Expelled Basketball Player Sues Yale

[alp227]

Source: NYT

The Yale basketball player who was expelled in February after a university committee found that he had raped a fellow student sued the university on Thursday, accusing it of a “deeply flawed process.”

In the lawsuit and an accompanying statement released by a public-relations firm, the player, Jack Montague, who was once the team captain, suggested that Yale had chosen to make an example of him because of public criticism over its handling of the hot-button issue of campus sexual assault.

“Montague — captain of Yale’s basketball team and one of the most prominent male students on campus — was Yale’s ticket to restoring its tarnished image,” the statement charged.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Connecticut, named Yale and two Title IX coordinators as defendants.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/sports/ncaabasketball/jack-montague-yale-rape-lawsuit.html

---

Interesting timing given the controversy over the Stanford rapist getting six months in jail.

[bluestateguy]

1. Was he criminally charged?

The punk at Stanford was charged. The Baylor football players were charged. They were all convicted.

Was Montague charged? I don't really like these campus disciplinary boards venturing into matters that should be left to the criminal justice system, especially since they tend to use lower standards of evidence: preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

[alp227]

2. No, Montague was not charged.

[Recursion]

3. The thing is Title IX essentially requires it because rape convictions are so rare

I agree: college disciplinary committees are absolutely awful at adjudicating sexual assault claims. But. Since it's not a criminal proceeding it only has to meet preponderance of the evidence rather than reasonable doubt, so unlike the 97% or whatever of criminal rape complaints that never go anywhere, campus discipline boards can actually accomplish something.

To put it kind of bluntly: it's very deliberately a move to put the rights of victims of sexual assault ahead of the rights of those accused of sexual assault, and that pisses a lot of people off. Basically if the college can find it is more likely that the accused assaulted the victim than not (that's "preponderance of the evidence&quot , that's enough. I personally don't see anything wrong with that, but, again, it pisses a lot of people off.

[skepticscott]

4. The standard of evidence is lower

but the punishment involved is also far less severe. A much higher standard of evidence is appropriate when the result of a guilty finding could be many years in prison, as opposed to not being allowed to finish your time at an elite Ivy League university.

That shouldn't anger anyone. Employers certainly don't have to use a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard before they fire someone, and this is more on that level.

[Recursion]

5. Exactly. It's not even comparable to jail; it's the non-completion of a private party contract

Which, if it's done wrong, as it worst tortious, certainly at least for private institutions.

[daleo]

13. There would also be a huge social stigma incurred

If a person is innocent, that would be a heavy burden - loss of lifetime income, damage to reputation, etc..

[Igel]

14. There's a push to make it more severe.

And, actually, it's not just "being allowed to finish your time at an elite Ivy League university," but the implications of that: Do Ivy Leaguers make more over their lifetimes? If so, that $ difference becomes part of the punishment. You don't get to "finish your time" and you might get a hefty fine. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/do-elite-colleges-lead-to-higher-salaries-only-for-some-professions-1454295674 -- it varies by major, from virtually no fine to a 12% or 15% lifetime earnings "tax" paid no nobody.)

The push is now to make it so if you're "convicted" there's a notation on your transcript and you become toxic. Then the punishment isn't being allowed to finish your time at an elite Ivy League university, but that in addition to what could probably be assumed to be the difference in income between an elite Ivy League diploma holder and somebody with a couple years of college. That can be upwards of $500,000 for a fine.

[Nitram]

7. I agree. Criminal acts should be handled by the police and the justice system.

Not a university disciplinary committee.

[christx30]

18. If you can trust the justice system

to prosecute and punish the offenders.
Remember that teacher that raped his student. She killed herself. The first judge sentenced him to 31 days.

We take what we can when the justice system fails us.
If this piece of crap's lawsuit fails, he'll have been kicked out of an expensive school. Every other university admissions will know who he is, and what he's done. If they let him in, that'll tell us everything we need to know about that university.

[secondwind]

6. As a woman, a mother of a woman, and grandmother of a young woman, I have only

one message for this POS.

Once a rapist, always a rapist, you deserve to be in jail, not whining about "a flawed process"

[24601]

8. Your statement leads to the inference that you are arguing from a position where you haven't even

read the suit filed against Yale. Please do before you label anyone a rapist. Making that claim before anyone has been found guilty by a jury is the definition of prejudice, that is to pre-judge - without regards to the facts.

This will be decided by a jury and if he wins, Yale should pay for railroading him and falsely labeling him a rapist.

The complaint filed in federal court is available from the Washington Post story on this case. If his lawyer is even just 10% accurate, Yale screwed the pooch on this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/06/09/expelled-basketball-captain-sues-yale-saying-alleged-sexual-misconduct-was-consensual/?tid=pm_local_pop_b

[oberliner]

10. This person has not been convicted of any crime

He is not even facing any criminal charges.

[oberliner]

9. The Stanford rapist was convicted of a crime

This person was not.

[Igel]

15. Yes.

Attempted rape and two counts of "forcible penetration" with a foreign object.

[oberliner]

17. That was the Stanford guy

Not the one from Yale in the OP.

[Jerry442]

11. Agreements between private parties aren't subject to...

...the "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" test. If you're, say, a security guard at a bank, and there is some suspicion that you were involved in an armed robbery, your job is toast, even if the evidence falls short of what would be needed for a conviction.

Sadly, this would still be true if you were just some hapless shmoe who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's hard to be perfect.

[Igel]

16. This is true.

And not only is it one of the reasons for the different standards but also because the university is viewed as being in loco parentis.

Now, if such things are routinely reported to all transcript-recipients, it moves to a different kind of shaming with much, much larger implications.

[LanternWaste]

12. He should have applied to Baylor rather than Yale. Much better fit.

He should have applied to Baylor rather than Yale. Much better fit.

[mrmpa]

19. As a former University Police Officer.............

at a school ranked in the top 25 by US World & News Report, I had a hearty dislike for University Disciplinary Committees. This one tended to bend over backward for their Division III athletes. They also treated women unfairly when it came to claims of sexual assault and harassment.

They also treated students from different levels of family income differently. We busted a group of students for stealing over $55,000 worth of computer equipment. One student was from an influential family from New Jersey. He was put on probation and allowed to graduate. Another student was from a lower middle class family, he was expelled, and within 2 years he had committed suicide.

Who was the ringleader, you got it, the kid from New Jersey.

I was overjoyed to see what I believe was the right decision at Yale.

[Thav]

20. Athletes > everyone else

When I was in college, I had some friends get expelled from student housing because of "damages" caused by a party. The damage? There was a spill on the carpet that they hadn't cleaned yet, and there was a small hole in the ceiling - that existed BEFORE the party and had been reported to maintenance. Note: the "investigation" happened the morning after the party, my friends just hadn't had a chance to get to the spill.

On the flip side, the football team lived on a dorm floor and did about $8000 worth of damage one night - including destroying college-owned furniture, putting a couch through a wall, destroying a water fountain, and ripping down doors. What happened to them? Nothing. Many on campus were furious about that.