John Adams article on settlement

[GAVol]

That's because you want to separate Tennessee's payment to the victims from the implied duplicity in the guilt.

The article Adam's wrote doesn't seem to think that is possible.

...which is what makes that POV laughable. He's just using the settlement as low hanging fruit for the lazy "well they must have done something wrong" conclusion and ignoring the economic calculation that happens with every settlement.

 

[kiddiedoc]

His act is so predictable that I could write his column.

The only difference would be that I might actually read yours.

I have no clue what he wrote, but I'm pretty certain I could guess. I stopped reading his trash users ago and refuse to give him clicks. If everyone would follow suit, it would be a gift to the program and local media.

 

[TUSKtimes]

...which is what makes that POV laughable. He's just using the settlement as low hanging fruit for the lazy "well they must have done something wrong" conclusion and ignoring the economic calculation that happens with every settlement.

He made in clear in the article I read that he felt the Title IX lawsuit was frivolous in its convincing argument. My impression was that he felt it was very winnable and should have been litigated to its conclusion, regardless of the cost economically.

 

[NashLawVol]

That's because you want to separate Tennessee's payment to the victims from the implied duplicity in the guilt.

The article Adam's wrote doesn't seem to think that is possible.

I don't want to separate the settlement payment from anything. It has absolutely no bearing on my life. But from being involved in matters that involve civil cases being settled daily I know there are various reasons why civil suits are settled, "Guilt" or "innocence" has never been a reason.

 

[TUSKtimes]

I don't want to separate the settlement payment from anything. It has absolutely no bearing on my life. But from being involved in matters that involve civil cases being settled daily I know there are various reasons why civil suits are settled, "Guilt" or "innocence" has never been a reason.

Don't know many reasonable people who wouldn't agree that there are plenty of civil cases that frankly would even register in people's judgement.

However, it was also proven today that some people feel passionate enough about some civil cases to make them the lead story in their newspapers.

 

[NashLawVol]

Don't know many reasonable people who wouldn't agree that there are plenty of civil cases that frankly would even register in people's judgement.

However, it was also proven today that some people feel passionate enough about some civil cases to make them the lead story in their newspapers.

Correct and I am sure what the lead story will be in the Alabama newspapers when the Title IX suit against the University of Alabama is inevitably filed.

 

[HoptownVol]

Adams is such a jacka$$. He should be banned from campus if he's not already.

 

[junder13]

You make a lot of good points here. The ad hominem attacks on Adams are intellectually lazy and the volume of them is pretty comical.

JA ticks folks off because he's often willing to take a contra/non-homer view and a lot of people take it personally or just don't like reading positions with which they disagree. As noted in another post, it cuts both ways. He strongly defended Manning when it seemed virtually everyone else in the media was ready to burn down his legacy. And he did so by simply telling the truth about Whited/Naughright with his customary biting style--again, something some just don't like. That said, if he'd fabricated any of what he wrote about her repeated phone calls/etc., I'm sure she would have been happy to add the KNS to her list of defendants. Haven't heard anything about that yet.

His attacks on the Fulmer regime in its later years were warranted--things were slipping. The efforts by UT/AD to spin failure earned JA's sharpest barbs. As they should have. His shots at the lunacy of how UT makes decisions have generally been rooted in truth and designed to provoke debate, and of course clicks (which is what he's paid to do).

Anyway, I'd take Adams over those weak-willed homers that cover UGA or Bama any day of the week. Or the UK media that only barely understands the game of American football. Or God forbid the Baylor media which was essentially complicit in systematically enabling multiple sexual assaults to be covered up. The ultimate in homer media...sweeping felonies under the rug. Not in Knoxville--our dirty laundry is in the street and we'll be better/stronger for facing it now than pulling a Waco and trying to pretend we're all squeaky.

Vigorous debate and differing ideas make for a more interesting experience and fan base--and a wiser one. One of which I'm proud to be a part.

Adams as provocateur is an important square in our quilt. I'll miss him when he's gone, especially the times when he pisses me off.

my $0.02

GBO

Couldn't have said it better, buddy. Tip of the hat to you. :hi:

If you lived in NYC from 2007-2010 then we probably either knew each other or passed at Blondies or Traffic (the UT bar in NYC seems to always be changing).

A lot of vol fans dislike JA bc he's thought to be overly negative but I, too, am glad he's no homer writer like most college towns employ. In fairness to JA, what in UT athletics has been positive to write about over the last 15 years? It's been like a black hole for major sport championships pretty much since Dickey retired as AD in 2003. The AD was not perfect during Dickey's 1985-2003 tenure but that's how far you'd have to go back to see a proud UT athletics department -- at least in terms of national perception. I have never thought that JA was negatively slanted against UT for the sake of being negative or bc he's an LSU grad.

Journalistic integrity precludes a yes man or crowd pleaser type of pandering. Most who do not write in favor of defining spirit of their time are quite disliked. There's plenty of examples in US history of journalists who have helped shape society that faced a contentious readership in their day, such as those journalists and writers who positively impacted labor laws during the Industrial Revolution, covered the Women's Right and Civil Right movements, and many other political and religious movements. Granted, we're talking sports and JA in this thread, which, in the grand scheme of things, is nowhere near as important. But I believe the same principle of journalistic integrity applies.

Kudos to JA for not pandering to the home crowd. As long as his opinion is reasonable held and expressed (and I view it as such on UT settling the lawsuit instead of defending it as they indicated they would initially) I care not that the masses agree with it today.

 

[junder13]

This is the norm for JA, and obviously I'm used to that. Personally though, I feel the KNS should do its best to continually defend the University, where applicable. No other media outlet anywhere will give us a free pass, so the hometown media should at least be on the school's side as often as possible. Home field advantage.

I think you have confused the Daily Beacon and the Knoxville News Sentinel.

 

[junder13]

If you stood before a judge and agreed to pay the fine, you were conceding guilt.

Adams singular point is the same for the university. And he didn't agree with that position of guilt.

:hi:

*Edit: I did not change my original post here (which was simply an emoji indicating agreement) but upon looking more into the civil suit against UT it appears to me that the university did enable an environment of clemency (at a minimum) and the intention behind the lawsuit (to force change in how UT addresses/approaches a sexual assault case/victim) was both successful and necessary. In that regard, UT definitely made the right decision to settle.

 

[TNnative]

Don't know many reasonable people who wouldn't agree that there are plenty of civil cases that frankly would even register in people's judgement.

However, it was also proven today that some people feel passionate enough about some civil cases to make them the lead story in their newspapers.

The only reason the publication makes it the lead is they believe it sells papers.

The reporter makes it a lead story is for personal prestige and resume building.

Neither really cares about the truth, but for their own profit and reputation. Stop trying to paint them as crusading heroes, it is almost as pathetic as your favorite color.

 

[butchna]

:boredom:

 

[junder13]

In being right, one does not have to give up the chance to be smart, as well.

In being innocent, one is not forced to give up opportunities to be insightful.

Paying $2.45M today to avoid paying $5.5M over the next two years, esp. given no certainty that is the total extent of the cost...well, it's just smart. Financially prudent.

See? You can be right and smart, innocent and insightful, all at the same time.

Go Vols!

Your opinion seems to be the commonly accepted one here and in society as a whole. The problem is it does not account for the precedent of paying out a claim and making oneself more susceptible to future claims.

If what LWS said is correct than it's a moot point but there were some procedural errors/flaws that may have put a "not guilty" verdict in doubt. If that is correct, than the settlement was the best course of action. Nevertheless, this circus act of nameless "victims" being awarded significant sums of money with questionable criminal cases continues to be rewarded at present. That's especially unfortunate bc there are without a doubt true victims in sexual assault cases, and these type of money grabbing lump everyone in the same civil suit with a jane doe moniker does nothing to help further the cause of justice (IMO).

Even if there was procedural flaws that increased the possibility of a guilty verdict I still wonder if perhaps there was a way to agree to a settlement only on the premise that the lawsuit was changes so that the public view could not be one that UT supported a rape culture. For me that is damning and a settlement without changing the nature of the lawsuit itself gives the impression of implied guilt.

As long as these types of efforts are monetarily rewarded, they will continue. Thus, attributing this as a victory today from a fiscal perspective (i.e., we spent less money than if we'd have fought it) is short-sighted. Most probably disagree with this stated opinion and that is fine, but I definitely don't think we can take up the banner that this was the prudent decision based purely on immediate economics.

*Edit: I did not change what I originally wrote here but upon looking more into the civil suit against UT it appears to me that the university did enable an environment of clemency (at a minimum) and the intention behind the lawsuit (to force change in how UT addresses/approaches a sexual assault case/victim) was both successful and necessary. In that regard, UT definitely made the right decision to settle. For the sake of justice, I wish the deposition had been made public so that it would shine light on which administrators (paid public employees) allowed for such (or pushed for such) an environment to exist. I view the settlement terms as a public funding effort (I care not which "pool" of assets it comes from) to protect the identity of those public servants who may have played a role in enabling such an environment. This change in opinion in no way affects my view that tort reform is needed today.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Your opinion seems to be the commonly accepted one here and in society as a whole. The problem is it does not account for the precedent of paying out a claim and making oneself more susceptible to future claims.

If what LWS said is correct than it's a moot point but there were some procedural errors/flaws that may have put a "not guilty" verdict in doubt. If that is correct, than the settlement was the best course of action. Nevertheless, this circus act of nameless "victims" being awarded significant sums of money with questionable criminal cases continues to be rewarded at present. That's especially unfortunate bc there are without a doubt true victims in sexual assault cases, and these type of money grabbing lump everyone in the same civil suit with a jane doe moniker does nothing to help further the cause of justice (IMO).

Even if there was procedural flaws that increased the possibility of a guilty verdict I still wonder if perhaps there was a way to agree to a settlement only on the premise that the lawsuit was changes so that the public view could not be one that UT supported a rape culture. For me that is damning and a settlement without changing the nature of the lawsuit itself gives the impression of implied guilt.

As long as these types of efforts are monetarily rewarded, they will continue. Thus, attributing this as a victory today from a fiscal perspective (i.e., we spent less money than if we'd have fought it) is short-sighted. Most probably disagree with this stated opinion and that is fine, but I definitely don't think we can take up the banner that this was the prudent decision based purely on immediate economics.

See, you're not really arguing against Tennessee settling its case, because you acknowledge that it can make sense for Tennessee to settle under these conditions even while being innocent of the claims.

No, what you're railing against (and I don't blame you) is how broken the tort system has become in the U.S. (and Europe, and other places).

When the paydays are this large, without having to prove a thing, simply because it would be even more expensive (a lot more) and costly in other ways for the defendant to stand firm, the system is no longer working in a fair and equitable way, relative to guilt and innocence.

Agreed.

But if that's the burr under your saddle, you should argue against it, rather than against Tennessee for taking the prudent course that current reality presents.

Fact: Tennessee cannot correct the wrongs in the US Legal system by standing up for principle in a single case. In a world of case law, where precedent holds sway so strongly, it would be a parakeet fart in a hurricane.

No, UT needs to do what's right for the university, it's students and student-athletes, its staff and faculty, and the people of the state who nourish and support it.

And I think they did.

 

[TUSKtimes]

The only reason the publication makes it the lead is they believe it sells papers.

The reporter makes it a lead story is for personal prestige and resume building.

Neither really cares about the truth, but for their own profit and reputation. Stop trying to paint them as crusading heroes, it is almost as pathetic as your favorite color.

So you're mad at Adams and apparently me also because he publicly stated in print that he believed in the absolute innocense of the university based on the evidence seen and that he doesn't want the integrity and reputation of Tennessee to be compromised by this Title IX lawsuit?

That rascally rabbit.

 

[junder13]

...which is what makes that POV laughable. He's just using the settlement as low hanging fruit for the lazy "well they must have done something wrong" conclusion and ignoring the economic calculation that happens with every settlement.

Well, as every law expert knows, precedent is the life blood and guiding force of the legal profession. So every settlement outside of court is a continuation of a lawyer-led maraud of any entity, individual, or institution with financial means, insurance, and/or deep pockets. Perhaps it will continue unabated. But, if so, the cost on society will continue to act as an economic drain. I attempted to look up the increase in car insurance prices over the last 20 years but couldn't get anything more than the rate of increase from 2007-2013 (which was around 30-something percent...but I think it's much higher than that in actuality). Medical insurance has been a heavy burden on families and societies for quite a while and, while there's many reasons for that, malpractice lawsuits with exorbitant payouts from both juries (and settlements too) are a big reason for that. There are other costs that increase indirectly too (such as college tuition -- I refuse to believe that separate accounts used for a payout is definitive proof that it won't impact pricing in other ways), but I'll leave it at that.

Eventually society will have to address the issue of tort reform. It's getting more attention so I think the boiling point is coming. There's just so many issues we need to address as a society that I think a broken legal system that only really enriches those in the legal profession has gotten lost in the shuffle.

*Edit: I did not change what I originally wrote here but upon looking more into the civil suit against UT it appears to me that the university did enable an environment of clemency (at a minimum) and the intention behind the lawsuit (to force change in how UT addresses/approaches a sexual assault case/victim) was both successful and necessary. In that regard, UT definitely made the right decision to settle. For the sake of justice, I wish the deposition had been made public so that it would shine light on which administrators (paid public employees) allowed for such (or pushed for such) an environment to exist. I view the settlement terms as a public funding effort (I care not which "pool" of assets it comes from) to protect the identity of those public servants who may have played a role in enabling such an environment. This change in opinion in no way affects my view that tort reform is needed today.

 

[LA Vol]

No matter how worthless Adams' take is, Anita Whatawhiner's will be worse.

Can you see Tuscaloosa, Starkville, Oxford, Athens or Auburn media putting out hatchet pieces like this?

 

[butchna]

No matter how worthless Adams' take is, Anita Whatawhiner's will be worse.

Can you see Tuscaloosa, Starkville, Oxford, Athens or Auburn media putting out hatchet pieces like this?

Can't read it...if it's a Tennessean link.

 

[junder13]

See, you're not really arguing against Tennessee settling its case, because you acknowledge that it can make sense for Tennessee to settle under these conditions even while being innocent of the claims.

No, what you're railing against (and I don't blame you) is how broken the tort system has become in the U.S. (and Europe, and other places).

When the paydays are this large, without having to prove a thing, simply because it would be even more expensive (a lot more) and costly in other ways for the defendant to stand firm, the system is no longer working in a fair and equitable way, relative to guilt and innocence.

Agreed.

But if that's the burr under your saddle, you should argue against it, rather than against Tennessee for taking the prudent course that current reality presents.

Fact: Tennessee cannot correct the wrongs in the US Legal system by standing up for principle in a single case. In a world of case law, where precedent holds sway so strongly, it would be a parakeet fart in a hurricane.

No, UT needs to do what's right for the university, it's students and student-athletes, its staff and faculty, and the people of the state who nourish and support it.

And I think they did.

I don't agree that the end justifies the means. Yes, you're correct in your assessment on my view and you couldn't be more correct in stating that we need tort reform and that paying out large sums of money despite innocence or guilt in an effort to avoid a guaranteed higher payment to fight it is the quintessential example of a broken system.

Nevetheless, I still think UT should have required that the lawsuit's accusations be revised to reflect that sole reason a not guilty verdict was at risk: procedural failures and/or the timing of student conduct committees. The language about enabling a rape culture and other extreme language would have been near impossible to prove (although I do admit that there is always a risk when going in front of a jury -- which also is an example of how a jury-led legal system has significant inherent flaws).

*Edit: I removed my reference to the end of the play "The Crucible" but did not change any other part of what I originally wrote here. Upon looking more into the civil suit against UT it appears to me that the university did enable an environment of clemency (at a minimum) and the intention behind the lawsuit (to force change in how UT addresses/approaches a sexual assault case/victim) was both successful and necessary. In that regard, UT definitely made the right decision to settle. For the sake of justice, I wish the deposition had been made public so that it would shine light on which administrators (paid public employees) allowed for such (or pushed for such) an environment to exist. I view the settlement terms as a public funding effort (I care not which "pool" of assets it comes from) to protect the identity of those public servants who may have played a role in enabling such an environment.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Those were some heavy rape allegations that were tied up in the Title IX suit. You can cut and slice your morality anyway you want. That presser was your head coach of every sport trying to reassure parents it is safe to bring your daughters to Tennessee. Butch Jones even saying he was "proud of the culture."

Adam's didn't think that paying the victims this settlement sent that message.

The "heavy rape allegations" are part of the criminal proceedings for each individual case and are not relevant to this discussion. We're talking about the civil Title IX suit which if you read the details at all you'd know was merely about procedural mishandling by some administration. The two are not related.

 

[MustafaRasta]

The "heavy rape allegations" are part of the criminal proceedings for each individual case and are not relevant to this discussion. We're talking about the civil Title IX suit which if you read the details at all you'd know was merely about procedural mishandling by some administration. The two are not related.

NO.

Sweeping sex assault suit filed against University of Tennessee

The university was accused of creating a "culture that enables sexual assaults by student-athletes, especially football players, and then uses an unusual, legalistic adjudication process that is biased against victims who step forward."

You can't accuse UT of those charges without the claims that female students were sexually assaulted and then the university covered it up. Sure, there were other charges put forth but the main charge is that Tennessee fostered a culture that enabled men to sexually assault women and if the woman came forward to report the university made it difficult on her.

 

[volfan102455]

NO.

Sweeping sex assault suit filed against University of Tennessee

The university was accused of creating a "culture that enables sexual assaults by student-athletes, especially football players, and then uses an unusual, legalistic adjudication process that is biased against victims who step forward."

You can't accuse UT of those charges without the claims that female students were sexually assaulted and then the university covered it up. Sure, there were other charges put forth but the main charge is that Tennessee fostered a culture that enabled men to sexually assault women and if the woman came forward to report the university made it difficult on her.

Actually that was not what the suit was about. That is what the media portrayed it as to create swirl in the public domain in an attempt to force UT's hand. The suit was always about the procedures UT used under Title IX - but that alone is not news worthy. And more than likely UT followed the Title IX laws and the laws of the state of Tennessee.

 

[MustafaRasta]

Actually that was not what the suit was about. That is what the media portrayed it as to create swirl in the public domain in an attempt to force UT's hand. The suit was always about the procedures UT used under Title IX - but that alone is not news worthy. And more than likely UT followed the Title IX laws and the laws of the state of Tennessee.

Procedures that involved covering up sexual assault claims. Why do you think Peyton Manning was named? It was part off "the cover up" and used to point out that it's been going on for years thus "creating a culture".

What are you not understanding?

 

[volfan102455]

Procedures that involved covering up sexual assault claims. Why do you think Peyton Manning was named? It was part off "the cover up" and used to point out that it's been going on for years thus "creating a culture".

What are you not understanding?

It is not me that is not understanding. Peyton was added to the case to create sensationalism. He had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the situation surrounding the plaintiffs and how their individual cases were handled. If he had not been mentioned, the coverage in the media would not have soared to the heights it did.

 

[Plano Vol]

How ever smart or financially reasonable the settlement may be deemed to be, appeasement encourages aggression. This will not be the last time this happens for UT.

I wonder if the venue in Middle Tennessee gave the UTK lawyers pause.

Maybe CBJ needs to look to the plaintiffs' legal team for advice this fall. Evidently they can come up with a rock solid game plan.