Creighton Employees "Under Review" After Criticizing Basketb

[NJRedman]

if Watson wasn't found guilty and the charges were dropped, then whats the big deal of giving him a ring like everyone else on the team? He is a young man and got kicked off his team due to allegations that were later dropped. That's pretty messed up. How do you make that up to him? All that lost time and exclusion from the program...

The Anti Sexual Violence ladies should have the right to express themselves publicly about the matter... That's fine. But I find them pretty f'cked up for criticizing McD because he sent a ring to Watson when the charges were dropped.

The charges were dropped in the legal process.

He was found responsible (guilty) by the university process. As far as the university is concerned, he committed a sexual assault.

This is pretty common. The state definition of sexual assault and the university definition of sexual assault are often two different things. Universities have a right to hold their students to higher standards than the state does. Universities also have a lower burden of proof than the state does.

what process?

I never heard the University going through a process. it was never even written about. You are either guilty or not guilty. It would be unfair of the University to find someone guilty when they don't have proof. Again, you are messing up a young student-athlete's life based on allegations with no proof... so wrong!

I think they just kicked him out proactively to avoid potential sanctions.

What about the student who felt they were assaulted? Have you been paying attention to college sports in the last decade? How many times have the school and the local police covered up rape allegations against big time athletes? Jamis Winston, Baylor, Notre Dame etc etc etc.

[cujaysfan]

It was in the student newspaper, thats freedom of the press. I guess that doesn't count when it's critical of the Blue Jays huh?

congrats on your equally brain dead response

we got some real legal scholars round these parts

And we got the same types of fans like PSU, Notre Dame, Baylor and Oklahoma! Congrats on your tone deaf response.

1. i haven't said anything one way or another about watson or CU's handling about this one - your inference of such belies your prejudices

2. both freedom of the press and free speech are in relation to protection from the government

[NJRedman]

And we got the same types of fans like PSU, Notre Dame, Baylor and Oklahoma! Congrats on your tone deaf response.

1. i haven't said anything one way or another about watson or CU's handling about this one - your inference of such belies your prejudices

2. both freedom of the press and free speech are in relation to protection from the government

So you feel that as long as they work for Creighton they should not be allowed to be publicly critical? You think the student newspaper should be censored to make sure it's never critical of the basketball program or those in charge?

No, you didn't you just insulted my intelligence because you are a homer who would gladly cover up any crime that makes the BJs look bad.

[cujaysfan]

Clearly you don’t need my assistance pointing out how dim you are – you’re doing a fine job of that yourself

Any eighth grader with a rudimentary understanding of our rights and the constitution knows the difference between your notion of “FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!!” and trying to apply that to a student newspaper run by a private institution and how it’s different than an employee vs employer relationship vis a vis a citizen/reporter vs the government.

And again – you keep making inferences about my being a ‘homer’ and being ok with “covering up a crime’ are simply things you’ve fabricated out of thin air – as again I haven’t said anything about Watson’s actions nor Creighton’s handling of anything pertaining to this situation.

I certainly know quite a bit more about this situation than you do. And I certainly know less about it than CU’s administration. At this point I’m content to let the situation play out before I may or may not comment on it.

So keep blathering away with your ridiculous indignation – you’re only embarrassing yourself.

[NJRedman]

Clearly you don’t need my assistance pointing out how dim you are – you’re doing a fine job of that yourself

Any eighth grader with a rudimentary understanding of our rights and the constitution knows the difference between your notion of “FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!!” and trying to apply that to a student newspaper run by a private institution and how it’s different than an employee vs employer relationship vis a vis a citizen/reporter vs the government.

And again – you keep making inferences about my being a ‘homer’ and being ok with “covering up a crime’ are simply things you’ve fabricated out of thin air – as again I haven’t said anything about Watson’s actions nor Creighton’s handling of anything pertaining to this situation.

I certainly know quite a bit more about this situation than you do. And I certainly know less about it than CU’s administration. At this point I’m content to let the situation play out before I may or may not comment on it.

So keep blathering away with your ridiculous indignation – you’re only embarrassing yourself.

Oh im sure you think you are quite intelligent.

[cujaysfan]

I’m probably a complete dipshit

But do understand what freedom of the press is and isn’t

[hoyahooligan]

Also seems kinda ridiculous Creighton made rings for a second round tournament loss.

[MarquetteRustler]

I think Watson should sue the university and their kangaroo court that expelled him.

[TAMU Eagle]

Freedom of the press protects the paper, it doesn't protect an employee from being disciplined by his/her employer for comments they make to the newspaper as employees. If they had made their comments as private citizens and the paper didn't mention what their positions were, they would have likely been fine. By adding their titles and revealing their relationship to the university, they are speaking as representatives of the university and the university has a right to hold them accountable. Again, what McD did wasn't wise but neither were these two employees.

I think Watson should sue the university and their kangaroo court that expelled him.

Only if the university violated his rights. If they followed their process properly and found him responsible than they have the right to expel him. I have no idea what happened that night. I doubt anyone here does. But I wouldn't be too quick to side with either side in cases like this without all the information (which we will never get). You could accidentally ended up criticizing an innocent man or supporting a rapist. Neither is a pleasant thought.

[ecasadoSBU]

Universities can't just expel students for being accused, that's a massive violation of their Title IX rights and due process rights. The university must prove that a student violated one of their student rules and that is was a serious enough violation that it warranted an expulsion. There would have been an investigation, a hearing, and an opportunity for appeal. You didn't hear about it because the information is protected by FERPA, a federal privacy law. Universities can't share students' private information, such as rules they are accused of breaking or why they are being expelled.

Universities have their own set of rules, usually called a "student code of conduct." These rules cover everything from making too much noise in the dorm all the way up to murder. If a student breaks a student rule, the university will investigate, judge, and sanction a student in a process separate from the legal process. If the broken university rule was also potentially a violation of criminal law, then law enforcement will run its own process concurrently. Sometimes the two processes come to the same conclusion, other times one finds the student guilty while the other one doesn't.

In Mo's case, law enforcement dropped the charges but the university found him responsible (guilty) and expelled him. There are two likely reasons for the different outcomes. 1. Law enforcement uses a higher standard of proof than the university. DAs typically only bring things to trial when they think they can win a case. 2. Nebraska's definition of sexual assault and Creighton's definition of sexual assault are different. I don't know the specifics in Nebraska but I know a lot of states have outdated definitions of sexual assault. For example, in some states a rape can only happen when a man attacks a woman. If a woman attacks a man, man attacks another man, or woman attacks another woman, they technically can't be charged with rape in some states because of the state's definition. So what Mo was accused of might not have violated Nebraska's definition of sexual assault, but it may have violated Creighton's definition of sexual assault.

Thanks for your thorough explanation. A lot of the details I did not understand. I see and understand your point. I was solely seeing it from a criminal perspective.