Florida appointed a football booster to handle Title IX hearing
It's sad that there is a story like this almost every week. Florida decided it would be wise to appoint a Gators Athletics and Football booster to adjudicate a Title IX sexual assault hearing for Treon Harris and Antonio Callaway, their leading WR from 2015. The victim, her family, and witnesses have decided to boycott the hearing.
Not good...not good at all.
I wouldn't be so quick to judgement.
The defense attorney for the school is a Florida booster. He went to Florida.
The prosecuting attorney on the other hand is John Clune and he is very very good at Title IX cases.
EDIT : just read that the adjudicator is the Flordia alumn and booster. Even still, Clune will get it tossed easily for conflict of interest, which like, duh. Florida is so stupid for trying to pull this off. With a rookie Title IX attorney they might have pulled it off. Pretty weak shit by Florida.
I thought Clune got in deep trouble with the Florida bar after the Erica Kinsman suit against FSU? Was his license only suspended?
This will work out well...
If you read the article it sounds like Harris has moved past it and Calloway has declared his innocence staunchly. There's also a blurb about evidence of her past sexual history. Not excusing the conflict of interests Florida deliberately avoided, but this smells fishy on both sides.
The only other test I know is to be submerged in a cage...IF the 'victim' come up alive after 10 minutes, she wasn't raped! If she drowns, she was probably raped (and possibly a witch)! /s
Callaway's attorneys are certainly coming out firing. Either they have a strong case or have some cajones, or both.
"Since the complainant's attorney has chosen to go to the press in this matter, we assume that he will be releasing the hundreds of pages that made up the University of Florida's investigation. We assume that he will be releasing sworn affidavits in this case. We assume that he will be releasing the complainant's text messages in the investigation. We assume that he will be releasing the complainant's multitude of varying and conflicting stories.
We are not going to besmirch his client in the press. The totality of the investiagation which is over one-thousand (1,000) pages will do that for us.
Our client has asked us not to release anything at this point. Because of the conduct of the complainant's attorney, that may change in the future."
"look like"?
This is the most attention I've ever gotten.
I really can't say anything else other than a hasty response followed by a premature "send". Probably first time in my life I wanted to "unsend" the "send".
"the benefit of a doubt / lets hear everything and then judge or not judge at all" as you intend in this day and age.
When in doubt - don't post is the hard lesson I have learned.
Did you really write that Calloway declaring his innocence staunchly is one of the reasons its smells fishy on both sides? What world do you live in where an accused that proclaims his innocence is reason to call a case fishy? How many of people that were accused of a crime readily proclaim their guilt?
And you forgot to mention....
"...Harris agreed to leave Florida as part of a plea deal related to the Title IX case. He also apologized to the woman, the sources said."
What a Roger Goodell move.
I think it would be cool if the site had a lock-o-meter for every thread so we could see how close a thread is to being locked.
What happens is that the meter then goes into a space-time vortex and becomes impossible to read as the thread is no longer in a dedicated reality.
Like the time I made the mistake of buying a breathalyzer and kept trying to beat the high score
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
The defendant's uncle? If so keep it classy SEC!
Given the average family tree in northern Florida, probably.
UF has a major cultural problem there. I know we love to rag on Urban for all the arrests at Florida, but shit like this has been happening long after he left.
This is maybe the worst thing I've ever heard.
Since about 11:30 am.
Edit: By this I mean the news has had all sorts of bad things in it. This is terrible and should be immediately rectified.
Edit: I'm going to bed early tonight. My brain has the dumbs.
Another Edit: How do they get all that flavor into juicy fruit gum?
The guy chosen as adjudicator has enormous experience in the field and was a former head of their law school. I can see how people want the fact that he (like probably every other qualified lawyer willing to give the school free time) is a member of the school's booster club to outweigh all his other qualification because, you know, SEC!
Now, I can see how the lawyer and the plaintiff have a cause for complaint here, and support their request for another adjudicator if only to allow her to feel more confident that she is getting justice.
However, the abhorrent piling on here by ignoramuses uninterested in the facts is IMO, far more morally reprehensible than anything the UF administration did.
You’re joking right? The fact is the UF administration appointed a booster to adjudicate a case in which one of the parties is a financial beneficiary of that booster--a clear conflict of interest, at best, and a naked attempt to circumvent impartiality, at worst. I have no idea which it is, but both are bad and incredibly stupid. That fact is less offensive to you than the comments of this message board?
You did give more than five seconds worth of thought to this, right?
What possible benefit can Jake Schickel gain from ruling unfairly on the players' behalf?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
You're missing the point. Whether this Jake Schickel guy can do a good job is not the issue here--and fuck if I know if he can--it's that the Florida administration thought it prudent to appoint him to this task in the first place. It evinces either a cyncicsm on the school's part or incompetence.
But to answer your specific question, yes, I gave this more than five seconds worth of thought. It took me six seconds to ponder your position and post my response. I have now spent 16 seconds total inclusive of this response.
The whole reason to avoid appearances of conflicts of interest so you don't have to argue about whether there actually are conflicts of interest, or how bad such conflicts might be. Florida stepped in it here.
I agree that the school should find another adjudicator given that the plaintiff doesn't feel comfortable with the currently-assigned one. I disagree that Florida did something heinous here.
I think UF will find it difficult to find someone who is qualified in the law, willing to work for free, and not a booster of the school. It isn't obvious that Schickel has any reason to favor a given side in this dispute. If he were the one receiving the money, then yes, that would be a clear conflict of interest. But he is giving the money, and will be giving the money regardless of the outcome of this case. The only reason that I can see for disqualifying him is that the plaintiff isn't comfortable with his impartiality, and it wasn't obvious she would object before Florida chose him.
So, find a new adjudicator (if that's hard, UF can deal with it) and move on, while laughing at the ignorant squawking.
You're defending the decision of UF to appoint a booster to hear a case because he was willing to do it for free? Because that's more important than finding someone both qualified and impartial?
I don't know how to make it plain enough for you to understand. I'm defending the decision of UF to appoint a qualified adjudicator who was willing to do the job, even if he was a booster of the school. Being a booster doesn't make one incompetent. Hell, there are probably Michigan boosters who post right in this forum.
UF found someone they thought, quite reasonably, to be both qualified and impartial. The plaintiff thinks that boosters should be dsqualified from hearing her case. I think the school should grant her request and disqualify boosters from her case because that will give more people more confidence that justice is served, no matter the ruling. I don't think that school boosters should be automatically disqualified from any mediation/third party adjudication within the school, however.
The argument is not about competence. It's about an appearance of a conflict of interest. Nobody needs you to "make it plain enough to understand." Any appearance of a conflict of interest in a situation as serious as this one is far outweighs the abhorrent piling on as you put it.
Again, the only reason that there is an appearance of conflict of interest is because the plaintiff is complaining about a conflict of interest.
Every season ticket holder, bar students are athletic boosters of the school they buy the tickets from. The argument that, because someone buys tickets 9or donates to get PSLs to get tickets) can no longer act on any issue dealing with the school because it is "an appearance of conflict of interest" is silly.
Let's suppose that an athlete takes Biology 201 and gets a D. The athlete wants to contest the grade. The department chair is a season ticket holder, so by the "no season tickets holders as adjudicators rule," cannot act. The head of the school also has to pass, in this scenario, because she is also a season ticket holder. The dead, or whoever is next in the chain, likewise. President Schlissel himself cannot make a ruling, because he holds season tickets! No one can hear the complaint because everyone in the chain of appeal has season tickets, so is an athletic booster, so must disqualify themselves as having "an appearance of conflict of interest!" See how silly this is, if your argument is true?
Conflicts of interest occur when the decision-maker has a stake in the outcome not involving the evidence. Jake Schickel has nothing to gain by making any particular ruling in this case. Where is the conflict (except in the petition of the plaintiff, which, as I said, should be granted because she made it, not because there is any a priori apparent conlict of interest). You, and others, repeatedly make the conflict of interest assertion without supporting it at all.