OT: Dayton's leading scorer is suing the school

[InterVarsity]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...flyers-dyshawn-pierre-suing-school-suspension

 

[GMU92]

I guess we'll never be sure quite what happened here, but there was no evidence and charges were not pressed. In our legal system that is not guilty (not even indicted). The player has a point, what is he being suspended for? An accusation that looks bad in the eyes of the school? Anyone can make an accusation that looks bad. See Duke lacrosse. See UVa fraternity Rolling Stone article.

 

[GSII]

If Curtis McCants successfully sued to return to Mason, this one should be an easy victory for this young man.

 

[Pablo]

If Curtis McCants successfully sued to return to Mason, this one should be an easy victory for this young man.

Curtis McCants did not successfully sue Mason.

 

[GSII]

I thought he filed it and the school lifted the suspension.

 

[GMUgemini]

It's impossible to know how much (if at all) the university conduct review board overreached without knowing why he was actually suspended. But I will say they don't arbitrarily suspend students for accusations made about them (erroneously, yes, but arbitrarily, no).

 

[Pablo]

I thought he filed it and the school lifted the suspension.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...rom-gmu/9e519c0c-c4d8-4e35-a2e7-266fba85e027/:

"Curtis McCants, who was removed from the George Mason University men's basketball team in May and sued unsuccessfully to be reinstated, has transferred to Division II power California State-Bakersfield."

"McCants earned first-team all-Colonial Athletic Association honors this past season. In each of the past two seasons he ranked in the top two nationally in assists."

 

[Quentin Daniels]

Dayton is a private school. Right or wrong, does Pierre have a right to play on its basketball team?

 

[gmujim92]

Dayton is a private school. Right or wrong, does Pierre have a right to play on its basketball team?

No, he doesn't -- and anyone who is found to have violated the school's code of conduct faces punishment for doing so.

Pierre signed the code of conduct, like every other Dayton student. He knew the deal.

That obviously doesn't mean he's guilty of a crime. It also doesn't mean he should be able to sue his way back onto the basketball team.

 

[Pablo]

http://daytonflyers.com/documents/2015/9/8/2015_2016_Student_Athlete_Handbook.pdf:

"CRIMINAL ACTIVITY POLICY

The Athletics Division has implemented the following sanctions for student-athletes involved in criminal behavior:

1. Misdemeanor (not including minor traffic violations) charges and felony investigations will be left to the discretion of a committee including the Vice President/Director of Athletics, Faculty Athletics Representative, and legal counsel."

 

[gmujim92]

This wasn't a criminal matter -- no charges were even filed.

A university panel, including fellow students, ruled that Pierre violated the code of conduct. That's why he got suspended.

 

[Pablo]

This wasn't a criminal matter -- no charges were even filed.

A university panel, including fellow students, ruled that Pierre violated the code of conduct. That's why he got suspended.

According to the ESPN article, the school investigated an allegation of sexual assault; i.e., a felony investigation.

 

[gmujim92]

He wasn't suspended because of an investigation that resulted in no criminal charges. If he had been, he'd probably have a better case for a lawsuit.

 

[Pablo]

He wasn't suspended because of an investigation that resulted in no criminal charges. If he had been, he'd probably have a better case for a lawsuit.

Again, I'm referring to the investigation by the school. According to UD's Student-Athlete Handbook, the sanction is determined by the committee investigating the allegation of sexual assault.

 

[GMU92]

Again, I'm referring to the investigation by the school. According to UD's Student-Athlete Handbook, the sanction is determined by the committee investigating the allegation of sexual assault.

The policy highlighted above states that it covers "student athletes involved in criminal behavior". There were no charges of criminal behavior, which is defined by (and prosecuted under) the laws and ordnances of the applicable state, municipality, etc. - investigated by professional law enforcement, charged by prosecutors, and ruled on by the courts. UD cannot define what is or is not criminal assault, that is up to the governing authorities of the State of Ohio. Therefore anything under that phrase should not apply. What might be interesting is if there were other factors involved which are under the direct purview of the university...for example schools have pretty wide latitude to punish for issues such as academic integrity, cheating, fraud, etc. It would be nice to see the entire body of evidence that was weighed by the committee.

 

[GMUgemini]

The policy highlighted above states that it covers "student athletes involved in criminal behavior". There were no charges of criminal behavior, which is defined by (and prosecuted under) the laws and ordnances of the applicable state, municipality, etc. - investigated by professional law enforcement, charged by prosecutors, and ruled on by the courts. UD cannot define what is or is not criminal assault, that is up to the governing authorities of the State of Ohio. Therefore anything under that phrase should not apply. What might be interesting is if there were other factors involved which are under the direct purview of the university...for example schools have pretty wide latitude to punish for issues such as academic integrity, cheating, fraud, etc. It would be nice to see the entire body of evidence that was weighed by the committee.

Because of pressure from the DOEd, sexual assault allegations now fall under the conduct committees purview under title IX.

 

[Pablo]

The policy highlighted above states that it covers "student athletes involved in criminal behavior". There were no charges of criminal behavior, which is defined by (and prosecuted under) the laws and ordnances of the applicable state, municipality, etc. - investigated by professional law enforcement, charged by prosecutors, and ruled on by the courts. UD cannot define what is or is not criminal assault, that is up to the governing authorities of the State of Ohio. Therefore anything under that phrase should not apply. What might be interesting is if there were other factors involved which are under the direct purview of the university...for example schools have pretty wide latitude to punish for issues such as academic integrity, cheating, fraud, etc. It would be nice to see the entire body of evidence that was weighed by the committee.

See https://www.udayton.edu/finadmin/campus/nondiscrimination/faqs/index.php:

"44. I'm a student who was accused of a crime but the prosecutor decided not to press charges. Yet I am still being charged through the University's student conduct system. How?

The University's standards are not the same as criminal standards. That is, the University's Code of Conduct might find certain behavior unbecoming to the University community that does not amount to a crime. Plus, the University applies a different standard of proof (typically, a "preponderance of evidence" standard) rather than the criminal system's standard of proof (the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard), meaning, generally, that the criminal system requires more exacting, conclusive evidence before a person can be found responsible. The criminal system uses a tougher standard because the consequences faced by criminal defendants are so serious -- they risk losing their liberty (i.e., going to jail) if found guilty.

45. What exactly is 'preponderance of evidence'?

Preponderance of evidence” is a standard of proof used in some internal University proceedings, such as Title IX investigations. As explained in part (d) of FAQ #30, this is how evidence is weighed – that is, the step of determining what actually happened – but this step is not even reached unless it’s first been determined that there’s probable cause that the policy was violated. Practically speaking, what the “preponderance of evidence” standard means is: “Is it more likely than not that what the complainant alleges to have happened actually happened?” If the decision-maker in a proceeding (whether a student conduct hearing board, investigatory team, etc.) determines it is more likely than not that the alleged event occurred, then the factual finding will be that the event did indeed happen. Sometimes this is described as "50% plus a feather." If the persuasive value of the evidence is so evenly balanced that the decision-maker is unable to say whether the alleged event occurred, then the factual finding will be that the event did not happen."

Also, see http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf:

"On April 4, 2011, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague Letter on student-on-student sexual harassment and sexual violence (“DCL”).4 The DCL explains a school’s responsibility to respond promptly and effectively to sexual violence against students in accordance with the requirements of Title IX.5 Specifically, the DCL:

 Provides guidance on the unique concerns that arise in sexual violence cases, such as a school’s independent responsibility under Title IX to investigate (apart from any separate criminal investigation by local police) and address sexual violence."

 

[GMU92]

Interesting, thanks for the information. That being the case, I think the university needs to revise its Student Athlete Handbook policy to address "conduct unbecoming to the university".