This seems like an issue that affects all colleges:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/201.../70091126/


"A University of Cincinnati athlete and a former UC law student sued the university Tuesday, alleging UC presumed them to be guilty of sexual allegations made against them, violating Ohio's Constitution.....

The athlete was called into his coach's office in October expecting to be named team captain. Instead, he was accused of violating UC's sexual harassment policy. He wasn't told who made the allegation or the substance of the allegation, the suit notes, but was suspended from athletic participation and wasn't given the chance to rebut the accusations or defend himself. Despite filing an open records request for the accusations, the athlete wasn't provided them by UC. He was reinstated five weeks later – but UC still didn't tell him the name of his accuser or the specifics of the accusation....

UC, the suit notes, using the preponderance of evidence, or "more likely than not," as the burden of proof in these cases. In legal settings, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The way UC administers its policy in such cases, the suit adds, does little to be fair to the accused and instead focuses on victim advocacy. "(I)n practice," the suit notes, "UC often imposes restrictions and punishments based solely on an allegation without allowing for any hearing or even conducting an investigation.""

The lawsuit does not name either of the students involved, but one was a football player.

(11-25-2014 04:30 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This seems like an issue that affects all colleges:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/201.../70091126/


"A University of Cincinnati athlete and a former UC law student sued the university Tuesday, alleging UC presumed them to be guilty of sexual allegations made against them, violating Ohio's Constitution.....

The athlete was called into his coach's office in October expecting to be named team captain. Instead, he was accused of violating UC's sexual harassment policy. He wasn't told who made the allegation or the substance of the allegation, the suit notes, but was suspended from athletic participation and wasn't given the chance to rebut the accusations or defend himself. Despite filing an open records request for the accusations, the athlete wasn't provided them by UC. He was reinstated five weeks later – but UC still didn't tell him the name of his accuser or the specifics of the accusation....

UC, the suit notes, using the preponderance of evidence, or "more likely than not," as the burden of proof in these cases. In legal settings, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The way UC administers its policy in such cases, the suit adds, does little to be fair to the accused and instead focuses on victim advocacy. "(I)n practice," the suit notes, "UC often imposes restrictions and punishments based solely on an allegation without allowing for any hearing or even conducting an investigation.""

The lawsuit does not name either of the students involved, but one was a football player.

Actually, that statement is not true. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal cases. The standard for civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence".

That isn't to say the suit is without merit. We would have to know more about the facts to determine that.

Interesting since I just read the article below today about UVA where the accusation is that it's the exact opposite situation. The culture there, according to this account, makes most victims feel as though that it's pointless to even try reporting sexual assault incidents (and we're talking about against run-of-the-mill frat guys, much less high profile athletes) since the administration has shown that nothing will be done about it:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/feat...119?page=7

(11-25-2014 04:30 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This seems like an issue that affects all colleges:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/201.../70091126/


"A University of Cincinnati athlete and a former UC law student sued the university Tuesday, alleging UC presumed them to be guilty of sexual allegations made against them, violating Ohio's Constitution.....

The athlete was called into his coach's office in October expecting to be named team captain. Instead, he was accused of violating UC's sexual harassment policy. He wasn't told who made the allegation or the substance of the allegation, the suit notes, but was suspended from athletic participation and wasn't given the chance to rebut the accusations or defend himself. Despite filing an open records request for the accusations, the athlete wasn't provided them by UC. He was reinstated five weeks later – but UC still didn't tell him the name of his accuser or the specifics of the accusation....

UC, the suit notes, using the preponderance of evidence, or "more likely than not," as the burden of proof in these cases. In legal settings, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The way UC administers its policy in such cases, the suit adds, does little to be fair to the accused and instead focuses on victim advocacy. "(I)n practice," the suit notes, "UC often imposes restrictions and punishments based solely on an allegation without allowing for any hearing or even conducting an investigation.""

The lawsuit does not name either of the students involved, but one was a football player.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal law standard where the State may take away your liberty or life.

Civil lawsuits are governed by the more probable than not standard, since neither the potential loss of life nor liberty is involved.

I don't have any opinions regarding the rest of the post or the lawsuit.