We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
New Ian McCaw Deposition
224,276 Views |
1423 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by 57Bear
If athletics personnel were not trained that they had no discretion based on the alleged victim's wishes, then the statementKeyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
"While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."
is scapegoating designed to put responsibility on athletics personnel at the expense of responsibility being placed on failure to adequately train personnel regarding reporting responsibilities.
It seems you are arguing that McCaw had been trained, but Barnes had not. I don't think that information has been publicly released.
The other sensational part is the alleged BOR racism and creating a false narrative, besides the VB player saying Briles did right by her, those are the "sensational" things.Booray said:Wrong. The sensational part is that the victim does not believe Briles handled it incorrectly-he did what she wanted him to do. That may have broken "protocol" but it certainly not the work of a rape-enabler.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
The bolded is the part the average non-initiated person will consider sensational. Not the snippet about Judicial Affairs.
Liberty University Athletics Director Ian McCaw in a deposition said Baylor University undertook "an elaborate plan that essentially scapegoated black football players and the football program for being responsible for what was a decades-long, university wide sexual assault scandal," according to a motion filed Wednesday in Waco's U.S. District Court.
This bears repeating.Keyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
If you're getting paid north of $500k dollars at a university, you have time to read the university policy manual.
Classic Ian response to be honest. This duplicitous answer is consistent with his prior shortcomings.
Bye, Ian.
This site leaks private information to Baylor Regents and Administration
That's splitting hairs.D. C. Bear said:If athletics personnel were not trained that they had no discretion based on the alleged victim's wishes, then the statementKeyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
"While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."
is scapegoating designed to put responsibility on athletics personnel at the expense of responsibility being placed on failure to adequately train personnel regarding reporting responsibilities.
It seems you are arguing that McCaw had been trained, but Barnes had not. I don't think that information has been publicly released.
From an organizational ethics standpoint, he can't look the other way.
Bye, Ian.
This site leaks private information to Baylor Regents and Administration
Yet he was not fired he was suspended with intent that he stay on and allowed to resign stay on until he found another job...I can't figure out how even if you believe CAB and Ian were both dirty and deserved to be canned how do you explain the different treatment?TellMeYouLoveMe said:That's splitting hairs.D. C. Bear said:If athletics personnel were not trained that they had no discretion based on the alleged victim's wishes, then the statementKeyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
"While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."
is scapegoating designed to put responsibility on athletics personnel at the expense of responsibility being placed on failure to adequately train personnel regarding reporting responsibilities.
It seems you are arguing that McCaw had been trained, but Barnes had not. I don't think that information has been publicly released.
From an organizational ethics standpoint, he can't look the other way.
Bye, Ian.
On some level, Briles is CYA'ing property by telling Ian. Ian not documenting and communicating to the appropriate member of the organization is Ian's problem, not Arts. FYI, I'm only talking about Ian. The job of the AD includes legal compliance. Sorry, it just is. If he sits on something, and doesn't tell his supervisor, he's created liability for the organization.Eball said:Yet he was not fired he was suspended with intent that he stay on and allowed to resign stay on until he found another job...I can't figure out how even if you believe CAB and Ian were both dirty and deserved to be canned how do you explain the different treatment?TellMeYouLoveMe said:That's splitting hairs.D. C. Bear said:If athletics personnel were not trained that they had no discretion based on the alleged victim's wishes, then the statementKeyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
"While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."
is scapegoating designed to put responsibility on athletics personnel at the expense of responsibility being placed on failure to adequately train personnel regarding reporting responsibilities.
It seems you are arguing that McCaw had been trained, but Barnes had not. I don't think that information has been publicly released.
From an organizational ethics standpoint, he can't look the other way.
Bye, Ian.
If Ian found out and didn't tell legal, he's fired. No two ways around it.
Ian didn't work for Ian, he worked for Baylor. It's Baylor's liability.
This site leaks private information to Baylor Regents and Administration
I am not sure I understand...they did not fire Ian that was my point...your pointing out why he was or should have been? but to be clear he was not.
He left the organization didn't he?
That should be more transparent though, I agree. Baylor needs to come out and say it fired Ian.
Ethics....
That should be more transparent though, I agree. Baylor needs to come out and say it fired Ian.
Ethics....
This site leaks private information to Baylor Regents and Administration
Tiny Elvis said:
I'm suspicious about the timing of Chris Howard's resignation from the BOR. I'm sure he gave a generic statement on the way out the door, but am wondering if he thought the same thing as Ian and didn't want to be a part of it.
He was actually the smartest guy on the BOR....he left. He can't say why because he's under an NDA like the others. Looks like he has a great career in front of him and didn't want to jeopardize it. Smart guy.
The regent gave an explanation for this in their response in Shillinglaw. The BOR originally recommended firing both.Eball said:Yet he was not fired he was suspended with intent that he stay on and allowed to resign stay on until he found another job...I can't figure out how even if you believe CAB and Ian were both dirty and deserved to be canned how do you explain the different treatment?TellMeYouLoveMe said:That's splitting hairs.D. C. Bear said:If athletics personnel were not trained that they had no discretion based on the alleged victim's wishes, then the statementKeyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
"While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."
is scapegoating designed to put responsibility on athletics personnel at the expense of responsibility being placed on failure to adequately train personnel regarding reporting responsibilities.
It seems you are arguing that McCaw had been trained, but Barnes had not. I don't think that information has been publicly released.
From an organizational ethics standpoint, he can't look the other way.
Bye, Ian.
The Board offered both McCaw and Coach Briles an opportunity to address the Board in
person before its recommendations were announced. The Board had not talked to them directly on
this matter, and felt obligated to give both men an opportunity to defend themselves.
On May 24, the Board reconvened in a conference room on campus. Ten Regents attended
in person while the rest of the Board listened via speakerphone. McCaw and Coach Briles were
each given an hour to answer the same question: We look to you, as University leaders, to set the
proper tone and create the right kind of culture at Baylor. We have heard about alleged gang rapes,
special treatment for football players and reviewed your own words about keeping misbehavior
away from Judicial Affairs and Title IX. If you were in our shoes, what would you do?
McCaw went first. He responded with great remorse, tearfully acknowledging his
mistakes. He then proposed reforming the culture within football and Athletics with a five-point
plan to improve sexual violence prevention and response. McCaw's thoughtfulness and resolve
impressed many Regents.
Coach Briles came in next. He was overcome with emotion and made the following
statements:
He delegated down and he should not have.
He ran an in-house discipline system when he should have been an open house.
He structured things so that other people handled discipline issues and didn't necessarily report to him.
He was the last to know.
He made mistakes.
The Board asked Coach Briles what he would do to change things. "Tell me what you
want me to do and I'll do it," he said. The Board considered his response particularly telling.
Although he admitted his failings like McCaw had done, Coach Briles provided no solutions or
vision on how to lead Baylor football out of this crisis. The Board was concerned that given all
that had occurred, Coach Briles could not identify with the role of disciplinarian.
After further deliberation and debate, the Board voted to recommend placing McCaw on
probation with sanctions. The Board then took up a motion to reconsider the recommendation to
suspend Coach Briles with intent to terminate. The motion to reconsider failed by an
overwhelming margin.
Not to mention that they ran with facts they knew to be untrue. They allowed "Kim" to tell a story that she did not know Tevin Elliott before asking him to help her move a desk in her apartment wherein the rape took place. OTL (Paula and her producer) both knew "Kim" testified at trial that she had communicated with Tevin via text and Facebook for a couple weeks before the incident and that he came to her apartment to watch a movie. OTL also knew that "Kim" admitted to the police that she had consensual sex with him two days after the alleged rape. But that didn't make it into the story.bubbadog said:Makes a nice conspiracy theory, but that's not what happened.xiledinok said:
ESPN started their OTL push since they needed to sell to the public and their investors that college football wouldn't embarrass them and advertisers would not have any scandal blow on their product.
ESPN owns college football.
ESPN's Outside the Lines has always enjoyed a great deal of autonomy to pursue real journalism, even if the story does not serve the bottom-line interests of ESPN and its parent in promoting sports entertainment. This is not the kind of story OTL has to coordinate with corporate to make sure it doesn't hurt their interests in selling college football. I give ESPN credit for this, and over the years OTL has produced some very hard-hitting pieces.
The real problem here was that OTL, which normally does solid reporting, botched the story from the get-go. In the first seconds of that very first OTL piece, behind the beauty shot of McLane Stadium at night, they let the mother of one of the victims establish their theme in a voiceover, when she said that Baylor sold out its values and allowed women to become victimized for the sake of being great in football.
I want to be clear about how they missed the real story.
Yes, Baylor did have a disturbing number of football players accused or convicted of sexual assault.
Yes, there were legitimate questions about why this was so and how the cases were handled internally.
But...
ESPN's OTL piece and the network's subsequent reporting from Waco never really established some kind of coverup by the football staff and athletic department.
And, even more, ESPN failed to understand how the football assaults connected to the way Baylor handled (or not) all accusations of sexual assault. Thus, while the football scandal was symptomatic of an institutional problem, ESPN gave everyone the impression that football was the entire problem.
Defenders of ESPN might argue that their mission was only to look at the dimension of the problem that involved athletics. And yet because they only looked at athletics, they failed to understand the larger problem involving Baylor, Title IX, and sex among students.
The BoR was not responsible for ESPN taking this wrong direction, but they were delighted to encourage it once they saw where ESPN was headed.
2024 Adopt-A-Bear
Kelsey Johnson: 0-0-0
3 angry parent tweets
Kelsey Johnson: 0-0-0
3 angry parent tweets
xiledinok said:Keyser Soze said:He was named President of a different University a few months prior. That is the reason he gave. It is very logical and there has been nothing else on this.Tiny Elvis said:
I'm suspicious about the timing of Chris Howard's resignation from the BOR. I'm sure he gave a generic statement on the way out the door, but am wondering if he thought the same thing as Ian and didn't want to be a part of it.
It's remarkable he has never said anything about it and resigned because he had to resign with the new job.
Maybe he'll tell the world he was embarrassed to be associated with those mostly white football coaches.
NDA like all the others. He speaks and breaks ranks, he's held personally liable...or at least that's what I've been told.
He did speak and said it was because of his new job as President of a different university.YoakDaddy said:xiledinok said:Keyser Soze said:He was named President of a different University a few months prior. That is the reason he gave. It is very logical and there has been nothing else on this.Tiny Elvis said:
I'm suspicious about the timing of Chris Howard's resignation from the BOR. I'm sure he gave a generic statement on the way out the door, but am wondering if he thought the same thing as Ian and didn't want to be a part of it.
It's remarkable he has never said anything about it and resigned because he had to resign with the new job.
Maybe he'll tell the world he was embarrassed to be associated with those mostly white football coaches.
NDA like all the others. He speaks and breaks ranks, he's held personally liable...or at least that's what I've been told.
Why do you think he is lying? His NDA certainly would not require him to put forth a cover story.
Keyser Soze said:He did speak and said it was because of his new job as President of a different university.YoakDaddy said:xiledinok said:Keyser Soze said:He was named President of a different University a few months prior. That is the reason he gave. It is very logical and there has been nothing else on this.Tiny Elvis said:
I'm suspicious about the timing of Chris Howard's resignation from the BOR. I'm sure he gave a generic statement on the way out the door, but am wondering if he thought the same thing as Ian and didn't want to be a part of it.
It's remarkable he has never said anything about it and resigned because he had to resign with the new job.
Maybe he'll tell the world he was embarrassed to be associated with those mostly white football coaches.
NDA like all the others. He speaks and breaks ranks, he's held personally liable...or at least that's what I've been told.
Why do you think he is lying? His NDA certainly would not require him to put forth a cover story.
I don't think he's lying at all. I believe he got extremely lucky and it's coincidental he was taking another job at that point in time. He's under the same NDA with the same threat of breaking ranks all the others are under; he just had a dam good and viable excuse at that time.
An excuse is not required to quit. It is also a close to voluntary position and he was one of the few that are out of State.
It's new to the general public who had never heard it before.Keyser Soze said:Why would something we knew more than 18 month ago be sensation?Booray said:Wrong. The sensational part is that the victim does not believe Briles handled it incorrectly-he did what she wanted him to do. That may have broken "protocol" but it certainly not the work of a rape-enabler.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
There is zero new about that.
Keyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
The policy for the athletic department at the time was for coaching staffs to report to the AD. You are correct Ian mis informed Barnes when he said she had to call JA and report. When she said she did not want to talk with JA or the police he again misinformed Barnes that there was nothing that could be done. Even after Barnes repeatedly asked. Then when Crawford initially asked Ian about the the case he didn't "recall it". Only after PH pressed that he remembered. The victim is close to Barnes and thanked him on his help. And thanked Briles. How they lost their jobs and Ian was given a choice is a good question.
No, it is not "splitting hairs." If personnel were not trained that they had to affirmatively report any and all allegations they learned about without regard for the wishes of the alleged victim, and the institution put out a document saying that "While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report," that is scapegoating. It is what it is. If they were interested in being clear about what happened, they should have either said "personnel were trained that they had to violate the wished of the alleged victim," or "personnel were not trained that they had to violate the wishes of the alleged victim." As it is, the statement in the context of that document is designed to obscure rather than illuminate.TellMeYouLoveMe said:That's splitting hairs.D. C. Bear said:If athletics personnel were not trained that they had no discretion based on the alleged victim's wishes, then the statementKeyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
"While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."
is scapegoating designed to put responsibility on athletics personnel at the expense of responsibility being placed on failure to adequately train personnel regarding reporting responsibilities.
It seems you are arguing that McCaw had been trained, but Barnes had not. I don't think that information has been publicly released.
From an organizational ethics standpoint, he can't look the other way.
Bye, Ian.
and it's been documented that the athletic department did not have Title 9 training for the coaches on how to report sexual assault. Other than reporting any incedent to the AD.
Which organizations also had 10 percent of all Title IX Incidents? You are posting that there was an organization or group that also had 10 percent?jackets320 said:
Hey X you say the football program had the greatest number of incidents. That ain't right man. BU's title 9lDy said that there were 300 incidents and football had a small number, ive read 10%; that's a long way from "the greatest number"
Your true agenda glows brighter every day
If you lead the league in hitting, the common sense and most logical way to start trying to address how to beat a team would be to focus first on getting you out (not the guy hitting .239).
Your agenda gets less credible by the day. We know you want the school and the football program to fail. Please get back to me, when you find another group that matched up or had similar numbers. I would stay away from looking inside the numbers. "The rest of the rest of the story."
So, they cannot report to Judicial Affairs or use some common sense. Using poor judgement on par with a homeless camp doesn't impress people.GG1234 said:
and it's been documented that the athletic department did not have Title 9 training for the coaches on how to report sexual assault. Other than reporting any incedent to the AD.
What was Barnes pay out, who flipped that bill and was it on par with similar schools with similar results?GG1234 said:Keyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
The policy for the athletic department at the time was for coaching staffs to report to the AD. You are correct Ian mis informed Barnes when he said she had to call JA and report. When she said she did not want to talk with JA or the police he again misinformed Barnes that there was nothing that could be done. Even after Barnes repeatedly asked. Then when Crawford initially asked Ian about the the case he didn't "recall it". Only after PH pressed that he remembered. The victim is close to Barnes and thanked him on his help. And thanked Briles. How they lost their jobs and Ian was given a choice is a good question.
xiledinok said:So, they cannot report to Judicial Affairs or use some common sense. Using poor judgement on par with a homeless camp doesn't impress people.GG1234 said:
and it's been documented that the athletic department did not have Title 9 training for the coaches on how to report sexual assault. Other than reporting any incedent to the AD.
Look at it closer you don't know what happened. A YEAR later the player tells Barnes what happened as she is leaving the school. She and her parents told him they did not want to report it. Barnes called JA to see what the victim needed to do to report. He repeatedly asked his AD what could be done. The answer was from Ian that if the victim and parents didn't want to report then a report can't be made. None of the players were still on the football team at this point. PH said Barnes went above and beyond what was expected.
Also, Barnes was quietly let go without any compensation. At that time Ian thought the rape info would not get out.
While Barnes no doubt sincerely believe that to be the case (I believe assistant coaches did as well), Baylor has been very clear that was not the policy. That failure of education would primarily be on McCaw and after that Starr. Exactly how and why that failure occurred is a big question.GG1234 said:Keyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
The policy for the athletic department at the time was for coaching staffs to report to the AD. You are correct Ian mis informed Barnes when he said she had to call JA and report. When she said she did not want to talk with JA or the police he again misinformed Barnes that there was nothing that could be done. Even after Barnes repeatedly asked. Then when Crawford initially asked Ian about the the case he didn't "recall it". Only after PH pressed that he remembered. The victim is close to Barnes and thanked him on his help. And thanked Briles. How they lost their jobs and Ian was given a choice is a good question.
Baylor also has said they believe McCaw and Briles (but not Barnes) knew the correct policy which was to report to one of three place; BUPD, T9, or JA - and reporting was mandatory no matter what the alleged victim wanted.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
It has been said Briles was not terminated because of any one event.
So much of this seems so phony. How the hell hard would it have been to do the right thing? Ian knew what to do, he failed. The BOR knew the right thing to do and they failed. None of this seems like rocket science to me.
Egos 2 big to take a public beating.Illinois Bear2 said:
So much of this seems so phony. How the hell hard would it have been to do the right thing? Ian knew what to do, he failed. The BOR knew the right thing to do and they failed. None of this seems like rocket science to me.
Would have helped to have discipline instilled to understand that video needs to be deleted.GG1234 said:xiledinok said:So, they cannot report to Judicial Affairs or use some common sense. Using poor judgement on par with a homeless camp doesn't impress people.GG1234 said:
and it's been documented that the athletic department did not have Title 9 training for the coaches on how to report sexual assault. Other than reporting any incedent to the AD.
Look at it closer you don't know what happened. A YEAR later the player tells Barnes what happened as she is leaving the school. She and her parents told him they did not want to report it. Barnes called JA to see what the victim needed to do to report. He repeatedly asked his AD what could be done. The answer was from Ian that if the victim and parents didn't want to report then a report can't be made. None of the players were still on the football team at this point. PH said Barnes went above and beyond what was expected.
Also, Barnes was quietly let go without any compensation. At that time Ian thought the rape info would not get out.
Ian ought to run the "I m a ribbon clerk" defense at this point.
GG1234 said:xiledinok said:So, they cannot report to Judicial Affairs or use some common sense. Using poor judgement on par with a homeless camp doesn't impress people.GG1234 said:
and it's been documented that the athletic department did not have Title 9 training for the coaches on how to report sexual assault. Other than reporting any incedent to the AD.
Look at it closer you don't know what happened. A YEAR later the player tells Barnes what happened as she is leaving the school. She and her parents told him they did not want to report it. Barnes called JA to see what the victim needed to do to report. He repeatedly asked his AD what could be done. The answer was from Ian that if the victim and parents didn't want to report then a report can't be made. None of the players were still on the football team at this point. PH said Barnes went above and beyond what was expected.
Also, Barnes was quietly let go without any compensation. At that time Ian thought the rape info would not get out.
You'lll have to forgive me, D.C. Bear thinks it's a valid defense for a person that shoots up their work place with an assault rifle to say that they didn't go to a company training where they were specifically told, "It's wrong to shoot up your workplace with an assault rifle."
This site leaks private information to Baylor Regents and Administration
D. C. Bear said:No, it is not "splitting hairs." If personnel were not trained that they had to affirmatively report any and all allegations they learned about without regard for the wishes of the alleged victim, and the institution put out a document saying that "While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report," that is scapegoating.TellMeYouLoveMe said:That's splitting hairs.D. C. Bear said:If athletics personnel were not trained that they had no discretion based on the alleged victim's wishes, then the statementKeyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
"While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."
is scapegoating designed to put responsibility on athletics personnel at the expense of responsibility being placed on failure to adequately train personnel regarding reporting responsibilities.
It seems you are arguing that McCaw had been trained, but Barnes had not. I don't think that information has been publicly released.
From an organizational ethics standpoint, he can't look the other way.
Bye, Ian.
I don't know a nicer way to say this, but you're full of it. If you need a lawyer from a big corp to tell you, let me know. I'm here to educate.
And I will be nice and explain how/why. Go get your company's ethics code and tell me if you have to sign it or if it puts any responsibility for ethical behavior on individuals that act in the company's behalf.
Lemme know when you get that in your hand..
This site leaks private information to Baylor Regents and Administration
30k 589
Looks like the Ian thread posted just 5 days ago is going Secretariat on zuneroo's Matt Rhule Fail thread.
Looks like the Ian thread posted just 5 days ago is going Secretariat on zuneroo's Matt Rhule Fail thread.
He probably knew too much or had "evidence" on those swinging through the athletic department (football) with a 3 foot saber.Booray said:Why did Regan Ramsower escape the BOR's wrath?Keyser Soze said:
So your response is to ignore most of the points I made and raise different ones for me to reply to.
Not a good look there.
You do know BUPD and JA are not one and the same?
"The regent gave an explanation for this in their response in Shillinglaw. The BOR originally recommended firing both.
The Board offered both McCaw and Coach Briles an opportunity to address the Board in
person before its recommendations were announced. The Board had not talked to them directly on
this matter, and felt obligated to give both men an opportunity to defend themselves.
On May 24, the Board reconvened in a conference room on campus. Ten Regents attended
in person while the rest of the Board listened via speakerphone. McCaw and Coach Briles were
each given an hour to answer the same question: We look to you, as University leaders, to set the
proper tone and create the right kind of culture at Baylor. We have heard about alleged gang rapes,
special treatment for football players and reviewed your own words about keeping misbehavior
away from Judicial Affairs and Title IX. If you were in our shoes, what would you do?
McCaw went first. He responded with great remorse, tearfully acknowledging his
mistakes. He then proposed reforming the culture within football and Athletics with a five-point
plan to improve sexual violence prevention and response. McCaw's thoughtfulness and resolve
impressed many Regents.
Coach Briles came in next. He was overcome with emotion and made the following
statements:
He delegated down and he should not have.
He ran an in-house discipline system when he should have been an open house.
He structured things so that other people handled discipline issues and didn't necessarily report to him.
He was the last to know.
He made mistakes.
The Board asked Coach Briles what he would do to change things. "Tell me what you
want me to do and I'll do it," he said. The Board considered his response particularly telling.
Although he admitted his failings like McCaw had done, Coach Briles provided no solutions or
vision on how to lead Baylor football out of this crisis. The Board was concerned that given all
that had occurred, Coach Briles could not identify with the role of disciplinarian.
After further deliberation and debate, the Board voted to recommend placing McCaw on
probation with sanctions. The Board then took up a motion to reconsider the recommendation to
suspend Coach Briles with intent to terminate. The motion to reconsider failed by an
overwhelming margin. "
...so the BOR was ready to let CAB keep coaching if he had just presented a plan or a better plan?
Keyser...thanks for reminding me about this little gem! I had totally forgotten.
My point is Ian was Art's supervisor...in the whole, who knew what policy or who should know policy Ian clearly had a higher level of responsibility...since no one is saying ART or Ian actually committed any sexual assaults its about reporting and the BOR allowed Ian to stay because he made a better presentation than CAB? So I guess if the original sins were such that it was not a unanimous decision for termination and according to the regents pleading CAB could still be coach if he had just convinced them he could be a better disciplinarian then clearly they terminated him for PR purposes...because it made the world know they were serious?
The Board offered both McCaw and Coach Briles an opportunity to address the Board in
person before its recommendations were announced. The Board had not talked to them directly on
this matter, and felt obligated to give both men an opportunity to defend themselves.
On May 24, the Board reconvened in a conference room on campus. Ten Regents attended
in person while the rest of the Board listened via speakerphone. McCaw and Coach Briles were
each given an hour to answer the same question: We look to you, as University leaders, to set the
proper tone and create the right kind of culture at Baylor. We have heard about alleged gang rapes,
special treatment for football players and reviewed your own words about keeping misbehavior
away from Judicial Affairs and Title IX. If you were in our shoes, what would you do?
McCaw went first. He responded with great remorse, tearfully acknowledging his
mistakes. He then proposed reforming the culture within football and Athletics with a five-point
plan to improve sexual violence prevention and response. McCaw's thoughtfulness and resolve
impressed many Regents.
Coach Briles came in next. He was overcome with emotion and made the following
statements:
He delegated down and he should not have.
He ran an in-house discipline system when he should have been an open house.
He structured things so that other people handled discipline issues and didn't necessarily report to him.
He was the last to know.
He made mistakes.
The Board asked Coach Briles what he would do to change things. "Tell me what you
want me to do and I'll do it," he said. The Board considered his response particularly telling.
Although he admitted his failings like McCaw had done, Coach Briles provided no solutions or
vision on how to lead Baylor football out of this crisis. The Board was concerned that given all
that had occurred, Coach Briles could not identify with the role of disciplinarian.
After further deliberation and debate, the Board voted to recommend placing McCaw on
probation with sanctions. The Board then took up a motion to reconsider the recommendation to
suspend Coach Briles with intent to terminate. The motion to reconsider failed by an
overwhelming margin. "
...so the BOR was ready to let CAB keep coaching if he had just presented a plan or a better plan?
Keyser...thanks for reminding me about this little gem! I had totally forgotten.
My point is Ian was Art's supervisor...in the whole, who knew what policy or who should know policy Ian clearly had a higher level of responsibility...since no one is saying ART or Ian actually committed any sexual assaults its about reporting and the BOR allowed Ian to stay because he made a better presentation than CAB? So I guess if the original sins were such that it was not a unanimous decision for termination and according to the regents pleading CAB could still be coach if he had just convinced them he could be a better disciplinarian then clearly they terminated him for PR purposes...because it made the world know they were serious?
When the Title IX changes came, employees had to be trained to know what was "ethical" under the new guidelines. If they were not, it is scapegoating to release a document saying they were obligated to report against the wishes of the alleged victim without including that information. This has nothing to do with whether McCaw "should have" reported this or whether he's an evil person for not having done so.TellMeYouLoveMe said:D. C. Bear said:No, it is not "splitting hairs." If personnel were not trained that they had to affirmatively report any and all allegations they learned about without regard for the wishes of the alleged victim, and the institution put out a document saying that "While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report," that is scapegoating.TellMeYouLoveMe said:That's splitting hairs.D. C. Bear said:If athletics personnel were not trained that they had no discretion based on the alleged victim's wishes, then the statementKeyser Soze said:We are close then. Barnes definitely did not know what Baylor said the policy was. This was very apparent by his seeking advice from McCaw. McCaw then gave him incorrect advice that the girl must make the report to JA herself. I will not repeat everything, but Baylor did not buy McCaw didn't know the correct policy.D. C. Bear said:I am talking about the things that Barnes said regarding the training they were given (or not given) about Title IX. If Barnes asked them to report and they did not, when Baylor said that Barnes (or anyone else in athletics) had an obligation to report against their wishes, that is incomplete to the point of dishonesty if he had not been trained about his obligation to report. Engel remains a worthless journalist.Keyser Soze said:D. C. Bear said:If Barnes was telling the truth in his letter (and it was quoted accurately), the quote you have in italics from Baylor.edu is deceptive to the point of being dishonest.Keyser Soze said:Booray said:You are smarter than this. The "shocking" about things about McCaw's testimony (as represented in a motion) are:Keyser Soze said:
How long do that shocking revelation of a parent / judicial affairs meeting last from Mac Engel? hours before the correction ?
1) The BOR adopted an intentional strategy to throw football under the bus to hide systemic problems that would more likely be seen as failings of the BOR's leadership as opposed to Briles' leadership; and
2) That Briles' was essentially blameless in one of the key pieces of evidence used in that effort.
Why was Briles blameless in the VB incident? Because he did what the victim wanted him to do. By far the most powerful "fact" we learned in this latest episode is that the victim believes Briles had her best interests at heart.
Whether she/her parents had an actual JA meeting neither adds nor detracts from that particular narrative.
The Mac Engel story was huge - as originally printed it was a 180 degree account from what Baylor had said - No one had informed JA. Turned out to be sloppy work by Engel and was corrected the next day.
What we learned about Briles and the VB is not new.
Briles duty to report exist no matter what the girl wanted to do. I will also add, the accounts of the girl not wanting to report contradict some of the statements by the girl.
This is from Baylor.edu
While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report.
https://www.baylor.edu/thefacts/news.php?action=story&story=174834
In Mac Engel's article as it originally came out it said
"The parents met with judicial affairs"
This was very sensational as Baylor was very clear that no one reported the incident to Judicial Affairs.
Less than 24 hours later, Engel amended his article to this
"Barnes writes that he asked the victim and her parents to meet with Baylor's judicial affairs department. They declined. Despite pleading with her to file a report, she declined and left the school."
Barnes letter was definitely NOT quoted accurately in Engel's first edition which I was speaking of.
The last half of the post is not about Barnes' letter, just ACCURATELY pointing out what Baylor said the policy was. Why is that dishonest?
"While a victim may choose where or how to report a sexual assault, once informed of the report, athletics personnel may not exercise discretion to not report."
is scapegoating designed to put responsibility on athletics personnel at the expense of responsibility being placed on failure to adequately train personnel regarding reporting responsibilities.
It seems you are arguing that McCaw had been trained, but Barnes had not. I don't think that information has been publicly released.
From an organizational ethics standpoint, he can't look the other way.
Bye, Ian.
I don't know a nicer way to say this, but you're full of it. If you need a lawyer from a big corp to tell you, let me know. I'm here to educate.
And I will be nice and explain how/why. Go get your company's ethics code and tell me if you have to sign it or if it puts any responsibility for ethical behavior on individuals that act in the company's behalf.
Lemme know when you get that in your hand..
It is scapegoating to decline to include whether the personnel involved had actually been trained in the new requirements if they had not been because it frames the situation in such a way as to place blame on the athletic department personnel while ignoring the totality of the circumstances surrounding the situation.
Let me know when you get your head out of your ass.
You are putting way too much emphasis on a single incident. They have been very clear that Briles was not terminated for any one thing. I think it was a longshot a good presentation could have saved him like McCaw, but I do think it finalized things - he was not the man to lead football to a cultural change.
I find this interesting in that the possibility of not firing was clearly considered. They just believe termination was the correct decision.
I find this interesting in that the possibility of not firing was clearly considered. They just believe termination was the correct decision.