Bombshell lawsuit filed against UT

The ole Chewbacca defense.

 

There may have been six accusations, but it sounds like at least Von Pearson's ended up being bogus. And as far as going easy on the accused, he was basically guilty until proven innocent if I recall correctly.

 

Racially yes, but it still doesn't make any sense. JFF is not strangling and robbing travelers or resisting colonial authority.

 

Yeeaaahhhh

 

I think most people are missing the ball on this so far. It's not as much about wether the "rapes" were legitimate or not. It's much more about wether or not the university properly handled the cases in these instances. I'm no legal expert, but that's what I took from skimming the complaint.

 

I'm sure you are correct. The issue comes right back to due process vs Title IX though. The current interpretation of Title IX in university settings usurps an individual's right to a fair trial and a presumption of innocence.

And the idea of rap or underage drinking fostering a culture of rape is simultaneously insulting, amusing, and stupid.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that if the university did exactly what those bringing this lawsuit wanted, they'd be sued by the accused as well.

 

Im not necessarily disagreeing with you IP. But title IX is currently the law, and there's precedent for violation of title IX in cases at Colorado and FSU. Both of those ended up settling.

 

I initially read that as "the idea of rape or underage drinking fostering a culture of rape..." and thought, "Well, yeah. Rape probably fosters a culture of rape."

 

They were probably going to be sued by the alleged victims no matter what the University did or did not do. Several rape accusations in a couple of years against football players was bound to lead to an attorney gathering the alleged victims for a civil suit against the deep pockets of the University.

 

IX can't override the bill of rights, which those wanting to use it as a witch hunting tool definitely want to do for their ideas of social justice.

 

This clearly isn't a Bill of Rights issue, as two other cases have settled out of court over similar allegations. They wouldn't settle without a reason to settle.

 

The reason is that it's easier to pay somebody to go away than it is to fight them, no matter how right or how wrong you are. Rich people do it all the time.

 

Can the meanings of words not evolve over time?

 

Not to mention how easy it is for people to smear reputations when it comes to rape.

 

Because a they don't want to stop the federal money coming in and they don't want a public spectacle drawn out in the media.

 

Hyams just reporting that Bowles missed practice because some players did go after him, but that there was an intervention before he was attacked. So evidently the coaches felt the best decision was to keep the victim out of practice, but none of the people that intended to harm him.

 

Was Bowles told to not attend practice or did he make that decision on his own?

 

It's not like it has been used to describe exclusively non whites. It entered the vernacular to describe criminals of various backgrounds. Using it does not make one racist, insensitive maybe, but not racist.

 

Talking about UT on Highly Questionable