Lloyd Tubman Update...

[BigBlueFanGA]

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.

1. I'm not sure how you can claim your question of lack of due process hasn't been answered. I've listed about 6 different ways. Let me just use a factual position on this one. An SRB hearing is to be held within 60 days of the allegations, regardless of whether or not there is an ongoing criminal case against the respondent. This puts the defendant in the untenable position of not being able to fully defend himself. While the hearing is "secret", if evidence of a crime is presented, they will turn that over to the authorities. That is lack of due process. A second way is the likelihood of partiality by the hearing members. In a case such as this, their primary responsibility is to protect the school. But the school is the one forcing the hearing. They are not random members of the community, they are handpicked employees of the school, you know the entity forcing the hearing in the first place.

2-9. Rhetorical questions you already know the answer to. My point in all of this is the lack of protections given to the respondent when the respondent is facing serious criminal charges from the same incident. However, an SRB is extraordinarily unlikely to have more evidence than the DA, and if they did, they were required to turn that evidence over to the DA. Obviously they had nothing new because the DA couldn't prove the case to the GJ.

10. Actually, yes, I think I do. Clearly they heard no extra evidence as stated in the previous answer.

11-14. Again, rhetorical. I don't know.

You are totally missing my points though.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

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.

The questions are irrelevant to most of the points being made. The answers to those types of questions are discovered during an investigation of the process. If they were known up front, there would be no need to ask the questions currently being asked. The whole idea that these questions can be answered without an investigation is absurd. We are saying that there are enough questions about the Tubman case specifically, and the process in general, that there should be a review of the process and a sample of cases heard by the SRB so that the taxpaying public can be comfortable that students are being treated fairly and in accordance with the published standard. It's unbelievable to me that so many of you are willing to accept that there could be no bias or wrong doing on the part of the SRB and at the same time admit you have no clue about any of the facts. That is scarey to me. We, as citizens, need to question authority and the processes used to punish people in order to assure that those processes are fair and unbiased. We should never go along with the idea that because we don't know for sure its not being abused that there is no reason to question it. That attitude is naive and leads to disaster.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

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?

First, I am not assuming the SRB is "crooked or unjust". I am saying that there is enough questions to have a review of the process and how the process was applied to various cases at UK.

 

[Beatle Bum]

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

I guess I could respond the same way about your post and so on and so on. If you require an explanation as to why your post is nothing but distraction, I will be happy to provide.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

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?

I have said the process has such huge flaws that it could be unjust. I don't know if they are right or wrong in this particular case. I suspect they are wrong but that is clearly an opinion formed by incomplete data. Its the bigger picture that bothers me. If you want, read my post 523 states what I believe for the most part.

 

[fuzz77]

Exaggerate much Lou? So Tubman's only bright, successful future runs through UK?
For eons women have been on the wrong end of rape and sexual abuse. Being physically weaker and existing in societies where males dominated most everything. If they claimed rape, they were put on trial every bit as much as the accused. Often having to prove that a crime that occurred with no other witnesses had occurred. Fast forward to today where perhaps too much credibility is given to the accuser...but we know from the Jamis Winston case that isn't universally true...well, when the pendulum of justice starts to swing from right to left it goes as far left as it was to the right to start. Over time the momentum of change will be lost and it will settle in the proverbial middle. Perhaps Tubman is a victim of timing. Perhaps someday we will know what really happened in that dorm room that October day.
Almost all change requires mayrters along the way.

As for your insistence that "the professionals" handle this...Ray Larson thought there was enough to take to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury on average returns indictments on about 97% of the cases it hears. The NON-PROFESSIONALS decide to indict or not to do so. Perhaps there were 4 UK football fans on that Grand Jury that didn't want to lose Tubman. Perhaps?
The fact that the case was even submitted to the Grand Jury meant that something happened.
Oh, I know...Ray just took it there for political cover. Is that what "professionals" do? Cover their *** because they fear political backlash?
Pros in my book do the right thing and if there is nothing there then they drop it and move on.

 

[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.

Here is why this post is both ridiculous and irrelevant.

Fuzz pretends that because we may not have heard about SRB complaints over the span of our lifetime before this particular case or may not have known the SRB existed, we can have no voice about an injustice we may perceive when the SRB is revealed in such a public fashion. Fuzz does not claim that there have been many decisions made by the SRB that are analogous to Tubman’s so the flaws in the system should have been known. In fact this could, for all he presents, be the first time the system process has been revealed to be inapplicable to all situations. Regardless, it is ridiculous to suggest that if you learn of an injustice or the brokenness of a system that has existed for a long time, you can have no voice about that because it has existed for years without your notice.

This argument is also irrelevant from the substance of the debate here that asks whether the system is broken for cases where the student is being criminally investigated, but never indicted. Assuming that has happened many times before without our notice, the fact the system is flawed is no less patent because it has gone unnoticed before.

The anecdotal claim that Fuzz has never before, in six years of service, heard of anyone complain about the system is irrelevant. What possible meaning can we ascribe to such a limited sample, especially when we do not know whether the SRB ever dealt with any similar cases during that time. In all of my life, I have never met anyone who had the disease of microcephaly. My experience has not impact on the discussion as to whether such a disease exists.

Finally, as we discuss a system that most feel is probably adequate to handle about 99% of the alleged violations of conduct it reviews, the claim that this is the system that other schools have adopted is irrelevant to whether it is inherently unfair to students in the one percentile, or less, that find themselves tongue tied and unable to defend themselves because of a criminal investigation.

We can go through history and see those things in the past that everyone used to do that we now recognize as being wrong or even immoral. “Hey, no one on my block seems to be complaining about the concentration camps, why should you?” Claiming the system has been adopted as some evidence that it is not flawed is ridiculous.

 

[fuzz77]

Oh wow caveman...you think Tubman's case is the first of its kind to go before a SRB?
Do you even know the CoC violation that was used as grounds for his dismissal?

I relayed my personal experience and asked if anyone's were different.
More wows!!! Comparing a brief time in history that was perpetrated by a relative small handful of men to a system that has been copied and universally adopted for generations in many different societies. And when were concentration camps universally accepted? Tell us who came out of them and didn't have any complaints?
I think you might want to find a better comparison.

 

[johnnyrockets]

First, I am not assuming the SRB is "crooked or unjust". I am saying that there is enough questions to have a review of the process and how the process was applied to various cases at UK.

You've certainly implied that an injustice was done to Tubman, right? So semantics, then. Let me rephrase. Why is your default to assume that an injustice was done in this case, absent any information regarding the incident or the proceedings of the SRB? Is it theoretically possible that they threw him under the bus for no reason other than to avoid bad publicity? I guess, but why would that top your list of most likely scenarios?

I mean, you're welcome to be generally suspicious of any and all proceedings, but absent any reasonable documentation as to why, that seems kind of baseless. It's sort of like being "suspicious" of voter fraud when an election goes to the candidate you didn't support.

I'm all for constructive review of processes like these, if they can be done in a reasonable way that does not invalidate the privacy rights of those involved in a specific case. Constructive review is great. Casting aspersions and implying grave injustice without any proof, or demanding a "full investigation" only when a prominent football player is involved, is not constructive review.

 

[Beatle Bum]

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?

We know what was not heard by the SRB.

Oh wow caveman...you think Tubman's case is the first of its kind to go before a SRB?
Do you even know the CoC violation that was used as grounds for his dismissal?

I relayed my personal experience and asked if anyone's were different.
More wows!!! Comparing a brief time in history that was perpetrated by a relative small handful of men to a system that has been copied and universally adopted for generations in many different societies. And when were concentration camps universally accepted? Tell us who came out of them and didn't have any complaints?
I think you might want to find a better comparison.

I never said it was the first. I think you missed my point. But, in a nutshell, your post was ridiculous and irrelevant. I think you know that.

In your zealousness, you are also a poor advocate for your position.

 

[johnnyrockets]

I have said the process has such huge flaws that it could be unjust. I don't know if they are right or wrong in this particular case. I suspect they are wrong but that is clearly an opinion formed by incomplete data. Its the bigger picture that bothers me. If you want, read my post 523 states what I believe for the most part.

I've read every post in the thread. I'm underwhelmed by innuendo and speculation, which is all anyone here can produce.

I continue to wonder why anyone's default would be to castigate the university without an iota of knowledge of what was reviewed by the SRB.

Again, is it possible that the university conspired to scapegoat Tubman for PR? Sure, but why would that top the list of likely scenarios in anyone's mind?

 

[Beatle Bum]

I've read every post in the thread. I'm underwhelmed by innuendo and speculation, which is all anyone here can produce.

I continue to wonder why anyone's default would be to castigate the university without an iota of knowledge of what was reviewed by the SRB.

Again, is it possible that the university conspired to scapegoat Tubman for PR? Sure, but why would that top the list of likely scenarios in anyone's mind?

I wonder why people continually downplay what we do know.

 

[johnnyrockets]

I wonder why people continually downplay what we do know.

With all due respect, if I ask, you're going to tell me we "know" that the grand jury and SRB reached different conclusions using the same evidence, which isn't true. You'll also tell me we "know" that the "professionals" serving on the grand jury are more qualified to pass judgment than is anyone who sits on the SRB (without actually knowing who was on either the GJ or the SRB). So, I'll choose not to engage.

 

[Beatle Bum]

With all due respect, if I ask, you're going to tell me we "know" that the grand jury and SRB reached different conclusions using the same evidence, which isn't true. You'll also tell me we "know" that the "professionals" serving on the grand jury are more qualified to pass judgment than is anyone who sits on the SRB (without actually knowing who was on either the GJ or the SRB). So, I'll choose not to engage.

I doubt there is much respect in creating a ficticious position for your opposition. Your post also suggests you have not read the entire thread as you claimed.

I suspect that you have not read or even attempted to understand those you oppose and, therefore, I'll choose to no longer engage.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You've certainly implied that an injustice was done to Tubman, right? So semantics, then. Let me rephrase. Why is your default to assume that an injustice was done in this case, absent any information regarding the incident or the proceedings of the SRB? Is it theoretically possible that they threw him under the bus for no reason other than to avoid bad publicity? I guess, but why would that top your list of most likely scenarios?

I mean, you're welcome to be generally suspicious of any and all proceedings, but absent any reasonable documentation as to why, that seems kind of baseless. It's sort of like being "suspicious" of voter fraud when an election goes to the candidate you didn't support.

I'm all for constructive review of processes like these, if they can be done in a reasonable way that does not invalidate the privacy rights of those involved in a specific case. Constructive review is great. Casting aspersions and implying grave injustice without any proof, or demanding a "full investigation" only when a prominent football player is involved, is not constructive review.

I think the reasons we have cited are very compelling with respect to being suspicious of the process. If you ignore the Tubman case specifically, there is enough wrong with the selection of the board to have suspicions that the process is subject to serious bias. If fairness and justice is the goal, and it should be, then the SRB should not be composed of UK faculty. There is no way people being paid by UK can consistently be objective to both parties in a case before them. There primary consideration will likely be how the case might impact UK more than trying to come to some just conclusion. It's why we try to weed out biased jurors in the legal process. It's a fundamental concept when justice is the goal. If the goal is simply to protect UK from law suits, then perhaps the SRB selection process is a good one. However, that should not be the goal with a public university.

The specifics of the Tubman case also raise questions about whether the process was biased or not. All of these points have been discussed over and over again. If you feel that none of these issues raise questions in your mind, then fine. I don't feel that way. I could give you personal experiences with professors at UK when I went to graduate school that cause me to have concern about how they would approach such a hearing, but I really don't want to get into that.

 

[Beavis606]

For eons women have been on the wrong end of rape and sexual abuse. Being physically weaker and existing in societies where males dominated most everything. If they claimed rape, they were put on trial every bit as much as the accused. Often having to prove that a crime that occurred with no other witnesses had occurred. Fast forward to today where perhaps too much credibility is given to the accuser...but we know from the Jamis Winston case that isn't universally true...well, when the pendulum of justice starts to swing from right to left it goes as far left as it was to the right to start. Over time the momentum of change will be lost and it will settle in the proverbial middle. Perhaps Tubman is a victim of timing. Perhaps someday we will know what really happened in that dorm room that October day.
Almost all change requires mayrters along the way. on.

God forbid an accuser/plaintiff be required to prove a crime actually occurred. What kind of dark-ages society/justice system have we been living with?

 

[fuzz77]

Who should decide who sits on the SRB? They are currently selected by the university president.

 

[fuzz77]

God forbid an accuser/plaintiff be required to prove a crime actually occurred. What kind of dark-ages society/justice system have we been living with?

So you don't see how the deck is stacked against women?
Get behind closed doors, say it was consensual and you've got the perfect crime.
Without witnesses it pretty tough to prove consent.

 

[Dallas-Wild]

So you don't see how the deck is stacked against women?
Get behind closed doors, say it was consensual and you've got the perfect crime.
Without witnesses it pretty tough to prove consent.

This same argument can be said for men as well.

 

[KyCat]

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.

Why is there a need for a rebuttal? You just acknowledged you are ignorant of the facts, as are all of us, which means all your rambling in this thread is just the result of someone upset over an outcome they did not like. Which was my point all along. Thanks for playing!

 

[johnnyrockets]

I think the reasons we have cited are very compelling with respect to being suspicious of the process. If you ignore the Tubman case specifically, there is enough wrong with the selection of the board to have suspicions that the process is subject to serious bias. If fairness and justice is the goal, and it should be, then the SRB should not be composed of UK faculty. There is no way people being paid by UK can consistently be objective to both parties in a case before them. There primary consideration will likely be how the case might impact UK more than trying to come to some just conclusion. It's why we try to weed out biased jurors in the legal process. It's a fundamental concept when justice is the goal. If the goal is simply to protect UK from law suits, then perhaps the SRB selection process is a good one. However, that should not be the goal with a public university.

The specifics of the Tubman case also raise questions about whether the process was biased or not. All of these points have been discussed over and over again. If you feel that none of these issues raise questions in your mind, then fine. I don't feel that way. I could give you personal experiences with professors at UK when I went to graduate school that cause me to have concern about how they would approach such a hearing, but I really don't want to get into that.

I think that's fair. As others have pointed out, no justice system is robust enough to be 100% sensitive and specific, not to mention satisfactory for all participants and observes. I'm not sure "well the system could be better" is a fair argument insofar as every system could always be better. If there are specific suggestions, I'm sure people who make these decisions would love to hear them. I don't think "defer all cases that involve serious criminal charges to the courts alone" would be viewed as a viable option.

We disagree about whether the SRB should have a vested interest in the school, which is fine.

 

[johnnyrockets]

This same argument can be said for men as well.

It could be but,

a) violence by women against men /= violence by men against women, in many ways
b) I would expect the school to take just as seriously a charge of sexual assault by a man against a woman.

So I'm not sure what your point is, other than to serve as (another) deflection.

 

[Dallas-Wild]

It could be but,

a) violence by women against men /= violence by men against women, in many ways
b) I would expect the school to take just as seriously a charge of sexual assault by a man against a woman.

So I'm not sure what your point is, other than to serve as (another) deflection.

Simply stated a fact, there have been men falsely accused by women......and women who have been attacked viscously whose attackers got off .....pretty easy to understand sorry you had issues understanding. Maybe false accusations will be easier for you to understand.

My statement of fact was to a particular post, nothing to do with Tubman situation to which I have no sure facts as to what happen.

 

[johnnyrockets]

Simply stated a fact, there have been men falsely accused by women......and women who have been attacked viscously whose attackers got off .....pretty easy to understand sorry you had issues understanding. Maybe false accusations will be easier for you to understand.

My statement of fact was to a particular post, nothing to do with Tubman situation to which I have no sure facts as to what happen.

It was actually worded pretty ambiguously but I now understand what you meant. It's true that a lack of witnesses and a closed room make for an opportunity to level a false accusation. 100% agree. As someone else has already said, the pendulum is starting to swing. A little added caution when it comes to casual sexual encounters would probably serve both men and women pretty well.

 

[KyCat]

1. I'm not sure how you can claim your question of lack of due process hasn't been answered. I've listed about 6 different ways. Let me just use a factual position on this one. An SRB hearing is to be held within 60 days of the allegations, regardless of whether or not there is an ongoing criminal case against the respondent. This puts the defendant in the untenable position of not being able to fully defend himself. While the hearing is "secret", if evidence of a crime is presented, they will turn that over to the authorities. That is lack of due process. A second way is the likelihood of partiality by the hearing members. In a case such as this, their primary responsibility is to protect the school. But the school is the one forcing the hearing. They are not random members of the community, they are handpicked employees of the school, you know the entity forcing the hearing in the first place.

2-9. Rhetorical questions you already know the answer to. My point in all of this is the lack of protections given to the respondent when the respondent is facing serious criminal charges from the same incident. However, an SRB is extraordinarily unlikely to have more evidence than the DA, and if they did, they were required to turn that evidence over to the DA. Obviously they had nothing new because the DA couldn't prove the case to the GJ.

10. Actually, yes, I think I do. Clearly they heard no extra evidence as stated in the previous answer.

11-14. Again, rhetorical. I don't know.

You are totally missing my points though.

First to answer your last thought, NO. I am not totally missing your points. I totally disagree with them because I do not believe they make sense. Big difference. And I disagree with them because in my opinion they are wrong and off target.

But there you go again... dismissing and using tactics only someone losing an argument typically tries... The questions where rhetorical ONLY because you and I both know that you have been making comments about a process where you know very little about the actual facts. My questions were to point that out. Yet you continue responding and commenting as if you know that UK acted inappropriately. You clearly do not.

Your response that his due process was violated is only your opinion about due process, it is not what actually constitutes due process specific to this circumstance. While I see the delimma you described, I am not sure that the timelines that are actually known necessarily agree with your premise. But even if they did happen in the timeline you suggest, it still does not constitute failure of UK to provide due process specific to their actions. Further your ascertion that the SRB is unliekly to have evidence that the GJ did not have is hyperbole. First, the SRB actually had first hand opportunity to interrogate the accuser and the accused in person in a Q and A format. Second your implication suggest that the SRB considered ONLY the same issue as the GJ, maybe they did maybe they didn't. And if for example the SRB looked only at other code of conduct violations such as texts or stalking or any number of other possibilities that none of know one way or the other, then your concern about the GJ issue goes away. Yet you never entertain the possibilty that the basis of the SRB Hearing is not related to the GJ issue.

To date you have provided nothing that indicates UK did anything other than follow their policies and procedures. You have provided nothing that indicates that the student was not allowed time to review and respond to the accusations. While you imply it is a violation of his due process, It is not incumbant on UK to protect a student from possible criminal consequences of their actions. Their responsibility is beyond just protecting the accused. If the student chooses not to defend themselves for fear of potential criminal repurcussions, that is unfortunate for the student but does not mean the student was not provided due process by UK relative to their issues with the student.

Further, the policy and process for disciplinary review are what they are and they were in place before he enrolled. There is no requirement that UK have random members of the community set on a panel to review the conduct of its students. This is not the judicial system. While you may not like it, again it is not a violation of his due process even if you think it is.

I get from your comments you have issues with the process. That is well and good. But I would wager (figure of speech) their policies and procedures are probaly boiler plate type procedures used by any number of public universities and have stood the test of time or else they would have been changed.

I am all for reform and changing the policy and procedures if necessary. I am not sure that need exists, but would not be opposed for them to be reviewed and possibly changed. But the hint of the comments throughout this thread is that UK and the SRB intentionally made a ruling for political reasons not based on the specifics of the case. Those accusations to me are out of line because there is no evidence to support it based on what we KNOW as fact..

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

So you don't see how the deck is stacked against women?
Get behind closed doors, say it was consensual and you've got the perfect crime.
Without witnesses it pretty tough to prove consent.

It doesn't mean that the deck is stacked against women. It means that the nature of the crime makes it difficult to prove, one way or the other. I would like to know exactly what you are suggesting though. You seem to suggest, without saying it, that because the crime is difficult to prove, the legal process to resort to convicting people without having to prove they are guilty. It is horrible when a woman is raped, but any crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before someone is convicted. In no way should the standard of proof be lowered just because the crime is difficult to prove. It's really unbelievable that anyone would think this way.

 

[Dore95]

[QUOTE="If fairness and justice is the goal, and it should be, then the SRB should not be composed of UK faculty. There is no way people being paid by UK can consistently be objective to both parties in a case before them. There primary consideration will likely be how the case might impact UK more than trying to come to some just conclusion. It's why we try to weed out biased jurors in the legal process. It's a fundamental concept when justice is the goal. If the goal is simply to protect UK from law suits, then perhaps the SRB selection process is a good one. However, that should not be the goal with a public university. [/QUOTE]

It seems to me that the SRB process exists only to further the interests of UK and its students (including those accused and those who are alleged victims). So, of course, "how the case might impact" UK is of utmost importance. I would hope that the people involved in the decision-making process are "biased" in favor of doing what is best for UK.

Why on earth would you want to have people off the street (i.e. those unconnected with UK) involved in this process? Should people off the street also be involved in the admission process? What if someone breaks the honor code - should we pull non-UK people in to decide those cases too? Maybe professors are biased in giving grades - how about getting outsiders to do the grading too?

 

[Beavis606]

So you don't see how the deck is stacked against women?
Get behind closed doors, say it was consensual and you've got the perfect crime.
Without witnesses it pretty tough to prove consent.

So your solution = convict/rule against all accused individuals?

Arson = hard to prove.
Insurance fraud = hard to prove.
White collar crimes = hard to prove.
Disability fraud = hard to prove.

fuzz solution = Judgement against them all because the deck is stacked against the plaintiff.

 

[johnnyrockets]

It doesn't mean that the deck is stacked against women. It means that the nature of the crime makes it difficult to prove, one way or the other. I would like to know exactly what you are suggesting though. You seem to suggest, without saying it, that because the crime is difficult to prove, the legal process to resort to convicting people without having to prove they are guilty. It is horrible when a woman is raped, but any crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before someone is convicted. In no way should the standard of proof be lowered just because the crime is difficult to prove. It's really unbelievable that anyone would think this way.

You're repeating the mistake of conflating the SRB with the criminal justice system.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You're repeating the mistake of conflating the SRB with the criminal justice system.

Not really. I made no comparison whatsoever between the SRB and the Grand Jury. I simply commented on what Fuzz wrote, which implied that because rape is hard to prove, we should lower the standard of proof and base decisions on accusations instead of proof.

 

[KyCat]

The questions are irrelevant to most of the points being made. The answers to those types of questions are discovered during an investigation of the process. If they were known up front, there would be no need to ask the questions currently being asked. The whole idea that these questions can be answered without an investigation is absurd. We are saying that there are enough questions about the Tubman case specifically, and the process in general, that there should be a review of the process and a sample of cases heard by the SRB so that the taxpaying public can be comfortable that students are being treated fairly and in accordance with the published standard. It's unbelievable to me that so many of you are willing to accept that there could be no bias or wrong doing on the part of the SRB and at the same time admit you have no clue about any of the facts. That is scarey to me. We, as citizens, need to question authority and the processes used to punish people in order to assure that those processes are fair and unbiased. We should never go along with the idea that because we don't know for sure its not being abused that there is no reason to question it. That attitude is naive and leads to disaster.

While I agree with your premise that an investigation answers questions, there has to be something to initiate or warrant the investigation. There has to be a 'smoking gun' somewhere that indicates a reason to investigate. You keep saying that there are enough questions about the Tubman case specifically and the process in general but I fail to see these questions. The questions you and others keep asking ring hollow because they sight no real indication to suspect there is something not working. It seems to me the gist of your concerns are that the SRB finding was different than the GJ. What beyond that is your concern? As has been noted by Fuzz and others that while speculation it could be possible that both bodies had similar findings but their rules based on those findings resulted in a different response. It is also possible as so many have noted that the evidence reviewed was different ever so slightly or even significantly. It has also been noted that no one here knows for sure what the actual violations are that the SRB ruled on and whether they are different than what was reviewed by the GJ.

Give me some reason to question the process to question the panel to question this decision and I would be right there asking for a review or investigation of the system. What exactly did the SRB do that has made the taxpaying public uncomfortable? And where is this great outcry other than the handful on this thread saying that there is a real problem here that needs to be looked at. Where is your evidence to suggest that there is bias or wrong doing on the part of the SRB? Admit you have also have no clue of those facts. I have admitted I do not know the facts behind this circumstance just as I do not know the facts about a lot of every day occurences. That does not mean I investigate them all.

Questioning authority to me is sacrosanct to a democratic society and as such should not be abused. To me when a system that has historically not had any known issues nor any evidence or suggestions of concerns over time is suspected of such and thrown to the wolves without any obvious reason other than disagreement over the decision is naive and dangerous. By your standard, where do the questions and investigations stop? What system has earned trust to operate without fear of any single unpopular action being reason to rip it apart? I think the word for a society that lives by that standard is anarchy.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

While I agree with your premise that an investigation answers questions, there has to be something to initiate or warrant the investigation. There has to be a 'smoking gun' somewhere that indicates a reason to investigate. You keep saying that there are enough questions about the Tubman case specifically and the process in general but I fail to see these questions. The questions you and others keep asking ring hollow because they sight no real indication to suspect there is something not working. It seems to me the gist of your concerns are that the SRB finding was different than the GJ. What beyond that is your concern? As has been noted by Fuzz and others that while speculation it could be possible that both bodies had similar findings but their rules based on those findings resulted in a different response. It is also possible as so many have noted that the evidence reviewed was different ever so slightly or even significantly. It has also been noted that no one here knows for sure what the actual violations are that the SRB ruled on and whether they are different than what was reviewed by the GJ.

Give me some reason to question the process to question the panel to question this decision and I would be right there asking for a review or investigation of the system. What exactly did the SRB do that has made the taxpaying public uncomfortable? And where is this great outcry other than the handful on this thread saying that there is a real problem here that needs to be looked at. Where is your evidence to suggest that there is bias or wrong doing on the part of the SRB? Admit you have also have no clue of those facts. I have admitted I do not know the facts behind this circumstance just as I do not know the facts about a lot of every day occurences. That does not mean I investigate them all.

Questioning authority to me is sacrosanct to a democratic society and as such should not be abused. To me when a system that has historically not had any known issues nor any evidence or suggestions of concerns over time is suspected of such and thrown to the wolves without any obvious reason other than disagreement over the decision is naive and dangerous. By your standard, where do the questions and investigations stop? What system has earned trust to operate without fear of any single unpopular action being reason to rip it apart? I think the word for a society that lives by that standard is anarchy.

I think anytime the SRB arrives at a different conclusion than a legal body, using the same standard of proof, there should be an independent review of the case to ensure that the process was fair to the students involved. I think, in and of itself, that is a good reason for review. Let me ask you a question. What would make you ask questions? The hearings are private and no details of what went on are available, so in your mind, what would have to take place to cause you to ask a question about the process. Since everyone likes to invent possible scenarios, let me invent one. Lets reverse the outcome. If Tubman were indicted by the Grand Jury, but cleared to return to school by the SRB, would you have any questions about the process, or would you be saying I'm sure they had good reason for doing what they did?

 

[Beavis606]

Better Safe Than Sorry is for carrying an umbrella if you think it might rain or filling your car with gas when you are unsure how far it is to the next station. It is not an acceptable reason to decide the outcome of a trial or disciplinary hearing.

 

[Beatle Bum]

No one would know if a professor or university employee would intentionally sack Tubman. Let's attempt to put these strawmen arguments to bed.

While I agree the SRB is well-equipped to deal with 99% of the code violations it hears, the main two problems which every advocate for the SRB must admit are (1) the process that lacks the evidence and reliability of proof available in a criminal setting is not fair to the respondent who is simultaneously being criminally investigated by the real authorities, and (2) the panel of only 3 university employees or retirees is ill-equipped, from a bias perspective, to provide for the appearance of fairness in cases that impact the university's reputation.
As to #2, in the court system, the rules for judges focus on the appearance of impartiality, as opposed to the existence in fact of any bias or prejudice. A judge faced with a potential ground for disqualification ought to consider how his/her participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street.

The university has a direct monetary interest in the perception it has with regard to crime. I have law enforcement friends who get frustrated with universities, because they often will not pursue criminal charges, because the administration wants its good stats for prospective students. Other than a murder, there is no crime more heinous than rape. The university PR machine collectively cringes when there is an accusation of rape, as it is the most damning accusation that prospective female students, and their parents, will consider.

Without even considering the individual biases that may be found on a university staff, there is no doubt that to the average person on the street, having someone who now or did have a pecuniary interest in the university adjudicate a claim of rape does not pass the “appearance of impartiality” test that we would see in the court system.

As to #1, it is a fact that Tubman could not testify on his behalf and only he could present his side of the story. With only her story told about what actually happened in the room, no sane person could say the process was fair.

 

[KyCat]

I think anytime the SRB arrives at a different conclusion than a legal body, using the same standard of proof, there should be an independent review of the case to ensure that the process was fair to the students involved. I think, in and of itself, that is a good reason for review. Let me ask you a question. What would make you ask questions? The hearings are private and no details of what went on are available, so in your mind, what would have to take place to cause you to ask a question about the process. Since everyone likes to invent possible scenarios, let me invent one. Lets reverse the outcome. If Tubman were indicted by the Grand Jury, but cleared to return to school by the SRB, would you have any questions about the process, or would you be saying I'm sure they had good reason for doing what they did?

While I disagree with that premise in general, in this case it is not necessarily true. Your ascertion that the two bodies arrived at different conclusions is not known because you do not know what the SRB actuall ruled on. Was their ruling related to the same charges as the GJ which I think but could be wrong was rape. Or was the SRB ruling based on other violations of the code of ethics? If the decisions were based on different issues, then one might rationally expect different conclusions. Further, we do not know that even if the two bodies ruled for lack of a better word, on the same issue if the two bodies heard the same evidence. We can logically conclude that the presentations were not identical though they may be similar. What impact did the testimonies of the two at the SRB have (assuming there was live testimony)? What may have been presented differently to one body verses another? Was it the same attorney for both? I dont know. As a result, I do not know that a different conclusion means anything beyond reaonsable people drawing different conclusions much like we are witnessing in this thread.

With respect to the need to ensure the process was fair to the students involved, other than some facebook posts I have not seen where there was much protesting from the Tubman camp that the process was not fair.

What would make me ask questions is if 1, I did hear more outcry from the Tubmans or someone privy to the situation. 2. If there was a history of this body making potentially flawed decisions (granted these are not publicized a lot). 3. Some indication that there is a reason to suspect the decision - I do not know what that might constitute, but nothing I have read here gives me that.

With respect to the scenario you provided, it is tempting to fall into the trap and say yes, I would be more agitated. However, you continue to compare an SRB Hearing to a judicial Hearing. They do different things. My analogy would be I put a liquid (gasoline) in my car and it runs fine so I should be able to water (another liquid) in my car and it will still operate fine. It doesnt because the properties of the two liquids are not the same. They do different things.

I would like to alter a previous response to you. After re-reading one of your posts I see where you have given honest attempts as to why you question the process and I did not give you appropriate credit for that. I still disagree with your reasoning but as noted above, reasonable people can disagree.

 

[fuzz77]

So your solution = convict/rule against all accused individuals?

Arson = hard to prove.
Insurance fraud = hard to prove.
White collar crimes = hard to prove.
Disability fraud = hard to prove.

fuzz solution = Judgement against them all because the deck is stacked against the plaintiff.

You're jumping through a lot of hoops and making a lot of assumptions there Beav. If I'm saying that then you and others must be saying that you can never "convict" unless we have hard physical evidence.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

While I disagree with that premise in general, in this case it is not necessarily true. Your ascertion that the two bodies arrived at different conclusions is not known because you do not know what the SRB actuall ruled on. Was their ruling related to the same charges as the GJ which I think but could be wrong was rape. Or was the SRB ruling based on other violations of the code of ethics? If the decisions were based on different issues, then one might rationally expect different conclusions. Further, we do not know that even if the two bodies ruled for lack of a better word, on the same issue if the two bodies heard the same evidence. We can logically conclude that the presentations were not identical though they may be similar. What impact did the testimonies of the two at the SRB have (assuming there was live testimony)? What may have been presented differently to one body verses another? Was it the same attorney for both? I dont know. As a result, I do not know that a different conclusion means anything beyond reaonsable people drawing different conclusions much like we are witnessing in this thread.

With respect to the need to ensure the process was fair to the students involved, other than some facebook posts I have not seen where there was much protesting from the Tubman camp that the process was not fair.

What would make me ask questions is if 1, I did hear more outcry from the Tubmans or someone privy to the situation. 2. If there was a history of this body making potentially flawed decisions (granted these are not publicized a lot). 3. Some indication that there is a reason to suspect the decision - I do not know what that might constitute, but nothing I have read here gives me that.

With respect to the scenario you provided, it is tempting to fall into the trap and say yes, I would be more agitated. However, you continue to compare an SRB Hearing to a judicial Hearing. They do different things. My analogy would be I put a liquid (gasoline) in my car and it runs fine so I should be able to water (another liquid) in my car and it will still operate fine. It doesnt because the properties of the two liquids are not the same. They do different things.

I would like to alter a previous response to you. After re-reading one of your posts I see where you have given honest attempts as to why you question the process and I did not give you appropriate credit for that. I still disagree with your reasoning but as noted above, reasonable people can disagree.

I appreciate your honest discussion as well. I would disagree with importance you place on the SRB and Grand Jury serving different purposes. I would agree with your point if the standard of proof were different for both bodies. However, since they use the same standard of proof, it really doesn't matter what ramifications the decision has on the participants. In other words, the purpose doesn't matter. The standard of proof is all that really matters, and they are the same. This brings us back to your first paragraph, which I agree with. We don't really know what they ruled on, or what they heard. An independent review would answer those questions, and could be accomplished without revealing private information. The fact that there are possible scenarios where the SRB did exactly as they should, doesn't really satisfy my concerns about the process.

I hope you are right, and the Tubman camp would be yelling at the top of their lungs if they thought they had been mistreated, but I suspect they might worry that such statements might limit the schools who will want him when he leaves junior college next year. I do know that his mother made a very disparaging comment about the SRB on face book, or some social media outlet, and quickly took it down. It's very difficult to stand up to a large public institution, especially when they can influence how you are perceived to other schools that you might be interested in.

 

[Beavis606]

You're jumping through a lot of hoops and making a lot of assumptions there Beav. If I'm saying that then you and others must be saying that you can never "convict" unless we have hard physical evidence.

That's exactly what I"m saying. I can't speak for the others.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You're jumping through a lot of hoops and making a lot of assumptions there Beav. If I'm saying that then you and others must be saying that you can never "convict" unless we have hard physical evidence.

I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, SRB or the legal system, but in the legal system, the believability of someones story, without physical evidence to support it, does not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because you think someone's story is believable, doesn't mean it is. We shouldn't be sending people to prison because you believe someone's story. Some people lie very well. Without factual evidence, I don't see how a jury could ever get to the point of not having reasonable doubt.

 

[fuzz77]

I appreciate your honest discussion as well. I would disagree with importance you place on the SRB and Grand Jury serving different purposes. I would agree with your point if the standard of proof were different for both bodies. However, since they use the same standard of proof, it really doesn't matter what ramifications the decision has on the participants. In other words, the purpose doesn't matter. The standard of proof is all that really matters, and they are the same. This brings us back to your first paragraph, which I agree with. We don't really know what they ruled on, or what they heard. An independent review would answer those questions, and could be accomplished without revealing private information. The fact that there are possible scenarios where the SRB did exactly as they should, doesn't really satisfy my concerns about the process.

I hope you are right, and the Tubman camp would be yelling at the top of their lungs if they thought they had been mistreated, but I suspect they might worry that such statements might limit the schools who will want him when he leaves junior college next year. I do know that his mother made a very disparaging comment about the SRB on face book, or some social media outlet, and quickly took it down. It's very difficult to stand up to a large public institution, especially when they can influence how you are perceived to other schools that you might be interested in.

There standard of proof is not the same. The GJ required a 75% vote to return a true bill, the SRB only requires a 66.7% vote.