Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Blog and Media Roundup - Friday, December 8, 2017; News Roundup
Topic Started: Dec 8 2017, 05:00 AM (79 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

How the FBI’s basketball investigation threatened to upend a UNC prospect’s recruitment

By Jonathan M. Alexander

jalexander@newsobserver.com

December 07, 2017 01:18 PM


As the summer was coming to an end, the recruiting battle for five-star recruit Nassir Little had begun to heat up.

Little, 17, who had been quickly rising in the basketball rankings, took an official visit to Georgia Tech on Aug. 26, followed by a visit to North Carolina on Sept. 8. Then, during a four day period, from Sept. 17 to Sept. 20, Little received visits at his Orange Park, Fla., home from some of the country’s top coaches: Miami’s Jim Larrañaga, Arizona’s Sean Miller and UNC’s Roy Williams.

Duke was also in the mix, and everything was looking up for the 6-6, 215-pound small forward.

But the intense recruiting battle for one of the Class of 2018’s top recruits came to an abrupt stop when Little temporarily halted his recruitment on Sept. 26, after the FBI announced a bombshell:

The country’s top law enforcement agency had arrested 10 people connected to college basketball for their roles in bribery and corruption schemes. At least six college basketball programs and possibly many more were said to be involved in two different efforts. One involved paying players upwards of $150,000 in exchange for their commitment to certain adidas-sponsored universities. The other involved coaches receiving payments to steer players to agents.

Little’s AAU coach at adidas-sponsored 1 Family Hoops in Orlando, Jonathan Brad Augustine, was one of those arrested in the scheme to pay players’ families in exchange for steering those to universities sponsored by adidas.

And one of the players described in the FBI’s report as being offered money in exchange for his commitment appeared to be Little.

Little was not named in the report but appeared to be the athlete identified as “Player-12.” In the report, Player-12 is said to be part of Augustine’s grassroots program, 1 Family Hoops, a 2018 recruit, and the “number seven ranked player” in the country, which seemed to match Little’s profile.

According to the FBI documents, adidas director of global marketing James Gatto, his associate Merl Code, and Christian Dawkins, an employee at a sports management company, all of whom were arrested, conspired to funnel $150,000 from adidas to “Player-12” in exchange for his commitment to “University-7,” revealed to be the University of Miami. “Player-12,” a top recruit, would ultimately sign with Dawkins after he entered the NBA, according to the documents.

Augustine, Little’s AAU coach, was described in the documents as the facilitator of the deal with Gatto, Dawkins and Code. Little and his family are not described in the report as having had discussions about the money with the coaches.

Little’s family has denied he was ever offered money by a coach. His AAU team, 1 Family Hoops, released a statement also emphatically denying the allegations. Neither he nor anyone in his family has been charged with any wrongdoing.

Augustine has not been indicted in the case. His attorney declined to comment for this story.

Little, who would eventually commit to UNC, appeared to be caught in the middle of a system in which college coaches, sports agents, apparel companies and major universities vie for the best young basketball talent. The FBI’s investigation, which has spanned three years but is ongoing, showed the lengths some coaches, agents and shoe companies are willing to go to land the country’s top high school prospects, even if that means risking a player’s eligibility, sanctions by the NCAA, or, in this case, trouble with the law.

It has left many wondering: If this was the “tip of the iceberg,” as federal prosecutors have alleged, then which programs, coaches, and, or recruits, would be implicated next.

Since the late 70’s, sneaker companies have invested in basketball players at young ages with the hope that if they became stars, they would sign with that company after they turned professional.

Nike, adidas and Under Armour have their hand in all three levels of basketball. At the youth level they sponsor AAU teams, paying for their travel and outfits. They also host showcase tournaments for the top high school basketball players during the summer. College coaches from across the country watch and recruit those players.

In college they outfit entire athletic departments, sometimes paying a large part of schools’ athletic budgets, and help supplement the pay of coaches. And at the NBA level, they sign the biggest names to multimillion-dollar endorsement deals.

Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski, who has a contract with Nike, said in October that the involvement of shoe companies is “paramount to the success of college sports,” particularly basketball. He said the shoe company-funded circuits provide opportunities for thousands of aspiring basketball players to be seen by college coaches.

“I would hate that if we look at this and we just say ‘well the shoe companies are bad’ ” Krzyzewski said. “Well, are the universities going to give up their school contracts that outfit the 20 to 30 sports that they have? Can something be wrong with certain parts of that? Yes. But let’s not eliminate the whole thing.”

He added that he didn’t think corruption in college basketball was rampant.

UNC's Roy Williams on FBI indictments: 'It was a sad day for college basketball

Williams, who also has a contract with Nike, says the firm has “really contributed a great deal to so many schools.”

But he has expressed concern about the influence of shoe companies on college basketball recruiting.

“A couple of years ago I really felt like, I said to my staff, I think the next big issue will be the involvement of shoe companies,” Williams said during a press conference in October. “It was a few years back.”

In response to a question about how to clean up college sports, N.C. State basketball coach Kevin Keatts said recruiting has to go to the parents. He said schools must do a better job of educating parents on how the recruiting process works.

“And that doesn’t allow other people to be involved in your recruiting,” Keatts said in October.
The FBI chronology

On Aug. 9, Little had narrowed his final five schools to Duke, UNC, Miami, Georgia Tech and Arizona, according to his Twitter page. He was starting to rise in the rankings after a successful summer in the adidas Uprising Circuit where he averaged 18.2 points per game, 6.3 rebounds and 2.2 steals in six games played.

Prosecutors say Aug. 9 was also the day they intercepted a call from Dawkins and Code in which the two discussed paying “Player-12 and/or his family” $150,000 at the request of “Coach-3,” or Larrañaga, who later identified himself as the coach described in the FBI documents but told The News & Observer he has never had a recruit ask him for money.

During the call, Dawkins and Code talked about the involvement the coach would have in ensuring that adidas would funnel payments to the recruit in exchange for his commitment to “University-7.”

On Aug. 11, investigators intercepted two more calls, this time from Gatto and Code. “Coach-3” requested they make a payment of $150,000 to Player-12 and his family to prevent him from committing to attend “another NCAA Division I university by a rival apparel athletic company,” that allegedly offered him a “substantial sum of money,” the documents state.

On Aug. 12, investigators intercepted another call, this time between Code and Dawkins. According to the documents, Code said if one of the universities, which appears to be Arizona, was willing to pay the full $150,000, “then that’s where the kid is going to go.”

He said Gatto didn’t have sufficient funds to pay the player in 2017. He said if adidas waited until 2018 to commit to a payment, then the asking price for the recruit might reach $200,000.

Dawkins asked for the highest price adidas would pay the player. Code said $150,000.

A week later, on Aug. 19, investigators intercepted a call between Code and Augustine. Code told Augustine, he would do whatever was necessary to make sure they secured the player, but they were strapped for the year on funds.

“So ’18 puts us in a better place to have that conversation,” Code told Augustine.

Harold Little, Nassir Little’s father, declined to go into detail about the FBI allegations. He said his family wants the FBI to clear his son’s name first.

“What I’m looking for from them, is that we can confirm that this family has nothing to do with anything,” the elder Little said. “And we want from the NCAA to verify and confirm his eligibility.”

Harold Little said when the FBI’s documents came out, the family was surprised to read that the player being described fit the description of his son.

“Based on the assumption that it’s him, it was like a shock, obviously, because we knew what was being alleged, at least in regards to us, wasn’t true,” the elder Little said.

Two months ago, Harold and Nassir Little denied under oath the bribery allegations and any misconduct by Miami’s staff. In an Oct. 13 sworn affidavit, Nassir Little says neither he nor his father “solicited or discussed a payment of any kind in exchange for my commitment to play basketball at the University of Miami or any other school.”

He also denied that anyone offered or discussed any form of payment with him or any family members. The Miami Herald was the first to report about the affidavit.

When asked about UNC’s impression of Augustine and whether he accompanied Little on a recruiting trip, a UNC spokesperson said Williams “does not go into details of recruiting or recruiting trips.”

Harold Little also declined to answer any questions about Augustine.

Nassir Little was supposed to visit Miami in September, Arizona in October, and Duke in November, according to 247sports.

But he never did.

On Sept. 26, the day the FBI announced its investigation, Little tweeted he was re-opening his recruitment. It was not clear whether he had heard of any concerns from any of the schools recruiting him.

But he soon deleted the tweet and said he would announce his college decision on Oct. 4 on Twitter.
UNC always a top choice

UNC had been a favorite to land Little even before the FBI’s report was released. His father said UNC was Nassir’s favorite team to watch growing up.

“I grew up a Carolina fan, so by proxy, he was a Carolina fan,” Harold Little said.

After an unofficial visit to UNC, an in-home visit from Williams and his official visit, all in September, most recruiting experts, thought the Tar Heels had the upper hand.

Little, who learned how to play basketball at 13 through YouTube videos, had started fielding Division-I offers after his freshmen year of high school. The first offer was from Stetson. Then came the University of Florida. Then the University of North Florida. Next was Florida State.

East Carolina’s basketball coach at the time, Jeff Lebo (Lebo resigned last week), also tried to recruit Little, but he wasn’t interested.

Lebo, a former UNC basketball player, asked Little if he would be interested in UNC. Little was. After all, it was his favorite college basketball team. Soon, UNC’s coaching staff made contact with Little’s high school coach.

The Tar Heels offered him a scholarship in July.
Williams confident in Little

On Oct. 4, Little announced that he would go to UNC by posting a video on Twitter. The video started with a text message conversation between him and his dad. Little says he’s ready to commit. His dad replies that it’s been a long journey and says “a lot has been going on.”

Little replies, “Fact! But Lions Don’t Lose Sleep Over the Opinions of Sheep.”

In the next frame of the video, Little is shooting a basketball in a UNC jersey.

Little also released a video of his phone call with UNC coach Williams, delivering the news that he would be a Tar Heel. In the video, Williams asks, “You’re not pulling my leg are you boy?”

Little says “no, sir.”

Then Williams lets out a scream on the other end of the phone.

Asked later that month at a press conference whether he had any concerns about any of his recruits given the FBI probe, Williams, who could not comment directly on Little until he’d signed his National Letter of Intent, said, “I think if we’re still recruiting them, I still think that we feel good about it, yes.”

During Operation basketball in Charlotte in October, Williams talked about how the university vets their recruits.

“We try to look into it as much as we can,” Williams said. “I want to talk to their guidance counselor, I want to talk to their teachers, I want to talk to the custodians. Every time I go into a school, if I meet somebody I say, ‘Well, what do you think of Joel?’ … When I go to the games where people would say, ‘Well, I have Joel here, in this class, I say, ‘Well how is he doing?’ So I do that all the time, and I mean with everybody. And what people tell you is extremely important to me.”

Little signed his National Letter of Intent during the early signing period in November.

When asked at a press conference in November whether he’s confident that Little was not involved in any wrongdoing related to the FBI’s investigation, Williams said he trusted Little and his family.

“Just because something was written down on paper doesn’t mean it actually happened,” Williams said, adding that Little and his father also signed the sworn affidavit. “So I trust him.”

Here's how the NCAA basketball bribery schemes worked

After two years undercover, the FBI found members of top NCAA basketball programs involved in corrupt bribery schemes. Here's how those schemes worked.
Patrick Gleason and Eric Garland

Staff writers Chip Alexander, Andrew Carter, Steve Wiseman and Joe Giglio contributed to this report

Jonathan M. Alexander: 919-829-4822, @jonmalexander

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article188564369.html#storylink=cpy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2017/12/steve-schewel-discusses-first-days-in-office-upcoming-challenges


Steve Schewel discusses first days in office, upcoming challenges
By Ben Leonard | 12/07/2017

For the first time since 2001, Durham officially has a new mayor. Steve Schewel, Trinity '73 and Ph.D. '82, was sworn into office Monday. He recently sat down with The Chronicle’s Ben Leonard to discuss some of the challenges he faces as a new mayor.

The Chronicle: You are replacing Bill Bell after his 16 years in office. Does that put more pressure on you or affect how you will act in office, especially in the beginning?

Steve Schewel: No, not really. I know Bill really well. We’re good friends. I’ve been on the council for six years that he’s been mayor. I watched him and know what he did and totally respect him, but I don’t feel any extra pressure replacing Bill. I feel a great sense of responsibility to the people of Durham that elected me and that weighs heavily on me, but that doesn’t put any extra pressure on me.

TC: All but one of the members on city council is changing positions. Do you anticipate that having any sort of effect—will it be a steep learning curve at the beginning?

SS: Well first of all, two other council members besides myself will still be on the council. We’re getting new people, but three of us are there from the previous council. We have three totally new members and will be appointing the new member to my seat, so four of the seven will be totally new. That does present a real challenge, which is that there’s a huge learning curve when you’re new. It’s going to be really challenging for the new council to get up to speed on all the issues and procedures. It’ll be a lot to learn.

TC: The council will have to appoint someone to replace you. Do you have any favorites at this point?

SS: I definitely have not decided on any specific candidates to support. In Durham, we’ve done a great job of having racial power-sharing on city council, on county commission, on our school board, in our legislative races and our local offices between African Americans and whites. But, we’ve never had a Latino officeholder in Durham. Our population is about 15 percent Latino. I’m very interested to see if we get some good, qualified Latino applicants. I would certainly look very favorably on them. But I have not made up my mind and will be open to all applicants.

TC: What’s the single-most important issue facing Durham today and why?

SS: We need to work on affordable housing. That work is ongoing—the city is doing a lot of work on it right now—but we need to continue to do that and to do more of it. There’s a big community commitment to that. We need to succeed in implementing a lot of our affordable housing [policies].

TC: When you were sworn in, you called Durham a “rip-roaring democracy.” Some have said that North Carolina doesn’t meet the definition of a democracy because of gerrymandering of a lot of its districts—how do you feel about the state of democracy in North Carolina as a whole?

SS: Democracy in North Carolina is definitely under attack from the Republican majority in the state legislature. There are two things going on. One is the gerrymander. The other is other forms of voter suppression. I agree that the robust democracy that we have in Durham and that we cherish in Durham is under attack from the state legislature.

TC: What do you think of the new redistricting plan that has been proposed by Nathaniel Persily, James B. McClatchy professor of law at Stanford Law School?

SS: It’s an improvement.

TC: Is it enough?

SS: He had a fairly narrow mandate from the courts, and within that narrow mandate, he did a great job. It reduces the gerrymandering somewhat, but the effects of the gerrymandering are still going to be very powerful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-northwestern-sexual-misconduct-lawsuit-20171207-story.html

Northwestern lawsuit highlights debate on university sexual misconduct policies
Dawn Rhodes
12/7/17

Northwestern University is being sued by a student who contends that the university denied him his right to due process when it concluded that he had sexually assaulted a fellow student and then kicked him out of school last year.

Filed in federal court in September, the suit argues that Northwestern’s sexual misconduct policies so heavily favor accusers that respondents have little ability to defend themselves. He contends that Northwestern’s procedures denied him a fair hearing and that the punishment ruined his reputation and career prospects. Neither student is named in the lawsuit.

The case is just one of many across that nation that have put universities in the midst of a roiling debate over how to handle allegations of sexual misconduct in higher education.

Those policies fall under federal Title IX guidelines that date to 1972 and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex at institutions that receive federal funds. For years, Title IX was better known for requiring universities to balance participation rates between men and women in sports programs.

But that changed in 2011, when the Department of Education under President Barack Obama sent universities a “Dear Colleague” letter that detailed specific steps universities must take to respond to sexual misconduct allegations or risk losing federal funding.

The goal was to push universities to respond more forcefully to a problem of sexual assault on campuses that the administration said had long been neglected.

Critics, though, maintained that the prescriptions went too far in favor of the accusers and sacrificed fundamental fairness. For example, the letter required schools receiving federal funding to use the lowest standard of proof, and limits were placed on the accused’s ability to question their accusers.

Betsy DeVos, the education secretary under President Donald Trump, was among those detractors.

In September, she rolled back the Obama-era policies and announced interim rules that give universities more latitude on the standard of proof they must employ in hearings, remove fixed deadlines for completing Title IX investigations and allow schools the option to suggest informal resolutions to complaints.

Hearkening to DeVos’ concerns about protecting rights of the accused, the new guidelines also permit schools to enact an appeals process open to both the complainant and the respondent, or just the respondent alone.

Related: DeVos scraps Obama-era guidelines on campus sexual assault »

Related: Illinois victims advocates have mixed feelings about DeVos' changes to college sex assault investigations »

Those issues make up a big part of the lawsuit against Northwestern.

The sexual misconduct finding arose out of a March 2015 incident in which the female student, a sophomore at the time who is identified only as Jane Roe, accused the male student, a freshman identified as John Doe, of forcing her to perform oral sex. His lawyers argue that the encounter was consensual, though they acknowledge the woman abruptly ended it. Only after an acrimonious breakup, his lawyers maintain, did the woman begin to make the accusations, at first in their circle of friends.

The case landed on the desk of Northwestern’s deputy Title IX coordinator.

In January 2016, she informed the male student that her office had received a report of an incident involving him, but provided no specifics, the lawsuit states. Then in March, the Title IX investigator assigned to the case and a hearing panel found him responsible for sexual assault.

He was ordered to leave the university for a minimum of two years. The university’s appellate panel upheld the decision that May — though for different reasons — and ordered his immediate removal from campus, according to the suit.

The lawsuit faults Northwestern’s sexual misconduct policy, which was revised in 2014, and said it denied the accused a fair hearing process.

“It eliminated any semblance of fairness toward students accused of sexual misconduct (who are overwhelmingly male), and reflected the university’s intentional, institutionalized gender bias, in which female complainants are presumed to be ‘survivors’ and ‘victims’ of sexual assault and accused males are presumed to be ‘perpetrators’ merely on the basis of the accusation,” the lawsuit states.

In male student’s case, the suit states, the changes at Northwestern meant that complaints first were heard by an investigator who interviewed complainants, respondents and witnesses separately, and hearings were separated into private interviews with the parties involved. The accused student could not hear anything the complainant testified to nor could directly question the accuser, the suit said.

Illinois’ Preventing Sexual Violence in Higher Education Act, enacted in 2015, specifically prevents parties from cross-examining each other, and they can’t be forced to testify in front of each other in a hearing. The law also stipulates that if one of the parties opts not to testify in front of the other, a school must provide some way to hear the other person’s statements.

The lawsuit also alleges that Northwestern’s investigators ignored text messages that the accused provided that would have supported his assertion that the woman’s reaction to the evening had dramatically changed over time, from at first not expressing misgivings to, ultimately, her assertion that she had been assaulted.

“This deliberate skewing of the evidence by the investigator and Hearing Panel violated both the University’s contractual obligations to conduct a fair and impartial process and Title IX’s prohibition against disparate treatment based on gender,” the lawsuit states.

Attorneys for Northwestern and the accused student did not return messages seeking comment. University officials declined to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit because it is still pending.

But Northwestern did provide this statement: “The University’s Policy on Sexual Misconduct provides for the resolution of complaints in a manner that is prompt, fair, and impartial while maintaining privacy and fairness consistent with applicable legal requirements.”

However the lawsuit is resolved, survivor advocates harbor concern over DeVos’ new guidelines, saying that they create an environment that will undermine victims and lead to less rigorous federal oversight.

“The problem of false allegations is not remotely of the scale or scope of the problem of sexual abuse,” said Kaethe Morris Hoffer, executive director of Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation.

Other organizations have expressed concern about the fairness of university disciplinary procedures.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in Washington, D.C., which has advocated for due process rights, faulted many universities over their handling of complaints but also said that schools were at a disadvantage.

Universities “don’t necessarily have all the right tools to get this right,” said Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director for the foundation. “You’re asking campus administrators to figure out if a rape occurred, and they’re doing it without the rules of evidence, without the ability to conduct discovery. They’re doing it without trained judges and lawyers who can actively participate in the process, and they don’t typically have access to forensic evidence or any expertise in handling and interpreting it even if they could collect it.”

The disadvantage extends to students as well, one lawyer experienced in such cases said.

Pete Agostino, an Indiana attorney who has represented complainants and respondents in university sexual misconduct cases, said that defending oneself in a hearing may be beyond some students’ ability and that schools do not always clarify for accused students how to use the resources offered to them.

“This process has very serious consequences, and you don’t get to defend yourself fully if you don’t know ahead of time exactly what you’re being accused of and then not have assistance where you need it,” he said. “It’s not like you have an opportunity to practice these things; it’s a one-shot deal.”

But Megan Rosenfeld, policy director of the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, maintained that questions about due process miss the point.

“A lot of this conversation is conflating due process, which is a criminal term, and a private community’s ability to decide who belongs to our country club, who goes to our school, who is in our workplace based on a number of standards,” she said. “As long as they’re not discriminatory, that’s fine. The repercussions are not so grave as they are in criminal court.”

In the end, experts agree that the way universities handle complaints will continue to evolve.

“It’s not a matter of discouraging students from coming forward,” Agostino, the Indiana attorney, said. “It’s a matter of creating a process that has fairness built into it. If you have a fair process, it lends credibility all the way around. It is a gain for everyone.”

drhodes@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @rhodes_dawn
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/12/07/dana-altman-oregon-kavell-bigby-williams-investigation

Phone Records Contradict Oregon's Stance on How Much Dana Altman Knew of Player's Rape Case

By Kenny Jacoby December 07, 2017

University of Oregon basketball coach Dana Altman was far more entangled in the school’s response to a rape allegation against his player than the school previously acknowledged.

Investigative reporting by Sports Illustrated in October revealed that, according to analysis of public documents, the university violated its obligations under the law and acted at odds with the school’s own policies upon learning that Kavell Bigby-Williams, a transfer power forward from Gillette (Wyo.) College, was under criminal investigation in Wyoming for an alleged sexual assault that occurred while he was a UO student.

UO previously stated Altman was aware police were looking into Bigby-Williams but didn’t know what it was about, and did not know the nature of the allegation. Bigby-Williams went on to play the entire season, including the Final Four, with an open police investigation for forcible rape. (In June 2017, Bigby-Williams told police that sex with the woman was consensual. He was not charged and did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

According to UO spokesman Tobin Klinger, it is the school’s practice not to notify coaches when student-athletes are accused of sexual assault so as not to risk “tainting investigations.”

Yet Altman’s cell phone records, which SI obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal the coach was enmeshed in Bigby-Williams’s case from the beginning.

In the first 48 hours after school officials learned of the police investigation into Bigby-Williams, Altman had five phone calls with Lisa Peterson, the school’s deputy Title IX coordinator, and another four phone calls with Bigby-Williams’s former coach at Gillette College, Shawn Neary. Both Peterson and Neary had direct knowledge of the criminal investigation into Bigby-Williams, and UO failed to disclose these contacts both to SI and in its letter to U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who demanded more information about UO’s handling of the case in response to SI’s reporting.

The flurry of phone calls, which lasted a total of 41 minutes, began on Sept. 28, 2016, the same day UOPD first contacted Bigby-Williams, a police report shows. The nine calls were also irregular; no other contacts with Peterson and Neary appear in the records except those. The records cover Altman’s personal cell phone activity between Sept. 19, the day the allegation was first reported to Gillette College police, and Oct. 7, nine days after UOPD first learned of the allegation.

UO’s handling of the Bigby-Williams case shows just how easily the school’s own policies for responding to sexual assault allegations broke down. Within hours of learning of the allegation, the deputy Title IX coordinator—who is also a senior associate athletic director—contacted Altman, against the school’s safeguards restricting the athletic department’s involvement. The phone records also illuminate Altman’s repeated attempts apparently to learn more information about a case he was not supposed to be involved in.

When asked about the nature of Altman’s four phone calls with Neary, Klinger emailed back the following statement:

“The information in Coach Altman’s phone records in no way contradicts what has been said all along: the university did not, through its Title IX office or others, share information about the Bigby-Williams investigation with the coaching staff.

“Although Coach Altman had phone conversations with the head basketball coach from Wyoming, the primary focus was on whether the Wyoming police at the time had pressed charges and did not cover details of the underlying allegation.

“The conversations had no impact on the university’s analysis of whether to move forward with a Title IX investigation against the wishes of the young woman.”

When asked about Altman’s five phone calls with Peterson, Klinger responded:

“Given Lisa’s role, there’s nothing odd about the two of them having conversations.”

Meanwhile, neither Peterson nor Title IX coordinator Darci Heroy, who also knew about the allegation, notified the school’s director of student conduct, even though UO’s standard operating procedures state, “Subject to being notified of a potential Sexual Misconduct violation of the Code, the Title IX Coordinator shall notify the Director.”

Sandy Weintraub, UO’s director of student conduct and community standards, is tasked with consulting with the Title IX coordinator and other qualified community members to determine whether a student accused of sexual misconduct is a threat to campus, and whether the school should take emergency action procedures to protect the safety of students on campus, according to the standard operating procedures. In an email to SI on June 27, Klinger stated, “Law enforcement and Title IX were able to make that determination without the need to pull the team together.”

In a Nov. 13 letter to Sen. Wyden—who had written to UO President Michael Schill 10 days earlier demanding information about UO’s handling of the allegation in response to SI’s reporting—UO wrote that UOPD reached out to Peterson in order to obtain Bigby-Williams’s contact information, then Peterson “informed the Athletic Director that contact was being made by UOPD with the student-athlete, but did not share details of the allegation.” UO did not mention in the letter Altman’s repeated phone calls with Peterson and Neary.

According to the police report from the alleged rape, Neary was aware of the criminal investigation into Bigby-Williams as early as Sept. 20, the day after Gillette College campus police began investigating. On that day, Neary handed police officer Brooke Tibbetts a piece of paper with information on how to contact Bigby-Williams, which included the contact information for Nick Carter, an assistant basketball coach at Gillette College and attorney in Wyoming.

Klinger stated in a July 5 email that Peterson, Heroy and Kathy Flynn—the UOPD officer who first learned of the allegations—were the only three UO employees who knew the nature of the allegation against Bigby-Williams. In an email July 6, Klinger said UO’s approach of not notifying the coach or athletic director of sexual assault allegations against student-athletes “is considered by Title IX experts as best practice to preserve the integrity of sexual assault investigations.”

“When these best practices are not followed, institutions put themselves at risk of tainting investigations and we want to safeguard that from happening,” Klinger wrote.

Altman has a history of saying he did not know about rape allegations against his players. After news broke in May 2014 that both the school and police were investigating Dominic Artis, Damyean Dotson and Brandon Austin for allegedly gang-raping a female student, Altman said at a press conference that he knew an “incident” was being investigated, but that he did not know the nature of the incident, which players were involved or that it was a criminal matter.

When asked by reporters why he did not push harder to know what the allegations were, Altman said, “I didn't know how serious of allegations that were placed upon them at the time.”

Altman also claimed he did not know the reason why Austin, a transfer player whom Altman had recruited, had been suspended for a year by his former school, Providence College, in connection with a separate sexual assault case.

“I spoke with the family and I had every confidence after speaking with them and checking his high school background and that there was nothing that would prevent him from joining the team,” Altman told reporters. “He did not give specifics so my line of questioning probably didn't go deep enough there in retrospect but I did not have a specific reason.”

The UO Office of Public Records released the phone records and other correspondence on Nov. 28, 103 days after SI requested them. UO charged $439.59 for 11 hours and 50 minutes of staff time to locate, copy and review the records. The records show Altman made 334 phone calls on his iPhone 6s over the 19-day span, 134 of which are redacted. UO claims the redacted records are of personal nature and therefore exempt from disclosure under Oregon law.

SI also requested athletic director Rob Mullens’s phone records, but UO only released records of 10 calls he made on his work phone over the same time period, three of which UO redacted under the same exemption. The Office of Public Records said in an email Nov. 29 that Mullens “has no personal cell phone records responsive to this request.” Altman’s phone records, however, show he called Mullens’s cell phone on Oct. 2, and the call lasted six minutes; so Mullens failed to disclose at least one apparent work-related call on his personal phone.

When SI brought this to UO’s attention, Klinger wrote in an email on Dec. 6, “There appears to have been a miscommunication about what you were looking for in your request. We’ve asked the athletic director to take another run through his personal cell log and work with public records to provide anything responsive.” Klinger noted that the calls in question were “inconsequential” to the Title IX and law enforcement analyses of the case.

SI verified Peterson’s and Mullens’s cell phone numbers using court records. Peterson’s number was written on a ticket she received in 2016 for using a cell phone while driving, and Mullens’s was on a ticket he received in 2014 for failing to yield to an emergency vehicle. Neary’s phone number was posted publicly online on a team website. He did not respond to numerous phone call requests for comment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_15db8e4b-de3c-55db-89bc-9bee8b378cb0.html

Purdue sued over handling of alleged 2015 sexual assault

STAFF REPORTS
12/7/17

A female student filed a lawsuit in federal court on Tuesday against the University, Purdue President Mitch Daniels and several employees involved in handling campus sexual assaults, alleging among other things that she was asked “accusatory questions including what she was wearing the night of the assault.”

The plaintiff, whom The Exponent is not identifying because she is an alleged victim, contends in the lawsuit that she was not afforded due process in a system that was indifferent to her suffering.

Purdue spokesman Brian Zink said that the University could not comment on the lawsuit specifically, but he contended that Purdue is compliant with Title IX.

“Purdue University takes all allegations of sexual misconduct seriously and is confident in both the content and application of its Title IX policy, procedures and practices,” Zink said Wednesday afternoon. “Federal law and privacy rules prevent the University from discussing the specifics of any case.”

The incident in question occurred on Dec. 5, 2015. On that night, the plaintiff attended an off-campus party hosted by her alleged attacker, whom the Exponent is not naming because he has not been criminally charged.

Afterward, the victim said that she returned to her room in McCutcheon Hall, where she proceeded to shower before returning to her room, according to the lawsuit.

The alleged perpetrator is said to have followed the victim to her residence hall, where the victim granted him entry to her room. There, he “forced (the) Plaintiff to engage in sexual intercourse against her will,” despite her explicit command “not to do so,” according to the filing.

The next day, she suffered an emotional breakdown during a club activity on campus. She subsequently confided her story to her fellow club members, according to the court documents.

On Dec. 7, she visited the Purdue University Student Hospital to report her sexual assault, but the court filing states she was met with confrontational questions about the night of the alleged assault.

Upon hearing her account of the night, a nurse at PUSH suggested she “make better decisions when she is drinking,” according to the lawsuit, despite her insistence that she was not intoxicated at the time of the assault.

Soon after, the suit claims, the plaintiff told a residence hall worker about the assault, and that employee created an incident report but did not forward it to Purdue’s Office of Institutional Equity or to law enforcement.

On Dec. 9, an employee of Purdue’s Center for Advocacy, Response & Education, contacted the victim, who did not inform her of her option to contact police nor offered to help do so, according to the court filing.

The victim wasn’t able to seek help from a rape crisis counselor until she returned home for Winter Break.

According to the lawsuit, “no rape crisis counselors were available to students through Purdue University.”

The lawsuit further claims that “Purdue failed to offer, provide or assist Plaintiff in obtaining the medical or psychological services she required as a result of the sexual assault.”

Because Purdue is a public institution that receives federal financial assistance, it is subject to the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which protects people from sex-based discrimination. Under the law, universities must ensure that victims are made aware of resources available to them, including victim advocacy, housing assistance, academic support, counseling and health and mental health services, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

When she returned to school for spring, the legal action states she again contacted CARE to request assistance in filing a formal complaint with the Office of Institutional Equity.

The lawsuit claims an official investigation was not started until Feb. 16, 2016. During the course of the investigation, the filing states that the alleged attacker changed his statement after finding out his account of the night differed significantly from the story told by the plaintiff.

Nonetheless, during a panel meeting, the young woman “was treated as though she was to blame for the assault and was asked a series of accusatory questions including a question as to what she was wearing the night of the assault.”

When the final report from the investigation was submitted, the suit says that it defended the alleged attacker’s version of the night’s events, despite his admitting he had been intoxicated on the night in question and had just a vague recollection of the night’s events. He also, according to the lawsuit, openly denied significant details in his initial response.

Ultimately, the filing claims “Purdue’s investigation discriminated against Plaintiff based (on) her gender, by presuming that Plaintiff somehow invited (the) assault.”

On June 2, 2016, the woman filed a formal discrimination complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. That investigation is ongoing, according to the lawsuit.

The University has not had time to formally respond in court filings to the allegations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply