Lloyd Tubman Update...

[KyCat]

You keep making that point, but it is unimportant to the point. Aside from that, no one is contending that taxpayers have a right to attend UK. The point people are making is that because UK is taxpayer funded, they can't just do anything they want. They are required to treat students consistently and in accordance with due process and some objective standard. Having a right to attend UK has nothing to do with it.

And where is your evidence that UK did anything wrong? Where is your evidence that UK treated students inconsistantly and not in accordance with due process and objective standards?

You are railing about a circumstance for which you do not have the full set of facts. Nor do I. Expelling Tubman very well could have been a poor and wrong decision. But I do not know that. And I do not see anything in your comments that suggests you know that either.

I am a UK fan all day every day. I wish this had not happened and Tubman was on the field. But I do not know the circumstances and I refuse to rush to judgement that UK did something wrong or that the SRB acted inappropriately without some real evidence and documentation otherwise. It seems to me the sole basis for condeming the SRB is simply because they have the autority to review such circumstances and made an unpopular decision for UK football fans. There does not seem to be any documenation provided that the SRB actually made a decision not based on the evidence and testimony it heard and reviewed.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Not the exact words that Vandaly used but damn if the meaning isn't pretty much the same.

Perhaps if you only take part of what he said. He actually said the SRB should hear non-criminal issues and the criminal issues should be handled by the courts. This means you could definitely be kicked out without committing a crime, so the meaning isn't at all the same.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

And where is your evidence that UK did anything wrong? Where is your evidence that UK treated students inconsistantly and not in accordance with due process and objective standards?

You are railing about a circumstance for which you do not have the full set of facts. Nor do I. Expelling Tubman very well could have been a poor and wrong decision. But I do not know that. And I do not see anything in your comments that suggests you know that either.

I am a UK fan all day every day. I wish this had not happened and Tubman was on the field. But I do not know the circumstances and I refuse to rush to judgement that UK did something wrong or that the SRB acted inappropriately without some real evidence and documentation otherwise. It seems to me the sole basis for condeming the SRB is simply because they have the autority to review such circumstances and made an unpopular decision for UK football fans. There does not seem to be any documenation provided that the SRB actually made a decision not based on the evidence and testimony it heard and reviewed.

You have to keep in mind that I do not necessarily think UK did anything wrong, and I have stated that numerous times. What I am saying is that the known evidence raises serious questions about the objectivity of the SRB, and that questions should be asked by the taxpayers of the state. The SRB is supposed to use the same standard of proof as used by the Grand Jury. Although we do not know how the Grand Jury vote went member by member, we do know they felt the evidence was not sufficient to indict based on that standard of proof. The SRB reached a different conclusion using the same standard. Since the Grand Jury has much more authority to collect evidence, I would doubt any physical evidence was presented to the SRB that the Grand Jury did not see. Direct testimony of the two parties would have been the primary difference. However, the Grand Jury would have seen both parties statements about their version of events.

The SRB is made up of individuals who have a financial relationship with the University, so they may be biased toward protecting UK's interests more than adhering to an objective standard of proof, no matter how the decision would effect UK. They certainly aren't a panel of unbiased judges as is the case with the Grand Jury.

In spite of what Fuzz says, the preponderance of the evidence standard is reasonably objective. Does the factual evidence lead us to think it is more likely than not that this happened? Given the fact that the Grand Jury has more power to compel people to talk and to collect physical evidence than the SRB, it raises a question of how the SRB would have had sufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof and the Grand Jury did not.

I could go on, but it has all been covered here over and over again.

My contention is that there is enough questions about how these cases are handled, especially in light of the current political climate concerning sexual assault, to raise red flags. I am suggesting that the taxpayers need to know more about this process and how decisions are reached in order to feel comfortable that students are being treated fairly by the university. As I said before, if Transy and Center want to expel students for combing their hair a certain way, that is within their rights because they are private institutions. UK is not and should not have the same leeway in expelling students. It's process should be much more rigorous and similar to criminal processes. As a taxpayer, we may not have the right to go there, but once we are accepted, we have the right to be treated fairly by the system. I hope they are treating students fairly and politics and external perceptions do not taint the decision making. However, the facts we know make it seem like the process is certainly open to such things, and that needs to be questioned in my opinion.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

^^^^ Well said. That is exactly what I've been trying to articulate.

 

[KyCat]

That's fine, what do you disagree with. Also, I have clearly, more than once, stated that I do not believe the only way a school should be able to expel a student is if they are convicted of a crime. My comments were specific to serious crimes, rape, murder and so on. Further, part of my comments are based on Blackstone's Formulation.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

Nice obfuscation. I asked you specific questions which you did not answer but rather chose to direct me to another response that did not answer the questions I asked. Despite failing to answer my questions you feel fine to ask me what I disagree with in the irrelevant post you pointed me to. Clever tactic, one typically used by someone to misdirect the conversation so as not to reveal they have no real response.

That is the problem I see with most everyone railing against the decision. There is never any real meat to the accusation that there was somehow something unjust about the ruling because no one knows. You can tell me all day that you do not like the process and I can appreciate and understand that. You can say there was no evidence or that the potential exists that the SRB was biased or that they were not equipped to make such decisions. But I never see real evidence to support these claims. Nowhere does anyone in the pages I have read provide actual documentation or evidence to support the argument that an unjust decision was made. The post you referenced made an attempt to address the concern about due process and though nicely prespared, it was largely subjective and did not answer the questions above.

The rest of the questions that I and others have asked are never answered because there are no answers that support the position many express. I am not saying the decision was right or good, I do not know. I am asking for actual documentation that the decision was flawed. As it was a closed hearing from my understanding, none of us know what transpired. So all you are left with is disappointment in the outcome and hollow accusations at the process, UK, SRB, and the girl who made the accusation.

In response to your other comments, while it may have been specific to serious crime, the clear implication and context of your response about the OJ scenario clearly indicated in that case you would defer the authority of the university to make a decision on whether it could dismiss a student and place that in the hands of the courts, which is what I said.. With respect to your reference to Blackstone's formulation and that 10 guilty should escape as opposed to 1 innocent be punished, that is all well and good and I concur. I just do not see the applicability of that in this circumstance. Tubman was suspended pending the outcome of the decision of the SRB. Your supposition based on the position you take, as best I can infer is that you do not believe that the SRB considered Tubman innocent prior to the process. I see no basis for that supposition based on what we know.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Then I question your reading comprehension if you do not see that is what was implied by his comments. When asked specifically if OJ had been a student, should he be allowed to return to school because he was found not guilty, he clearly said, "Sadly yes." Why do you think he described it as sadly? He went on to say in response to the question, "The real court system won't always get things right, but it is better to allow 10 guilty men to go free rather than convict 1 who is innocent." Why do you think he referred to the real court system?

I frankly do not see how that comment can be interpreted any other way than to mean he would deny the college's authority to make decisions in such matters and replace it with a conviction by the court. The OJ case is the telling point not because of the nature of the crime nor the notoriety of the accused but because it is universally recognized as an instance where the jury found someone not guilty that most observers believe to have committed the crime.

Tell me the meaning you inferred from his words in response to the question. If he 'in no way' meant UK should not be allowed to dismiss the student unless they were convicted by the 'real court', use your great reading comprehension skills to enlighten me as to what his response actually did mean.

He said the SRB should handle non-criminal matters and criminal accusations should be handled by the courts. Therefore, a student could still be expelled for matters that were not criminal by the SRB, meaning students would not have to be convicted of a crime to be expelled. It's pretty straight forward. He is twisting his words into something he did not say.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Did you not just read what cat in the hat posted...good Lord. I'm not using a tactic, I just want someone joining the party late to do the leg work, not me.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Nice obfuscation. I asked you specific questions which you did not answer but rather chose to direct me to another response that did not answer the questions I asked. Despite failing to answer my questions you feel fine to ask me what I disagree with in the irrelevant post you pointed me to. Clever tactic, one typically used by someone to misdirect the conversation so as not to reveal they have no real response.

That is the problem I see with most everyone railing against the decision. There is never any real meat to the accusation that there was somehow something unjust about the ruling because no one knows. You can tell me all day that you do not like the process and I can appreciate and understand that. You can say there was no evidence or that the potential exists that the SRB was biased or that they were not equipped to make such decisions. But I never see real evidence to support these claims. Nowhere does anyone in the pages I have read provide actual documentation or evidence to support the argument that an unjust decision was made. The post you referenced made an attempt to address the concern about due process and though nicely prespared, it was largely subjective and did not answer the questions above.

The rest of the questions that I and others have asked are never answered because there are no answers that support the position many express. I am not saying the decision was right or good, I do not know. I am asking for actual documentation that the decision was flawed. As it was a closed hearing from my understanding, none of us know what transpired. So all you are left with is disappointment in the outcome and hollow accusations at the process, UK, SRB, and the girl who made the accusation.

In response to your other comments, while it may have been specific to serious crime, the clear implication and context of your response about the OJ scenario clearly indicated in that case you would defer the authority of the university to make a decision on whether it could dismiss a student and place that in the hands of the courts, which is what I said.. With respect to your reference to Blackstone's formulation and that 10 guilty should escape as opposed to 1 innocent be punished, that is all well and good and I concur. I just do not see the applicability of that in this circumstance. Tubman was suspended pending the outcome of the decision of the SRB. Your supposition based on the position you take, as best I can infer is that you do not believe that the SRB considered Tubman innocent prior to the process. I see no basis for that supposition based on what we know.

You are being obtuse. Please read the entire thread before commenting again.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Nice obfuscation. I asked you specific questions which you did not answer but rather chose to direct me to another response that did not answer the questions I asked. Despite failing to answer my questions you feel fine to ask me what I disagree with in the irrelevant post you pointed me to. Clever tactic, one typically used by someone to misdirect the conversation so as not to reveal they have no real response.

That is the problem I see with most everyone railing against the decision. There is never any real meat to the accusation that there was somehow something unjust about the ruling because no one knows. You can tell me all day that you do not like the process and I can appreciate and understand that. You can say there was no evidence or that the potential exists that the SRB was biased or that they were not equipped to make such decisions. But I never see real evidence to support these claims. Nowhere does anyone in the pages I have read provide actual documentation or evidence to support the argument that an unjust decision was made. The post you referenced made an attempt to address the concern about due process and though nicely prespared, it was largely subjective and did not answer the questions above.

The rest of the questions that I and others have asked are never answered because there are no answers that support the position many express. I am not saying the decision was right or good, I do not know. I am asking for actual documentation that the decision was flawed. As it was a closed hearing from my understanding, none of us know what transpired. So all you are left with is disappointment in the outcome and hollow accusations at the process, UK, SRB, and the girl who made the accusation.

In response to your other comments, while it may have been specific to serious crime, the clear implication and context of your response about the OJ scenario clearly indicated in that case you would defer the authority of the university to make a decision on whether it could dismiss a student and place that in the hands of the courts, which is what I said.. With respect to your reference to Blackstone's formulation and that 10 guilty should escape as opposed to 1 innocent be punished, that is all well and good and I concur. I just do not see the applicability of that in this circumstance. Tubman was suspended pending the outcome of the decision of the SRB. Your supposition based on the position you take, as best I can infer is that you do not believe that the SRB considered Tubman innocent prior to the process. I see no basis for that supposition based on what we know.

Nice diatribe, but how was a correct decision made by the SRB? Again, please read cat in the hats post, just a few posts ago.

 

[Beatle Bum]

State prosecutors do not have to take matters to the grand jury. They usually do when there is a high profile matter, but they feel they have a crap case and want the public to see that a jury concurs. Fuzz mentioned that the prosecutors are the adjudicative professionals. Well, it is not just one attorney that decides a case is crap and should go to the grand jury. That decision is often made by a team, especially in a city the size of Lexington. So, we have good reason to believe the prosecutors did not think the allegations were valid. The grand jury concurred, after seeing the evidence, that there was no probably cause (not a high standard) to indict. That amounts to the decision of two entities, the prosecutorial team and the grand jury, that did not find the evidence credible.

There really is no possible way that the SRB had more information than the grand jury. The grand jury and the prosecutor have subpoena power and other tools available that the SRB does not. Lie to the grand jury and you can be prosecuted for perjury. Lie to the SRB and they can only bring you before another SRB for punishment of a school code violation. Not at all the same thing.

The SRB consists of 3 university people who are currently or have been paid by the university and probably feel strongly about the reputation of their school. They may also have other strong feelings relevant to the particular case, but those would likely not ever be known. A respondent can remove one of the three and have that person replaced, but how would a student know that without being able to ask the significant questions, like you would an empaneled jury.

Only 2 of the 3 have to agree with the claimant’s case to punish the respondent. A student who has a case being investigated for criminal charges is at a distinct disadvantage in that the school does not have to wait until the threat of criminal prosecution is over to hold the school hearing. And then, the appeal of their decision must come within 7 days, also often before a criminal prosecution will be resolved, and the appeal can only focus on a procedural defect or on evidence that was not available at the time of the hearing. This is inherently unfair to a person facing criminal charges.

In a he said/she said case, if a respondent does not testify, the SRB cannot hold that against him/her, but that will mean that the SRB only hears one side of the story. And, the idea that the SRB had medical evidence (such as a rape kit) or testimony from people off the campus who might have information about the claimant has no merit. There are restrictions upon the SRB that are not upon the grand jury. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume the SRB only heard from the claimant and a few of her friends. It could not compel anyone else to testify. In a he said/she said confrontation where only her story is told and there may be no one to present the weaknesses in her story, the SRB may have had no choice but to find her story 51% more believable that not believable.

I doubt anyone who studies justice systems can conclude that this is fair to the respondent who is facing potential criminal prosecution. It is truly offensive to suggest otherwise.

A school of higher learning with a respectable law school should strive for better. A respondent stuck in this kind of mess has to live their whole life with this hanging over their head and may have future opportunities taken from them because of the SRB’s conclusion, not to mention public perception when you are already known. The school should, therefore, want the fairest process available. If not, the school should move without provocation to fix the issue.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

The facts surrounding this terrible system seem to be causing the SRB cheerleaders to pause. Perhaps common sense has finally prevailed, but I doubt it.

 

[Wall Knight Teague]

Yes, but the prosecutor only presents the case...we've been through this.
I don't know that the SRB members themselves are private. You could contact UK and request a list of those members. Pretty sure that the Dean of Students is one of the members of them. IIRC there are 10 people who are on the board, 3 will hear any particular case. The hearings themselves are private for the same reason that Grand Juries are held in private...to protect the privacy of the student.
There are 29,000 students at UK, 400 some odd athletes most of whom are unknown to the general public. For 99% of the students if they were called before the SRB, who would know? And isn't that a good thing?
Do we want to publicize the discipline of 18-22 yr old kids?

Most UK athletes are known by the public?

What a stupid post...

Maybe 5% would be recognized on the street.

 

[KyCat]

Nice diatribe, but how was a correct decision made by the SRB? Again, please read cat in the hats post, just a few posts ago.

I read all of Cat's posts, some of which are reasonable and I have read all of yours and you continue to dodge, evade, circument and misdirect. None of your the posts address the questions that I and others have asked. Most responses make the same repeated wild unsubstantiated acusations of bias or are off point on the issue trying to compare the process of the Grand Jury to that of the SRB. The two are different, what they potentially ruled on could be different. The fact that different bodies can review the same information and have completely different outcomes is summarily dimissed.

Was this a good situation? Not at all. Are there things we do not know? Absolutely. But there is nothing in anything that I have read on any post that points out a real flaw in the system. Nothing that gives credence to the potential for a bias that is not normal in any review including the GJ.

For some reason several posters have decided that the SRB should have ruled differently than they did and are emotionally invested in their position. These comments make continued unsubstantiated allegations. Many act as if there was deliberate intention by SRB to rule in this manner to protect the university (from what I still don't know).

On the other hand it seems those defending the process have each voiced support for Tubman but just do not know what happened. We are not glad he was suspended but we also do not see reason to believe that the actions of the SRB are suspect. We are not going out on a soap box proclaiming without facts that the process was flawed or that the SRB was biased or that his due process was violated because there are no facts, no evidence, no documentation that supports those claims.

 

[KyCat]

The facts surrounding this terrible system seem to be causing the SRB cheerleaders to pause. Perhaps common sense has finally prevailed, but I doubt it.

Now you resort to calling those who disagree with you as being SRB cheerleaders. That is the second tactic you have used that is commonly reserved for when you know you are losing. Misdirection and name calling.... what will be next?

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Again, what question do you want answered. With all that typing I'm pretty sure you could have asked your questions again. No need for fluff, just bullet points. I'll answer each one.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I read all of Cat's posts, some of which are reasonable and I have read all of yours and you continue to dodge, evade, circument and misdirect. None of your the posts address the questions that I and others have asked. Most responses make the same repeated wild unsubstantiated acusations of bias or are off point on the issue trying to compare the process of the Grand Jury to that of the SRB. The two are different, what they potentially ruled on could be different. The fact that different bodies can review the same information and have completely different outcomes is summarily dimissed.

Was this a good situation? Not at all. Are there things we do not know? Absolutely. But there is nothing in anything that I have read on any post that points out a real flaw in the system. Nothing that gives credence to the potential for a bias that is not normal in any review including the GJ.

For some reason several posters have decided that the SRB should have ruled differently than they did and are emotionally invested in their position. These comments make continued unsubstantiated allegations. Many act as if there was deliberate intention by SRB to rule in this manner to protect the university (from what I still don't know).

On the other hand it seems those defending the process have each voiced support for Tubman but just do not know what happened. We are not glad he was suspended but we also do not see reason to believe that the actions of the SRB are suspect. We are not going out on a soap box proclaiming without facts that the process was flawed or that the SRB was biased or that his due process was violated because there are no facts, no evidence, no documentation that supports those claims.

I reread your original questions. Myself, cat in the hat, caveman and others have answered all of them specifically. You may be fuzz using a different name or you may be a troll. To have read my 3 point post which was quite specific and then ask inane questions that have been clearly answered, is absurd. You can ask again and maybe myself and others will waste their time answereing questions already asked and answered. Just for info sake, I kinda understand how one goes to UK. I am an alum, are you? Just curious.

 

[fuzz77]

I can't find any way to see hears a case. Why does the SRB need to be private.

The SRB members aren't private to those in the proceeding, however jury members do remain anonymous. If those being judged by the SRB feel that one or more board members are unfair to them, they would know who to complain about. I don't see the need to know for those of us who aren't a part of the process.

 

[fuzz77]

"400 some odd athletes most of whom are unknown to the general public."

Most UK athletes are known by the public?

What a stupid post...

Maybe 5% would be recognized on the street.

 

[fuzz77]

The facts surrounding this terrible system seem to be causing the SRB cheerleaders to pause. Perhaps common sense has finally prevailed, but I doubt it.

Such a terrible system that it has been been in use by almost every college and university not only in the US but most of the western world for over a century.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

The SRB members aren't private to those in the proceeding, however jury members do remain anonymous. If those being judged by the SRB feel that one or more board members are unfair to them, they would know who to complain about. I don't see the need to know for those of us who aren't a part of the process.

That isn't what I asked. I asked why they would need to be anonymous at all.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Such a terrible system that it has been been in use by almost every college and university not only in the US but most of the western world for over a century.

Are you saying time and adoption validate a system? Are you sure you want to use that argument?

 

[fuzz77]

That isn't what I asked. I asked why they would need to be anonymous at all.

I don't know if they are. Have you requested the member's names from UK?
Anyone who had been involved in the process would know with whom they've they dealt. It isn't a confessional where someone sits hidden behind a curtain for you to confess your sins.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

So, your position is that if I work hard enough, maybe I can find their names. That is utterly ridiculous. Dozens of articles have been written about this case. None have mentioned the name of the 3 people hearing the case. It is obvious their names are being withheld, again, why. You see, here is my issue. The school is an interested party in this, but the school also gets to choose the SRB members hearing the case. I think it was you who said the school has to look out for itself and the student body as a whole. That would leave ample opportunity to stack the deck for or against any party the school chooses. Naming the members that hear the case would strip the school,of that unfair advantage. That is yet another area where the respondent is denied due process.

 

[fuzz77]

Are you saying time and adoption validate a system? Are you sure you want to use that argument?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Be honest, how many complaints about the system have you heard in your lifetime before this particular case? Were you even aware that it existed?
Between my bachelors and masters degrees I spent about 6 years in college as a student...I taught classes at two different universities on a part time basis for another 10 years. Never once did I hear anyone complain or imply that the SRB process was unfair.

Yeah, if there were major problems with the system it wouldn't continue to be adopted.

 

[fuzz77]

So, your position is that if I work hard enough, maybe I can find their names. That is utterly ridiculous. Dozens of articles have been written about this case. None have mentioned the name of the 3 people hearing the case. It is obvious their names are being withheld, again, why. You see, here is my issue. The school is an interested party in this, but the school also gets to choose the SRB members hearing the case. I think it was you who said the school has to look out for itself and the student body as a whole. That would leave ample opportunity to stack the deck for or against any party the school chooses. Naming the members that hear the case would strip the school,of that unfair advantage. That is yet another area where the respondent is denied due process.

********. How hard would it be to find out? Call Tubman, call his mother and ask. What obligation do they have to protect their names?
You're really trying too hard.
Perhaps their names haven't been mentioned because nobody reporting the story has thought that the names were important. Why don't you call the H-L and ask them to find out?

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Be honest, how many complaints about the system have you heard in your lifetime before this particular case? Were you even aware that it existed?
Between my bachelors and masters degrees I spent about 6 years in college as a student...I taught classes at two different universities on a part time basis for another 10 years. Never once did I hear anyone complain or imply that the SRB process was unfair.

Yeah, if there were major problems with the system it wouldn't continue to be adopted.

And now you wave the white flag of surrender. You can't really defend it any longer so you just fall back to if it ain't broke don't fix it. Ridiculous. Students are a captive audience, who are they going to complain to. The schools have total control over these hearings if they want to use it. Why would they change. Btw, few things that involve power and secrecy are ever voluntarily changed by those who hold the power.

I attended UK. Yes I was aware of the SRB. No, I never heard a complaint either, but that doesn't mean complaints didn't exist and it certainly doesn't mean that either of us were in school when a situation like this one came up. Your entire argument in the last few posts is irrelevant .

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

********. How hard would it be to find out? Call Tubman, call his mother and ask. What obligation do they have to protect their names?
You're really trying too hard.
Perhaps their names haven't been mentioned because nobody reporting the story has thought that the names were important. Why don't you call the H-L and ask them to find out?

Actually, I'll email Mark Story about it tomorrow, but I guarantee the names will not be released.

 

[fuzz77]

And now you wave the white flag of surrender. You can't really defend it any longer so you just fall back to if it ain't broke don't fix it. Ridiculous. Students are a captive audience, who are they going to complain to. The schools have total control over these hearings if they want to use it. Why would they change. Btw, few things that involve power and secrecy are ever voluntarily changed by those who hold the power.

I attended UK. Yes I was aware of the SRB. No, I never heard a complaint either, but that doesn't mean complaints didn't exist and it certainly doesn't mean that either of us were in school when a situation like this one came up. Your entire argument in the last few posts is irrelevant .

Again you are full of ********. Students who get expelled are not "captive". Millions of us have attended and graduated from many colleges and universities and we are not captive to their processes. If there were problems, people would complain.

You continue to be stuck on this notion that schools shouldn't be able to defend themselves or their student bodies.
The process isn't secret to those who go before the SRB and that is all that really matters.

Frankly, what makes you think you have a right to know? The students have a right to privacy as well.

 

[Beatle Bum]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Be honest, how many complaints about the system have you heard in your lifetime before this particular case? Were you even aware that it existed?
Between my bachelors and masters degrees I spent about 6 years in college as a student...I taught classes at two different universities on a part time basis for another 10 years. Never once did I hear anyone complain or imply that the SRB process was unfair.

Yeah, if there were major problems with the system it wouldn't continue to be adopted.

Ridiculous post with irrelevant points.

 

[fuzz77]

Ridiculous post with irrelevant points.

The next defensive step when losing an argument. Claim that points are irrelevant because you have no rational response to refute the argument.

 

[BBBLazing]

I reread your original questions. Myself, cat in the hat, caveman and others have answered all of them specifically. You may be fuzz using a different name or you may be a troll. To have read my 3 point post which was quite specific and then ask inane questions that have been clearly answered, is absurd. You can ask again and maybe myself and others will waste their time answereing questions already asked and answered. Just for info sake, I kinda understand how one goes to UK. I am an alum, are you? Just curious.

If you want bullet points, I've got them:
1. Did Tubman violate any school policies. If yes or no, how do you know? Explain the evidence either way.
2 Did UK do anything that was in violation of their printed/published policies? If yes, what?
3. If Tubman has been treated so horribly, why has he not made a statement? Before you talk about the 5th amendment, you all say he is innocent. So if the grand jury didn't indict him, why would he be afraid to make a statement?
4. If he has a great lawsuit against UK, why hasn't he filed it? Watch tv. There are plenty of lawyers willing to take cases.
5. Is there any proof (remember you are all requiring proof other than testimony, which is in fact proof) that the girl lied? You keep saying she should be dismissed or sued. Why does his dismissal require proof and her's does not?
6. Why have none of you responded to my post that pointed out that sworn testimony is in fact proof? You repeatedly have said that he said/ she said is not enough to chin the bar on a preponderance of the evidence standard, but when I told you that it is, you quit talking. Read the law. A jury, whether a grand jury, trial jury, or UK board can determine that they believe one witness and not the other. That is enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, much less a preponderance of the evidence.
7. Have any of you do gooders that are so pissed off about the way UK handles student complaints ever complained when the victim of the board's ire was not a talented football player?

Answer those questions honestly without assumptions and I'll quit.

 

[jauk11]

Fuzz, or whatever your name is, I have a serious question. Are you even a UK football fan, I have to wonder, because all you ever post about is from a UK slant and seldom if ever about the football team or its players, unless in a situation like this. I used to count the minutes from a post critical of mitch, it really kept you hopping for a while. You were forever defending mitch's INDEFENSIBLE spending for football (before the strike), how much did his BARE MINIMUM support of football cost UK, culminating in the strike. Are you the official UK spokesman for Rivals boards, or are you just the unofficial one. If you aren't getting paid, you sure as hell should be. You also have all the inside info on anything that comes up, seating assignments, financing, (from a biased point of view), parking, the value of kicking 6000 fans out for more MONEY, you name it.

Are you really mitch, or are you just joined at the waist with him, or are you his boss since you don't reserve your lopsided arguments just to defend him, as everyone can see from your endless posts on here.

But then you have only sworn off this thread about a dozen times, maybe two dozen will be the charm.

 

[KyCat]

I reread your original questions. Myself, cat in the hat, caveman and others have answered all of them specifically. You may be fuzz using a different name or you may be a troll. To have read my 3 point post which was quite specific and then ask inane questions that have been clearly answered, is absurd. You can ask again and maybe myself and others will waste their time answereing questions already asked and answered. Just for info sake, I kinda understand how one goes to UK. I am an alum, are you? Just curious.

A troll huh? Fuzz using a fake name? More tactics of a person with a weak argument. Curious how the person defending UK is considered the troll on a UK fan message board.

I read all your posts including your 3 point post, I read posts by Cat in the Hat, Caveman and others and no, they did not answer any of the questions clearly or otherwise. The bottom line is an event occurred on campus between two students that neither you nor I have first hand knowledge. While the GJ did not find probable cause sufficient to return an indictment on the specific charge the prosecutor brought we also know that the SRB did find in their review a preponderance of evidence to warrant their decision. What we do not know is what were the violations of the code of conduct that the SRB found to warrant its decision to deny continued enrollment.

And so far...

• No one has documented any specific errors in the steps the SRB took, though many are critical..
• No one has provided documentation that the SRB did not consider sufficient evidence or render its decision properly, though many speak as if the SRB erred without documentation they did.
• No one has provided evidence that the SRB acted in a biased or unprofessional manner, though some have repeatedly accused them of either having a bias or acting in a biased manner.
• No one has attended the actual hearing or read the transcripts so no one knows what transpired, though many speak as if they know what what evidence was reviewed and what the testimony was..
• No one appears to know what the specific violation was that the SRB determined as the basis for expulsion, yet many continue to react as if the reason were the rape charge without considering possible other violations of the student code..

As for the inane questions, BBB provided a nice list and here are a few more.:

1. What facts support the suggestion that due process was not provided other than just blind supposition? (This is the only one where there was an attempt to answer but it was speculation and opinion.)
2. What was your involvement in the process that enables you to know what issues the SRB considered?
3. Were you in attendance at the Hearing or did you read a transcript of the proceedings of the Hearing and if not what is your basis in fact for questioning the decision and process of the SRB?
4. Do you know what evidence was provided to the SRB?
5. Do you know what evidence was not heard by the SRB?
6. Do you know what evidence was heard by the GJ specific to the charge?
7. Do you know what evidence was not heard by the GJ (perhaps because it may not have been related to the charge the prosecutor brought)?
8. Do you know and understand the reasons the SRB made their decision?
9. Do you have knowledge about the facts of the case that you know the SRB did not have, review and or consider?
10. Do you have reason to suspect based on first hand knowledge of all the facts that the SRB had that their decision was not appropriate?
11. Do you know what, if any testimony Tubman himself may have made to the SRB?
12. Do you know if the SRB made its decision based solely on the accusation or rape or if their decision was based on other potential violations of the student code of conduct?
13. Do you know whether or not there could have been an admission by Tubman of a violation of the student code of conduct other than rape?
14. Why is it difficult to think that the GJ could arrive at its decision based on the evidence they reviewed specific to the charges the prosecutor brought while the SRB reviewing perhaps the same or potentially different and additional evidence on possibly other issues could not arrive at its decision?

There are probably a boat load of other questions that could be asked. However I would venture to say that you do not have answers to those questions because I know I sure don't. And without knowing at least some of the answers to these questions how can you legitimately be critical of a process you know so little about. As observers we simply do not know what we do not know.

Ultimately all of us on either side of this issue are ignorant of the facts around the decision because it was a closed process. Some, like myself, choose not to jump to conclusions and suspect the SRB of acting inappropriately because we see no evidence to support that position. However, others are fine with making claims or accusations against the process, UK, the SRB and the accuser based on nothing more than speculation.

To answer your curiosity, I am a life long fan of UK and did attend before ultimately transferring to another school where I received multiple degrees.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

If you want bullet points, I've got them:
1. Did Tubman violate any school policies. If yes or no, how do you know? Explain the evidence either way.
2 Did UK do anything that was in violation of their printed/published policies? If yes, what?
3. If Tubman has been treated so horribly, why has he not made a statement? Before you talk about the 5th amendment, you all say he is innocent. So if the grand jury didn't indict him, why would he be afraid to make a statement?
4. If he has a great lawsuit against UK, why hasn't he filed it? Watch tv. There are plenty of lawyers willing to take cases.
5. Is there any proof (remember you are all requiring proof other than testimony, which is in fact proof) that the girl lied? You keep saying she should be dismissed or sued. Why does his dismissal require proof and her's does not?
6. Why have none of you responded to my post that pointed out that sworn testimony is in fact proof? You repeatedly have said that he said/ she said is not enough to chin the bar on a preponderance of the evidence standard, but when I told you that it is, you quit talking. Read the law. A jury, whether a grand jury, trial jury, or UK board can determine that they believe one witness and not the other. That is enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, much less a preponderance of the evidence.
7. Have any of you do gooders that are so pissed off about the way UK handles student complaints ever complained when the victim of the board's ire was not a talented football player?

Answer those questions honestly without assumptions and I'll quit.

Ah, a challenge I can't resist. Since you didn't qualify your statement any further, I'll answer each question honestly and without assumption. That means you are out of this discussion, well, if you're a man of your word, I'll save any additions I wish to make for further posts.

1. I do not know
2. No
3. I have no idea
4. I don't know
5. Your question is rambling and I'm not fully certain what you are asking. If you are asking if I can prove the girl lied, the answer is no.
6. Again, you are rambling, but I think my answer is yes.
7. No

There, I answered each question with honesty and without assumptions. Your participation in this debate is now over. Clearly I have more to add, but since your requirement was so simplistic I had to follow through. Enjoy reading the rest of the debate.

Funny, you didn't even leave yourself room for a rebuttal. Bwahahaha.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

TheThack, I'll get to your questions tomorrow. I don't suppose you'd agree to go away if I answer each question honestly without assumptions, would you?

 

[vhcat70]

Commentary on the unfairness of the university "justice system":

"But historians of the new system will cite the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights’ 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter on sexual harassment as the watershed event.

This letter—not even a formal regulation—forced creation of quasi-judicial systems of sexual-abuse surveillance on every campus in America. The universities complied for fear of lawsuits from enforcers at the Departments of Education and Justice.

The Justice Department’s Special Litigation Section and Housing and Civil Enforcement Section have forced numerous settlements from police departments, school districts, jails and housing agencies. Whatever the merits, the locals know the price of resisting Justice is too high. .....

Even as progressives claim to speak for “the people,” the increasingly manifest reality is that their power flows from the death star in Washington. .......
The Education Department’s campus kangaroo courts and its “lists” of schools “under investigation” flow from one Washington office building. "

Kangaroo courts indeed.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-re-founding-father-1433373010

 

[catfanlou]

I suppose you fail to see the irony of your statement?
The "adjudicated professionals" don't decide the case, they argue it and defend it. So what you are saying is that a jury of 12 average Kentuckians, 25% or 3 of those 12 members with a Bacholors degree or higher, 1 is likely a high school drop put is more qualified to make a decision than a board of 3 who are likely as highly educated as those "adjudicated professionals".
Tell me how those "adjudicated professionals" found OJ Simpson not guilty?

 

[catfanlou]

I am breaking my vow the second time to not make another post in this thread. Can't help myself.

I will try not to be redundant and add what I think is on most of the pro Tubman's folks mind. There is a perception among some advocates that women are more honest than men. One Ivy league professor in arguing the necessity of favoring women in such matters even made the comment that women did not have the "dishonest gene."

I am not sure what planet she is living on but my observation from a life of making a living reading people is as follows. While men are in fact more violent neither sex has a monopoly on honesty. Yes it is a fact there are horrible men who rape, murder, steal etc. However that is not the norm.

Also while it is not the norm there are women teachers who rape underage students. I had a case in juvenile court one time where a woman sold her kid for a six pack of beer. Women have been know to manipulate men to get pregnant to force a marriage or to lie to gain an advantage in a relationship , to poison men, to extort men(Sypher). There IS a woman's prison in all fifty states folks for a reason folks. I could go on with literally thousands of examples but any reasonable person gets the point.

Here is my punch line where my argument is leading. I think many people are concerned that if the primary purpose of the SRB's is to "protect the image and legal liability of the university" that we have unwittingly created a situation where any woman can file a complaint whether true or not against a man and destroy his future without regard to her past, her intentions, or the actual facts of the case. Remember the purpose of the SRB is not to "do justice" . It is to protect the reputation and insulate the institution from legal liability according to many posters in this thread.

Throw in the fact that the individuals are not adequately trained to rule on major crimes as has been pointed out by numerous posters and you do have a situation that is scary. What's A parent with a son going to college to do? Advise him to tape the consent and sex act itself to be totally safe from liability. Wear body cams like the cops are now doing. Oh wait a minute there are problems with that as well.

No the best answer here is to believe the true professionals in this case that obviously thought something didn't ring true rather than inadequately trained professors and kids who have an agenda inconsistent with "doing the right thing by the student.."

Lou

Several things in life are true. Death , taxes and that this thread will never die.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

If you want bullet points, I've got them:
1. Did Tubman violate any school policies. If yes or no, how do you know? Explain the evidence either way.
2 Did UK do anything that was in violation of their printed/published policies? If yes, what?
3. If Tubman has been treated so horribly, why has he not made a statement? Before you talk about the 5th amendment, you all say he is innocent. So if the grand jury didn't indict him, why would he be afraid to make a statement?
4. If he has a great lawsuit against UK, why hasn't he filed it? Watch tv. There are plenty of lawyers willing to take cases.
5. Is there any proof (remember you are all requiring proof other than testimony, which is in fact proof) that the girl lied? You keep saying she should be dismissed or sued. Why does his dismissal require proof and her's does not?
6. Why have none of you responded to my post that pointed out that sworn testimony is in fact proof? You repeatedly have said that he said/ she said is not enough to chin the bar on a preponderance of the evidence standard, but when I told you that it is, you quit talking. Read the law. A jury, whether a grand jury, trial jury, or UK board can determine that they believe one witness and not the other. That is enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, much less a preponderance of the evidence.
7. Have any of you do gooders that are so pissed off about the way UK handles student complaints ever complained when the victim of the board's ire was not a talented football player?

Answer those questions honestly without assumptions and I'll quit.

I'm not sure what point answering these questions serves since I have not professed that I know if UK did anything wrong or not, only that there are red flags that deserve a thorough investigation into the process. Asking for proof of something before there is an investigation is kind of pointless in my mind. If the police took that approach, we would never prosecute anyone unless they were caught red handed.

Here are my answers for what they are worht.

1. I have no idea.
2. I have no idea.
3. I have no idea.
4. I have no idea.
5. I have no idea.
6. I do not believe conflicting testimony, without physical evidence to corroborate one side over the other is sufficient to convict a person of a crime. If it is happening routinely, as some suggest, then our justice system is broken.
7. I have never been made aware of another case that was judged by the SRB, so the answer is no. The fact that he plays football is irrelevant.

There are your answers. They change absolutely nothing that I have said in the past because none of the questions pertain to the points I have been making.

 

[johnnyrockets]

I'm not sure what point answering these questions serves since I have not professed that I know if UK did anything wrong or not, only that there are red flags that deserve a thorough investigation into the process. Asking for proof of something before there is an investigation is kind of pointless in my mind. If the police took that approach, we would never prosecute anyone unless they were caught red handed.

Here are my answers for what they are worht.

1. I have no idea.
2. I have no idea.
3. I have no idea.
4. I have no idea.
5. I have no idea.
6. I do not believe conflicting testimony, without physical evidence to corroborate one side over the other is sufficient to convict a person of a crime. If it is happening routinely, as some suggest, then our justice system is broken.
7. I have never been made aware of another case that was judged by the SRB, so the answer is no. The fact that he plays football is irrelevant.

There are your answers. They change absolutely nothing that I have said in the past because none of the questions pertain to the points I have been making.

The next Socratic question, then, for you and BigBlueFanGA is as follows:

If you have no information regarding what happened in the room or what was heard by the SRB (as you readily acknowledge in your answers to BBBlazing's questions), why is your default to assume that the SRB is in some way crooked or unjust?