This is really sketchy reporting by the Tennessean, and I think you'll only see more and more articles like this from Matt Slovin and Anita Wadhwani. They're the same ones who drug Hurd's name through the mud about drinking charges when the real story turned out to be very different.
It's hard to discuss these types of topics without appearing to "victim bash", but I think simply discussing the facts & inconsistencies the article presents is completely valid and something we should do when the implications are so huge.
The article uses the story from the victim & her father for most of it..their quotes, thoughts, actions, etc. Anita presents these as truth, without offering any version of the other side of the story. Whether she simply couldn't get the other side or chose not to, I don't know.
Instead she points out 3 "unusual" things:
1. The University Office chosen to investigate the case changed about 5 weeks into the investigation. Instead of the office that investigates student misconduct, it would be the office that investigates employee/non-student misconduct. The University does not explain why. Were the motives nefarious? Was the other office "backed up" and this was a way to make the investigation a priority? Did the situation involve employee/non-student misconduct in some way? Is this a change in University policy? There are dozens of reasons, both good/bad that this could have happened
2. The University does not comment if Butch knows about the allegations when asked by the father. I really don't know how this qualifies as an "unusual" point. Two quotes from the father are concerning:
-"The University seems far more interested in protecting the reputation of the football team than a 19-year-old assault victim"
-"continued presence on the football team as a public representative of the University adds insult to injury. Knowing what (the football player) has done, I cannot tolerate seeing him run through the 'T' every home game; he has not earned that satisfaction."
If I were a University official I wouldn't respond to these either. What difference does it make if Butch has been notified (he was, by the way)? The investigation is being handled by the University, and to somehow act as if Butch is the higher authority here implies the University is not capable of doing their job, which is very insulting.
3. The University, in a 9-page summary with two eye witnesses, determined the sex was consensual. This was "unusual" because normally investigations return a "violation" or "no violation" finding. So, by giving a more descriptive definition of their findings, that's considered "unusual". Had the University said there was "no violation" instead, that would not be unusual. This is semantics, imo.
That is basically the article, and it's very scary what Anita is possibly implying: a sexual assault was covered up by an internal investigation for the benefit of a football player & program. Those are VERY serious allegations. And unfortunately the evidence that Anita presented in her article is vague, inconsistent, and weak. This was not a good article by the Tennessean.