Title IX lawsuit settled for $2.48 million

#302
#302
Quote:
Originally Posted by vol66 View Post
Smart move on UT's part with SEC Media days in less than a week. Jones and the players might not have to handle questions on the topic.

crusse10 said:
if the entire room of reporters asks no questions about it, they're not doing their job
Click to expand...

'You ask the question, you go straight to the back pocket. The back pocket is big enough for every name in the room. There's no in between -- you're either on the table with us, or in the back pocket against us.'
 
#303
#303
HoptownVol said:
$2.5M tells you they didn't have much of a case. And just for kicks I decided to look up the modern legal definition of "sexual assault." We are so screwed.
Click to expand...

I looked it up too and here's what first came up on Google:
Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape. Apr 1, 2016

So What's your concern? Of course, "explicit" is open to interpretation but here's the definition that first popped up on Google:
Explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If your argument is that the current environment on what could be construed as sexual assault in our current PC/war on men environment, than, yes, I agree. But I see nothing wrong with the current definition at face value.
 
#304
#304
As this is a procedural case as opposed to a criminal case, despite the doo-dah about the "rape culture", it's a good object lesson for why businesses need to draw up procedures on how they handle problems, and then follow the procedures. If you nonchalant your reaction to a crisis, or you're perceived as doing so, you might as well pull out the checkbook.

There's a reason that surgeons, pilots, and others have checklists, and even more importantly, follow them.
 
#305
#305
UT-Rex said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vol66 View Post
Smart move on UT's part with SEC Media days in less than a week. Jones and the players might not have to handle questions on the topic.



'You ask the question, you go straight to the back pocket. The back pocket is big enough for every name in the room. There's no in between -- you're either on the table with us, or in the back pocket against us.'
Click to expand...

what does a dude from Al.com care if he's labeled as "against us"
 
#306
#306
junder13 said:
I looked it up too and here's what first came up on Google:
Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape. Apr 1, 2016

So What's your concern? Of course, "explicit" is open to interpretation but here's the definition that first popped up on Google:
Explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If your argument is that the current environment on what could be construed as sexual assault in our current PC/war on men environment, than, yes, I agree. But I see nothing wrong with the current definition at face value.
Click to expand...

You guys are in deep here. Every state has it's own criminal statutes and definitions. Some states do not recognize a criminal thing defined as 'sexual assault." Some do, some have degrees of this type assault or rape, some do not, my point is going to google for a definition of sexual assault may not mean a whole lot in the State of Tennessee. Im not an attorney practicing law there and claiming no expertise other than some lay knowledge.
 
#307
#307
The civil suit was about the administration of disciplinary procedure under TUAPA (Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedure Act). It wasn’t about rape or sexual assault—those grievances just happen to grab more headlines than stealing library books or cheating on an exam. Throw in star football players, mention Peyton Manning and cast aspersion on Butch Jones and the attorneys have manufactured a media story that creates enough misdirected public outrage to prompt a multimillion payday for plaintiffs with no evidence.

In a nutshell, this was a civil rights suit brought against UTK for an administrative procedure followed by universities throughout the state, pursuant to Tennessee Code.

A very slippery slope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#308
#308
junder13 said:
I looked it up too and here's what first came up on Google:
Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape. Apr 1, 2016

So What's your concern? Of course, "explicit" is open to interpretation but here's the definition that first popped up on Google:
Explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If your argument is that the current environment on what could be construed as sexual assault in our current PC/war on men environment, than, yes, I agree. But I see nothing wrong with the current definition at face value.
Click to expand...

Okay, for starters, who is the recipient? Because men can be assaulted too.

Secondly, explicit consent: my husband doesn't ask me for explicit consent, yet he's not assaulting me.

There is too much grey area with your provided definition. No means no. Yes means yes. No declaration?
 
#309
#309
Kristy* said:
Okay, for starters, who is the recipient? Because men can be assaulted too.

Secondly, explicit consent: my husband doesn't ask me for explicit consent, yet he's not assaulting me.

There is too much grey area with your provided definition. No means no. Yes means yes. No declaration?
Click to expand...

I don't see anything wrong with the definition I copy/pasted unless the interpretation of explicit is too rigid or strict. The book of law usually leans more in the direction of loose interpretation (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964, as an example that has had significant consequences IMO). Perhaps you can suggest a better word? Are you of the view that "consensual" would be more appropriate? I suppose there is a difference in the two and I could get behind that.

Explicit consent is assumed in a properly functioning marriage, I would think, so I don't see your analogy as weakening the inclusion of "explicit". But, now that I'm discussing it, I guess "consensual" would make me more comfortable if I were back in college. The interpretation of the letter of the law makes navigating how to properly establish law very challenging.
 
#310
#310
junder13 said:
I don't see anything wrong with the definition I copy/pasted unless the interpretation of explicit is too rigid or strict. The book of law usually leans more in the direction of loose interpretation (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964, as an example that has had significant consequences IMO). Perhaps you can suggest a better word? Are you of the view that "consensual" would be more appropriate? I suppose there is a difference in the two and I could get behind that.

Explicit consent is assumed in a properly functioning marriage, I would think, so I don't see your analogy as weakening the inclusion of "explicit". But, now that I'm discussing it, I guess "consensual" would make me more comfortable if I were back in college. The interpretation of the letter of the law makes navigating how to properly establish law very challenging.
Click to expand...

Consensual would be a better start. And a person can rape their spouse. Would investigators be sent to determine if a marriage with an accusation is properly functioning? And sex outside marriage. Do intentions have to be stated and approved before each intimate situation? It's all just too rigid. I realize there has to be a definition, but I just don't think what you provided should be it. To me, consensual - without any form of resistance (verbal or physical) perhaps.
 
#311
#311
Kristy* said:
Consensual would be a better start. And a person can rape their spouse. Would investigators be sent to determine if a marriage with an accusation is properly functioning? And sex outside marriage. Do intentions have to be stated and approved before each intimate situation? It's all just too rigid. I realize there has to be a definition, but I just don't think what you provided should be it. To me, consensual - without any form of resistance (verbal or physical) perhaps.
Click to expand...

Knowing when a woman is sending clear signals she wants to have sex is already confusing enough, even as an adult. :mf_surrender: Mix in college and alcohol and, yeah, "explicit" becomes a dangerous word to include in a legal definition of sexual assault. Anyone who's had intercourse outside of monogamous, committed relationships has probably had a partner who experienced "buyers remorse" afterward. Explicit could potentially put all of those individuals at risk.

"Reasonable mutual consent" or something in that spirit might be more appropriate.

As an aside, I am of the opinion that the consumption of alcohol should not factor in at all unless it is to the degree that it inhibits an individual from expressing that consent. I'm now remembering how dangerous drunk girl sex became while I was in school. Thanks for the friendly back-and-forth discussion. :hi:
 
#312
#312
junder13 said:
Knowing when a woman is sending clear signals she wants to have sex is already confusing enough, even as an adult. :mf_surrender: Mix in college and alcohol and, yeah, "explicit" becomes a dangerous word to include in a legal definition of sexual assault. Anyone who's had intercourse outside of monogamous, committed relationships has probably had a partner who experienced "buyers remorse" afterward. Explicit could potentially put all of those individuals at risk.

"Reasonable mutual consent" or something in that spirit might be more appropriate.

As an aside, I am of the opinion that the consumption of alcohol should not factor in at all unless it is to the degree that it inhibits an individual from expressing that consent. I'm now remembering how dangerous drunk girl sex became while I was in school. Thanks for the friendly back-and-forth discussion. :hi:
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And I agree about the alcohol - 100%.
 
#313
#313
Does anyone know where a former Tennessean reporter who never lets facts get in the way of a good story can get a job?

Anita
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#317
#317
junder13 said:
I looked it up too and here's what first came up on Google:
Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape. Apr 1, 2016

So What's your concern? Of course, "explicit" is open to interpretation but here's the definition that first popped up on Google:
Explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If your argument is that the current environment on what could be construed as sexual assault in our current PC/war on men environment, than, yes, I agree. But I see nothing wrong with the current definition at face value.
Click to expand...


You need to take a course in Power Googling. The "legal" definition is much much broader than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#318
#318
HoptownVol said:
You need to take a course in Power Googling. The "legal" definition is much much broader than that.
Click to expand...

Figured it was. Never presumed to know. "Explicit" is a very powerful word to use in law, so I was skeptical on that word's inclusion without greater parameters. Certainly not my area of expertise here.
 
#319
#319
Joefoxx said:
Does anyone know where a former Tennessean reporter who never lets facts get in the way of a good story can get a job?

Anita
Click to expand...

She wrote the Tennessean write-up on the settlement...she'll be ever vigilant. :geek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top