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?)
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.
You and the poster above you get it, most in this thread don’t. Anyone who thinks the ultimate issue here is “coach can choose who is on the team or not,” or “sports are a privilege not a right” are massively missing the point. Yes, those things are true, and those things are why a court won’t force the school to reinstate the athlete. But those are not the ultimate issue with what seems to have occurred here. Whether the coach, Captain SJW (er, A) are in the clear legally, it seems very likely that they did something that might be variously describable as “dishonest,” “ill-informed,” “bullying” or even simply “crappy.” If the runner at issue didn’t do anything untoward and it was merely a rumor, Captain A deserves to be dragged through the mud a bit under his actual name. I don’t care if it’s “only” a college thing and the punishment is “only” getting kicked off a team, this is the sort of behavior on the part of the captain(s?) that needs to be nipped in the bud now when it’s “only” minor stakes. If Captain A leaves school thinking he did right in this situation, the education system has failed him, and failed the co-worker or community member he will railroad in the future off of no evidence in a future situation, wherever he might find a bit of power and influence in life. Imagine this guy being a lawyer or a manger in a business someday. God help the one who has a false rumor started about them wherever Captain A can do more damage than “only” get them kicked off a D3 team.
On the one hand, there’s the general principle that the coach has broad discretion to decide who gets to be on the team. Absent some specific legal right that he may be violating, courts do not adjudicate the fairness or correctness of those kinds of decisions. The same is true of at-will employment. Your boss can fire you for almost any reason at all, and it can be completely unfair, but that doesn’t mean you have a legal claim. UNLESS…the termination was for some specifically proscribed reason, such as discrimination against members of a protected class. In the employment context, these cases end up being all about the plaintiffs trying to prove through circumstantial evidence that the stated reason for the termination was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The fact that something is a privilege (being on a varsity team, working at a particular job) doesn’t mean that it can’t be unlawfully taken away.
In this case, the plaintiff does have rights under Title IX, and in recent years there have been MANY cases in which male students have won Title IX cases premised on lack of due process in campus sexual assault hearings. (The plaintiff in this case technically asked for relief on just his contract claim, but the contract explicitly incorporates Title IX, so it’s basically the same thing.) Without going into too much detail, the takeaway is that a lack of due process for the accused is considered sex discrimination against men. (Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; it’s not limited to discrimination against women.) So the argument here is pretty straightforward: Yes, the coach has general discretion to kick me off the team for any reason, but he can’t kick me off the team as a de facto punishment for wrongdoing of which I wasn't found guilty under fair procedures.
Passing the buck to the other athletes shouldn’t’ work either. If the judge were treating this case like an employment case, there’s no way this reasoning would fly. You couldn’t get away with saying, “I fired this gay employee for no reason other than that he was bad for morale because my homophobic employees didn’t want to work with him.” The same is true if you try to pass the buck to your racist customers. You couldn’t legally justify firing a black salesperson by saying, “well, I had no problem with him, but my customers are all racist.”
A little bit of procedure for the non-lawyers. The ruling everyone is talking about is the judge denying a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO). This is a short-term remedy that would get Doe back on the team while the case is pending. With TROs (and preliminary injunctions), the court is not supposed to provide relief unless he thinks it’s likely that the plaintiff will eventually win the case. Denying relief doesn't technically end the case, but it can signal that the court is likely to dismiss it eventually. I think this judge will.
In this ruling, the judge SAID that there were no real factual disputes, but if you look at the actual discussion, he seems to be drawing every conceivable inference in favor of Haverford. Basically, the judge says, “it’s totally possible that you were kicked off the team for reasons unrelated to the sexual assault allegation.” Sure, it’s possible the guy is a huge jerk and a misogynist. But if that's true, why didn't it happen earlier? Given the sequence of events, it seems more plausible that this is simply a de facto punishment for alleged sexual assault. In fact, the judge later seems to admit as much when he says that concerns about “mob justice” are not the concern of the court. But of course they are! That’s the entire point of the Title IX claim, and the court wouldn’t have had to bend over backwards to say the claim was implausible if Title IX didn’t impose limits on “mob justice.”
It's also troubling that the court concluded that losing the opportunity to compete in school sports does not constitute an “irreparable injury” for purposes of injunctive relief. Basically, the rule is that you aren’t supposed to get preliminary relief if your injuries can be fully redressed with monetary damages. That’s often the case in, for instance, a commercial contract dispute. The notion that permanently losing the opportunity to compete as an NCAA athlete doesn’t constitute an irreparable injury strikes me as beyond absurd.
To be clear, I have no idea what the real facts of this case are. Nobody does yet. But the judge’s ruling here seems problematic.
Whether any of that is correct, the point here is precisely that there was no Title IX process, which is why there was no hearing. The athlete in question may or may not have done anything, but collegiate processes should not allow him to be kicked off the team after such an allegation without some sort of hearing.
I know it is long, but there is a ton of information posted in the court filings that help clarify certain elements of this situation.
He was not kicked off the team. He was pressured to voluntarily step down from the team because of the alleged allegation, which he did. When the Title IX office cleared him (because no complaint was ever filed) he tried to get back on the team and they refused to allow him back.
I know it feels like the same thing, but procedurally it isn't and that is why the judge denied the injunction.
It feels like the same thing because it is the same thing. The judge was grasping at straws, and this is the kind of thin reasoning that's going to make the decision vulnerable on appeal.
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.
Whether the coach, Captain SJW (er, A) are in the clear legally, it seems very likely that they did something that might be variously describable as “dishonest,” “ill-informed,” “bullying” or even simply “crappy.” If the runner at issue didn’t do anything untoward and it was merely a rumor, Captain A deserves to be dragged through the mud a bit under his actual name. I don’t care if it’s “only” a college thing and the punishment is “only” getting kicked off a team, this is the sort of behavior on the part of the captain(s?) that needs to be nipped in the bud now when it’s “only” minor stakes. If Captain A leaves school thinking he did right in this situation, the education system has failed him, and failed the co-worker or community member he will railroad in the future off of no evidence in a future situation, wherever he might find a bit of power and influence in life.
This claim and analysis is solely based on John Doe’s account of the situation. Whether this is indicative of a broader social issue of punishing people based on rumors depends on the broader context of this situation, which can’t be known from his account solely. To me, if there is any broader issue that’s clearly displayed in this thread, it’s the tendency to leap to righteous conclusions about a situation without possessing the context or information needed to justify those conclusions.
On the one hand, there’s the general principle that the coach has broad discretion to decide who gets to be on the team. Absent some specific legal right that he may be violating, courts do not adjudicate the fairness or correctness of those kinds of decisions. The same is true of at-will employment. Your boss can fire you for almost any reason at all, and it can be completely unfair, but that doesn’t mean you have a legal claim. UNLESS…the termination was for some specifically proscribed reason, such as discrimination against members of a protected class. In the employment context, these cases end up being all about the plaintiffs trying to prove through circumstantial evidence that the stated reason for the termination was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The fact that something is a privilege (being on a varsity team, working at a particular job) doesn’t mean that it can’t be unlawfully taken away.
In this case, the plaintiff does have rights under Title IX, and in recent years there have been MANY cases in which male students have won Title IX cases premised on lack of due process in campus sexual assault hearings. (The plaintiff in this case technically asked for relief on just his contract claim, but the contract explicitly incorporates Title IX, so it’s basically the same thing.) Without going into too much detail, the takeaway is that a lack of due process for the accused is considered sex discrimination against men. (Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; it’s not limited to discrimination against women.) So the argument here is pretty straightforward: Yes, the coach has general discretion to kick me off the team for any reason, but he can’t kick me off the team as a de facto punishment for wrongdoing of which I wasn't found guilty under fair procedures.
Passing the buck to the other athletes shouldn’t’ work either. If the judge were treating this case like an employment case, there’s no way this reasoning would fly. You couldn’t get away with saying, “I fired this gay employee for no reason other than that he was bad for morale because my homophobic employees didn’t want to work with him.” The same is true if you try to pass the buck to your racist customers. You couldn’t legally justify firing a black salesperson by saying, “well, I had no problem with him, but my customers are all racist.”
A little bit of procedure for the non-lawyers. The ruling everyone is talking about is the judge denying a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO). This is a short-term remedy that would get Doe back on the team while the case is pending. With TROs (and preliminary injunctions), the court is not supposed to provide relief unless he thinks it’s likely that the plaintiff will eventually win the case. Denying relief doesn't technically end the case, but it can signal that the court is likely to dismiss it eventually. I think this judge will.
In this ruling, the judge SAID that there were no real factual disputes, but if you look at the actual discussion, he seems to be drawing every conceivable inference in favor of Haverford. Basically, the judge says, “it’s totally possible that you were kicked off the team for reasons unrelated to the sexual assault allegation.” Sure, it’s possible the guy is a huge jerk and a misogynist. But if that's true, why didn't it happen earlier? Given the sequence of events, it seems more plausible that this is simply a de facto punishment for alleged sexual assault. In fact, the judge later seems to admit as much when he says that concerns about “mob justice” are not the concern of the court. But of course they are! That’s the entire point of the Title IX claim, and the court wouldn’t have had to bend over backwards to say the claim was implausible if Title IX didn’t impose limits on “mob justice.”
It's also troubling that the court concluded that losing the opportunity to compete in school sports does not constitute an “irreparable injury” for purposes of injunctive relief. Basically, the rule is that you aren’t supposed to get preliminary relief if your injuries can be fully redressed with monetary damages. That’s often the case in, for instance, a commercial contract dispute. The notion that permanently losing the opportunity to compete as an NCAA athlete doesn’t constitute an irreparable injury strikes me as beyond absurd.
To be clear, I have no idea what the real facts of this case are. Nobody does yet. But the judge’s ruling here seems problematic.
Cool post.
I understand that the sequence of events points to punishment for the alleged assault, but I do think there's probably an argument to be made that it's still not directly related. The rumors and accusations could have been the impetus for the team to remove someone that they haven't liked the whole time.
I understand that the sequence of events points to punishment for the alleged assault, but I do think there's probably an argument to be made that it's still not directly related. The rumors and accusations could have been the impetus for the team to remove someone that they haven't liked the whole time.
Undoubtedly. That's what would get hashed out if this case goes to discovery.
I will say that, having litigating what you might call "pretext cases" in other contexts, courts typically place a lot of weight on the sequence of events. Largely that's because it's impossible to really know what's in someone's heart when they make a particular decision, but the sequence of events is objective and verifiable. If courts aren't willing to infer impermissible motive sometimes, then it would be impossible to ever enforce certain rights. The defendant could always just say, "no, that's not why I did it," and you could never prove they're wrong. (Though, in the civil context, proof just means "more likely than not.") And the "impetus" argument is probably not going to be particularly helpful if the impetus was something for which you can't legally be punished. I've seen arguments like that work where the "impetus" just triggered investigation, which then revealed wrongdoing. In this case, it seems that the team would've known about Doe's character long before.
I have no dog in this fight... but if the kid was a likeable guy before...
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.
He is obviously a likeable guy. The team made him a captain as a junior. The team wouldn't allow that if they didn't like him.
I'm guessing the male members of the team have a strong 'believe women' sentiment, stopping them firstly from speaking out if they don't believe the allegations, but also stopping them from supporting anyone who doesn't support the female's statement. They may say things like "it's not my place to second guess her", "my opinion here really doesn't matter", and "with all that happens to women they need to be believed".
It's not surprising that the team at a very progressive university would consider themselves not only unable to criticize their female counterparts, but required to stand against their male teammates when one of them is disliked for alleged misconduct.
It sucks to be told by your teammates that they think you are a net negative to the team, but it does happen. The coach has put the team and harmony on the team first the whole time.
The legal opinion states that he was only told generally why they don't want him around. I find that hard to believe that he isn't aware of specifics related to his actions that might upset his team.
Back in the past, my team had a problematic runner or two that had "unfounded accusations" against him. While these were not of the sexual assault variety, the team new them to actually be true even if the investigation turned up no evidence (because it was well hidden). There was a sizable portion of the team that wanted coach to remove him still. This is a team issue, not a legal one. The judge refusing to grant the restraining order is correct in my opinion.
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.
Clickbait?
Becca Gillespy sent this to me because it's a very interesting case. She's one of the leaders in the Safe Sport space.
I tried to present the case as straightforward as possible.
There is a lot of interesting conversation in this thread.
There's a lot to talk about. One I think the kid is still pursuing his legal avenues, but you could have the situation where Title IX rules at the school force the school to keep the kid on the team even though generally a coach can kick someone off the team for any reason.
If the school has a rule, "you can't be disciplined for a Title IX offense" without a hearing and that is what was ruled to have been done here then the student could be forced to be back on the team.
Look if a coach says "how about you step away and until this clears up" and then changes his mind and wants to kick a kid off the team, I'm generally going to say he has the right to do this even if the coach is not honoring his initial word. I think however if a coach does this then they need to own it. Generally you should honor your word.
Look if a coach says "how about you step away and until this clears up" and then changes his mind and wants to kick a kid off the team, I'm generally going to say he has the right to do this even if the coach is not honoring his initial word. I think however if a coach does this then they need to own it. Generally you should honor your word.
This is what it boils down to for me as well. The poster who seems to be a lawyer did a great job running through the legal aspects and the analogies to employment law (at the very least, I'm a law student myself and it all sounded accurate to what I'd learned in employment law) and I agree with the people saying a coach should have a nearly unlimited right to kick people off the team. But here wejo you've hit the nail on the head. Forget any legal obligations or requirements for a second. The coach and team do in fact "need to own" what they did and to the extent that the coach initially portrayed the situation as "you just step away for a minute while this gets sorted" and then changed it to "actually, we kicked you off for good" when that became convenient, he needs to be called out. It's not illegal but its exactly the kind of activity that call-out culture is best used against: acts that are technically legal but morally questionable or repugnant. We are a better society if people hold to their word, and the Haverford team culture everyone keeps talking up is decreased if runners can't trust their coach to keep his word. Given the mob justice that often surrounds sex-related accusations, and which appears to have been present here via that social media list of people to bully, every decent young man should at least briefly consider what he'd do if he were falsely accused, and think about whether he could trust his friends and mentors to stick by him or if those people would be more likely to dump him only on the strength of an accusation. Every young man considering Haverford should see this situation and weigh it as part of his college choice.
On the one hand, there’s the general principle that the coach has broad discretion to decide who gets to be on the team. Absent some specific legal right that he may be violating, courts do not adjudicate the fairness or correctness of those kinds of decisions. The same is true of at-will employment. Your boss can fire you for almost any reason at all, and it can be completely unfair, but that doesn’t mean you have a legal claim. UNLESS…the termination was for some specifically proscribed reason, such as discrimination against members of a protected class. In the employment context, these cases end up being all about the plaintiffs trying to prove through circumstantial evidence that the stated reason for the termination was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The fact that something is a privilege (being on a varsity team, working at a particular job) doesn’t mean that it can’t be unlawfully taken away.
In this case, the plaintiff does have rights under Title IX, and in recent years there have been MANY cases in which male students have won Title IX cases premised on lack of due process in campus sexual assault hearings. (The plaintiff in this case technically asked for relief on just his contract claim, but the contract explicitly incorporates Title IX, so it’s basically the same thing.) Without going into too much detail, the takeaway is that a lack of due process for the accused is considered sex discrimination against men. (Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; it’s not limited to discrimination against women.) So the argument here is pretty straightforward: Yes, the coach has general discretion to kick me off the team for any reason, but he can’t kick me off the team as a de facto punishment for wrongdoing of which I wasn't found guilty under fair procedures.
Passing the buck to the other athletes shouldn’t’ work either. If the judge were treating this case like an employment case, there’s no way this reasoning would fly. You couldn’t get away with saying, “I fired this gay employee for no reason other than that he was bad for morale because my homophobic employees didn’t want to work with him.” The same is true if you try to pass the buck to your racist customers. You couldn’t legally justify firing a black salesperson by saying, “well, I had no problem with him, but my customers are all racist.”
A little bit of procedure for the non-lawyers. The ruling everyone is talking about is the judge denying a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO). This is a short-term remedy that would get Doe back on the team while the case is pending. With TROs (and preliminary injunctions), the court is not supposed to provide relief unless he thinks it’s likely that the plaintiff will eventually win the case. Denying relief doesn't technically end the case, but it can signal that the court is likely to dismiss it eventually. I think this judge will.
In this ruling, the judge SAID that there were no real factual disputes, but if you look at the actual discussion, he seems to be drawing every conceivable inference in favor of Haverford. Basically, the judge says, “it’s totally possible that you were kicked off the team for reasons unrelated to the sexual assault allegation.” Sure, it’s possible the guy is a huge jerk and a misogynist. But if that's true, why didn't it happen earlier? Given the sequence of events, it seems more plausible that this is simply a de facto punishment for alleged sexual assault. In fact, the judge later seems to admit as much when he says that concerns about “mob justice” are not the concern of the court. But of course they are! That’s the entire point of the Title IX claim, and the court wouldn’t have had to bend over backwards to say the claim was implausible if Title IX didn’t impose limits on “mob justice.”
It's also troubling that the court concluded that losing the opportunity to compete in school sports does not constitute an “irreparable injury” for purposes of injunctive relief. Basically, the rule is that you aren’t supposed to get preliminary relief if your injuries can be fully redressed with monetary damages. That’s often the case in, for instance, a commercial contract dispute. The notion that permanently losing the opportunity to compete as an NCAA athlete doesn’t constitute an irreparable injury strikes me as beyond absurd.
To be clear, I have no idea what the real facts of this case are. Nobody does yet. But the judge’s ruling here seems problematic.
Great post.
This case has a lot of beliefs I think we all could agree on coming into conflict.
1) Innocent until proven guilty
2) A coach should be able to determine who is on their team
3) Possible sexual assault is a very serious crime.
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.
Clickbait?
Becca Gillespy sent this to me because it's a very interesting case. She's one of the leaders in the Safe Sport space.
I tried to present the case as straightforward as possible.
There is a lot of interesting conversation in this thread.
There's a lot to talk about. One I think the kid is still pursuing his legal avenues, but you could have the situation where Title IX rules at the school force the school to keep the kid on the team even though generally a coach can kick someone off the team for any reason.
If the school has a rule, "you can't be disciplined for a Title IX offense" without a hearing and that is what was ruled to have been done here then the student could be forced to be back on the team.
Look if a coach says "how about you step away and until this clears up" and then changes his mind and wants to kick a kid off the team, I'm generally going to say he has the right to do this even if the coach is not honoring his initial word. I think however if a coach does this then they need to own it. Generally you should honor your word.
100% chance that the administration dictated to the coach exactly what to do. This was not the coach's decision, it was the AD's decision. It's sad the 80 year old coach is being used as the fall guy. I hope they didn't make him have to testify in court
He is obviously a likeable guy. The team made him a captain as a junior. The team wouldn't allow that if they didn't like him.
I'm guessing the male members of the team have a strong 'believe women' sentiment, stopping them firstly from speaking out if they don't believe the allegations, but also stopping them from supporting anyone who doesn't support the female's statement. They may say things like "it's not my place to second guess her", "my opinion here really doesn't matter", and "with all that happens to women they need to be believed".
It's not surprising that the team at a very progressive university would consider themselves not only unable to criticize their female counterparts, but required to stand against their male teammates when one of them is disliked for alleged misconduct.
You're making the assumption that the team "made him a captain." It says in the filing that the coach made him a captain. This is likely based primarily on performance and what he sees in practice (also, mostly performance). I don't think the team would be in position to not "allow that" when the Coach is the ultimate authority. Maybe it went off the rails quickly, or maybe his teammates never liked him. Your assumption that he was likable is not necessarily true.
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.
Let's assume alcohol was involved and the woman also was blackout. I've never understood when two people are blackout drunk and hook up or possibly hookup (people often don't really remember), why only the man is charged with a crime? Why aren't both charged with a crime? Sort of like pass interference on both sides.
I understand that the sequence of events points to punishment for the alleged assault, but I do think there's probably an argument to be made that it's still not directly related. The rumors and accusations could have been the impetus for the team to remove someone that they haven't liked the whole time.
If they didn't like him the whole time, why was he named CAPTAIN f the team as a junior? Actually given the fact that he was captain, it shouldn't be too hard to track him down. Maybe he'll talk do an interview. If someone at Haverford wants to talk but remain anonymous, email .
If they didn't like him the whole time, why was he named CAPTAIN f the team as a junior? Actually given the fact that he was captain, it shouldn't be too hard to track him down. Maybe he'll talk do an interview. If someone at Haverford wants to talk but remain anonymous, email .
He is obviously a likeable guy. The team made him a captain as a junior. The team wouldn't allow that if they didn't like him.
I'm guessing the male members of the team have a strong 'believe women' sentiment, stopping them firstly from speaking out if they don't believe the allegations, but also stopping them from supporting anyone who doesn't support the female's statement. They may say things like "it's not my place to second guess her", "my opinion here really doesn't matter", and "with all that happens to women they need to be believed".
It's not surprising that the team at a very progressive university would consider themselves not only unable to criticize their female counterparts, but required to stand against their male teammates when one of them is disliked for alleged misconduct.
You're making the assumption that the team "made him a captain." It says in the filing that the coach made him a captain. This is likely based primarily on performance and what he sees in practice (also, mostly performance). I don't think the team would be in position to not "allow that" when the Coach is the ultimate authority. Maybe it went off the rails quickly, or maybe his teammates never liked him. Your assumption that he was likable is not necessarily true.
The bottom line is the kid deserves to be told exactly why he's being kicked off the team and what his specific violations were. It should not be because "othes on the team decided they didn't like you. " it shouldn't be a popularity contest or a mob mentality that determines it, or due to a rumor that no specific person is stepping forward to declare actually happened
Each team and athletic department should have a code of conduct and specific violations and reasons you can be booted off the team: missing too many practices, being very disruptive to the other athletes, not respecting the other athletes or coaches, academic violations, excessive drinking or drug use, sexual or racist harassment/ misconduct either during practices are outside of practices Etc. Obviously some of these more serious violations would probably get you kicked out of the school first.
But for the less serious ones the code of conduct should be clear and if violations occur it should be made clear to the athlete what the coach feels they did wrong and which conduct violation they committed. Obviously the coach has some leeway in applying this code and determining violations but it should not be a vague and mysterious reason or a popularity vote which may be based on incorrect information.
The bottom line is the kid deserves to be told exactly why he's being kicked off the team and what his specific violations were. It should not be because "othes on the team decided they didn't like you. " it shouldn't be a popularity contest or a mob mentality that determines it, or due to a rumor that no specific person is stepping forward to declare actually happened
Each team and athletic department should have a code of conduct and specific violations and reasons you can be booted off the team: missing too many practices, being very disruptive to the other athletes, not respecting the other athletes or coaches, academic violations, excessive drinking or drug use, sexual or racist harassment/ misconduct either during practices are outside of practices Etc. Obviously some of these more serious violations would probably get you kicked out of the school first.
But for the less serious ones the code of conduct should be clear and if violations occur it should be made clear to the athlete what the coach feels they did wrong and which conduct violation they committed. Obviously the coach has some leeway in applying this code and determining violations but it should not be a vague and mysterious reason or a popularity vote which may be based on incorrect information.
I think this is totally fair. We also only have his side of the story and it's possible he has been told by his teammates and the coach why he isn't welcome. I find it really hard to believe that he is in the dark on why his teammates don't want him around.
I understand that the sequence of events points to punishment for the alleged assault, but I do think there's probably an argument to be made that it's still not directly related. The rumors and accusations could have been the impetus for the team to remove someone that they haven't liked the whole time.
If they didn't like him the whole time, why was he named CAPTAIN f the team as a junior? Actually given the fact that he was captain, it shouldn't be too hard to track him down. Maybe he'll talk do an interview. If someone at Haverford wants to talk but remain anonymous, email .
The bottom line is the kid deserves to be told exactly why he's being kicked off the team and what his specific violations were. It should not be because "othes on the team decided they didn't like you. " it shouldn't be a popularity contest or a mob mentality that determines it, or due to a rumor that no specific person is stepping forward to declare actually happened
Each team and athletic department should have a code of conduct and specific violations and reasons you can be booted off the team: missing too many practices, being very disruptive to the other athletes, not respecting the other athletes or coaches, academic violations, excessive drinking or drug use, sexual or racist harassment/ misconduct either during practices are outside of practices Etc. Obviously some of these more serious violations would probably get you kicked out of the school first.
But for the less serious ones the code of conduct should be clear and if violations occur it should be made clear to the athlete what the coach feels they did wrong and which conduct violation they committed. Obviously the coach has some leeway in applying this code and determining violations but it should not be a vague and mysterious reason or a popularity vote which may be based on incorrect information.
I think this is totally fair. We also only have his side of the story and it's possible he has been told by his teammates and the coach why he isn't welcome. I find it really hard to believe that he is in the dark on why his teammates don't want him around.
We all have to acknowledge that we don’t know this individual or his reputation or behavior before or after the allegation. It should be noted that his co captains were the ones who turned him in to start suggesting he was not a favorite. In several subsequent conversations, the other captains make it clear he’s viewed as a misogynist by the team and that’s why he is no longer welcome. Did these feelings predate the assault allegation? That would be nice to know. Often there is a pattern of jerky, bordering on criminal behavior, that is tolerated or ignored until finally an egregious event happens and then the damn breaks (Harvey Weinstein). Could it be that this guy was a beloved Boy Scout until this one allegation and then was cancelled? Sure, that’s possible too. We just don’t know, but the team does. If it’s the former scenario, most of us would agree with booting him, but the latter is more problematic.
In the end, it comes down to this written by the judge:
“Many of the arguments Doe raises are equitable in nature, condemning “mob justice” and stressing how unfair it is that he lacks a process through which to defend his reputation. But the claim on which Doe seeks injunctive relief sounds in law, not equity, and my role is not to decide what comports with the traditional values of Haverford College or what is the appropriate course for a coach to follow when confronted with a mismatch between one of his athletes and his team. The specific legal question before me is whether Doe has established a reasonable chance of success on his breach of contract claim, and I conclude that he has not.”
As a legal matter, the coach was within his right to boot Doe, but that still leaves open the question of fairness and whether Doe was a victim of cancellation justified or not. It might have been nice if Doe was “called in” and not called out and some sort of restorative justice occurred, especially if there was just a lone unsubstantiated allegation and his behavior was otherwise exemplary. None of us know, but the people at Haverford do know.