TheLeviathan

And yet our report cards have been solidly B/C........

Obviously in doing something like this there is a lot of subjectivity, but I really wonder how much the exercise is worth when we say "The offense was average, so the grades should be average too" Well, maybe. But some of the guys we are tossing Bs at in this were talked about as MVP candidates. Or guys that would be with the club all year long and weren't. Or guys that had ups and downs. I have a hard time giving anyone on this team better than a B. Dozier doesn't even go higher than that because he was a miserable suckfest of a black hole in our lineup for the first two months. It's....whatever. This is all an exercise in our down time and all that, but I think we're a few months past the trauma of the 2016 season and we've somehow forgotten just how bad it was.

Oh so you're going to trade three of them for a starter and then we'll have one starter? That's your plan?

I think we all want to believe you, but your source was confident enough to put a 24 hour window on things and we're well past that. Perhaps your source isn't as close to the talks as they think. We've reached the point where skepticism is warranted.

I think this thing is iced short of a turnover.

103 losses and people are worried about changing the make-up of the team..... http://www.bluehogreport.com/wp-content/uploads/facepalm.jpg?x17359

Grades are a bit bullish, especially relative to expectations set out at the start of 2016.

If it's not Reyes, I'd need Weaver and Perez to put it above a DeLeon package. Kelly is good defensively, but he's probably not a big leaguer with his bat.

Absolutely Ben. The University owes their students the obligation of following their own code if they're going to enforce it against them. My point is that, in the process of their investigation, they think a crime was committed (sexual assault in this case) they should refer that to the police. Their findings should never indicate there was a criminal violation without the criminal system determining it. If they find there was a violation of their code - fine. But, as you say, they better have followed their own procedures on this.

I am not stating the colleges don't have this right as of now. They do. Hell, they've basically been mandated to do it. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be that way. They shouldn't have the right, it's a non-legal court for all intents and purposes. And I'm opposed to all forms of non-legal quasi-courts for deciding if criminal action took place. Civil cases still happen with lawyers present, sometimes juries, judges, and a host of other provisions that come with our legal system. This was a handful of people hired, on behalf of the university, to look out for the university on a matter they have been mandated to address, with minimal due process (if any at all). Again, if your company suspects you of embezzling money or randomly murdering your co-workers, do they get the middle management team together to investigate? Because that's what is happening here.

Yes, what they hold as their ethics policy is up to them. If consenting group sex is something the university wants to put as actionable in their policy - that is their right. I don't have a problem with them having a tribunal to determine sexual harassment, lewd behavior, or whatever other non-criminal matters they want to put in their policy. And if they deem a student violated one of those non-criminal policies - boot them. Have a process for it, but boot away. But to expel someone for "sexual assault" is to determine a crime happened. Your policy should be to refer all crime to the courts. If someone is accused of sexual assault at your work place they don't get the department heads together to determine your guilt. They call the police. Why should colleges be any different?

You think firing someone is the same as labeling someone a sexual assaulter? You can't possibly believe that. The end effect is not even remotely "the same". I'm not taking issue with any company or organization's ability to enforce a non-criminal policy of conduct. I'm taking issue with a non-judicial entity making decisions about crimes. It's easy to look past how HORRIBLE an idea that is when we hate sexual predators. But that's when it's most important not to look past! The next thing we'll hear is that the courts aren't doing the right thing about child molesters so we'll let the PTA hand out banishments. Don't like that one? Come up with any analogy you want where the following are claimed to justify it: The courts aren't "good enough", the "won't someone please think of the children!" emotional appeal of "this is so important we have to do something!", and then we let a non-judicial tribunal decide what happened and how to handle the accused. Want to reduce sexual assaults? I'm with you, but not every solution should be on the table. This one most definitely shouldn't be. Form task forces between the campus police and law enforcement. Add extra lighting and security around campuses. Increase awareness and training for officers who field these calls. Form specific police units to handle these crimes on campuses. Hit them with the "yes means yes" framework over and over and over again on campus. Colleges should help victims pursue criminal charges, have counselors and others there to help them through the process so they put these things in the court. But setting up side tribunals of a bunch of stuffed shirt college employees to decide sexual assault? Good lord what a terrible idea.

Then you gather more evidence if you want to pursue the crime. Depending on the state you could just fire them also, but you do so under at will laws, not because you declare them a thief.

Policies about drugs still entail law enforcement when the drug has criminal punishments. And when they don't (like drug testing for employment and that sort of thing. Or drug testing for welfare benefits) I oppose those policies on the same grounds. Crimes should go through the criminal courts where all the foundational protections of our system are in place. No tribunal at work, college, or anywhere else should be determining if you murdered someone, embezzled, sexually assaulted, robbed, or kidnapped anyone. That's not the proper place for those matters. All of these students did more than enough to be kicked out just for their lewd behavior. That's sufficient. We don't have to decide if they were criminals, leave that to the authorities.

I also think history will show this strategy to be ineffective for what it is intended for. Crimes belong in criminal court. Throw these idiots out for lewd behavior or even harassment, but assault? Nope, not the proper place for that determination. We should never sacrifice basic rights and judicial principles just to feel like we're doing something. The scumbag's right to defend himself in the wake of a criminal allegation are the same as mine. I don't want to chip away at them.

You're right the way I phrased that made that unclear. Civil suits are still happening in a courtroom following a great deal more in terms of procedures, rules, and host of other judicial measures. They are presided over by a judge, often there is a jury, there are lawyers, etc.

Well, as I linked you to before, there are law professors and judges already excoriating this. So to what degree they erode anything I guess we'll find out. I'm a guy who prizes principles and practical success. I think this violates both. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, the less sexual assaults the better, but I don't think we'll view it that way in the long run.

All of the examples you mentioned run through a court, a judge, or some other authorized official under our judicial system before someone is stripped of them or action is enforced against them. Not just some panel of individuals with various qualifications. I think you're very mistaken viewing this as only a risk to the accused. It's certainly that and, as you said, I seriously question it will have enough positive effect to even warrant that risk. But it's the larger risk I'm worried about. It's how comfortable we are re-routing how we deal with crime to small, non-judicial tribunals. That threatens the very nature of justice and threatens to erode the important principles we built our system on. It suggests we've given up getting that system right and now we're taking matters into our own hands. I'm not comfortable with that at all. And I think, given some of the rhetoric you and others are using here, that that's precisely what we're doing. You might think the ends justify the means, I think that's rarely the case. Especially with something as important as our notion of justice.

I understand the appeal of that, given the deficits of the criminal justice system. But what you are compromising in the process is too foundational and important to me.

Your first paragraph makes the colleges sound like Batman. And that's sort of my point. (Even as a total nerd for Batman)

Then we should address the "unprosecuted" part, not setup some quasi court.

All of that is true. It doesn't change my stance though. I think any suspected assault should be handled through the police and courts as a crime. An accounting firm doesn't hold their own trial for embezzlement, they bring in law enforcement when there is a crime.

For a criminal matter, the accuser should go through criminal court for justice. That's precisely my point. We've created some sort of quasi-court because the real one doesn't work the way we want it to. So, again to remain analogous, the family of my murder victim declines to press charges but instead goes to my employer and asks them to hold a tribunal so I get fired. A group of managers gets together, holds investigations, declares me a murderer, and fires me. This is apparently what you want. If you have a problem with the way criminal court handles sexual assault (strictly the issue I'm not comfortable with) - you should either be reforming the criminal court or encouraging civil lawsuits. Getting justice through a college tribunal is an absolutely terrible idea for a whole host of reasons I've already laid out. (And many more that I haven't, like for example, how disproportionately screwed over black males will be by this)

No, they're making a decision about a criminal act through a non-criminal proceeding. And so far you've said they need to do that because the criminal proceeding isn't pursued or failed. That's like you being charged with murder, you are declared innocent in a court of law, and then a group of bureacrats in your office hold a two month investigation, declare you a murderer, and fire you. Tell me that doesn't sound preposterous.

Or maybe colleges have become such a useless institution on every level that we should just shut them down. I'm kind of partial to that. Start over.