Haverford Runner Leaves Team After Allegation of Sexual Assault, No Charges Brought, Sues to Get Back on Team

Completely different. The dude was found guilty in court and went to jail. WENT TO JAIL. I don't get how people still don't understand how messed up that situation is.

Umm, Wejo, just because there are no scholarships doesn't mean "nothing" nor mean that just any student can be on a team. The practices and culture of each team and who can be on it will vary from team to team and school to school, but it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

I have no dog in this fight... but if the kid was a likeable guy before... and had no issues but this... it seems like a missed teaching opportunity for the coach. From what we know Tom could have gone to his team and said "listen guys, this is why we have innocent until proven guilty... and in this case... there wasn't even anything to prove." Etc, etc. The fact he didn't, and by all accounts is the type of guy who would if there was no smoke, to me suggests that there is more to the story. If not, shame on this great coach who has made such a positive impact on so many students. You dropped the ball here on a number of fronts: protecting an innocent guy and teaching the haters to not hate.

He obviously is not a, "likeable guy". This was probably an opportunity to remove this person from the team, and everyone on the team agreed. Otherwise, we would hear from other team members speaking up in his defense. But that's not happening.

Only a BroJo would compare a sexual assault accusation to some irrelevant story about advertising on this site.

Thoughts? I think LRC has a bad history with stuff like this & using it as clickbait, while offering no opinion isn't something you should be doing in your role.

John Doe wasn't disciplined. A coach can kick an athlete off of their team. A judge, who is more qualified than any of us, ruled on it. What's left to talk about.

& you link to the post so the men of LRC can rush there to offer their opinions? I'm so out when you do stuff like this. Women have it hard enough with stuff like this. So no charges were filed -- then why was the kid not wanted on the team.

Yes you're right it's not particularly unique.

And even some of the demands they made are , sadly, not unique to colleges anymore.

One of their demands was that the college administrators push for "police and prison abolition". Oy vay.

So.... the cops who killed black people [ which is kind of what spurred on these college activist demands], not to mention child murderers and child rapists- what should we do with them? Not have police investigate them [ abolish police ] and not lock them up [ prison abolition] if they are found guilty? Ohhh..kaaay.

Hmmm...
I mean I mean obviously you have a point, however, there is such a thing as peer pressure and mob mentality you know.
If many influential members of the team simply went with the belief that he must be guilty once the rumor/accusation started, and just put on blinders at that point/ made up their minds that he must be a "bad guy" [ because of supposed accusation], a lot of times it is easier to stick with one's Viewpoint [ and for others to go along with that group viewpoint] than it is to reconsider or buck the group. That's really what could have happened.

OTOH some folks found the team right now first hand some bad stuff that he did. However why one of them wouldn't go to Title IX is confusing. Maybe they didn't want the attention/stress.

1)I'm shocked Weldon put this up as even if some find it interesting and important, the ones outraged like yourself will be more outraged.

2) I think he did because comes from facebook where it was started by Becca Gillespie Peter who is very involved in these type of SafeSport allegations. And she seemed to think it might be unfair which was very surprising to me. And the comments on facebook are almost all along the lines of "Harverford could be sued."

3) In general, I think a coach should have wide discretion as to whom they want on a team. And you don't have to commit a crime to be kicked off a team. Should the Alabama basketball coach be allowed to kick the star player off the team who transported a gun to the scene of a murder even though the DA didn't charge him? Yes. I think it's absurd he wasn't kicked off the team.

But this is interesting legally as he only left the team due to a specific allegation that she never made with Title IX office (Now is there any chance she didn't follow through wiht Title IX as she was happy with him just being off the team - that was enough for her?)

Despite what the judge said, I can see why he legally thinks he's got a point. He was kicked off the team due to a Title IX allegation. He won the title ix allegation by default. He wants to be reinstated per the rules.

Exactly. This could be retaliation for something that didn't happen (or at least wasn't alleged formally to have happened). He may have a defamation case if anyone made claims that cannot be substantiated and that resulted in him suffering a harm (no longer being on the team). Unless they can clearly show that he was booted for some other reason ("coincidentally").

Its like a job putting you on paid leave to investigate a colleagues (or citizens) complaints. The suddenly a pile of bad performance evaluations show up..

This could well be completely valid but from what has been posted here, it smells.

I think the point the university is making is that removal from a team should not be considered a "penalty," since being on a team is not a right, but a privilege. John Doe is claiming that he was wrongly penalized, since no complaint was ever lodged with Title IX; the university is saying that is irrelevant since students don't have automatic access to athletic team participation. There are lots of students who may want to be on the basketball team and it's not a penalty to deny a student a roster spot.

Why do you default to categorizing this thread as clickbait, when you yourself ask the question; why he wasn't wanted on the team?

His popularity aside, the thread raises an important point, do collegiate athletes have recourse when they are kicked off a team for substantiated or unsubstantiated reasons. Furthermore, when an athlete seemed to have a mutual agreement with the coach? The answer looks to be, after numerous men offered opinions, no, not really. Still worthy of a discussion.

Maybe if Mr Doe got something in writing would there have been a different outcome - again, likely not because, rightfully, there is significant leeway afforded a coach to manage his team.

You say women have it hard enough with stuff like this, well, apparently from this thread, so do men. Should we demand LRC filter any running news that may offend the sensibilities of those who have a hard time with stuff like this? Brojos, are you listening? Time to up your censorship game.

Yes, that's definitely the trend lately, that groups of modern humans only gang up on individuals who they can prove are guilty of whatever offense they are ganging up on him for.

No wait, for people today (especially college-age people), rumor, attestation, and "My LiVeD eXpErIeNcE" is good enough.

No charges but he must have done SOMETHING, you are saying... I pray to God you are not in a job where you have to make really important decisions.

I don't have enough information to know if the situation was fair or unfair, I thought it was an interesting case and the type of case that would be of interest to some letsrun readers.

Unfortunately it was filed under seal.

Exactly.

The Coach has the ultimate discretion about whether the kid should be on the team or not. Anything else is just victim culture war speculation for the incels and women haters who live on this board.

It sounds like John Doe may have been in a grey area when it came to his behavior. Others on here have pointed out that alcohol may have been involved in the alleged incident. My guess is that while he may not have committed a crime, he showed evidence of poor character. The judge makes it sound as if he was canned for character reasons.

It's worthwhile reading the papers.

Sounds like a horrendous situation. Taken at face value - a student posted up a list of individuals who should be bullied due to their actions. Team saw this and led by a particularly vocal co-captain ("Captain A") someone reported to the coach. Mandatory reporter meant he had to report the rumour. Title IX investigation quickly concluded no case at all (in the paper, the accused individual makes it clear he never had any physical contact with the alleged victim which is pretty easy to disprove with witnesses etc. if false).

Seems to be accepted that this is false but Captain A seems to have rallied the other individuals on the team (at this point several seasons along - some who are hearing the rumours third or fourth hand...).

Student seems to have asked Captain A and the coach to set out any justification whatsoever for why they feel uncomfortable with his behaviour and they have repeatedly at multiple meetings refused to give any incidents.

Obviously could be another side here but looks like the kid has been railroaded and led down the garden path with regard to any chance of him rejoining.

I suspect that the athlete can't be forced to rejoin the team (you have no "right to play") but the conduct of the college looks absolutely horrendous here.

The obvious disciplinary action here is on Captain A and others spreading unfounded rumours. No idea why the college let this get so far.

Big caveat: Only the appellant's papers and the judge's preliminary decision are available.

Yes. But even if this dude did commit a Title IX violation and he deserves to remain off the team (in spite of being cleared by the TIX office), this sets bad precedent for how cases like these are treated in the future. People can just be permanently kicked off teams based on hollow allegations? If I don't like someone, I can just claim Title IX on them and have them booted forever, no repercussions?

I know I said earlier that there's probably something we don't know about this case that puts it in better context, and I stand by that. But as it stands right now, this is not due process. Clearly one party to this case is being treated preferentially to another.