RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

New TIX lawsuit filed against Baylor on 8-21-17
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55128
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/03/17 12:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

willtalk wrote:
To me a top tier coach would "TODAY" be able to begin at scratch and transform a reputation-less mediocre program into one that fits your criteria in less than 5 years. Even considering it is far more difficult to do so today than it was in the less competitive past.


Mulkey didn't become a head coach until 2000-01. That's pretty recent. She did take over a reuptation-less mediocre program. Baylor had never been to the NCAA tournament before Mulkey became head coach and were 7-20 the year before she took over. In her 5th year as Baylor head coach, the Bears were national champions.

Unless you're saying WCBB has changed drastically in the last 15 years, Mulley fits your criteria as a top tier coach.



_________________
Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 1625
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/03/17 2:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

willtalk wrote:


To me a top tier coach would "TODAY" be able to begin at scratch and transform a reputation-less mediocre program into one that fits your criteria in less than 5 years. Even considering it is far more difficult to do so today than it was in the less competitive past.

Now there are presently a few coaches who either have done so or appear to be capable of doing so. It is my opinion that Mulkey, once you remove her built in advantages, would not be capable of doing so. She might possess the basketball know-how, but her personality would end up self destructing her agenda.

That is my criteria of a top tier coach. My standards are stricter than yours so my list would be obviously shorter. Mulkey wouldn't make my cut. A lot of other coaches that some might consider elite might not make my list either.


I'm curious. Based on your criteria could you name a few coaches who have actually done so in the past 20 years. I can't think of anyone who meets them better than Mulkey.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8491



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/03/17 6:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Kim Mulkey is clearly an elite college coach when it comes to recruiting and getting a fair amount out of her talent.

But there's more to coaching than winning games, especially on the women's side. For her, standing up and saying that discriminating against the LGBQT community is wrong would be a start.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 210



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/17 11:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
FrozenLVFan wrote:
LitePal wrote:
KMR has already answered this. Remember her campaign rally where she said that if someone said they wouldn't send their daughter to Baylor, "you knock them right in the face."

Or what about “I’m just tired of hearing it,” she said. “I’m tired of people talking on it on a national scale that don’t know what they’re talking about. If they didn’t sit in those meetings and they weren’t a part of the investigation, you’re repeating things that you’ve heard. It’s over. It’s done, and this is a great institution, and I would send my daughter here, and I’d pay for anybody else’s daughter to come here.

“I work here every day. I’m in the know, and I’m tired of hearing it. This is a great institution. The problems we have at Baylor are no different than the problems at any other school in America, period. Move on. Find another story to write.”


I do agree with the highlighted part. It's naive to think other schools don't try to sweep sexual assaults under the rug to avoid tarnishing their image and shock donors. One big difference, though, is that Baylor has its own police force in charge of the criminal investigations.


That's such bullshit.

The standard whine "Waaaaah.... everybody's picking on us. Everybody else does it too. Everybody else is just as bad."

No. No they're not. Everybody else does NOT do it too. Everybody else is NOT just as bad.

This is an enormous, long-standing, huge scale systemic problem at Baylor that permeates the entire organization clear to the highest reaches of the executive suite. That some other schools might have an isolated incident once every ten years does not put them even close to being in the same league as Baylor or even begin to support the nonsense that Baylor is "no different."

Baylor is all by itself at the top of the mountain as a total disgrace. Nobody's just "moving on" regardless of how little Kim cares about the victims, is " tired of hearing it", and wishes it would just all go away.


The reason Baylor has been such an easy target for Title IX lawsuits is that the administration didn't have a campus Title IX compliance system in place at the time many of these things occurred. Keep in mind, every one of the crimes took place off campus and only one prosecution has taken place. The prosecution resulted in a conviction of a football player that had transferred to Baylor from Boise State. He never played in one single game in a Baylor uniform. The popular narrative is that people at Baylor were indifferent when it came to alleged sexual assaults committed by their student athletes. The only evidence of that has not really been evidence at all. Instead, writers have taken allegations contained in plaintiff lawsuits and reported it not as allegations contained in law suits, but instead as a factual account of things that occurred. That is dangerous and misleading, but Baylor has been run by an extremely unprofessional Board of Trustees that decided to just lay down and not challenge most reports. The same Board paid Art Briles over $15 million because they had no solid basis to fire him "for cause." Things are never as bad as what they are made to be nor as good as they are made to be.

Do people really think that Kim doesn't care if women are assaulted? She does walk on that campus every day. I have been on that campus many times. Its a beautiful and yes, safe place. I know its easier to not question the popular narrative, but to act as though Baylor is some rogue unsafe place just isn't honest.

just a side note - everyone gets so twisted over the grand problem with sexual assault on college campuses. The number of sexual assaults is naturally highest in the age group that makes up the majority of college students. Therefore, is it that difficult to understand that college campuses reflect society as a whole>?




Last edited by PlayBally'all on 09/04/17 11:14 am; edited 1 time in total
PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 210



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/17 11:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
willtalk wrote:
To me a top tier coach would "TODAY" be able to begin at scratch and transform a reputation-less mediocre program into one that fits your criteria in less than 5 years. Even considering it is far more difficult to do so today than it was in the less competitive past.


Mulkey didn't become a head coach until 2000-01. That's pretty recent. She did take over a reuptation-less mediocre program. Baylor had never been to the NCAA tournament before Mulkey became head coach and were 7-20 the year before she took over. In her 5th year as Baylor head coach, the Bears were national champions.

Unless you're saying WCBB has changed drastically in the last 15 years, Mulley fits your criteria as a top tier coach.


Mulkey absolutely meets that criteria and anyone looking at her career objectively would have to agree that she is one of the sport's best.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10737
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/17 11:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
willtalk wrote:
Mulkey, along with many other successful coaches, got in on the ground floor when Women's programs were just expanding. As did Vivian Stringer. She at one time would have also fit your criteria and I doubt may people would consider her even a good coach.


Mulkey and Stringer started their head coaching careers 28 years apart. They aren't the same era at all. C Viv came along in coaching well before there was a ground floor and is one of the people who built it. Mulkey started as a player a decade after C Viv started coaching.


Precisely. And the offered criteria of what makes an "elite" coach are pretty UN-objective, too. Clearly, we can't have ANY "elite" coaches among us now, cuz they'd have to start NOW, and prove themselves in 5 years. Rolling Eyes Hell. Geno probably couldn't even do that....move to Appalachia State and create a National Champion. "Elite" relies heavily on one's past, as much as future potential.

C-Viv has her legacy, regardless of what she is NOW. The Lady Vols have their legacy, regardless of what they are NOW. Kim Mulkey already has established herself as "elite", and her legacy is only growing.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12099



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/17 12:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PlayBally'all wrote:

Do people really think that Kim doesn't care if women are assaulted? She does walk on that campus every day. I have been on that campus many times. Its a beautiful and yes, safe place. I know its easier to not question the popular narrative, but to act as though Baylor is some rogue unsafe place just isn't honest.



That is such a lame red herring excuse. Talking about how safe it is to walk around campus is, of course, completely irrelevant, because that's not at all the issue. No one is talking about street crime where rapists are hiding behind bushes waiting to forcibly drag women off to remote spots and rape them. What the issue is is a university culture where athletes and other men have been led to believe that the women on campus are there for their pleasure and that they will be protected if they do anything to the coeds. And a culture that permeates the place of protecting those guilty of assault and of doing everything possible to cover it up and hide it from public view.

And whether Kim "cares" or not also isn't the issue, because it's obvious she cares a lot more about her own recruiting. She sure as hell hasn't helped the situation. She has made a big effort to pretend there's no problem and is part and parcel of the university's effort to sweep it under the rug.

Honesty about the situation and leading the effort to protect women at Baylor have not marked her comments or response. All you get from Kim is "nothing to see here" and "everyone else has the same problem", both of which are total lies.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4277
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/17 3:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
PlayBally'all wrote:

Do people really think that Kim doesn't care if women are assaulted? She does walk on that campus every day. I have been on that campus many times. Its a beautiful and yes, safe place. I know its easier to not question the popular narrative, but to act as though Baylor is some rogue unsafe place just isn't honest.



That is such a lame red herring excuse. Talking about how safe it is to walk around campus is, of course, completely irrelevant, because that's not at all the issue. No one is talking about street crime where rapists are hiding behind bushes waiting to forcibly drag women off to remote spots and rape them. What the issue is is a university culture where athletes and other men have been led to believe that the women on campus are there for their pleasure and that they will be protected if they do anything to the coeds. And a culture that permeates the place of protecting those guilty of assault and of doing everything possible to cover it up and hide it from public view.

And whether Kim "cares" or not also isn't the issue, because it's obvious she cares a lot more about her own recruiting. She sure as hell hasn't helped the situation. She has made a big effort to pretend there's no problem and is part and parcel of the university's effort to sweep it under the rug.

Honesty about the situation and leading the effort to protect women at Baylor have not marked her comments or response. All you get from Kim is "nothing to see here" and "everyone else has the same problem", both of which are total lies.


Well, for once, amazingly, we continue to be on the same side, Art. I am not at all impressed by Kim's "defense" of Baylor's attempts to do something about the problems on their campus, since it's obvious that they have made essentially no attempt to do anything at all except sweep the problems under the rug and/or deny that there is a problem in the first place. Her pugnacious little speech last year about what a great place it was and what she'd do to anyone who said it wasn't would have been laughable if it weren't so stupid and disgusting. She's part of the problem, IMNSHO---that not just a river in Egypt one that keeps them from fixing anything.

Of course it happens in other places, and some of them have just as horrible problems with denial. The University of Montana is one; the disgusting collaboration between the campus and city police to cover up sexual and other crimes committed by athletes on that campus is detailed in Jon Krakauer's book "Missoula". Other schools have handled it better. I thought Vandy did a fairly outstanding job.

As for being "safe" walking around campus, you aren't always safe even when you think you are. A friend's daughter was raped by a "perfectly nice" boy she knew from a class who offered to walk her home from a party they had both attended at Montana State. She wasn't even drunk. She was so traumatized that she refused to get even the campus police involved, her roommate had to call her parents, and the upshot was the she left school, abandoning her scholarship. AFAIK she never pressed charges. It has taken her over a year to recover.

Also please remember that sexual assault does not always involve forcible intercourse. it can be any kind of unwanted, forced, or coerced sexual action, including groping or grabbing, especially in public. I had that done to me as a 12-year-old, and let me tell you, it can be just as traumatic as anything else.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.
PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 210



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/17 10:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
PlayBally'all wrote:

Do people really think that Kim doesn't care if women are assaulted? She does walk on that campus every day. I have been on that campus many times. Its a beautiful and yes, safe place. I know its easier to not question the popular narrative, but to act as though Baylor is some rogue unsafe place just isn't honest.



That is such a lame red herring excuse. Talking about how safe it is to walk around campus is, of course, completely irrelevant, because that's not at all the issue. No one is talking about street crime where rapists are hiding behind bushes waiting to forcibly drag women off to remote spots and rape them. What the issue is is a university culture where athletes and other men have been led to believe that the women on campus are there for their pleasure and that they will be protected if they do anything to the coeds. And a culture that permeates the place of protecting those guilty of assault and of doing everything possible to cover it up and hide it from public view.

And whether Kim "cares" or not also isn't the issue, because it's obvious she cares a lot more about her own recruiting. She sure as hell hasn't helped the situation. She has made a big effort to pretend there's no problem and is part and parcel of the university's effort to sweep it under the rug.

Honesty about the situation and leading the effort to protect women at Baylor have not marked her comments or response. All you get from Kim is "nothing to see here" and "everyone else has the same problem", both of which are total lies.


What about this:

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/news/baylor-supports-former-coach-art-briles-letter/isg1ze0f7zfz125i21gq9qnnr

Baylor now admits that they are "unaware of any situation where you personally had contact with anyone who directly reported to you being the victim of sexual assault or that you directly discouraged the victim of an alleged sexual assault from reporting to law enforcement or University officials. Nor are we aware of any situation where you played a student athlete who had been found responsible for sexual assault."

I know, the accusation is all that is important to most people, which is the problem. A man gets totally demonized with no evidence whatsoever that he encouraged or supported any student athlete that committed a crime. His most heinous act was taking a transfer student that did sexually assault a Baylor student after arriving on campus. That player was charged and is currently in prison. That player never played one game in a Baylor uniform. We now know for certain that the reason Baylor paid him nearly $20 million was that they could not fire him for cause.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12099



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/17 11:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why do think that's any more credible than any if the other contradictory statements Baylor officials have made? It's all just more of their cover-their-ass exercise. They'll say anything to try to sweep it all under the rug.

"Don't worry Briles. You can claim you're innocent. We won't contradict you. We want to claim everybody's innocent. Nobody did anything. It's all a big misunderstanding."

Yeah. Tell that to the victims.

Do you think Pepper Hamilton just made up the information in their outside counsel report?


PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 210



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/17 11:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Why do think that's any more credible than any if the other contradictory statements Baylor officials have made? It's all just more of their cover-their-ass exercise. They'll say anything to try to sweep it all under the rug.

"Don't worry Briles. You can claim you're innocent. We won't contradict you. We want to claim everybody's innocent. Nobody did anything. It's all a big misunderstanding."

Yeah. Tell that to the victims.

Do you think Pepper Hamilton just made up the information in their outside counsel report?


And that reaction proves my point. It doesn't matter what the truth is, it only matters what the allegation was. Pepper Hamilton got all of their information from the attorneys representing plaintiffs. The primary fault found was that Baylor did not have the procedures in place in order for Title IX complaints to be filed on campus. Ken Starr, the Baylor President at that time, has publicly stated that Art Briles was badly mistreated and used as a scape goat by Baylor. Pepper Hamilton never took the time to interview Art Briles or any of his staff while preparing that report. Does that sound like a complete report to you?

After he was dismissed, a member of the Board of Trustees at Baylor publicly accused Briles of encouraging victims to not report sexual assaults. Briles immediately filed a slander suit against the trustee and Baylor. Baylor has now admitted that they settled that suit with Briles for an unspecified sum. In other words, there was no evidence that could support that assertion.

Since being dismissed by Baylor and being paid the balance of his $20 million dollar contract, a complete review was done by an outside firm that now represents Baylor. This letter admits without reservation that absolutely no evidence has ever been uncovered that Briles did these things. Briles and Baylor have not been on the same side for two years. This letter is an astonishing admission. Conveniently, it is not being reported by espn. It is being reported by other new outlets across the country.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12099



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/17 11:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PlayBally'all wrote:
Pepper Hamilton got all of their information from the attorneys representing plaintiffs.


Where do you come up with this stuff? Did Kim tell you this?

BTW, according to his own lawyers, Briles dropped his libel suit without any settlement or the payment of any damages.
Coincidentally:

"Briles' decision to drop the suit comes less than a week after new revelations about the Baylor program under Briles. A lawsuit filed against Baylor last week alleges that 52 "acts of rape" by 31 Baylor players, including five alleged gang rapes, took place at Baylor between 2011 and 2014. Briles took over the Baylor program in 2008."

Oh, and technically the letter doesn't "admit" anything.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8491



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/17 1:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PlayBally'all wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Why do think that's any more credible than any if the other contradictory statements Baylor officials have made? It's all just more of their cover-their-ass exercise. They'll say anything to try to sweep it all under the rug.

"Don't worry Briles. You can claim you're innocent. We won't contradict you. We want to claim everybody's innocent. Nobody did anything. It's all a big misunderstanding."

Yeah. Tell that to the victims.

Do you think Pepper Hamilton just made up the information in their outside counsel report?


And that reaction proves my point. It doesn't matter what the truth is, it only matters what the allegation was. Pepper Hamilton got all of their information from the attorneys representing plaintiffs. The primary fault found was that Baylor did not have the procedures in place in order for Title IX complaints to be filed on campus. Ken Starr, the Baylor President at that time, has publicly stated that Art Briles was badly mistreated and used as a scape goat by Baylor. Pepper Hamilton never took the time to interview Art Briles or any of his staff while preparing that report. Does that sound like a complete report to you?

After he was dismissed, a member of the Board of Trustees at Baylor publicly accused Briles of encouraging victims to not report sexual assaults. Briles immediately filed a slander suit against the trustee and Baylor. Baylor has now admitted that they settled that suit with Briles for an unspecified sum. In other words, there was no evidence that could support that assertion.

Since being dismissed by Baylor and being paid the balance of his $20 million dollar contract, a complete review was done by an outside firm that now represents Baylor. This letter admits without reservation that absolutely no evidence has ever been uncovered that Briles did these things. Briles and Baylor have not been on the same side for two years. This letter is an astonishing admission. Conveniently, it is not being reported by espn. It is being reported by other new outlets across the country.


This sounds more and more like a climate change denier digging for helpful facts.

But still, Baylor has a public policy against LGBTQ students yet openly gives scholarships to players in that category. Doesn't that in itself make you wonder about the logical contortions the school is willing to put itself through to justify its success in sports?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4132
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/17 7:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Baylor has settled the lawsuit brought by a plaintiff's tort lawyer based in Boulder, Colorado, on behalf of an Elizabeth Doe, who alleged magical knowledge of "52 rapes" at Baylor.

http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Baylor-settles-suit-that-alleged-culture-of-violence-442798303.html

Note that the police had already dropped all sex crime investigations against the two named football players in Elizabeth Doe's lawsuit, obviously for lack of evidence. But the plaintiff's lawyer got what he was after: not criminal justice, not anything to do with Title IX . . . but money.

As far as I can tell, PlayBally'all is correct that only one Baylor athlete has been prosecuted by the legal system for a sex crime, a transfer student who never played a game.

Here is the letter wherein Baylor, based obviously on the investigation of Pepper Hamilton, completely exonerates former coach Briles:



ClayK wrote:
But still, Baylor has a public policy against LGBTQ students yet openly gives scholarships to players in that category.


Where do you get these "facts" from? HERE is Baylor's current policy since 2015 on sexual conduct, which does not mention homosexuality. I cannot believe it is a fact that Baylor asks about a student's sexual orientation when awarding athletic or any other form of scholarship.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12099



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/17 10:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well that's quite a stretch. Actually several of them.

They settled a bunch of victims lawsuits. "Terms were not disclosed.". Classic cover-up technique - buy the victims' silence and avoid at all costs a public trial.

No prosecutions. No surprise there. It's been part of the complaint from the outset that the Waco and Baylor police didn't investigate, didn't gather or preserve evidence, and were part of the problem. So if you didn't do a proper investigation at the time, obviously you can't bring prosecutions later. The "lack of evidence" doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't any evidence. It could also mean they didn't properly gather the evidence. (And even that assumes your "obviously for lack of evidence" wasn't entirely made up.)

The letter by the way doesn't remotely "completely exonerate" Briles. Not by any stretch of the imagination. But I'm sure it was purposely written so that his apologists can waive it around and pretend it exonerates him. At most it says that Baylor officials supposedly don't know at this moment of two very specific, very narrow, very carefully crafted and largely meaningless things. It reads as if it was negotiated by lawyers. Probably because it was.

But it's obviously serving exactly its intended purpose here.




Last edited by ArtBest23 on 09/05/17 10:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12099



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/17 10:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:


ClayK wrote:
But still, Baylor has a public policy against LGBTQ students yet openly gives scholarships to players in that category.


Where do you get these "facts" from? HERE is Baylor's current policy since 2015 on sexual conduct, which does not mention homosexuality. I cannot believe it is a fact that Baylor asks about a student's sexual orientation when awarding athletic or any other form of scholarship.


Not so fast.

Yes, the 2015 revision dropped the reference to “homosexual acts” in a long list of sexual misconduct in that section. But it also dropped references to adultery, fornication, incest, sexual abuse, harassment and assault. So if you're going to read the deletion of that list as meaning that homosexual acts are now ok, then you have to think they were declaring incest, abuse and assault ok as well. I doubt that's what they meant.

They simply shortened the policy to read:

"Policy:
Baylor will be guided by the biblical understanding that human sexuality is a gift from God and that physical sexual intimacy is to be expressed in the context of marital fidelity. Thus, it is expected that Baylor students, faculty and staff will engage in behaviors consistent with this understanding of human sexuality."


And if the reference to the "biblical understanding" wasn't clear enough for you, the application section of the policy says it “will be interpreted by the University in a manner consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message of 1963.”

That document clearly states:

"Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is Gods unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church, and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race."


(BTW, it also states "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.")

So it seems pretty hard to argue that Baylor has actually changed anything about its policy on homosexuality. Rather, like its letter to Briles and comments on the rapes and cover-ups, and most other things, it's simply trying to make the uncomfortable truths less public and less obvious.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12099



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/17 11:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

BTW, there's been at least four Baylor football players indicted on sexual assault charges. One so far has been convicted and sentenced to twenty years in prison. The other three are still pending. (one was convicted but his conviction was overturned on an evidentiary issue) .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/03/23/a-former-baylor-football-players-sexual-assault-conviction-is-overturned-on-appeal/?utm_term=.36b4b8d1c86d

None have been acquitted.


PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 210



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/05/17 11:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:


ClayK wrote:
But still, Baylor has a public policy against LGBTQ students yet openly gives scholarships to players in that category.


Where do you get these "facts" from? HERE is Baylor's current policy since 2015 on sexual conduct, which does not mention homosexuality. I cannot believe it is a fact that Baylor asks about a student's sexual orientation when awarding athletic or any other form of scholarship.


Not so fast.

Yes, the 2015 revision dropped the reference to “homosexual acts” in a long list of sexual misconduct in that section. But it also dropped references to adultery, fornication, incest, sexual abuse, harassment and assault. So if you're going to read the deletion of that list as meaning that homosexual acts are now ok, then you have to think they were declaring incest, abuse and assault ok as well. I doubt that's what they meant.

They simply shortened the policy to read:

"Policy:
Baylor will be guided by the biblical understanding that human sexuality is a gift from God and that physical sexual intimacy is to be expressed in the context of marital fidelity. Thus, it is expected that Baylor students, faculty and staff will engage in behaviors consistent with this understanding of human sexuality."


And if the reference to the "biblical understanding" wasn't clear enough for you, the application section of the policy says it “will be interpreted by the University in a manner consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message of 1963.”

That document clearly states:

"Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is Gods unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church, and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race."


(BTW, it also states "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.")

So it seems pretty hard to argue that Baylor has actually changed anything about its policy on homosexuality. Rather, like its letter to Briles and comments on the rapes and cover-ups, and most other things, it's simply trying to make the uncomfortable truths less public and less obvious.


Whatever. Its a Baptist school. The admission concerning Briles is a complete 180 and confirms what he has claimed all along. The only accusations standing that he covered anything up at all are from someone that has a civil suit filed seeking monetary damages. That isn't proof. That is a statement made in a lawsuit. Now Baylor has admitted that they settled a slander suit filed by Briles against Baylor a year ago as well. A year ago, a trustee commented on a Dallas tv news program that Briles allowed these things to occur and Briles filed a slander suit immediately. Baylor settled that slander suit because they could find no evidence whatsoever that Briles at any time suppressed any claim of sexual assault. Why is that fact so hard to believe, but random accusations made in an espn article based solely on the words contained in a lawsuit are accepted as absolute truth>?


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4132
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/06/17 12:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Art, I was reacting to Clay's assertion that Baylor "has a public policy against LGBTQ students".

That's not true under the current policy or under the policy wording it replaced. Baylor's Baptist moral theology, like all Abrahamic religions except the most liberal sects of Protestantism and Judaism, considers homosexual conduct (or "acts", under the former policy) to be sinful, not the status of being a homosexual. All these religions, as a matter of official theological morality, consider any sexual conduct -- homosexual, heterosexual and autosexual -- outside of marriage to be sinful.

The Baptist theological moral position on sexual conduct outside of marriage is consistent with mainstream conservative Protestant, Jewish, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Islam, and virtually all other Abrahamic religions, as well as the sect of Buddhism of the Dalai Lama. Therefore, any school established by one of these religions is likely to have a similar official sexual conduct policy written down somewhere. However, students don't have to belong to X religion in order to attend a university originally founded by X religion. And, in today's culture, even private religious schools are loath to police consensual student, faculty or staff sexual conduct.

Moreover, the full impact of the Obergefell same sex marriage decision on private religious universities is yet to be fully litigated and determined. For example, can a private religious university restrict marriage to sacramental marriage or must it acknowledge all civil marriages? We don't know the answers to this yet, and neither do Baylor, Notre Dame or Harvard, which was originally founded by the Puritans for the training of men for the clergy and whose full motto was not just "Veritas", but "Veritas pro Christo et Ecclesia" -- Truth for Christ and the Church. According to one study, 106 of the first 108 colleges formed in America were formed by Christians and built upon Christian principles.

Finally, what does any of this have to do with Title IX? Nothing. The statute is being abused by a handful of plaintiff's tort lawyers with wild allegations in order to bully a few private schools into monetary settlements, obviously in many cases where there is insufficient evidence for police authorities, who are bound by the Constitutional due process requirements, even to have sufficient evidence for an arrest, much less sufficient evidence to convict.

I have no idea whether Baylor is worse, better or the same in terms of sexual violence on campus, but I certainly hope they are doing everything possible to practice what they preach. It seems they now are trying hard, and quickly settling a few lawsuits, even if they may be weak or frivolous, would be consistent with that direction.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12099



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/06/17 12:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PlayBally'all wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:


ClayK wrote:
But still, Baylor has a public policy against LGBTQ students yet openly gives scholarships to players in that category.


Where do you get these "facts" from? HERE is Baylor's current policy since 2015 on sexual conduct, which does not mention homosexuality. I cannot believe it is a fact that Baylor asks about a student's sexual orientation when awarding athletic or any other form of scholarship.


Not so fast.

Yes, the 2015 revision dropped the reference to “homosexual acts” in a long list of sexual misconduct in that section. But it also dropped references to adultery, fornication, incest, sexual abuse, harassment and assault. So if you're going to read the deletion of that list as meaning that homosexual acts are now ok, then you have to think they were declaring incest, abuse and assault ok as well. I doubt that's what they meant.

They simply shortened the policy to read:

"Policy:
Baylor will be guided by the biblical understanding that human sexuality is a gift from God and that physical sexual intimacy is to be expressed in the context of marital fidelity. Thus, it is expected that Baylor students, faculty and staff will engage in behaviors consistent with this understanding of human sexuality."


And if the reference to the "biblical understanding" wasn't clear enough for you, the application section of the policy says it “will be interpreted by the University in a manner consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message of 1963.”

That document clearly states:

"Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is Gods unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church, and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race."


(BTW, it also states "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.")

So it seems pretty hard to argue that Baylor has actually changed anything about its policy on homosexuality. Rather, like its letter to Briles and comments on the rapes and cover-ups, and most other things, it's simply trying to make the uncomfortable truths less public and less obvious.


Whatever. Its a Baptist school. The admission concerning Briles is a complete 180 and confirms what he has claimed all along. The only accusations standing that he covered anything up at all are from someone that has a civil suit filed seeking monetary damages. That isn't proof. That is a statement made in a lawsuit. Now Baylor has admitted that they settled a slander suit filed by Briles against Baylor a year ago as well. A year ago, a trustee commented on a Dallas tv news program that Briles allowed these things to occur and Briles filed a slander suit immediately. Baylor settled that slander suit because they could find no evidence whatsoever that Briles at any time suppressed any claim of sexual assault. Why is that fact so hard to believe, but random accusations made in an espn article based solely on the words contained in a lawsuit are accepted as absolute truth>?



Look, I'm done arguing with you, but among other things there is testimony from the criminal trials, and there was plenty of info provided by several Regents of the University to the Wall St Journal from the Pepper Hamilton investigation. And that's if you choose to ignore the court filings by various victims, which there is no good reason to ignore. And speaking of "not evidence", the Baylor letter has no probative value at all, even if it purported to "admit" anything, which it very purposely doesn't.

There was also plenty of information including emails filed in the Shillinglaw lawsuit.

And Briles lawyer admitted Briles didn't get a dime for dropping his libel suit.

I don't know if you're a Baylor grad or what, but you're making up stuff, exaggerating other things, and simply ignoring a wealth of inconvenient information. You've crafted an alternate reality. Hope you're comfortable in it.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Baylor-fights-back-against-libel-suit-10904598.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/baylor/2017/02/02/ex-baylor-coach-art-briles-officials-tried-hide-misconduct-football-players-court-record-shows

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/338269278/baylor-officials-respond-to-colin-shillinglaw-libel-suit?skip_app_promo=true

http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Briles-drops-libel-suit-against-Baylor-wants-some-peace-in-his-life-412475203.html


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8491



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/06/17 9:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Appreciate the clarification on Baylor's policy, and my rant against Kim Mulkey is not as justified as I thought.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8491



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/22/17 3:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

More ... it seems hard to keep defending Baylor ...

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20786400/former-baylor-president-david-garland-says-some-women-make-victims



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Youth Coach



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4280



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/22/17 7:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
More ... it seems hard to keep defending Baylor ...

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20786400/former-baylor-president-david-garland-says-some-women-make-victims


How in the hell do people like this get into positions of power? What an absolute scumbag.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin