Creighton Employees "Under Review" After Criticizing Basketb

[mel ott]

Could the admin. please start a separate off topic thread for things that don't have anything to do with Big East Basketball. If people want to talk social issues, politics, or other non bball issues that would be nice. That way, those who signed up to just view Big East bball threads would be happy and people who want to discuss their philosophies and legal opinions on various topics could have a separate site. I don't know how we get this many pages on a topic where very few know what really happened or the decisions made. #go big east

[jaxalum]

Almost the EXACT same thing happened at X. A player was accused of sexual assault. He was immediately removed from the team. The Civil court found nothing/all charges dropped. The DA even went on record saying he was completely innocent and should be reinstated to school and the team. Didn't happen.

Because, I believe ALL schools have these Kangaroo courts, where the student is essentially put on trial to see if they broke the school's Code of Conduct. The "jury", if you can actually call it that, are random professors, and students (wtf!!!) with no real legal experience. The accused, I believe, can receive counsel from a lawyer, but the lawyer can't be present during the "trial".

It's an absolutely horrible system, flawed on to many levels to count.

[Savannah Jay]

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.

Agree that this should be off topic.

Disagree with much of the "detail" that TAMU Eagle to infer about Watson's case and Creighton. For starters, Creighton's code of conduct doesn't say anything about loud music in the dorms or murder. It's far more vague (and i'd be willing to bet the other schools in the BE have similar vagueness) and allows the hearing board huge latitude when a student's conduct is brought into question. The panel is 3 faculty and 3 students and they can choose to expel a student for simply failing to adhere to the four principles of the Creighton code of conduct:
1. Act with professional, academic, and personal integrity
2. Respect and promote the dignity of all persons
3. Respect the policies of the Creighton University community and the rights of its members both on and off the campus, as well as the just laws of the civic community and the rights of its members
4. Support the personal, professional, academic, and vocational development of the Creighton University community.

So the panel could, just on the face of the allegations, say that Watson failed to respect the dignity of all persons or the rights of a member of the Creighton community and expel him without even knowing all the details of that evening. Creighton's code of conduct specifically states that it is not a formal process and has nothing to do with civil or criminal law.

On the legal side, dropping the charges has absolutely nothing to do with what constitutes rape in Nebraska. The prosecutors had issues with the victim's credibility. Specifically:
1. She claimed she was a virgin, yet tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease whose incubation period made it impossible for her to have contracted it on the evening in question.
2. She had performed sex acts on Watson in the past.
3. The woman fondled and was fondled by a friend of Watson's in a car (with another person present) while traveling from the bar to the apartment where the alleged assault happened (this fact came to light later because she did not tell the police about the encounter and is ultimately what led to the charges being dropped).

Based on this information, prosecutors did not believe they would move forward and prove sexual assault. Creighton and its panel, given its a private Catholic university, could have expelled him simply if he told the panel everything that happened between her and the girl. And now I am speculating but, for example, if the previous sex acts happened on campus they could decide that conduct when combined with the allegation was enough to expel him.

[NJRedman]

Could the admin. please start a separate off topic thread for things that don't have anything to do with Big East Basketball. If people want to talk social issues, politics, or other non bball issues that would be nice. That way, those who signed up to just view Big East bball threads would be happy and people who want to discuss their philosophies and legal opinions on various topics could have a separate site. I don't know how we get this many pages on a topic where very few know what really happened or the decisions made. #go big east

Oh so a issue involving the Creighton Basketball coach isn't basketball related? If you don't want to read it then don't read it.

Lots of apologists here.

[mel ott]

Could the admin. please start a separate off topic thread for things that don't have anything to do with Big East Basketball. If people want to talk social issues, politics, or other non bball issues that would be nice. That way, those who signed up to just view Big East bball threads would be happy and people who want to discuss their philosophies and legal opinions on various topics could have a separate site. I don't know how we get this many pages on a topic where very few know what really happened or the decisions made. #go big east

Oh so a issue involving the Creighton Basketball coach isn't basketball related? If you don't want to read it then don't read it.

Lots of apologists here.

LIghten up Francis. I suggested that an off topic sticky thread be established for off topics items such as this. A picture of the CU basketball coach giving a ring to a player-no I don't see how that is basketball related. Find me the basketball related views in this thread. Again, what's the problem having off topic items?

[NJRedman]

Could the admin. please start a separate off topic thread for things that don't have anything to do with Big East Basketball. If people want to talk social issues, politics, or other non bball issues that would be nice. That way, those who signed up to just view Big East bball threads would be happy and people who want to discuss their philosophies and legal opinions on various topics could have a separate site. I don't know how we get this many pages on a topic where very few know what really happened or the decisions made. #go big east

Oh so a issue involving the Creighton Basketball coach isn't basketball related? If you don't want to read it then don't read it.

Lots of apologists here.

LIghten up Francis. I suggested that an off topic sticky thread be established for off topics items such as this. A picture of the CU basketball coach giving a ring to a player-no I don't see how that is basketball related. Find me the basketball related views in this thread. Again, what's the problem having off topic items?

I need to lighten up? You think a thread about a BE basketball coach isn't basketball related? Yeah, okay guy.

You just want to bury a story that makes your coach look bad into a section of the board where most posters don't go. You and the rest of his defenders are a joke. Did you guys hire Ken Starr as your new University President as well? Is Art Briles your new AD?

[stever20]

I think the timing though is something that's important. The tweet from McDermott was on October 21. So a good 2.5 weeks prior to the op-ed.

The op-ed from the Creighton employees didn't come out until last week. After a lot of the stuff that's gone around nationally recently has come out. So, I think that was totally oportunistic by them quite frankly.

since he was cleared of the charges, i don't think there's a problem with giving him a ring. You can question the smartness of advertising it, but until the op-ed came out, did anyone really mention it at all?

[TAMU Eagle]

Disagree with much of the "detail" that TAMU Eagle to infer about Watson's case and Creighton. For starters, Creighton's code of conduct doesn't say anything about loud music in the dorms or murder. It's far more vague (and i'd be willing to bet the other schools in the BE have similar vagueness) and allows the hearing board huge latitude when a student's conduct is brought into question. The panel is 3 faculty and 3 students and they can choose to expel a student for simply failing to adhere to the four principles of the Creighton code of conduct:
1. Act with professional, academic, and personal integrity
2. Respect and promote the dignity of all persons
3. Respect the policies of the Creighton University community and the rights of its members both on and off the campus, as well as the just laws of the civic community and the rights of its members
4. Support the personal, professional, academic, and vocational development of the Creighton University community.

So the panel could, just on the face of the allegations, say that Watson failed to respect the dignity of all persons or the rights of a member of the Creighton community and expel him without even knowing all the details of that evening. Creighton's code of conduct specifically states that it is not a formal process and has nothing to do with civil or criminal law.

On the legal side, dropping the charges has absolutely nothing to do with what constitutes rape in Nebraska. The prosecutors had issues with the victim's credibility. Specifically:
1. She claimed she was a virgin, yet tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease whose incubation period made it impossible for her to have contracted it on the evening in question.
2. She had performed sex acts on Watson in the past.
3. The woman fondled and was fondled by a friend of Watson's in a car (with another person present) while traveling from the bar to the apartment where the alleged assault happened (this fact came to light later because she did not tell the police about the encounter and is ultimately what led to the charges being dropped).

Based on this information, prosecutors did not believe they would move forward and prove sexual assault. Creighton and its panel, given its a private Catholic university, could have expelled him simply if he told the panel everything that happened between her and the girl. And now I am speculating but, for example, if the previous sex acts happened on campus they could decide that conduct when combined with the allegation was enough to expel him.

[/quote]

So I work in student conduct so I was intrigued by your claim that Creighton only has a vague student code of conduct with only four rules. I've never heard of something like that so I decided to look it up just out of curiousity. Here is what I found:

You are correct that Creighton separates it's Code of Conduct into the four main pillars that you described. What you missed is that these four main pillars are broken down into dozens of subsections. For example, Pillar #1 is broken down into:

Code of Conduct #1
Act with professional, academic, and personal integrity.
Code of Conduct #1.1. Conduct Unbecoming of a Creighton Student: Conduct on or off campus which reflects poorly on Creighton University, or other conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the University or other students.
Code of Conduct #1.2. Failure to Comply: Interfering or failing to comply with the directives of University officials acting in performance of their duties.
Code of Conduct #1.3. False Information: Intentionally furnishing false information to any member of the University.
Code of Conduct #1.4. False Report: Intentionally, negligently or recklessly making a false report of misconduct that results in the unneeded utilization of university resources.
Code of Conduct #1.5. Fake Identification: Using, possessing, or providing a driver's license or other identification with facts inconsistent with information maintained by the University is a violation of the student code of conduct.
Code of Conduct #1.6. Fleeing Student: Students who are at the scene of an incident where there is concern for students’ safety or where conduct violations may have occurred are expected to remain at the scene of the incident until they are released by responding University staff.
Code of Conduct #1.7. Violating Sanctions: Violating the terms of any disciplinary sanction imposed in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct.
Code of Conduct #1.8. Forgery: Forging, altering, or using any University document or any instrument of identification without proper authorization.

Now the examples I gave "too much noise in the dorms" is covered by Rule #3.11 Violations of published or other existing University rules: Violating published or otherwise existing University rules, regulations, or policies including but not limited to provisions of this Handbook, other University publications and residence hall rules and regulations. A trip over to the residence hall rule and regulations page shows that there is a rule on make too much noise in the dorm. There's also Rule #4.13 Noise: Causing, exhibiting, or encouraging noisy or disruptive behavior which interferes with the personal or academic pursuits of others.

The other example of murder is covered by Rule #3.12 Violation of the Law: Committing any unlawful or criminal act that violates city, state, or federal law. As with most universities, rather than spell out every possible illegal action, they do a catch all that covers any possible violation of criminal law.

I found this rule while scanning and i thought it was funny: Rule #3.18 Prohibited Consensual Sexual Conduct: Any sexual activity which is not in accordance with the Judeo-Christian values of Creighton University and the specific doctrinal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is prohibited. Does that mean Creighton is investigating cases where students are having pre-martial sex? I wonder how many catholic universities have that on the books. However, this rule becomes important later in my post.

All in all, Creighton's student code of conduct is 33 pages long. You can find it on pages 89-122 of the student handbook. But this doesn't even include all the various policies and procedures at Creighton including their residence life polices, sexual assault policies, hazing policies, etc. Add those all together and its pushing 100 pages. Not bad for something "vague that allows the hearing board a lot of latitude."

Now, what you won't find in the student code of conduct is any rules about sexual assault because of this line: "Second, the Vice Provost for Student Life has authority regarding nonacademic disciplinary matters where it is anticipated that a student infraction may result in disciplinary reprimand or disciplinary probation, withdrawal, suspension and/or expulsion, except in matters that involve allegations of harassment or discrimination, which are addressed by the Harassment, Discrimination, Sexual and Relationship Misconduct Policy #2.1.25."

To translate the above, that means that Creighton has an entire separate process for sexual assault complaints, a pretty common practice though not what a majority of schools do. That also means that "So the panel could, just on the face of the allegations, say that Watson failed to respect the dignity of all persons or the rights of a member of the Creighton community and expel him without even knowing all the details of that evening" is a false statement. If the alleged sexual assault was why Mo was expelled (which is an assumption), then they would have had to go through the sexual assault process.

The sexual assault process by itself is a 30 page document at Creighton and lists all of the various forms a due process and procedures that must be followed. As I said before there is an investigation, a hearing, and an appeal process. If Mo was expelled for the alleged sexual assault, Creighton would have had to follow this procedure and determined that Mo was "more likely than not" to have committed the sexual assault, which is known as the preponderance of evidence standard.

Now, what is interesting is that because of that Rule #3.18 about "non-christian sex acts" it is theoretically possible that Mo was found not responsible by the university for sexual assault but was found responsible for Rule #3.18 and expelled for it. However, the university would have to be very careful about going this route. My common sense tells me that Creighton isn't likely expelling every student that has sex out of wedlock or gives a blowjob. They also would need to expel the female student involved as well if they determined the acts were consensual. Creighton would need to be able to prove that they weren't discriminatory against Mo by expelling him for something that they aren't expelling other students for. While this scenario is theoretically possible, it seems much more likely that the sexual assault was the reason for the expulsion.

Now, I am not going to get into the actual "did he do it or not?" conversation. Because I have no idea and neither does anyone here (unless someone happened to witness the events that took place that night). All we know for certain is that the university was at least 51% (preponderance of evidence) sure that he did, and the DA was less than 95ish% certain (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he did it. And just because the university was at least 51% sure doesn't mean that they were actually right. Just like the legal system sometimes condemns innocent people, so does the university system. Unless I have all the information I prefer not to make judgement either way because there's the potential I am either condemning an innocent student or siding with a rapist. Neither is a good look.

[TAMU Eagle]

It's a common misconception that universities have "kangaroo courts" and just make up the rules as they go. The reality is that they are highly regulated processes with set rules and highly trained professionals working within them. All of my coworkers at least have a Master's degree and several have doctorates. Most have a background in either law enforcement or law and compliance. In today's "I'll sue anyone who disagrees with me" culture, there is no room for vagueness or broken procedures. Now there are definitely bad actors in the field, just like any field. They need to be either trained up or removed.

[Savannah Jay]

Maybe vague wasn't the right word...but they sure do have a lot of latitude.

I tried to not bore everyone with the whole code but focus on the four principles, on which the code is based.
"Conduct on or off campus that reflects poorly on Creighton University" That allows for a significant amount of latitude because "reflects poorly" is subjective.

And so we agree there actually isn't anything in the code of conduct about murder or too much noise in the dorm. In essence, you need to obey the law and follow the rules and the university makes the rules, the university decides how and when they are enforced and the punishment for conduct violations. Which is fine...it's a private institution and attendance is a privilege not a right.

But my point still is that there is a great deal of subjectivity/latitude in the interpretation or application of the code of conduct and your supposition of what you think happened, "law enforcement dropped the charges but the university found him responsible (guilty) and expelled him" is not a statement of fact because you don't actually know why they expelled him but you certainly implied they found him "responsible (guilty)" of sexual assault. You go on in the subsequent post to state that the university was at least 51% sure that he did commit sexual assault and the DA was less certain and that's how we go to this point. Are you on the board that decided his fate (in which case I don't think you should be talking about it here)? And if not, you have no idea why they actually expelled him. They could have found him guilty of conduct on or off campus that reflects poorly on Creighton University and expelled him, or found him guilty of "non Christian sexy time." I don't know and neither do you.