It has to be added, since you are painting a picture of a world gone mad in which men can be destroyed with no real evidence, that only 0.7% of rape cases lead to felony conviction.
That to me is the crux of the problem. If you are pressured to do something it is not done voluntarily.
But the judge doesn't seem to care.
Reminds me of the time when LetsRun had a multiyear advertising contract guaranteeing us so much money a month. Economy tanked and we were getting the best end of the deal. They said "We want to work with you on this." I said "sure". My ex-wife said "they're going to try and screw you over." I then called the lawyer who wrote the contract (only time I've done that) and he said "you're good"."
There was one line in our contract that if the "ad code was altered by us" they could cancel the contract. Then ad partner started saying "hey put up the video player, take it down, put it back up, turn on the sound (we told them sound was a no no"). Eventually at one point the sound was back on and I turned it off. The said "You altered the ad code without us telling you to, we're terminating the contract." The only reason I started doing any of this was they had established a relationship of me changing the code. Technically I had altered the ad code, and they got a really expensive law firm who ran circles around our guy.
That part made me a bit uneasy because I'm thinking the judge is saying "if you were kicked off it might be a different case".
This is a D3 school with no scholarships.
Is this the scenario: Some on team think he is a rapist. They rightfully don't want him on team.
Coach says "he can you step away, until this gets cleared up?".
Athlete : "Sure, but I didn't do anything". Whether this is "voluntary" or not makes no difference to me almost. If the coach says "how about you don't come to practice until this is cleared up vs "You're not welcome at practice until this is cleared up" is very little difference when you're dealing with some college kid and a coach.
(No way does the athlete step away here if he believes when no charges are brought he will still be kicked off the team. No one in there right mind would do that. )
Being on the team tehcnically means nothing at a D3 school as their is no scholarship.
It sounds like within a very sort time frame like under 2 weeks, athlete come back and says "there is no case I'm ready to come back to practice and coach is like "you're not welcome"."
that doesn't seem right procedurally to me if there are rules against a kid being punished wtihout a Title IX hearing as there is 0% chance this kid voluntarily steps away from the team if he thinks he'll be cleared and still kicked off.
What am I missing?
If the case is a coach can pick and choose who they want on his team no matter what then fine but I don't think that is what the judge is saying.
The point is that in the end this has nothing to do with a Title IX violation. A coach can bar somebody from joining or rejoining a team (as long as it’s not based on discrimination against a protected category) full stop. Coach doesn’t want you, you’re gone.
I read it and I would now give the more nuanced take, "It sounds like Doe's teammates really do not like him and also believe the victim."
That is what I would have guessed. However, I'm not sure this "back-door" method of getting rid of him is valid. Even if it is "valid".
"Take a break while this blows over."
{It blows over}.
"You can't come back."
They seem to be conflating two things. If he was asked to "resign" or take a break BECAUSE of X, you can't realistically then "fire" him permanently for *Y* without it looking like he is being convicted of X with no evidence.
Its like being fired from a job for suddenly getting poor performance evaluations. After someone accused you of stealing office supplies and befouling the restroom.
That to me is the crux of the problem. If you are pressured to do something it is not done voluntarily.
But the judge doesn't seem to care...
The judge acknowledges right in his opinion that John Doe leaving the team wasn't exactly voluntary ("I... assume for these purposes that an athlete in Doe's position would accede to the wishes of his Coach."), and that it doesn't really matter- even if he had stayed on the team, the coach has every right to dismiss him to preserve the team atmosphere.
When you're a non-scoring member of a college team, you know your place. You show up, work hard, and try to make a positive contribution to the team dynamic. As soon as your actions and or attitude start screwing things up for the people actually scoring, there's simply no reason to have you around anymore.
I read it and I would now give the more nuanced take, "It sounds like Doe's teammates really do not like him and also believe the victim."
That is what I would have guessed. However, I'm not sure this "back-door" method of getting rid of him is valid. Even if it is "valid".
"Take a break while this blows over."
{It blows over}.
"You can't come back."
They seem to be conflating two things. If he was asked to "resign" or take a break BECAUSE of X, you can't realistically then "fire" him permanently for *Y* without it looking like he is being convicted of X with no evidence.
It’s like being fired from a job for suddenly getting poor performance evaluations. After someone accused you of stealing office supplies and befouling the restroom.
The only “valid” that really matters here is the law. Kid can cry all he wants about the back door method or the inconsistent reasoning, but it ultimately doesn’t really matter.
He spent a whole year trying to get back on a team that expressed very clearly that they didn’t want him there, even to the extent of legal intervention. Seems to be lacking in social awareness, and it also seems more than a little bit vindictive. It’s no wonder his teammates were like nah, not that guy.
Agree, John Doe was removed from / asked to leave the team because he became a liability to the team. That can remain true even as no case against him ever materialized, and even if the whole thing was 100% fabricated. He very well may have a right to be bitter, but he doesn't have a right to be on the team.
Even if he could forcefully insert himself back into the team, it's hard to imagine how that ends up as a positive experience for him, so suing sounds like a waste of time and money. He should be focusing his efforts on his studies and probably also his transfer application.
This post was edited 36 seconds after it was posted.
Agree, John Doe was removed from / asked to leave the team because he became a liability to the team. That can remain true even as no case against him ever materialized, and even if the whole thing was 100% fabricated. He very well may have a right to be bitter, but he doesn't have a right to be on the team.
Even if he could forcefully insert himself back into the team, it's hard to imagine how that ends up as a positive experience for him, so suing sounds like a waste of time and money. He should be focusing his efforts on his studies and probably also his transfer application.
It seems like he’s taking the principled approach, but I think this is right on. Either he did do something wrong and he’s rightfully being ostracized even though the victim doesn’t want to play ball. Or he’s so disliked that his teammates will create a total sham story to get him off the team. And nobody is breaking ranks to get him back on the team. Why you’d be looking to rejoin teammates who have such contempt for you to do that I don’t know. This is also probably why the team should have a voice in captain selection (if they don’t here). Very possible he was made captain by the coaches despite a low approval rating and that can affect your actions/personality around teammates and members of the opposite sex. That’s just me speculating though.
This post was edited 31 seconds after it was posted.
My assumption is that he wants to be back on the team because him not being allowed to be back on the team is making appear as though he has done something wrong or atleast that is what it would seem from the complaint.
I think it’s more of a question that doe was asked(from his coach)/told to leave based on the rumor (of sextual assault). Thus at that point it was a title IX issue. What reason would the coach have for not wanting him besides the rumor of sextual assault?
I think it’s more of a question that doe was asked(from his coach)/told to leave based on the rumor (of sextual assault). Thus at that point it was a title IX issue. What reason would the coach have for not wanting him besides the rumor of sextual assault?
Did you read the judge’s decision? The athlete has no legal right to be on the team. In the end, the coach needs no reason to keep him off the team (he’s doing it because many of the team members don’t want him on), and the coach has wide discretion in setting the roster. The fizzled Title IX investigation has no bearing on this fundamental fact.
There is always an element to Title IX cases that aren't immediately available to the public and adds the proper context to understand what's going on. Happened once when I was in college. Not nearly as severe as what we're dealing with here, but rumors spread without the right context, and no one could make sense of what happened. Eventually once everything blew over, the proper context was given and the situation seemed a whole lot more understandable, from both sides.
This is clearly the case here. There is some element to this story that we don't have, and it's making this case seem confusing. Probably somewhere down the line, either through court or some other means, we will get the proper context. Maybe the guy is in the wrong, maybe it's the coach, maybe the victim, or a combination of them. who knows.
This post was edited 30 seconds after it was posted.
Reason provided:
grammar
I think it’s more of a question that doe was asked(from his coach)/told to leave based on the rumor (of sextual assault). Thus at that point it was a title IX issue. What reason would the coach have for not wanting him besides the rumor of sextual assault?
Did you read the judge’s decision? The athlete has no legal right to be on the team. In the end, the coach needs no reason to keep him off the team (he’s doing it because many of the team members don’t want him on), and the coach has wide discretion in setting the roster. The fizzled Title IX investigation has no bearing on this fundamental fact.
well he has a contractual right, due to the school's policy, to not be disciplined for a title ix-covered matter without first going thru a title ix hearing. but the judge sided with the school that even tho the initial impetus for the situation was the complaint, the basis for keeping him off the team at this point was what it would do to the team, not the substance of the title ix complaint.
it's also important to note here that procedurally this was a request for basically emergency action to get him immediately reinstated for this semester, which the judge denied. that doesn't mean he had no shot at winning after a full trial, the judge just said the circumstances didn't warrant an immediate order to reinstate him
honestly can't imagine wanting to be part of that team in this context. even if he were totally innocent and his teammates are intentionally spreading lies, that's f'd up, but at that point being on the team just sounds miserable
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Its his final season according to this that was posted earlier. I could care less if my teammates liked more or not on my last semester id just wanna race.