by all accounts, they were not.
But this is where it gets interesting . If they are lying about the assaults then do you think there might be a chance they are also lying about notifying coaches ,AD , their version about JA meetings etc. Keeping in mind if they can't tie Baylor admin to this they don't get paid
I absolutely understand how difficult it is to find a coach the caliber of Briles.Mr. Goodbear said:Not sure if you understand how difficult it is to find a coach the caliber of Briles. We didn't even know how good Briles was until after his 1st season. Briles turned out to be a top 4 coach in the nation. It took us a hundred years to find the caliber of coach. Don't tell me about Teaff. Teaff was good for Baylor, but not great. I don't want to be a .500 team that may occasionally beat a top team or make a bowl game. I want to be that team that is a top contender where recruits want to attend and we are supposed to win and make bowl games. We may go through another 10 coaches before we find that "guy." You probably won't even be alive by the time we find anyone comparable to Briles.D. C. Bear said:80sBEAR said:We will have a team. As far as being relevant in major college football, we will not be. It will be a time when alums can gather at Homecoming once a year and get together. We may get to a bowl game every five or six years. Not sure if you know it or not, but Parents Weekend was last weekend, while football was out of town. Now they call it Family Weekend. First time in forever I can remember that happening but that is just another message that is being sent by Baylor. We are not an institution of football. Baylor is making that pretty clear. I don't like it, but that is reality.D. C. Bear said:80sBEAR said:Briles and his staff certainly could have handled things better. Most major college programs have similar problems and issues, but don't see dismantling the football program as the solution. Football is finished at Baylor. Our leadership chose this. It is what it is. Things change. Time to move on.xiledinok said:
Even with all the title IX mistakes, it doesn't make up for the stupid and bad decisions on many parts of the athletic department and our former head coach.
By the way, he cannot even get hired as an offense of coordinator in another country. He is done and no one credible outside the bubble wants to associate with him business wise. I think that is a finding of fact.
No, it isn't.
The institution is spending like it wants to be a relevant major college football program. If we are not relevant it will be because of failures on the part of our coaches, and they can be replaced.
This is why I said that if our coaches are not successful, they can (and should) be replaced.
That was the core of the problem, as, from the information publicly available, it does not appear as though Baylor had Title IX processes in place. That lack of those processes led to some of the alleged victims to endure interactions that they should have not had to experience, and, while some of those interactions may have occurred solely because of a lack of understanding about Title IX (i.e. addressing hostile environments), other interactions were clearly beyond what representatives of the university should do in those situations (i.e. discouraging reporting, retaliation, etc.).Dungeon Athletics said:Right. And what would a Baylor employee's responsibility have been in one of those situations? To follow their Title IX training from Baylor? The same training Dr. Garland had?Aberzombie1892 said:Keyser Soze said:80sBEAR said:
Okay Keyser.
"Pepper Hamilton was not assigned to probe every single sexual assault allegation at Baylor. It was not charged with determining the total number of alleged sexual assaults that were reported or allegedly occurred during a set time period. And it was not asked to determine the guilt or innocence of any or all of those accused of sexual assault. For this reason, Pepper Hamilton did not interview any of the accused."
So the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases (football) and never interviewed the accused. Why is this acceptable to you? Why is this acceptable to ANYBODY at Baylor?
The guilt or innocence of the accused is not a relevant factor.
The issue is how Baylor responded to accusations. Even a false accusation creates an obligation to investigate. The results of an investigation are not important, only that there was an investigation.
Also "the BOR fed Pepper Hamilton a few specific cases" you just made up - stop
This. All of the sexual assault allegations could have been false and that would not have changed Baylor's obligations to students alleging that an assault occurred. Because of that, there was no point in interviewing any students as long as an assault had been reported to anyone in the administration of the university.
Remember, the issue isn't whether assaults did or did not occur - the issue was whether Baylor's responses to allegations of assault were appropriate, which, by all accounts, they were not.
Featured Stories
See All
Transfer Portal Intel: Early Prospects Linked to Baylor
by Grayson Grundhoefer
37:29
1d ago
2.4k
62:00
2d ago
2.5k
bearassnekkid
Transfer Portal Intel: Early Prospects Linked to Baylor
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
21