Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist.

---

You are a Baylor employee? Regent? Lawyer?

---

Have you noticed over the last few days how many more BOFR defenders started proselytizing to the free side about how the board isn't to blame and shares no responsibility in the university-wide T9 failures....could it be that BOFR members and current/former executive staff are being prepped for depositions? Getting their PR on.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

It's nice to try to think that this conversation matters, but it just really doesn't. The way this situation was handled has us branded 'Rape University' until the next major scandal. After the next major scandal, all major scandals will be compared to what happened here. If you ever try to remember our Big 12 championships, be ready for your Big 12 friends to talk rape smack.

All we have left are the people who try to argue that the board didn't do a bad job of overseeing the university (the university that they told us was catastrophically failing to comply with a widely discussed federal regulation), because they weren't doing the job at all. I wouldn't suggest using that defense to anyone who currently has a job anywhere or is currently on the board of any organization. For some reason, saying you couldn't have done a bad job because you weren't doing the job anyway flies with some Baylor people. I'll let others figure that out.

Get used to it. Our school is run by morons and we will never live it down.

Edit - For people who take issue with me saying that Title IX was 'widely discussed', more than 50 schools, many of them ion P5 conferences, were under investigation before Baylor's issues started. If that didn't get the board digging in to what was going on at Baylor, shame on them. They should all be embarrassed.

---

There are thousands of universities in this country. Thousands. The idea that there were 50 universities on a list (and we weren't one of them)... sorry, but that's dumb.

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist. I realize there was a narrative that took hold over on BaylorFans -and it was ****ty- and that some people can't quite shake it. But y'all have to move on. And some of you should consider that maybe you got stuck in some groupthink and it echoed around.

1. The BOR should not be the ones to have brought forward questions of Title IX compliance. If they were bringing it forward, it's because someone else had ****ed up. That'd be like the President asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff if we should be doing something about ISIS. If HE is the one bringing it up (and the JCOS are caught flat-footed), something is very wrong.

2. Art Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs and Title IX. There is proof of this. There is no denying that. He hid things from Judicial Affairs and encouraged others to. Judicial Affairs was Title IX, btw. The BOR is not responsible for that. There is no argument that makes sense to blame The BOR for Art Briles hiding things.

3. Most people are fired for things that are not criminal. Chronic lateness. Insubordination. Bringing the University into a scanda because you're hiding things from those charged with compliance. So the premise of this thread is dumb. If your threshold for firing someone is waiting for them to break the law, then you'll almost never fire anyone.

4. The BOR making the call to Pepper Hamilton was the right thing to do.

5. The university certainly had other issues. But Art Briles and his staff were the only ones I've seen who were actively hiding the truth from the univeristy's reporting apparatus. There's plenty of blame to go around, but Art Briles bears a LOT of it.

6. Most of these problems have been addressed and continue to be. I'm proud of the University for handling it. This season has been hard, but at least I know as an alum, I'm rooting for people who are doing things the right way.

---

Just so I'm clear on this, taking away the firing of Briles, you believe the BOR has handled everything correctly and done a good job after Briles was let go?

YoakDaddy said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist.

---

You are a Baylor employee? Regent? Lawyer?

---

Have you noticed over the last few days how many more BOFR defenders started proselytizing to the free side about how the board isn't to blame and shares no responsibility in the university-wide T9 failures....could it be that BOFR members and current/former executive staff are being prepped for depositions? Getting their PR on.

---

Nice try. He neither works for Baylor nor is a regent. He works for another university and his duties include Title IX there. Not everything is a conspiracy.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

303Bear said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

Ohio State fired Jim Tressel for less.

No one is going to have sympathy for a person whose lies can be directly tied to the harm of others.

---

1. Tressel resigned, after discussion with the tOSU and reaching a mutual understanding as to what was best for the university.

2. NCAA investigation resulting in major personal sanctions and post-season ban for tOSU.


Otherwise, your post is spot on and the situation is completely the same.

---

I did point out Ohio State because I want to invite that comparison.

It sounds like you and I are in agreement but the idea that a state university board in Ohio is more ethical than a private university a Christian board should be concerning to many

---

Yep

Commonly said here

"We circled the wagons and fired inward" .... "we hired investigators when should have hired a defense team"


Some priorities out of wack

DioNoZeus said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist.

---

You are a Baylor employee? Regent? Lawyer?

---

Have you noticed over the last few days how many more BOFR defenders started proselytizing to the free side about how the board isn't to blame and shares no responsibility in the university-wide T9 failures....could it be that BOFR members and current/former executive staff are being prepped for depositions? Getting their PR on.

---

Nice try. He neither works for Baylor nor is a regent. He works for another university and his duties include Title IX there. Not everything is a conspiracy.

---

Another BOFR defender! Cool! Welcome to the free and unclean side!

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

bearlyafarmer said:

---

So, after all this rehashing, it's still plain as the nose Baylor cut off to spite its own face that there is no evidence that Briles covered up rape.

---

You do realize Baylor / BOR never said he covered up rape?

---

Come on man.

---

You have dissect a sentences and made notes of the tense of a verbs - now you ignore them



"chose not to report sexual violence and dating violence to an appropriate administrator outside of athletics" ....... that is exactly what they said, that is not covered up rape

---

Now you know that while they didn't literally say he covered up rape, they chose cryptic language and then failed to clarify when the press took liberties. They could have been straight and clear about what he did, but they chose a purposely abstruse explanation.

---

So lets be clear, you agree they literally did not say he covered up rape. Good we are on the same page there. There are plenty of CABers that think they literally said he covered up rape.

As to crypt language we can agree to disagree. He literally did what they said he did.

The actions of the players he brought on campus and shielded from their bad behavior have caused him far more harm than any Baylor official that just talked about it after the fact.

ColomboLQ said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

It's nice to try to think that this conversation matters, but it just really doesn't. The way this situation was handled has us branded 'Rape University' until the next major scandal. After the next major scandal, all major scandals will be compared to what happened here. If you ever try to remember our Big 12 championships, be ready for your Big 12 friends to talk rape smack.

All we have left are the people who try to argue that the board didn't do a bad job of overseeing the university (the university that they told us was catastrophically failing to comply with a widely discussed federal regulation), because they weren't doing the job at all. I wouldn't suggest using that defense to anyone who currently has a job anywhere or is currently on the board of any organization. For some reason, saying you couldn't have done a bad job because you weren't doing the job anyway flies with some Baylor people. I'll let others figure that out.

Get used to it. Our school is run by morons and we will never live it down.

Edit - For people who take issue with me saying that Title IX was 'widely discussed', more than 50 schools, many of them ion P5 conferences, were under investigation before Baylor's issues started. If that didn't get the board digging in to what was going on at Baylor, shame on them. They should all be embarrassed.

---

There are thousands of universities in this country. Thousands. The idea that there were 50 universities on a list (and we weren't one of them)... sorry, but that's dumb.

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist. I realize there was a narrative that took hold over on BaylorFans -and it was ****ty- and that some people can't quite shake it. But y'all have to move on. And some of you should consider that maybe you got stuck in some groupthink and it echoed around.

1. The BOR should not be the ones to have brought forward questions of Title IX compliance. If they were bringing it forward, it's because someone else had ****ed up. That'd be like the President asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff if we should be doing something about ISIS. If HE is the one bringing it up (and the JCOS are caught flat-footed), something is very wrong.

2. Art Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs and Title IX. There is proof of this. There is no denying that. He hid things from Judicial Affairs and encouraged others to. Judicial Affairs was Title IX, btw. The BOR is not responsible for that. There is no argument that makes sense to blame The BOR for Art Briles hiding things.

3. Most people are fired for things that are not criminal. Chronic lateness. Insubordination. Bringing the University into a scanda because you're hiding things from those charged with compliance. So the premise of this thread is dumb. If your threshold for firing someone is waiting for them to break the law, then you'll almost never fire anyone.

4. The BOR making the call to Pepper Hamilton was the right thing to do.

5. The university certainly had other issues. But Art Briles and his staff were the only ones I've seen who were actively hiding the truth from the univeristy's reporting apparatus. There's plenty of blame to go around, but Art Briles bears a LOT of it.

6. Most of these problems have been addressed and continue to be. I'm proud of the University for handling it. This season has been hard, but at least I know as an alum, I'm rooting for people who are doing things the right way.

---

Just so I'm clear on this, taking away the firing of Briles, you believe the BOR has handled everything correctly and done a good job after Briles was let go?

---

Oh, I sincerely never said that. There were many mistakes. However, THOSE mistakes were more about the fall-out (how many PR firms did we go through again)? I think those mistakes were inevitable, as well. Frankly, I'm glad the University had the balls to be shocked and horrified and admit as much -as opposed to taking a "nothing to see here" stance.

People can arm-chair QB how we should have responded after the fiasco. But that's a far cry from being responsible and the incriminations being levied against them by some on this board. I think the BOR is a really easy target. It's faceless. They bear blame, sure. But I don't think there was any conspiracy on their part.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist.

---

You are a Baylor employee? Regent? Lawyer?

---

Have you noticed over the last few days how many more BOFR defenders started proselytizing to the free side about how the board isn't to blame and shares no responsibility in the university-wide T9 failures....could it be that BOFR members and current/former executive staff are being prepped for depositions? Getting their PR on.

---

Lol! Ask your "source."

No, I'm only here because I found it fascinating how two different boards -both made up of fans- came to two rather different conclusions and narratives on how all this shook out.

One is willing to admit that Briles screwed himself. The other insists the BOR is solely at fault and Briles was a patsy.

One is supported by verifiable facts. The other relies completely on rumor, "sources" and innuendo.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist.

---

You are a Baylor employee? Regent? Lawyer?

---

Have you noticed over the last few days how many more BOFR defenders started proselytizing to the free side about how the board isn't to blame and shares no responsibility in the university-wide T9 failures....could it be that BOFR members and current/former executive staff are being prepped for depositions? Getting their PR on.

---

Lol! Ask your "source."

No, I'm only here because I found it fascinating how two different boards -both made up of fans- came to two rather different conclusions and narratives on how all this shook out.

One is willing to admit that Briles screwed himself. The other insists the BOR is solely at fault and Briles was a patsy.

One is supported by verifiable facts. The other relies completely on rumor, "sources" and innuendo.

---

We'll just agree to disagree I guess since we've both explained our positions previously. Either we're both right, we're both wrong, or somewhere in between which I expect the later to be the case. One can only pray that the upcoming depositions are made public laying out all of the good and all of the bad so that the university can heal.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ColomboLQ said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

It's nice to try to think that this conversation matters, but it just really doesn't. The way this situation was handled has us branded 'Rape University' until the next major scandal. After the next major scandal, all major scandals will be compared to what happened here. If you ever try to remember our Big 12 championships, be ready for your Big 12 friends to talk rape smack.

All we have left are the people who try to argue that the board didn't do a bad job of overseeing the university (the university that they told us was catastrophically failing to comply with a widely discussed federal regulation), because they weren't doing the job at all. I wouldn't suggest using that defense to anyone who currently has a job anywhere or is currently on the board of any organization. For some reason, saying you couldn't have done a bad job because you weren't doing the job anyway flies with some Baylor people. I'll let others figure that out.

Get used to it. Our school is run by morons and we will never live it down.

Edit - For people who take issue with me saying that Title IX was 'widely discussed', more than 50 schools, many of them ion P5 conferences, were under investigation before Baylor's issues started. If that didn't get the board digging in to what was going on at Baylor, shame on them. They should all be embarrassed.

---

There are thousands of universities in this country. Thousands. The idea that there were 50 universities on a list (and we weren't one of them)... sorry, but that's dumb.

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist. I realize there was a narrative that took hold over on BaylorFans -and it was ****ty- and that some people can't quite shake it. But y'all have to move on. And some of you should consider that maybe you got stuck in some groupthink and it echoed around.

1. The BOR should not be the ones to have brought forward questions of Title IX compliance. If they were bringing it forward, it's because someone else had ****ed up. That'd be like the President asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff if we should be doing something about ISIS. If HE is the one bringing it up (and the JCOS are caught flat-footed), something is very wrong.

2. Art Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs and Title IX. There is proof of this. There is no denying that. He hid things from Judicial Affairs and encouraged others to. Judicial Affairs was Title IX, btw. The BOR is not responsible for that. There is no argument that makes sense to blame The BOR for Art Briles hiding things.

3. Most people are fired for things that are not criminal. Chronic lateness. Insubordination. Bringing the University into a scanda because you're hiding things from those charged with compliance. So the premise of this thread is dumb. If your threshold for firing someone is waiting for them to break the law, then you'll almost never fire anyone.

4. The BOR making the call to Pepper Hamilton was the right thing to do.

5. The university certainly had other issues. But Art Briles and his staff were the only ones I've seen who were actively hiding the truth from the univeristy's reporting apparatus. There's plenty of blame to go around, but Art Briles bears a LOT of it.

6. Most of these problems have been addressed and continue to be. I'm proud of the University for handling it. This season has been hard, but at least I know as an alum, I'm rooting for people who are doing things the right way.

---

Just so I'm clear on this, taking away the firing of Briles, you believe the BOR has handled everything correctly and done a good job after Briles was let go?

---

Oh, I sincerely never said that. There were many mistakes. However, THOSE mistakes were more about the fall-out (how many PR firms did we go through again)? I think those mistakes were inevitable, as well. Frankly, I'm glad the University had the balls to be shocked and horrified and admit as much -as opposed to taking a "nothing to see here" stance.

People can arm-chair QB how we should have responded after the fiasco. But that's a far cry from being responsible and the incriminations being levied against them by some on this board. I think the BOR is a really easy target. It's faceless. They bear blame, sure. But I don't think there was any conspiracy on their part.

---

Brooks--some really good info here. Questions, since T9 is part of what you do:

weren't there in fact far more than 50 schools dealing with T9 problems? Wasn't T9 a huge issue for schools across the country at this time? ie--shouldn't the admin and board have had this stuff on top of the agenda?

what type of reporting should have been done by admin to the board re T9? did the board have any responsibility for independent knowledge of T9 standards and/or demanding that admin handle T9 in a certain way?

apparently there was no or very little training for faculty/staff on T9. when would it fall to the board to step in to ensure this was being done?

we have seen reports of the board micro-managing--getting names from the T9 people, inserting themselves in the Jeremy Faulk case--what is your reaction to that? how does that color your evaluation of what the board knew and when they knew it?

if I have this right, BU reported zero incidents for years, then the rate jumped up to three figures after the PH report. Clearly more was going on than was being reported. Clearly there was more than football involved in the problems. Does the board have any responsibility for this "cultural problem" and the gross incompetence in being aware/correcting/reporting?

at what point, if any, would the board have responsibility for taking charge and saying 'this is how we're going to do things' regarding T9?

Not trying to be provocative, looking for info. Thanks.

Page 1, Paragraph 1 from the "Findings of Facts"

"Pepper's findings of fact, as set forth in greater detail in this statement, reflect a fundamental failure by Baylor to implement Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). Pepper found that Baylor's efforts to implement Title IX were slow, ad hoc, and hindered by a lack of institutional support and engagement by senior leadership"



Just FYI

Keyser Soze said:

---

Page 1, Paragraph 1 from the "Findings of Facts"

"Pepper's findings of fact, as set forth in greater detail in this statement, reflect a fundamental failure by Baylor to implement Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). Pepper found that Baylor's efforts to implement Title IX were slow, ad hoc, and hindered by a lack of institutional support and engagement by senior leadership"



Just FYI

---

Right. No argument with that finding.

Of course, what is 'institutional support' and 'senior leadership'--admin or bor?

I'm asking the guy who claims to work in T9 when the bor should have taken an active role. If I read the PH report and post-explosion events correctly, the board says 'hey we had NO IDEA this stuff was going on.' Assuming that's true--which is a huge assumption--should they have known?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist.

---

You are a Baylor employee? Regent? Lawyer?

---

Attack the messenger & ignore the post - who cares what is job is or is not - his post is spot on

---

What attack?

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist.

---

You are a Baylor employee? Regent? Lawyer?

---

Attack the messenger & ignore the post - who cares what is job is or is not - his post is spot on

---

What attack?

---

To phrase it differently, he's saying that the answer to the bolded questions do not matter.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist.

---

You are a Baylor employee? Regent? Lawyer?

---

Attack the messenger & ignore the post - who cares what is job is or is not - his post is spot on

---

What attack?

---

To phrase it differently, he's saying that the answer to the bolded questions do not matter.

---

What attack? If it doesn't matter, why not tell us?

A doctor replying to a medical question has more credibility than you or I. A question concerning the expertise of a poster seems fair. It might make the poster more credible

Beaneater said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Page 1, Paragraph 1 from the "Findings of Facts"

"Pepper's findings of fact, as set forth in greater detail in this statement, reflect a fundamental failure by Baylor to implement Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). Pepper found that Baylor's efforts to implement Title IX were slow, ad hoc, and hindered by a lack of institutional support and engagement by senior leadership"



Just FYI

---

Right. No argument with that finding.

Of course, what is 'institutional support' and 'senior leadership'--admin or bor?

I'm asking the guy who claims to work in T9 when the bor should have taken an active role. If I read the PH report and post-explosion events correctly, the board says 'hey we had NO IDEA this stuff was going on.' Assuming that's true--which is a huge assumption--should they have known?

---

The truth is had they complied with suggested Title IX sexual violence protocol, then most of this would have been avoided and Art Briles would still be the head of the Baylor football program.

Now, our leadership CLEARLY dropped the ball here, and the whole thing turned into a public relations nightmare.

I've done some research since that time and found out that Baylor was not the only major university that was not in compliance with Title IX. The problem is that the ruling from the Obama administration was vague and was written in a way that it was almost suggestive rather than obligatory. So, what happened was many universities started to implement bits and pieces of the protocol and adapt it to their own procedures so as to avoid major lawsuits and intuitional disruptions. Eventually, Baylor did the same, but not before waiting too late to take any action at all, simply because those in Baylor leadership either were ignorant of the University's responsibilities or because they disagreed with the DOE directive politically.

In any event, you can blame the BOR and the administration as a whole. They deserve the blame even though now the DOE is backing away from the protocol.

What ultimately did us in, though, is the fact that we are seen as a conservative and Baptist university to the major sports media outlets, who have a culture adverse to traditional Southern Baptist values. Had this happened at Texas, it would have been no big deal. Had this occurred during the Kevin Steele years, it would have been no big deal. But, because it happened at Baylor and because Baylor was an upstart in college football in the midst of success and fame at the national level, it became a frenzy. It was blown way out of proportion, and then a ton of opportunistic coeds who were invited to football parties between 2011 and 2015 started to come out of the woodwork for a portion of Baylor's gold.

That's exactly what happened.

Because we are Baylor, because we do still carry a cross, because are a "new blood" and not a "blue blood", people are going to attempt to knock us down. So, we have to be more careful with our institution and stay ahead of the game so stuff like this doesn't happen.

Under the circumstances, what happened at Baylor was reasonably foreseeable, the leadership was negligent with the direction of the university and that's why so many heads had to roll.

You gloss over a great deal of the football programs transgressions.

The shielding of players poor decisions from consequences is a violation of school policy even with no Title IX in the picture. They even fail the common man standard of just doing what is right on many occasions

Keyser Soze said:

---

You gloss over a great deal of the football programs transgressions.

The shielding of players poor decisions from consequences is a violation of school policy even with no Title IX in the picture. They even fail the common man standard of just doing what is right on many occasions

---

Could you be more specific?

I think you are confusing a media narrative with a story that is actually based in fact and corroborated by evidence.

Here are the facts:

1. Only 1 Baylor football player ever played in a football game after an allegation of sexual violence;

2. Only 1 Baylor football player has a conviction related to sexual violence.

3. During his time at Baylor, Art Briles dismissed many football player, included many coveted high-profile 5 star recruits like Josh Gordon and Robbie Rhodes.

4. Baylor has publicly and privately acknowledged that Art Briles was never related to any cover-up involving Baylor football players.

5. Art Briles' responsibilities did not include setting up and running a compliance department for Title IX sexual assault protocol.

6. Art Briles was not responsible for any asset of the 90% of alleged sexual assaults on the Baylor campus that did not involve football players.

The fact is most of the alleged crimes happened off-campus, outside school hours, are not corroborated by any evidence and were never reported to law enforcement.

Most of these alleged crimes involved young women who were invited to football parties. These football parties are common at every university and were common at Baylor when I attended Baylor. Coeds are invited to the parties with the purpose and prospect of getting to meet football players. No reports of sexual assaults came out of these parties for years until the lawsuits began to be filed.

What was a pebble became a boulder and Baylor could not stop it.

Art Briles would still be coaching under the same circumstances at any other P5 university. Baylor actually had a whole lot of balls in turning its high football program from a money making success story into one of the worst programs in major college football.

Keyser Soze said:

---

You gloss over a great deal of the football programs transgressions.

The shielding of players poor decisions from consequences is a violation of school policy even with no Title IX in the picture. They even fail the common man standard of just doing what is right on many occasions

---

What was the oft stated purpose and purported focus of the Pepper Hamilton investigation? It is ridiculous to suggest that the sole reason that Briles was "fired" was due to "violation of school policy" or "shielding players from institutional discipline." That's not what all of America was led to believe. The world outside of the Baylor Family will tell you that Briles was "fired" because of connection to RAPE. You can hide behind the comfort of knowing that the BOR never said such a thing, but there is no doubt they meant to allow that narrative to flourish and their description of the investigation was engineered to create that illusion. There are people right here on this board, Baylor people, who say Briles covered up rape to this day. The fact that people within the Baylor community are STILL having discussions over the reasons he was "fired" is because the regents have never come straight out and said it.

If the reason for the investigation wasn't the reason Baylor paid off its coach, then Baylor should have said so. When those regents got in front of those cameras, it would have been so easy to say, "We must be clear. Art Briles was not fired for covering up allegations of rape; he didn't do such a thing. He was fired for failure to follow school discipline policy for things other than sexual assault."

Now, all these ancillary reasons that you give for "firing" Briles are one thing, but which of those reasons apply to Tom Hill?

Yogi said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You gloss over a great deal of the football programs transgressions.

The shielding of players poor decisions from consequences is a violation of school policy even with no Title IX in the picture. They even fail the common man standard of just doing what is right on many occasions

---

Could you be more specific?

I think you are confusing a media narrative with a story that is actually based in fact and corroborated by evidence.

Here are the facts:

1. Only 1 Baylor football No player ever played in a football game after an allegation found responsible of sexual violence;

FIFU

2. Only 1 Baylor football player has a conviction related to sexual violence.

Correct - but a very low bar

3. During his time at Baylor, Art Briles dismissed many football player, included many coveted high-profile 5 star recruits like Josh Gordon and Robbie Rhodes.

Yes - hand definitely forced on Taco Bell Gordon

4. Baylor has publicly and privately acknowledged that Art Briles was never related to any cover-up involving Baylor football players.

No - never turned away anyone who directly reported to him - geezzz, you have a law degree, I expect to get that from some of the CAB fan boys but not you

5. Art Briles' responsibilities did not include setting up and running a compliance department for Title IX sexual assault protocol.

Agree - his failure to report to Judicial Affairs stands on it's own with or without Title IX - you just turn the matter over to the guys who do compliance, he avoided them deliberately

6. Art Briles was not responsible for any asset of the 90% of alleged sexual assaults on the Baylor campus that did not involve football players.

Agree - does not diminish what he is responsible for

The fact is most of the alleged crimes happened off-campus, outside school hours, are not corroborated by any evidence and were never reported to law enforcement.

Still violations of school policy and Title IX - when known, and many were, still an obligation to report to Judicial Affairs

Most of these alleged crimes involved young women who were invited to football parties. These football parties are common at every university and were common at Baylor when I attended Baylor. Coeds are invited to the parties with the purpose and prospect of getting to meet football players. No reports of sexual assaults came out of these parties for years until the lawsuits began to be filed.

Some came out and were ignored

What was a pebble became a boulder and Baylor could not stop it.

Art Briles would still be coaching under the same circumstances at any other P5 university. Baylor actually had a whole lot of balls in turning its high football program from a money making success story into one of the worst programs in major college football.

Briles would be fired at any institution for the same things

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist.

---

You are a Baylor employee? Regent? Lawyer?

---

Have you noticed over the last few days how many more BOFR defenders started proselytizing to the free side about how the board isn't to blame and shares no responsibility in the university-wide T9 failures....could it be that BOFR members and current/former executive staff are being prepped for depositions? Getting their PR on.

---

Lol! Ask your "source."

No, I'm only here because I found it fascinating how two different boards -both made up of fans- came to two rather different conclusions and narratives on how all this shook out.

One is willing to admit that Briles screwed himself. The other insists the BOR is solely at fault and Briles was a patsy.

One is supported by verifiable facts. The other relies completely on rumor, "sources" and innuendo.

---

We'll just agree to disagree I guess since we've both explained our positions previously. Either we're both right, we're both wrong, or somewhere in between which I expect the later to be the case. One can only pray that the upcoming depositions are made public laying out all of the good and all of the bad so that the university can heal.

---

It will be REALLY interesting to see your mental acrobatics at that point. I don't think there's going to be any clear-cut answers.

I'll place my marker on what I think WOULD happen. I believe we'll find out that there was a lot more evidence that Pepper Hamilton found against Briles, McCaw and maybe even Starr (not to mention the FB coaching staff). I don't think you'll find a lot on the BOR as they were thoroughly lawyered up.

So in the end, you won't get satisfaction either way.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

You gloss over a great deal of the football programs transgressions.

The shielding of players poor decisions from consequences is a violation of school policy even with no Title IX in the picture. They even fail the common man standard of just doing what is right on many occasions

---

What was the oft stated purpose and purported focus of the Pepper Hamilton investigation? It is ridiculous to suggest that the sole reason that Briles was "fired" was due to "violation of school policy" or "shielding players from institutional discipline." That's not what all of America was led to believe. The world outside of the Baylor Family will tell you that Briles was "fired" because of connection to RAPE. You can hide behind the comfort of knowing that the BOR never said such a thing, but there is no doubt they meant to allow that narrative to flourish and their description of the investigation was engineered to create that illusion. There are people right here on this board, Baylor people, who say Briles covered up rape to this day. The fact that people within the Baylor community are STILL having discussions over the reasons he was "fired" is because the regents have never come straight out and said it.

If the reason for the investigation wasn't the reason Baylor paid off its coach, then Baylor should have said so. When those regents got in front of those cameras, it would have been so easy to say, "We must be clear. Art Briles was not fired for covering up allegations of rape; he didn't do such a thing. He was fired for failure to follow school discipline policy for things other than sexual assault."

Now, all these ancillary reasons that you give for "firing" Briles are one thing, but which of those reasons apply to Tom Hill?

---

That is very much speculation on your part

Briles DID fail to report an allegation of sexual assault (1 known) and several assaults - (in reading Violated Barnes said part of the reason he was fired (and we have rumors of a big parachute too) was that Ian wanted to make sure he and the newly hired Patty Crawford never got together.

Now that we have regents being deposed in Title IX lawsuits, maybe some people will accept that the board was supposed to be paying attention to the university and its regulatory environment. I doubt it, but who knows?

It will be clear more than ever that a few of the top regents and Ken Starr weren't managing or dealing with the federal law.
Every 20 years, Starr screws people financially doing his job. Blowjob Gate was $70 million while the Baylor number is a secret.

Beaneater said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

ColomboLQ said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LBKBEAR said:

---

It's nice to try to think that this conversation matters, but it just really doesn't. The way this situation was handled has us branded 'Rape University' until the next major scandal. After the next major scandal, all major scandals will be compared to what happened here. If you ever try to remember our Big 12 championships, be ready for your Big 12 friends to talk rape smack.

All we have left are the people who try to argue that the board didn't do a bad job of overseeing the university (the university that they told us was catastrophically failing to comply with a widely discussed federal regulation), because they weren't doing the job at all. I wouldn't suggest using that defense to anyone who currently has a job anywhere or is currently on the board of any organization. For some reason, saying you couldn't have done a bad job because you weren't doing the job anyway flies with some Baylor people. I'll let others figure that out.

Get used to it. Our school is run by morons and we will never live it down.

Edit - For people who take issue with me saying that Title IX was 'widely discussed', more than 50 schools, many of them ion P5 conferences, were under investigation before Baylor's issues started. If that didn't get the board digging in to what was going on at Baylor, shame on them. They should all be embarrassed.

---

There are thousands of universities in this country. Thousands. The idea that there were 50 universities on a list (and we weren't one of them)... sorry, but that's dumb.

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist. I realize there was a narrative that took hold over on BaylorFans -and it was ****ty- and that some people can't quite shake it. But y'all have to move on. And some of you should consider that maybe you got stuck in some groupthink and it echoed around.

1. The BOR should not be the ones to have brought forward questions of Title IX compliance. If they were bringing it forward, it's because someone else had ****ed up. That'd be like the President asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff if we should be doing something about ISIS. If HE is the one bringing it up (and the JCOS are caught flat-footed), something is very wrong.

2. Art Briles was hiding things from Judicial Affairs and Title IX. There is proof of this. There is no denying that. He hid things from Judicial Affairs and encouraged others to. Judicial Affairs was Title IX, btw. The BOR is not responsible for that. There is no argument that makes sense to blame The BOR for Art Briles hiding things.

3. Most people are fired for things that are not criminal. Chronic lateness. Insubordination. Bringing the University into a scanda because you're hiding things from those charged with compliance. So the premise of this thread is dumb. If your threshold for firing someone is waiting for them to break the law, then you'll almost never fire anyone.

4. The BOR making the call to Pepper Hamilton was the right thing to do.

5. The university certainly had other issues. But Art Briles and his staff were the only ones I've seen who were actively hiding the truth from the univeristy's reporting apparatus. There's plenty of blame to go around, but Art Briles bears a LOT of it.

6. Most of these problems have been addressed and continue to be. I'm proud of the University for handling it. This season has been hard, but at least I know as an alum, I'm rooting for people who are doing things the right way.

---

Just so I'm clear on this, taking away the firing of Briles, you believe the BOR has handled everything correctly and done a good job after Briles was let go?

---

Oh, I sincerely never said that. There were many mistakes. However, THOSE mistakes were more about the fall-out (how many PR firms did we go through again)? I think those mistakes were inevitable, as well. Frankly, I'm glad the University had the balls to be shocked and horrified and admit as much -as opposed to taking a "nothing to see here" stance.

People can arm-chair QB how we should have responded after the fiasco. But that's a far cry from being responsible and the incriminations being levied against them by some on this board. I think the BOR is a really easy target. It's faceless. They bear blame, sure. But I don't think there was any conspiracy on their part.

---

Brooks--some really good info here. Questions, since T9 is part of what you do:

weren't there in fact far more than 50 schools dealing with T9 problems? Wasn't T9 a huge issue for schools across the country at this time? ie--shouldn't the admin and board have had this stuff on top of the agenda?

First off, I don't believe there were many more than 50 schools under investigation at the time. I could be wrong -I sincerely don't remember exactly. But if there were, it wasn't many more than 50. For some reason, the number 55 is coming to mind, but I think that's after? In the grand scheme, that's a pretty minuscule number.

Secondly, I think it would be instructive to know what it takes to get an OCR investigation. It's ridiculously easy to get on that list. Basically, anyone who doesn't like how their case went can file a complaint -and they do. If there's any grounds to the complaint filed (it makes sense) my understanding is that OCR can open up an investigation. You or I could file one on any school today. It wouldn't end up with an investigation, but someone would at least look into it.

So basically, being on this list just means you've had a case and that someone has complained. The biggest part of Title IX is essentially reporting. How many of us knew what it was before they had heard of it in this case? Few. And most would have only thought it had to do with women in athletics. Changes in Higher Ed take a long time. Changes in Education take a long time. It's the nature of the beast.

Especially at the time, those that would know about Title IX in regards to sexual assault would have largely been limited to those in Higher Ed Law, Conduct, or College Counseling. Like I said, I know a lot of schools that could have been in our shoes had the wrong thing happened at the wrong time. I sincerely felt like much of this was made worse because the story happened to catch hold during the lull of summer when people wanted College Football to come back but had nothing else to talk about.

what type of reporting should have been done by admin to the board re T9? did the board have any responsibility for independent knowledge of T9 standards and/or demanding that admin handle T9 in a certain way?

Once again, the BOR is globally responsible for everything that happens at the University, from Capital campaigns to the usage of paperclips. I won't argue that point. My question was about whether it was realistic to expect the BOR to have known enough to even ask questions about Title IX and sexual assault. At that time, if someone would have brought that up without prompting, I would have been extremely surprised (and incredibly impressed).

apparently there was no or very little training for faculty/staff on T9. when would it fall to the board to step in to ensure this was being done?

I can't get too far into this as I don't have the direct knowledge of Baylor's practices at the time. But I can tell you that mandatory reporting isn't a new thing. It's included in Title IX, but it's been a practice for some time. Past being just the decent and smart thing to do, it was not a new concept and I'm 1000% sure our coaching staff knew about it. I have a hard time believing the NCAA didn't have requirements on it.

Remember, not reporting is precisely what got Penn St. in so much trouble. Had they reported properly, we wouldn't be talking about it today.

we have seen reports of the board micro-managing--getting names from the T9 people, inserting themselves in the Jeremy Faulk case--what is your reaction to that? how does that color your evaluation of what the board knew and when they knew it?

Personally, I think it's strange that some would complain about the board not micro-managing before this mess and then complain when they do after. I am extremely wary of Regents getting personally involved in the University on political issues. There's a saying in Higher Ed "if you want to kill something, get a Regent involved."

Regents calling staff or personnel directly is inappropriate 90% of the time. Although, considering the heat that they were getting, it is a little more understandable -but still inappropriate.

if I have this right, BU reported zero incidents for years, then the rate jumped up to three figures after the PH report. Clearly more was going on than was being reported. Clearly there was more than football involved in the problems. Does the board have any responsibility for this "cultural problem" and the gross incompetence in being aware/correcting/reporting?

As I said above, much of Title IX is about reporting. By its very nature, sexual assault is hard to talk about it. It's a crime that almost always takes place in private. It's almost always between only two people. And it nearly always has some form of impairment involved (drinking, drugs, etc). It's also traumatic, the stakes are incredibly high, and there is always incredible shame attached. Always. So it certainly makes sense that, when a culture begins to shift, or something bad happens, it starts a cascade of previously unreported events coming forward. Every. Time. And I would say that's a good thing. You want an environment where people feel safe to come forward. Always. Add to that, the research on the neurochemistry of trauma has on the brain -your mind screws with you -as a defense mechanism, it doesn't WANT you to "remember" so it will scramble memories. Your body releases cortisol and endorphines that can have a euphoric effect, so you hear about women (and men) laughing after a [verified] traumatic encounter, it's inherently messy and scary and confusing.

However, it's always shocking. And if the BOR is "responsible for the culture" then so is everyone else as well. Every Baylor Grad is responsible in the exact same way the BOR was. I have seen this happen so many times at so many schools, where those in charge are taken by genuine surprise when a scandal arises. You can't fix problems you don't know exist. And since Sexual Assault is something that isn't a lot of fun to talk about, why would you go looking for it? Honest question. How would the BOR start that conversation? And how well do you think it would go? If you're a businessman from Dallas, and Ken Starr tells you he thinks Title IX is dumb and should go away, are you going to go over him? I think the common/fair answer would be probably not.

at what point, if any, would the board have responsibility for taking charge and saying 'this is how we're going to do things' regarding T9?

It's funny you say that. OCR/DOE actually have a term for it: being "put on notice" and it refers to whether or not an institution "knew or should have known" about the incidents. In my opinion, the second things appeared to have smelled sour, the University reacted perfectly by hiring Pepper Hamilton. I believe that was the recommendation of Ken Starr and was funded by the BOR unanimously.

Not trying to be provocative, looking for info. Thanks.

I hope I was helpful! I'm not an expert, but I do have some knowledge in the field (and planning on doing my PhD work in the arena - just started).

---

Edit: found and article saying the OCR list was 55 in 2014 when SU's case caught attention.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/01/18/at-first-55-schools-faced-sexual-violence-investigations-now-the-list-has-quadrupled/?utm_term=.838e51a7332a

Thanks Brooks.
Only the robe touchers believe Title IX made Art and Jerry Sandusky members of the same peer group.

Word problem:

Say you have 3 people, lets call them 'A' 'B' and 'C'. All three of these people report to person 'Z'. Lets say A hears about a problem they are supposed to report and tells B and C about it, but fails to report it to Z. B and C have assumed that person A did their job and reported the problem to Z as they are required to. B and C think that now reporting to Z what they think A has already told Z would seem odd as Z should already know this information.

Do B and C get fired for not telling Z what they think Z already knows?
Or does person A get fired for not telling Z?
Or does everyone get fired and then Z goes mad and burns the school down?

MidWestBear2010 said:

---

Word problem:

Say you have 3 people, lets call them 'A' 'B' and 'C'. All three of these people report to person 'Z'. Lets say A hears about a problem they are supposed to report and tells B and C about it, but fails to report it to Z. B and C have assumed that person A did their job and reported the problem to Z as they are required to. B and C think that now reporting to Z what they think A has already told Z would seem odd as Z should already know this information.

Do B and C get fired for not telling Z what they think Z already knows?
Or does person A get fired for not telling Z?
Or does everyone get fired and then Z goes mad and burns the school down?

---

I think it depends on what A, B and C know. Each of them may have different pieces of the story. It also depends on where A, B, and C are in hierarchy of each other. If B and C go forward, but they both answer to A (or A is significantly higher in the org chart) then A should be going forward as well.

But mandatory reporting simplifies it. If everyone shares what they know with Z, and Z is the person that's supposed to know, then A, B and C are completely in the clear. They did what they were supposed to do.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

MidWestBear2010 said:

---

Word problem:

Say you have 3 people, lets call them 'A' 'B' and 'C'. All three of these people report to person 'Z'. Lets say A hears about a problem they are supposed to report and tells B and C about it, but fails to report it to Z. B and C have assumed that person A did their job and reported the problem to Z as they are required to. B and C think that now reporting to Z what they think A has already told Z would seem odd as Z should already know this information.

Do B and C get fired for not telling Z what they think Z already knows?
Or does person A get fired for not telling Z?
Or does everyone get fired and then Z goes mad and burns the school down?

---

I think it depends on what A, B and C know. Each of them may have different pieces of the story. It also depends on where A, B, and C are in hierarchy of each other. If B and C go forward, but they both answer to A (or A is significantly higher in the org chart) then A should be going forward as well.

But mandatory reporting simplifies it. If everyone shares what they know with Z, and Z is the person that's supposed to know, then A, B and C are completely in the clear. They did what they were supposed to do.

---

Ah but there is also a 4th option that Z didn't consider since Z wasn't thinking and was in panic mode.

Z could discipline A B and C internally but fire none of them. Everyone would learn their lesson what to do in the future and future problems would be immediately dealt with in the correct manner. This avoids bad press but also solves the problem in the best possible way.

Malbec said:

---

If you asked bout a c notes worth of people who knew any dadgum thing about what happened at Baylor why Briles was fired wadda ya figure they'd say? It sure as heck aint gonna be that he DID NOT cover up rapes. I can guarandamntee that. Ol Art was hiding rapists would be the first thing outta their mouths.

So when you say he was not fired because of raping I don't reckon the general public would agree.
This is exactly the point that people are missing. Briles isn't a pariah in the coaching profession because of anything except RAPE. You can make the point that he let things go, that he tried to keep players out of the Baylor student disciplinary system, that he recruited questionable characters, whatever line of reasoning helps you live with the BOR's decision. But, he did not have a job offer rescinded in another country, by a team of professionals because of any of those reasons. There weren't 52 flowers in Hamilton for the 52 guys that he kept away from JA for alcohol, fighting, double exposure at the massage parlor and the like. He isn't persona non grata in every P5 institution of football because he advocated for some player to have his academic probation lifted.

Baylor should have made this clear. They should have held a press conference and came right and said why he was bought out. They should have put it on the record from Day 1 that Art Briles never covered up rape.

Finally, the reason that most people in college football believe what Baylor has never refuted regarding coaches and sexual assault, is that they simply can't believe he could have been fired for the reasons most of the people here say he was, when they know full well that their school wouldn't have done so for those reasons.

---

This is dead on.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Part of my portfolio is Title IX and even I think this view is revisionist.

---

You are a Baylor employee? Regent? Lawyer?

---

Have you noticed over the last few days how many more BOFR defenders started proselytizing to the free side about how the board isn't to blame and shares no responsibility in the university-wide T9 failures....could it be that BOFR members and current/former executive staff are being prepped for depositions? Getting their PR on.

---

Lol! Ask your "source."

No, I'm only here because I found it fascinating how two different boards -both made up of fans- came to two rather different conclusions and narratives on how all this shook out.

One is willing to admit that Briles screwed himself. The other insists the BOR is solely at fault and Briles was a patsy.

One is supported by verifiable facts. The other relies completely on rumor, "sources" and innuendo.

---

We'll just agree to disagree I guess since we've both explained our positions previously. Either we're both right, we're both wrong, or somewhere in between which I expect the later to be the case. One can only pray that the upcoming depositions are made public laying out all of the good and all of the bad so that the university can heal.

---

It will be REALLY interesting to see your mental acrobatics at that point. I don't think there's going to be any clear-cut answers.

I'll place my marker on what I think WOULD happen. I believe we'll find out that there was a lot more evidence that Pepper Hamilton found against Briles, McCaw and maybe even Starr (not to mention the FB coaching staff). I don't think you'll find a lot on the BOR as they were thoroughly lawyered up.

So in the end, you won't get satisfaction either way.

---

I won't need to do mental gymnastics. There are many of us who called for full accounting of university-wide failures consistently since last year. Let the chips fall where they may. How you justify being a BOFR cuck is the real mental gymnastics. I guess you got paid for your daily defense though. As to expectations, I don't see much documentation coming from the BOFR either. Rule 1 of CYA is never put anything in writing. I know the bank robber, dildo salesman, and super-lawyer regents know that from experience . Starr does too. RR learned it too late but he's got dirt on folks so he'll likely escape consequences. Crawford's depo will be interesting. Ian and Doak are clueless. Nobody wins and nobody will be satisfied.

MidWestBear2010 said:

---

Malbec said:

---

If you asked bout a c notes worth of people who knew any dadgum thing about what happened at Baylor why Briles was fired wadda ya figure they'd say? It sure as heck aint gonna be that he DID NOT cover up rapes. I can guarandamntee that. Ol Art was hiding rapists would be the first thing outta their mouths.

So when you say he was not fired because of raping I don't reckon the general public would agree.
This is exactly the point that people are missing. Briles isn't a pariah in the coaching profession because of anything except RAPE. You can make the point that he let things go, that he tried to keep players out of the Baylor student disciplinary system, that he recruited questionable characters, whatever line of reasoning helps you live with the BOR's decision. But, he did not have a job offer rescinded in another country, by a team of professionals because of any of those reasons. There weren't 52 flowers in Hamilton for the 52 guys that he kept away from JA for alcohol, fighting, double exposure at the massage parlor and the like. He isn't persona non grata in every P5 institution of football because he advocated for some player to have his academic probation lifted.

Baylor should have made this clear. They should have held a press conference and came right and said why he was bought out. They should have put it on the record from Day 1 that Art Briles never covered up rape.

Finally, the reason that most people in college football believe what Baylor has never refuted regarding coaches and sexual assault, is that they simply can't believe he could have been fired for the reasons most of the people here say he was, when they know full well that their school wouldn't have done so for those reasons.

---

This is dead on.

---

I appreciate the concurrence, but I cannot take credit for the highlighted comments that should be attributed to another poster.

We don't need letters. If Briles and Barnes report to their immediate boss Ian the AD, have they done their job?

Many would say yes and in certain circumstances that would be fine. What we need to add to this is the knowledge that all knew it was not going to be reported to Judicial Affairs. That makes the situation far more messier. There is no doubt there are details we don't know, but the regents have said clearly that Briles had a responsibility to report and did not.

As to the whole thing being handled differently, sure, but keep in mind the whole is much larger than just this.

The Board should have known about Title IX. I follow news occasionally about college governance ever since I was in a graduate program at another university where the administration was, let's say, interesting.

The guidance letter was politically controversial when it came out, and there has been a lot of ink spilled on it since then, from the Chronicle of Higher Education to the Campus Reform website. I was aware of it at the time; there is no excuse for university Board members not to know about the Title IX issue and to be asking questions about its implementation.
Because of the Title IX problem, along with the increase in accusations of rape culture at colleges by activists, I knew a scandal was going to blow up at some university with weak leadership over these issues. Just didn't expect it to be Baylor.

The Board is responsible for oversight of school policies, and they were negligent. Guess they were too busy emailing each other about "perverted little tarts" to pay attention to governance of the university.

Erased this one huh? Realized it was a "gotcha" didn't you?