MSU Title IX Results Revealed

Submitted by xtramelanin on

Mates,
Results of report released, for those interested: 
 

3 Michigan State players accused of assault violated policy

EAST LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan State University investigated an alleged sexual assault and found that three football players violated campus policy, a lawyer said Tuesday.

Michigan State said federal law bars it from releasing the report or discussing the findings. But the report was shared with attorney Karen Truszkowski, who represents the woman who filed the complaint.

Truszkowski said the players violated policy, but she declined to elaborate.

Michigan State spokesman Jason Cody confirmed the end of the investigation Monday but said he couldn't talk about any aspect of it.

The players, whose names haven't been released, now will go through a disciplinary process, with penalties ranging from probation to expulsion from school.

"As to what will happen, I can't speculate," Truszkowski said. "They're entitled to their due process."

Separately, the Ingham County prosecutor still is reviewing a police investigation of the January incident for possible criminal charges.

The players have been suspended from team activities since February. The controversy has roiled the football program for months and comes at the same time that a sports doctor has been charged with sexually assaulting young gymnasts at a campus clinic.

Federal law requires Michigan State to investigate complaints about sexual harassment, apart from any police investigation.

"The investigator did a thorough, fair and reasonable investigation," Truszkowski said.

Football coach Mark Dantonio barred reporters from practices during spring drills and prevented any players from speaking publicly about the team's troubles. In April, defensive end Auston Robertson was dismissed from the team after being charged with a sexual assault off campus.

 

ADKGoBlue

May 23rd, 2017 at 8:08 PM ^

What are the chances these 3 players see the field as Spartans again? They "broke school policy", but is it still too early to tell how greivous that is/what the punishment will be?

NRK

May 23rd, 2017 at 9:49 PM ^

Breaking school policy in the context of Title IX can be plenty of things and can lead to a wide range of punishments. Plenty of people have gotten suspended or expelled for violation of student conduct policies that are usually breached in sexual assault cases.

The question here is what is in the report and how much does the players' status impact what may have happened to a non-student athlete. Both we'll probably never know and will just have to speculate on after the decision.

Shadowban

May 23rd, 2017 at 8:15 PM ^

This incident will be telling. these are the best players on the team, no doubt. I think some scrubs or replacement level players would be booted without a second thought. But these guys... . we'll see

UnkleBuck

May 23rd, 2017 at 8:25 PM ^

Most likely minimal punishment and back on the team by fall.  MSU will navigate themselves out of this mess and the media will give them a pass.  

umbig11

May 23rd, 2017 at 9:58 PM ^

https://www.hr.msu.edu/policies-procedures/university-wide/documents/RV…

• Non-consensual recording, sharing, or streaming of images, photography, video, or audio recording of sexual activity or nudity, or distribution of such without the knowledge and consent of all parties involved, or in which the person recorded or viewed or induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age;

ijohnb

May 24th, 2017 at 9:35 AM ^

is a terrible move for several reasons:

1) Michigan State is going to be a "meh" team in the BIG anyway going forward, this would maybe get them 1-2 more wins this season, but it is not going to stop the ship from sinking;

2) It is quite clear from what I have heard, that these "gentlemen" committed a character defining act, not the kind that can be said "he is otherwise a fine upstanding student."  Bringing these players back basically says "we don't care what kind of people are on our team, winning is #1" (which they won't be doing anyway)

If Michigan State brings these players back into the fold, they have written the end of their story, and it ends really, really badly,

mlax27

May 24th, 2017 at 10:19 AM ^

I get the feeling that if Dantonio does bring them back, he could very well be out of a job in a year.  This many black eyes for a program in such a short period, plus the terrible record and they might just need to push the reset button completely to get things straightened out.  

If he cleans house, he's at least got an excuse for a terrible record.  

Double-D

May 23rd, 2017 at 8:37 PM ^

saying they found great flaws with MSU's title IX process and they would be appealing.

That's not the type of comment you get from an attorney for being found with MIP or some other minor infraction.

The comment "fair and reasonable investigation" from the alleged victim's attorney does not suggest they are brooming this.

NRK

May 23rd, 2017 at 9:52 PM ^

The comment from the accused's attorney is mostly due to the fact that Title IX is accuser-friendly and
lacks a lot of due process checks. It's not surprising.

The attorney who was the Title IX investigator for MSU is a former sex crimes prosecutor and has also done Title IX investigations for UM. By almost all accounts she is experienced to handle the investigation. But she doesn't determine the punishment.

NicholsArboretum

May 24th, 2017 at 12:14 AM ^

their client only lost because of "the system," you may want to be a wee bit more skeptical about the lawyer's motive (especially when that pronouncement is made to the press). And if they say it to you, you may want to take out another loan, because they're getting ready to send you a new wave of legal fees. But I won't be presumptuous and say MSU's investigation was flawless, only that the odds aren't great for the accused students successfully overturning this decision (at the university or in parallel litigation).

And to call Title IX "accuser friendly" is wrong in every way imaginable, unless you're saying that finally creating a system that gives accusers a vehicle to raise their concerns is "accuser friendly." The system is literally set up so that, if both sides are equally believable, the accused prevails.

MichiganTeacher

May 24th, 2017 at 8:24 AM ^

Oh please. Title IX, especially after the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, is an accuser's dream. It practically begs people to become accusers, and it rewards them appropriately. 

Your characterization of the preponderance of evidence standard is deceitful. Pretending that "equally believable" is fair is an enormous crime against victims and the accused, who are in no way as privileged as the accuser, who enjoys the backing of the state. There's a reason that the same Western civilization that ended slavery for the first time in history also developed the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

NicholsArboretum

May 24th, 2017 at 10:19 AM ^

Can you explain the "deceit" involved in me saying the preponderance system is a "tie goes to the accused" system? And how that same statement is a "crime against victims and the accused." And schools are tasked with being neutral, so all that's been created is a forum for people's voices to be heard. The slavery comment is cleary an argument for someone else somewhere else.

MichiganTeacher

May 24th, 2017 at 4:43 PM ^

It was deceitful for you to say that the preponderance of evidence standard isn't accuser friendly. It is in fact quite friendly to the accuser, far more friendly than the reasonable doubt standard.

Your assertion that "all that's been created is a forum for people's voices to be heard" - tell that to the Duke lacrosse players.

BOX House: Western civilization != America.

Timmmaay: Aren't you the guy who harasses WD every time he posts? The intolerance betrayed by such harassment is probably the same reason my views frighten you. If you behaved in my classroom the way you behave toward WD, I'd write you up, kick you out, and probably call your parents to have a discussion about bullying. My apologies, of course, if I've got the wrong guy.

 

TIMMMAAY

May 24th, 2017 at 4:54 PM ^

Um, yeah, nice redirect there guy. I used to do that, yes. Lately I have backed off almost entirely. What does that have to do with anything?

And you're going to talk to me about intolerance, after the disgusting politics you put on display for the board during election season? Sounds about right. 

kevin holt

May 24th, 2017 at 8:24 AM ^

Well yeah in theory that's true. The criminal justice system is set up that way too (except more skewed toward the accused, again in THEORY). But often if the accused is equally believable they will still be convicted because, yep, the system. Sorry to contradict your worldview that things are fair just because theyre set up that way in theory. Source: am lawyer and am not saying this to raise legal fees

NicholsArboretum

May 24th, 2017 at 10:21 AM ^

But you're talking about the people (essentially jury nullification) not the system as it was created. Individuals at MSU could've fallen short w/r/t their responsibilities (which I specifically said is a possibility). It's just not "deceitful" or "criminal" for me to say that the system is not set up to blindly reward accusers . . . as another poster said is the case.

NRK

May 25th, 2017 at 2:26 PM ^

Posting Tip: Don't start posts with "Life Tip"

But please, tell me more about how attorneys think and act. I am ready to be educated in your ways oh wise one.

 

On Title IX:

If you don't think systems can have unfair consequences due to their set up I'm going to guess you've never poked your head into any of the areas related to criminal appeals? If you have and are still saying this, then it's probably not even worth discussing - I will never change your mind on that. 

Suggesting that there is not an avenue for sexual assault accusers to "raise their concerns" is actually "wrong in every way imaginable." Sexual assaults can (and are) reported to the police. Now, there are a number of issues with that (more on that below), but that is an existing "vehicle to raise their conerns" which makes your statement incorrect.

Yes, my opinion is that Title IX is accuser-friendly. This is not some ground-breaking statement. It literally is what people applying and defending the Dear Colleauge Letter have stated (Link).

Using Title IX to combat the campus sexual assault epidemic was the quickest and most convenient way to do so (and also, politically, the least problematic). But it also comes with a host of it's own issues, including in many cases: untrained investigators, lack of discovery, inability to cross-examine witnesses, suspect appeals processes, lack of rules of evidence, low standards of proof, etc.

I'm not unique in pointing this out, see: Deadspin's great article saying more or less what I'm saying, the freaking AAUP issued a report on it ("The History, Uses, and Abuses of Title IX"), Laura Kipnis' ongoing battles  on this issue (additional links: here, here, here), or the Harvard Law Professor* Jeannie Suk Gerson's piece in the New Yorker which also points on the potential for racial bias in such a system.

Title IX was not meant to be a "vehicle" created to handle sexual assault cases. Look at it's hisotry (here, here). It's a square peg for a round hole, that is trying to address a very serious issue (sexual assault on campus). But the fact that the issue is serious doesn't mean we should simply prop up a system that has serious issues rather than pointing them out and trying to fix it. 

I am all for reforms in both how University's handle sexual assault as well as how police departments handle sexual assault cases. Simply put, they do not get enough attention and that needs to be addressed to handle a massive under-reporting issue as well. Suggesting a quasi-judicial process has significant, well-noted due process issues is not mutually exclusive with caring about and wanting sexual assault investigations to be handled in a better manner.

 

*Those damn attorneys again.

NicholsArboretum

May 26th, 2017 at 6:34 AM ^

If you believe the point of Title IX is to be a replacement for the legal system (criminal or civil), you and I will simply never agree. It's about institutions advancing their mission and adhering to there main purpose . . . ensuring their students have access to the benefits provided by the institution. If it is as you suggest, there wouldn't be such wide latitude given by the government to set up systems addresssing sex and gender based inequality. We'd have a proscribed system with evolving, universal administrative procedures. And I certainly see your point, none of what you say is new to me. We just disagree on most of it (one exception being I recognize incompetence and a willingness to ignore the rules occurs in every occupation).

And if you want to emphasize the words of a Haaaaavvvad professor. Please also go back and calculate the number of Haaaaavvvad professors who have signed off on her position. It would be quite funny to read your next post saying "The Harvard Law Professor Jeannie Suk Gerson, whose position is supported by ___% of the faculty at Haaaaaaaaaaaavvvad, says etc." [Life tip: What I'm saying may be a trap. /friendly humor]

bronxblue

May 24th, 2017 at 9:58 AM ^

It's also an attorney for the accused. He's going to be inclined to question the process. It's why there is an appeals process. But this isn't some black box that nobody understands. There are procedures and expectations for these proceedings, and an attorney who has a client involved in one of these should know those rules and work within them. If they are slightly biased, and I'm not saying they are or are not, he still should be able to plead his case.

Mazenbluwolverine

May 23rd, 2017 at 8:34 PM ^

they go in front of a 3 member penalty system, a MSU student, a MSU faculty member, and a MSU staff member. Isnt that kind if like letting Pablo Escbar sentenace a drug dealer? Like Shadowban said, if these were back up players, they'd be gone by now. If Dantonio wants to save face, he'd cut these guys loose but that prolly won't happen. Whatever the penalty, it either wont be hard enough or it will be to easy, what a mess they have on their hands.

bronxblue

May 24th, 2017 at 9:55 AM ^

Why do you assume three different representatives of the university will be lenient on a couple of football players? There are lots of people at every school who don't give a shit about athletes as BMOC, and this involves sexual assaults to boot. I know we all want to be cynical and hate on state, but MSU is a national university and assuming non-football people will acquiesce to the whims of Dantonio seems way too cynical.

alum96

May 23rd, 2017 at 8:48 PM ^

The only question now is 50 stairs ...or 150 stairs.... to run as punishment for 3 weeks.  Then Dantonio will drive them around town as their personal Uber as has been precedent.

I am just shocked MSU didn't wait til Friday 8 PM to release this. 

twohooks

May 23rd, 2017 at 8:50 PM ^

These guys will be kicked off the team. I think the one who gets the axe will be Blackwell citing him as the chaperone who should've known better, scapegoat the replaceable adult. This really comes down to Harbaugh and the financial and on the field gap msu will endure.

This will result in Title IX meaning zilch and will resume in a Jock Sniff At Your Own Risk culture. So yeah, nothing will change.

GoBlueTom

May 23rd, 2017 at 9:00 PM ^

They violated Title IX and got the boot really doesn't matter if criminal charges come about the three players should be expelled. My guess it could happen Friday news dumping day while people are getting ready for the holiday weekend.