John Adams article on settlement

#101
#101
MustafaRasta said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ya, you're way off. The "coverup" stuff was media propaganda, not a part of the lawsuit. If this was really a coverup lawsuit, you'd see a settlement well into 8 figures, likely what will eventually arise from the Baylor case. This lawsuit was based on administrative hangups and bureaucracy. Read the actual filings before you judge. Don't just quote media buzzwords. A settlement that barely covers legal fees is far from indicative of a mass conspiracy to coverup sexual misconduct. As I've mentioned, this is purely civil and has almost nothing to do with the criminal proceedings regarding players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#102
#102
First of all, just because JA writes a lot of negative articles about UT, is not what causes the negative rebuttal of his findings, he knows as much as anyone who post, so why does he get ANY credit for being truthful or not proving he is a homer? If you look back at his articles, his opinions are heavily inspired by how many shots of liquor he's had that day, being a journalist at KNS does not give you a pass for bad journalism, he is making as many assumptions as any poster on Volnation. As for me, being a UT fan, I have every right to defend my university, and call BS when I see it. JA is a columnist, and having the facts is not required, so, he is writring his opinion and we are writing ours. Yes, I think he is wrong, feeding the lawyers and plaintiffs with Tennessee tax dollars does piss me off, and UT reducing that impact is the right thing.........my 2cents.
 
#103
#103
FlyFishnVol said:
First of all, just because JA writes a lot of negative articles about UT, is not what causes the negative rebuttal of his findings, he knows as much as anyone who post, so why does he get ANY credit for being truthful or not proving he is a homer? If you look back at his articles, his opinions are heavily inspired by how many shots of liquor he's had that day, being a journalist at KNS does not give you a pass for bad journalism, he is making as many assumptions as any poster on Volnation. As for me, being a UT fan, I have every right to defend my university, and call BS when I see it. JA is a columnist, and having the facts is not required, so, he is writring his opinion and we are writing ours. Yes, I think he is wrong, feeding the lawyers and plaintiffs with Tennessee tax dollars does piss me off, and UT reducing that impact is the right thing.........my 2cents.
Click to expand...


As part of Tuesday night's settlement, lawyers for the University of Tennessee and the plaintiffs made public a series of questions and answers about the agreement.

Here are some of the highlights as offered by the parties:

Q. Does any of the $2.48 million to be paid by the athletic department and the administration include taxpayer or tuition dollars?

A: No taxpayer dollars, no student tuition or fees, and no donor funds will be used to fund the settlement. Funds will be sourced from other income generating activities within the University.
Click to expand...

Parties offer some answers to UT gender discrimination settlement | WBIR.com
 
#104
#104
The attorneys for UT have one job: figure the value of the case and then make a recommendation. They obviously valued this settlement as a good decision, and it probably is. And that valuation probably has something to do with success in court vs. ongoing coverage.

There is very little or no case-law on Title IX as it relates to sexual assault because it wasn't until a few years ago that the Obama administration sent it's "dear colleague" letter that said the Feds would withhold federal funds if a school did not adhere to their mandated standards on how schools handle accusations of sexual assault and "sexual misconduct." Schools have been trying to adapt to these new mandates without any real guidance from case-law. They're figuring it out as they go, and also from guidance from a now newly required (de facto) Title IX coordinator at every campus.

As a taxpayer, I would want UT to fight this thing. But I also understand why we settled.

A criminal case is decided by a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what our founders gave to us. What they didn't give us is an administrative nightmare of trying to balance the rights of the accused vs. the rights of accuser vis a vis a preponderance of the evidence standard. Title IX as presently interpreted probably gives the accuser the benefit of the doubt absent other proof. I think the attorneys who brought this case are exploiting that uncertainty. Not a loophole because there isn't one yet. I think the UT attorneys settled for relative peanuts because when the institution is on the line that's the right call.

Title IX as interpreted by this administration is an abomination. That's not on UT. That's a political question that was put before the voters twice in the last 8 years. I'm so glad this is a summer debate and not a fall/winter debate. So the scumbags got their money. Since when has that not happened in any of our lifetimes?

GBO
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#105
#105
Volunteer Rebel said:
The attorneys for UT have one job: figure the value of the case and then make a recommendation. They obviously valued this settlement as a good decision, and it probably is. And that valuation probably has something to do with success in court vs. ongoing coverage.

There is very little or no case-law on Title IX as it relates to sexual assault because it wasn't until a few years ago that the Obama administration sent it's "dear colleague" letter that said the Feds would withhold federal funds if a school did not adhere to their mandated standards on how schools handle accusations of sexual assault and "sexual misconduct." Schools have been trying to adapt to these new mandates without any real guidance from case-law. They're figuring it out as they go, and also from guidance from a now newly required (de facto) Title IX coordinator at every campus.

As a taxpayer, I would want UT to fight this thing. But I also understand why we settled.

A criminal case is decided by a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what our founders gave to us. What they didn't give us is an administrative nightmare of trying to balance the rights of the accused vs. the rights of accuser vis a vis a preponderance of the evidence standard. Title IX as presently interpreted probably gives the accuser the benefit of the doubt absent other proof. I think the attorneys who brought this case are exploiting that uncertainty. Not a loophole because there isn't one yet. I think the UT attorneys settled for relative peanuts because when the institution is on the line that's the right call.

Title IX as interpreted by this administration is an abomination. That's not on UT. That's a political question that was put before the voters twice in the last 8 years. I'm so glad this is a summer debate and not a fall/winter debate. So the scumbags got their money. Since when has that not happened in any of our lifetimes?

GBO
Click to expand...

Solid insight. Thanks. I had no idea it was the Obama administration that shifted the interpretation of Title IX. Consistent with the legacy he will leave, which is further convulsion of traditional racial, gender, religious, and socio-economic interrelationships, among other blatant attempts at societal disorder and dysfunction.

*Edit: I did not change any of what I originally wrote 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. I suppose in this instance I must eat my words: that although I still am not favorable of Obama and believe his legacy will not be positive, his administration's push for universities to address the rising number of sexual assault accusations is warranted. I, personally, think a lot of this is a miscategorization of what is actually sexual assault, but that's secondary to the point of colleges having appropriate measures to address it.
 
Last edited:
#107
#107
Chilmonty said:
The buyout is Shockingly low which is why they did it!

DD's buyout was like $5 million for crying out loud!!

Been saying this a long time about Adams...


http://www.volnation.com/forum/members/10037-albums19-picture5604.jpg[/IMG
.[/QUOTE]

Now this makes some sense. So, what you're saying is that "Dooley is more than twice the curse on the program as a far reaching nationally known Title IX lawsuit". Seems about right to me.
Click to expand...
 
#108
#108
In this litigious climate, emotionally unstable jury pool, and national press spin, it appears that UT made a wise choice to make this go away.

OTOH, most would prefer UT to come out swinging for a 1st Round Knockout like that group "Whole Foods did with the Love Wins F*g Pastor". Gotta love that kinda response. Never shopped at Whole Foods, but considering it now. :)

'Love Wins F*g' Hoaxster Drops Lawsuit Against Whole Foods | The Daily Caller

Unfortunately, thats not practical in this situation, nor clear cut.
 
#109
#109
Someone on VolQuest posted this thread:

John Adams says another bombshell possible...

Can anyone with access please share?
 
#111
#111
Not that it matters to anyone or is of importance but I am stating now that after looking more into what limited information we have publicly available on the lawsuit, I no longer view UT as an innocent victim in the civil case. It does appear that UT, at a minimum, implicitly (perhaps explicitly -- with the documents needed to determine this now sealed we'll never know) cultivated an environment of clemency towards athletes accused of sexual assault. It appears this may have been lessening over time, and may have gotten addressed on its own as more media attention has been given to the matter, but nevertheless, the evidence is there for anyone to see.

The more I looked into this objectively, the more I realized that whether the eight cases were justified in their accusations or not does not change the intention of the lawsuit, which was to force UT to change its culture of clemency. Was it a "culture of rape"? I don't know that I would go that far. But I can say without sensationalizing that it appears UT fostered a "culture of clemency" at a very minimum, which would at least indirectly enable sexual assault occurrences and diminish necessary steps of recourse from alleged victims (which would also hinder finding out which are true and which are false).
 
#112
#112
junder13 said:
(which would also hinder finding out which are true and which are false).
Click to expand...

When it boils down to a "he said/she said" situation, there is no way to find out what is true and what is false, unless you are one of the party's involved.

Based on the money involved, and precedent of payouts - I think it is just as easy to for a plaintiff attorney to promote a rape culture as the university - maybe moreso.

Just me.. I'm glad it's over.
 
#113
#113
junder13 said:
Not that it matters to anyone or is of importance but I am stating now that after looking more into what limited information we have publicly available on the lawsuit, I no longer view UT as an innocent victim in the civil case. It does appear that UT, at a minimum, implicitly (perhaps explicitly -- with the documents needed to determine this now sealed we'll never know) cultivated an environment of clemency towards athletes accused of sexual assault. It appears this may have been lessening over time, and may have gotten addressed on its own as more media attention has been given to the matter, but nevertheless, the evidence is there for anyone to see.

The more I looked into this objectively, the more I realized that whether the eight cases were justified in their accusations or not does not change the intention of the lawsuit, which was to force UT to change its culture of clemency. Was it a "culture of rape"? I don't know that I would go that far. But I can say without sensationalizing that it appears UT fostered a "culture of clemency" at a very minimum, which would at least indirectly enable sexual assault occurrences and diminish necessary steps of recourse from alleged victims (which would also hinder finding out which are true and which are false).
Click to expand...

So you believe in guilty until proven innocent?

So if both of us were students and I said you did something - then the school should take action because I said it happened? And to extend this, if both us worked at the same place and I said you did something, the employer should fire you (or place you on leave without pay) just because I said it happened?

Clemency would imply the players continued to play and were not suspended while the matter was being investigated. (e.g. FSU and Baylor situations). Players were suspended from sports related activities. That is NOT clemency.

Both parties, the accuser and the accused have the same right to be heard and both have the same right to an education at UT - until the issue is resolved one way or the other.
 
#114
#114
volfan102455 said:
So you believe in guilty until proven innocent?

So if both of us were students and I said you did something - then the school should take action because I said it happened? And to extend this, if both us worked at the same place and I said you did something, the employer should fire you (or place you on leave without pay) just because I said it happened?

Clemency would imply the players continued to play and were not suspended while the matter was being investigated. (e.g. FSU and Baylor situations). Players were suspended from sports related activities. That is NOT clemency.

Both parties, the accuser and the accused have the same right to be heard and both have the same right to an education at UT - until the issue is resolved one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I do not view a student athlete being suspended from sports activities as the full measure of whether a school is more lenient to athletes compared to non-athletes in a sexual assault case. It's a factor. And it certainly looks more damning for Baylor than for us, and I'm sure the payout will reflect that. But a suspension on its own does not discredit an accusation of clemency.

I also view having exceptionally long delays in student judicial reviews and other "procedural inconsistencies" with accusations made against athletes compared to non-athletes as troubling. For what it's worth, UT is apparently making changes to the handling of all sexual assault cases (as I understand it), not just those against student athletes. So, there may have been inadequacies in all cases, not just for those making accusations against athletes.

In that regard, it appears the lawsuit served a purpose. As I said, this does not mean any of the eight individual cases are right or wrong. That is kinda the irony in all Jane Does getting part of the settlement. Some may have justifiable accusations, some may not. Hopefully that is determined in a criminal court, but several dropped charges, so who knows. But I now view this ordeal as being greater than just the eight Jane Does. I don't like the thought of potentially false accusers getting a payout either but unfortunately in a civil case where "victims" are lumped together, there is no separation in a settlement (that I am aware of).

The lawsuit may have made too sensational of a claim (culture of rape), which I am not saying is accurate, but it does appear that UT cultivated an environment that did not properly address sexual assault accusations in general and also showed clemency towards athletes.

We're unlikely to know the degree of the school's procedural failures, the extent of clemency, or even if high up's were instrumental in enabling this environment to exist or simply turning a blind eye. All we know is that UT is not admitting to guilt, they are paying out a settlement that requires NDAs for all parties, and requested sealing documents detailing the specifics of the case. What information has been made public (which isn't much) does not cast a favorable light on our flagship institution.

I also don't view UT having responded better (relatively speaking) than Baylor or other university who may have failed on this front as exonerating any lapses in our own school's judgment.

I don't really have any interest to revisit this thread so pardon my absence if you intend to discuss further.
 
#115
#115
I ain't missing you at all!

(Missing you)

Since you've been gone!

Away

I ain't missing you!

No matter!

What other posters sayyy! :whistling:
 
#116
#116
If not for the Bowles charge, which I believe to be true, I doubt this would've been settled...almost every case I have heard about in lawsuit is questionable..whatever..glad it is over..that is what? 2% of the athletics budget? A deal
 
#117
#117
PowerSweep said:
If not for the Bowles charge, which I believe to be true, I doubt this would've been settled...almost every case I have heard about in lawsuit is questionable..whatever..glad it is over..that is what? 2% of the athletics budget? A deal
Click to expand...

I don't believe the Bowles charge...I think the context was that the team would feel he was a traitor and Bowles allowed the lawyers to run with it. As is, it's whatever you choose to believe. Our coach denied it.
 
#118
#118
butchna said:
I don't believe the Bowles charge...I think the context was that the team would feel he was a traitor and Bowles allowed the lawyers to run with it. As is, it's whatever you choose to believe. Our coach denied it.
Click to expand...

you think butch was merely informing him of how the team would view his actions?

It is a real stretch to think bowles made up such specifics..and it is particularly implausible to those who know the kid best.

Butch likely (but not certainly) had a bad moment where he made the wrong choice..we all do at times.
 
#119
#119
PowerSweep said:
you think butch was merely informing him of how the team would view his actions?

It is a real stretch to think bowles made up such specifics..and it is particularly implausible to those who know the kid best.

Butch likely (but not certainly) had a bad moment where he made the wrong choice..we all do at times.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Butch is a cartoon caricature of John Goodman as the coach of the Alphas on Revenge of the Nerds...or Martin Kove as John Kreese the Sensei of Cobra Kai on Karate Kid...or basically any 80s movie villain. Not buying "you're a traitor for helping that girl". Too much a "stretch" IMO. :hmm:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#120
#120
butchna said:
Can't read it...if it's a Tennessean link.
Click to expand...

Frankly if i's a Gannett publication or USAToday, for me I won't click on their stories, eff 'em after Wadwhani and her editor at the Tennessean.
 
Last edited:
#121
#121
Remy said:
Frankly if i's a Gannett publication or USAToday, for me I won't click on their stories, eff 'em after Wadwhani and her editor at the Tennessean.
Click to expand...

Haven't done my research on Gannett/USA Today. Notice a lot of unwarranted flak from some of USA Today's writers...something to consider.
 
#122
#122
butchna said:
I don't believe Butch is a cartoon caricature of John Goodman as the coach of the Alphas on Revenge of the Nerds...or Martin Kove as John Kreese the Sensei of Cobra Kai on Karate Kid...or basically any 80s movie villain. Not buying "you're a traitor for helping that girl". Too much a "stretch" IMO. :hmm:
Click to expand...

Can you think of plausible reason for bowles to make that up?

If you have corroborating testimony that he was assaulted by football players and you know that those football players weren't punished, does that tend to support one person's story? Of course..bowles' story was very credible and why this bs lawsuit was settled.
 
Last edited:
#123
#123
PowerSweep said:
you think butch was merely informing him of how the team would view his actions?

It is a real stretch to think bowles made up such specifics..and it is particularly implausible to those who know the kid best.

Butch likely (but not certainly) had a bad moment where he made the wrong choice..we all do at times.
Click to expand...

Is it really? Drae Bowles' story definitely did completely change from what he told Dustin Dopirak of the KNS in February of 2015 to what was contained in the Title IX suit a year later. He was lying one of those two times. His defenders will obviously claim that he was telling the truth when under oath but lying to the KNS reporter but even that is not a good thing and certainly does draw his integrity into question.
 
#124
#124
PowerSweep said:
Can you think of plausible reason for bowles to make that up?
Click to expand...

Let me figure out why Butch would say it first. :)

I have a feeling the answers aren't going to change either one of our opinions. I don't think our HC is a liar. You don't think Bowles exaggerated. :hmm:
 
#125
#125
BowlBrother85 said:
Is it really? Drae Bowles' story definitely did completely change from what he told Dustin Dopirak of the KNS in February of 2015 to what was contained in the Title IX suit a year later. He was lying one of those two times. His defenders will obviously claim that he was telling the truth when under oath but lying to the KNS reporter but even that is not a good thing and certainly does draw his integrity into question.
Click to expand...

Let's take this one piece at a time...Do you think a witness was lying when she said she saw bowles assaulted by football players?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top