Yes, they are kids and they may not have known all the circumstances. If it is fair that people who identify as victims to go around and protest and call accused people rapists why would it not fair for “men” and other students to rally around a friend and teammate who suddenly disappears from campus under cloudy circumstances? I’m sure Paul Nungessor would have appreciated some support. Columbia just won their case that Nungessor filed when he felt he had been treated unfairly by his accuser and her “friends” and Columbia didn’t intervene. Both sides behaved badly here at Yale, with the activists posts and the basketball team’s protest, but as JHS points out probably few knew the facts. The Columbia professor that sanctioned Emma Sulkowicz’s distasteful senior project probably had their hands tied, much like the coach at Yale. @EMM1, how do you justify one side but not the other? Why can a college intervene and expel a single person for sexual harassment of a single person rather than managing the situation but at the same time not manage to control a campus where a mass of students are harassing each other simultaneously?
First, the coach at Yale did not have his hands tied. He was free to impose whatever sanctions he wanted on members of the team.
Second, at the time that they wore the tee shirts onto, the members of the Yale basketball team were in the position of being official representatives of the school as an institution, and, in that capacity, were complaining about the expulsion of a person who had been found by the institution to be guilty of sexual assault. If they wanted to wear the tee shirts while walking around campus, fine. Just not in their capacity as representatives of the school.
Thanks for the Yale link.
I may have missed something in the report but for the last 6 months of 2015, I see one student expelled for sexual assault. One student.
@dstark I know it’s irrelevant as to whether Montague was treated fairly, but the fact that there are so few expulsions does make it hard for me personally to assume that Montague’s lawyer is right and he was a “whipping boy.”
I don’t agree with everything in this article, but I think it is thoughtful and explains the competing forces well. http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/03/yale_basketball_team_at_center_of_debate_over_free_speech_and_sexual_assault.html
I didn’t realize the Yale team wore the Gucci shirts only for the warm ups,
Yes, I recall they wore them only for the warmups. @Emm1, again, Paul Nungessor was found not guilty, yet it was clear who the activists were targeting to the campus community. What is the difference between the Yale guys rallying around their team mate as the activists at Columbia continually insinuating that someone found not guilty was indeed guilty. I don’t see a different in protests…protests are protests.
Great article.
If what Montague’s attorney said is true, I don’t know anybody who would support expulsion. I wouldn’t. That’s my problem. Yale would expel the captain of their mens bssketball team based on what Montague’s attorney said? That is hard for me to believe.
After reading your link and then from your article…
In 2015, One person was expelled for nonconsensual sex. 6 found guilty of rape in 2013 and none were expelled.
Yet, Montague’s attorney’s views of what happened are correct?
The lawyer’s PR firm didn’t post views, they posted presumably the basic facts. She claims she consented three times and claims she didn’t consent somewhere along the line between the first time they were together that fourth night and the second time they were together that fourth night. It doesn’t sound like anyone is disputing these points. t’s what happened that 4th night either the first time they were together or the second time when she returned to the room that must be the turning point for her to make this claim of non-consenual sex or assault or whatever it was…no one knows and no one is going to know anything unless they file a lawsuit and Yale responds if they don’t settle. Other than that all that is known to be factual is she did not go to the police and she did not make the claim until a year later.
I wonder if Yale feels the pressure of showing tepid response and not doing enough and had to make an example of someone?
^^IMO if they were going to do something knee jerk, they probably would not pick this guy although Yale has plenty of money so anything is possible.
“I wonder if Yale feels the pressure of showing tepid response and not doing enough and had to make an example of someone?”
Could be. We also don’t (and shouldn’t) know who the accuser is, and who her allies might be. That might play a role. Or there could be overwhelming evidence in this case that distinguishes it from the others.
I think this is a case in which “what did they know, and when did they know it?” is important. My best guess is that the basketball team was told nothing official about why he was expelled (or perhaps, even if he had been expelled), except what they heard from him, which was certainly that it was all BS and unfair, etc. What is unclear is whether their subsequent apology is because they learned more facts, or because pressure was put on them. Maybe both.
Many of the schools implemented a code of conduct at the beginning of school year for 2015-16 and how a student can bring up charges. I have no evidence but I am guessing the accuser decided to follow up on it because it was being conveyed to the students in big bold messages about how to take action.
Just like we get a disclaimer about a stock’s performance that historic performance is no indicator of future performance, I would not put too much credence that Yale only acted on 1/5 cases and took this step because it was warranted only here. The college landscape has changed and this will be a common occurrence going forward that students will start getting suspended or expelled due to the more stringent rules put in place.
Interesting that very little discussion is given to the culture on many campuses that encourages binge drinking and drug use. It seems clear that many instances of sexual misconduct occur during parties etc.
Seems most universities would benefit from focusing their efforts to curb or limit, as best they can, access to the fuel for impaired judgement…
Or maybe that would be like trying to keep the flood waters at bay :-0
They are also afraid of being accused of “victim blaming” if they start talking about the role alcohol plays in this I am sure. I have always felt that the tribunal system is as messed up as it is because of the tension between validating the idea that women are in control of themselves and can act as they please without fear of assault with the premise that there are some recognizable indicia of impairment the absence of which will keep guys from getting punished. Its a tough needle to thread to protect women who claim they were in a “blackout state” or suffering from PTSD or whatever while still making a nod to the idea of fairness. Add into that the fact that these tribunals are no going back months and even years in time to adjudicate consent and the problems become even more complex.
Brown has taken steps in this direction:
“Registered events with alcohol will be banned in residential areas, including Greek and program houses, while the Division of Campus Life and Student Services reviews the University’s alcohol policies this semester, wrote Margaret Klawunn, vice president for campus life and student services, and Russell Carey ’91 MA’06, executive vice president for planning and policy”
For more, see the entire article:
http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/01/21/parties-alcohol-service-barred-residence-halls/
I wonder what Montague will sue for. By that I mean what will his “cause of action” be?
A federal court is not going to hold a trial and decide whether Montague actually sexually assaulted someone. I think it will limit itself to reviewing whether Yale’s hearing procedures comply with the federal regs, whether Yale followed its procedures, and whether the conclusion the panel reached was supported by a preponderance of the evidence–with the usual deference to the finder of fact to determine issues of credibility.
IMO, Montague has an uphill battle and it’s unlikely he’ll win. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he actually did what he was allegedly accused of. Personally, I think if he loses he’s going to be in worse shape than he is now because a lot of people will take a loss as equivalent to a finding that he’s guilty of sexual assault–although it clearly wouldn’t be.
What will Montague sue for? I would guess his lawyer and team are reviewing the wins and losses that have occured this year around various issues that would be similar to whatever Montague’s situation is. We don’t know what Montague’s situation is so hard to speculate. I’m guessing his parents have getting his degree awarded very high on their list after being within months of graduation and who knows how many thousands of dollars. But wins and losses by other accused fighting back would be a good starting place and there are a plethora of points that have been argued so far (both for and against colleges).
As things stand now, anyone who looks at his college transcript, and anyone who types his name into a search engine, without doing a lot of followup reading is going to think he was guilty of sexual assault. Even if suing only gives him a 25-30% chance of some kind of victory, that’s a huge advantage over the present situation, with the downside risk not being far below where he is now. Even if he loses, he can build up a lot more material on why he was really innocent for non-cursory googlers to find.
People in this country are very forgiving. Kobe Bryant is a hero. Mike Tyson does pretty well.
Montague has a few things going for him. He wasn’t convicted in court. He went to Yale. He is an athlete. There are going to be people who support him. Some women are still going to be attracted to him.
He is going to have chances to have a good life.
There is a similar situation involving former basketball players at the U of Oregon in which an actual lawsuit has been filed. Joint damage claim is $21 million. Here is a summary of the cause of action:
“Artis and Dotson allege in their lawsuit that UO officials denied them their due-process and equal-protection rights by improperly suspending them from school, and discriminated against them because they are males. They also accuse the university of negligence, for allegedly not conducting a fair investigation; intentional infliction of emotional distress for “acting with reckless disregard” toward them; breach of contract; and tortious interference with prospective economic relations.”