Lloyd Tubman Update...

[johnnyrockets]

The SRB and the Grand Jury have little, if anything, to do with each other. The GJ's role is to determine criminal culpability. The justice system is very deliberately designed to protect the accused. In this case, it performed its function admirably. There was not sufficient evidence presented to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and Tubman could not be forced to testify against himself. Perfect. Just the way it is meant to work. I'll again remind everyone that a failure to indict is NOT equivalent to a statement of innocence.

The SRB, and UK in general, have no such role. In fact, the university is tasked with the much more complicated job of protecting the interest of the accused, the interest of the accuser, the interest of students not involved with the case, the interest of alumni, and yes, the interest of the university as a whole. Their determination need not be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Students at UK have no "constitutional right" to attend school there (whether it is a state school with state funding or not). There is a code of conduct which UK deliberately makes extremely vague so that they can make determinations like these as they see fit.

All of this "lack of due process" and "unconstitutional" and "kangaroo court" chatter is nonsense. The university has no legal obligation whatsoever to allow admittance or continued enrollment. To anyone. If the code of conduct has been determined to have been violated, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CRIMINAL WRONGDOING, they can remove someone from the school. I get that it might not be fair in the eyes of some, and I continue to contend that most people only care because they think Tubman could have helped us win football games, but it's not a miscarriage of justice, and it's not going to ruin the young man's life (the negative impact on him personally stems mostly from the event and subsequent accusation, not the way it has been handled by the university).

Again, I, like fuzz and bbblazing, have no ill wishes towards Tubman. I wish none of this had ever happened. I wanted to see him on the field for us. I will wish him well personally wherever he lands (and will pull for his team as long as it isn't Louisville). But he isn't being victimized by the university here. Sexual assault is an extremely complicated issue, and I don't expect it to be solved on this board, but those of you who think nothing has to change in the way all of us approach the topic are going to continue to be exasperated by cases like this every now and then.

 

[fuzz77]

I have one primary issue with the case. I've shared it from the onset. It is wrong for a student conduct board to hold a "hearing" while the DA is building a criminal case against the accused. In fact, with an issue this serious, I really don't think the student conduct board should be involved at all. Let the criminal justice system handle it. I do think it is proper to suspend a student arrested for a violent crime, at least until his case has been adjudicated. The process seems un-American to me. They are effectively forcing a criminal defendant to testify or willingly lose the conduct board "hearing". Only an idiot would testify under those circumstances which means the outcome of the student conduct "hearing" is really carved in stone before it ever starts. That is why I have repeatedly called it a kangaroo court and will continue to do so. The University could easily wait until the criminal case is adjudicated and then hold their hearing. I don't know if the process bothers many of you guys, but I think it should.

I think you are confused on the timeline of the events which were in order...

1. Tubman is arrested.
2. Tubman is suspended from the team and suspeneded from school
3. Tubman is released to his mother's custody
4. Case goes to Grand Jury, no true bill returned. Charges are dropped.
5. Student Conduct hearing held where Tubman and the girl both testify...possible that other witnesses also testified.
6. Appeals of the student conduct hearing findings...basically where we are today.

Tubman never testified until the criminal case against him was over...of course, because he was never indicted if new evidence somehow came forth he could be re-arrested and tried for the same crime. UK did EXACTLY what you said they should do. They waited until the criminal case was adjudicated and THEN held the hearing.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

The SRB and the Grand Jury have little, if anything, to do with each other. The GJ's role is to determine criminal culpability. The justice system is very deliberately designed to protect the accused. In this case, it performed its function admirably. There was not sufficient evidence presented to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and Tubman could not be forced to testify against himself. Perfect. Just the way it is meant to work. I'll again remind everyone that a failure to indict is NOT equivalent to a statement of innocence.

The SRB, and UK in general, have no such role. In fact, the university is tasked with the much more complicated job of protecting the interest of the accused, the interest of the accuser, the interest of students not involved with the case, the interest of alumni, and yes, the interest of the university as a whole. Their determination need not be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Students at UK have no "constitutional right" to attend school there (whether it is a state school with state funding or not). There is a code of conduct which UK deliberately makes extremely vague so that they can make determinations like these as they see fit.

All of this "lack of due process" and "unconstitutional" and "kangaroo court" chatter is nonsense. The university has no legal obligation whatsoever to allow admittance or continued enrollment. To anyone. If the code of conduct has been determined to have been violated, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CRIMINAL WRONGDOING, they can remove someone from the school. I get that it might not be fair in the eyes of some, and I continue to contend that most people only care because they think Tubman could have helped us win football games, but it's not a miscarriage of justice, and it's not going to ruin the young man's life (the negative impact on him personally stems mostly from the event and subsequent accusation, not the way it has been handled by the university).

Again, I, like fuzz and bbblazing, have no ill wishes towards Tubman. I wish none of this had ever happened. I wanted to see him on the field for us. I will wish him well personally wherever he lands (and will pull for his team as long as it isn't Louisville). But he isn't being victimized by the university here. Sexual assault is an extremely complicated issue, and I don't expect it to be solved on this board, but those of you who think nothing has to change in the way all of us approach the topic are going to continue to be exasperated by cases like this every now and then.

To start with, reasonable doubt is not the legal standard used by a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury uses the essentially the same standard of proof that the SRB uses. Fuzz is correct about one thing, UK can dismiss a student as long as it complies with its written policies. That is the issue at hand. Its written policies say it will use the preponderance of the evidence as its standard of proof. The question is did they do that. It raises suspicions because they arrived at a different outcome than the Grand Jury using the same standard of proof. I know there are differences in how both hearing played out and both sides had to testify at the SRB hearing and they did not at the Grand Jury hearing, however, direct conflicting testimony does not introduce any factual evidence that would meet preponderance of the evidence standard. I question whether the SRB had factual evidence to meet their published standard. If they acted to protect the PR perception of the University, and not on the basis of their published standard of proof, then they are in violation of their own rules. We know that the SRB is made up of people who are affiliated with UK. This alone means the panel making the decision is biased because they have a relationship with an interested party in the case. UK is a publicly funded institution and they cannot just do anything they desire. They have to explicitly follow their published policies. I hope they did, but the circumstances should raise concerns for anyone who is interested in justice.

 

[johnnyrockets]

To start with, reasonable doubt is not the legal standard used by a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury uses the essentially the same standard of proof that the SRB uses. Fuzz is correct about one thing, UK can dismiss a student as long as it complies with its written policies. That is the issue at hand. Its written policies say it will use the preponderance of the evidence as its standard of proof. The question is did they do that. It raises suspicions because they arrived at a different outcome than the Grand Jury using the same standard of proof. I know there are differences in how both hearing played out and both sides had to testify at the SRB hearing and they did not at the Grand Jury hearing, however, direct conflicting testimony does not introduce any factual evidence that would meet preponderance of the evidence standard. I question whether the SRB had factual evidence to meet their published standard. If they acted to protect the PR perception of the University, and not on the basis of their published standard of proof, then they are in violation of their own rules. We know that the SRB is made up of people who are affiliated with UK. This alone means the panel making the decision is biased because they have a relationship with an interested party in the case. UK is a publicly funded institution and they cannot just do anything they desire. They have to explicitly follow their published policies. I hope they did, but the circumstances should raise concerns for anyone who is interested in justice.

My inference from this post is that you are concerned that the university may have deliberately and knowingly violated its own rules (at the direct expense of one of its students) in order to maintain public relations, and/or because of tensions between the university and the athletics department. Is that your contention?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

My inference from this post is that you are concerned that the university may have deliberately and knowingly violated its own rules (at the direct expense of one of its students) in order to maintain public relations, and/or because of tensions between the university and the athletics department. Is that your contention?

I'm not making a contention of any kind. I have no knowledge of any tensions between the athletics department and the academic side and have never mentioned and such tensions. My concern is that the board is made up of interested parties instead of disinterested parties, which leads to bias in the decision making process. The SRB has a vested interest in protecting UK more than protecting the accuser or the accused in any case they hear because they have a financial relationship with UK. They are not unbiased "jurors" like those on a Grand Jury. Second, the SRB uses a preponderance of the evidence standard, which is basically the same standard used by the Grand Jury. If this is a he said/she said type situation, then there is no way that I can see for the SRB to meet their published standard of proof. In theory, the factual evidence heard by the SRB and the Grand Jury would have been the same. I'm talking about evidence that can be factually corroborated, not testimony that would be contradicted by other testimony. I think the circumstances should create some doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that the process was concluded to protect UK more than it was based on the standard of proof in UK's published documents. I hope it did not happen that way, but I don't think people are being unreasonable to have questions and doubt about whether the SRB was after justice or just wanted it to go away in the least public way possible.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

You have no constitutional right to attend UK or any college/university, public or private. They are free to admit and for that matter, dismiss whomever they please as long as they do so within the framework of their published policies and within all laws, state and federal.

I have no idea how/why people don't get that.

Also, I want my university handling their own discipline and creating their own systems outside of the court of law. I understand the opinion that it's challenging for someone that is accused, but a university, which houses these kids has to move much quicker than a court of law. Are they going to be perfect? Absolutely not, but it seems like Tubman had his appeal heard after the court proceedings so it's not like they didn't have that information.

 

[jauk11]

You have no constitutional right to attend UK or any college/university, public or private. They are free to admit and for that matter, dismiss whomever they please as long as they do so within the framework of their published policies and within all laws, state and federal.

And wasn't that the reason for a lot of the marches, riots, protests, etc back in the 60s and forward, and weren't those denials of equal access to education opportunities within the framework of the published policies and laws at the time?

Because they can do whatever they want to doesn't make it right.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

The SRB and the Grand Jury have little, if anything, to do with each other. The GJ's role is to determine criminal culpability. The justice system is very deliberately designed to protect the accused. In this case, it performed its function admirably. There was not sufficient evidence presented to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and Tubman could not be forced to testify against himself. Perfect. Just the way it is meant to work. I'll again remind everyone that a failure to indict is NOT equivalent to a statement of innocence.

The SRB, and UK in general, have no such role. In fact, the university is tasked with the much more complicated job of protecting the interest of the accused, the interest of the accuser, the interest of students not involved with the case, the interest of alumni, and yes, the interest of the university as a whole. Their determination need not be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Students at UK have no "constitutional right" to attend school there (whether it is a state school with state funding or not). There is a code of conduct which UK deliberately makes extremely vague so that they can make determinations like these as they see fit.

All of this "lack of due process" and "unconstitutional" and "kangaroo court" chatter is nonsense. The university has no legal obligation whatsoever to allow admittance or continued enrollment. To anyone. If the code of conduct has been determined to have been violated, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CRIMINAL WRONGDOING, they can remove someone from the school. I get that it might not be fair in the eyes of some, and I continue to contend that most people only care because they think Tubman could have helped us win football games, but it's not a miscarriage of justice, and it's not going to ruin the young man's life (the negative impact on him personally stems mostly from the event and subsequent accusation, not the way it has been handled by the university).

Again, I, like fuzz and bbblazing, have no ill wishes towards Tubman. I wish none of this had ever happened. I wanted to see him on the field for us. I will wish him well personally wherever he lands (and will pull for his team as long as it isn't Louisville). But he isn't being victimized by the university here. Sexual assault is an extremely complicated issue, and I don't expect it to be solved on this board, but those of you who think nothing has to change in the way all of us approach the topic are going to continue to be exasperated by cases like this every now and then.

Great post

 

[johnnyrockets]

I'm not making a contention of any kind. I have no knowledge of any tensions between the athletics department and the academic side and have never mentioned and such tensions. My concern is that the board is made up of interested parties instead of disinterested parties, which leads to bias in the decision making process. The SRB has a vested interest in protecting UK more than protecting the accuser or the accused in any case they hear because they have a financial relationship with UK. They are not unbiased "jurors" like those on a Grand Jury. Second, the SRB uses a preponderance of the evidence standard, which is basically the same standard used by the Grand Jury. If this is a he said/she said type situation, then there is no way that I can see for the SRB to meet their published standard of proof. In theory, the factual evidence heard by the SRB and the Grand Jury would have been the same. I'm talking about evidence that can be factually corroborated, not testimony that would be contradicted by other testimony. I think the circumstances should create some doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that the process was concluded to protect UK more than it was based on the standard of proof in UK's published documents. I hope it did not happen that way, but I don't think people are being unreasonable to have questions and doubt about whether the SRB was after justice or just wanted it to go away in the least public way possible.

In theory, I understand that. In practicality, for the university to throw its hands in the air any time it's one person's word against the other's would be to make it nearly impossible to address the (very real) issue of sexual assault on college campuses. IMO the current climate as it pertains to college sexual assault, with over 100 universities currently being investigated by the federal government (with the potential for extremely consequential financial punishment) for failure adequately to address the issue, does force UK to take some sort of action. Is Tubman unfortunate in that he is in the middle of this sort of case at the "wrong time?" Maybe. But I think implications that the university is simply choosing to scapegoat a very clearly innocent man in order to win some sort of abstract public relations points is a bit of a reach. As I said in my very first post on this topic, there is no way to address this case that would satisfy all parties.

Further, while I grant that members of the UK community cannot be truly without bias in issues like this, it's also true that by your and my very presence on this board, we must acknowledge our own inherent biases with regard to this case as well. I get why people are upset about this; I just happen to think it's an intellectually weak argument for one to yell "conspiracy" because a decision was reached that one may not like.

 

[fuzz77]

I'm not making a contention of any kind. I have no knowledge of any tensions between the athletics department and the academic side and have never mentioned and such tensions. My concern is that the board is made up of interested parties instead of disinterested parties, which leads to bias in the decision making process. The SRB has a vested interest in protecting UK more than protecting the accuser or the accused in any case they hear because they have a financial relationship with UK. They are not unbiased "jurors" like those on a Grand Jury. Second, the SRB uses a preponderance of the evidence standard, which is basically the same standard used by the Grand Jury. If this is a he said/she said type situation, then there is no way that I can see for the SRB to meet their published standard of proof. In theory, the factual evidence heard by the SRB and the Grand Jury would have been the same. I'm talking about evidence that can be factually corroborated, not testimony that would be contradicted by other testimony. I think the circumstances should create some doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that the process was concluded to protect UK more than it was based on the standard of proof in UK's published documents. I hope it did not happen that way, but I don't think people are being unreasonable to have questions and doubt about whether the SRB was after justice or just wanted it to go away in the least public way possible.

First, contention in that context has nothing to do with tension. Contention is an assertion, especially one maintained in argument..

Second, "preponderance of the evidence" is a subjective standard. The determination of the grand jury is based on a vote of the jurors and requires a 75% (9 of 12) vote to return a true bill. Fact is that a majority of grand jurors could think that he was guilty or that at least should stand trial and the jury as a whole still return a not true bill. On the other hand the SRB requires only a 2/3's vote. So both the GJ and the SRB could see the matter in the exact same porportion and return different ruleings.

Third, any violation of the Code of Conduct could be grounds for dismissal. It is alleged that Tubman bit the girl on the shoulder leaving a mark...that could have been pretty easily verified. Were there text messages that made it evident that Tubman was harrassing the girl??? I don't know!!!! Just trying to make the point that the SRB could have ruled on a wider array of things than just the rape charge presented to the Grand Jury.

Lastly, we all have biases including people who serve on grand jurys. I doubt there is a human alive that doesn't have some bias. Do you know that there weren't 4 UK football fans on that GJ that without overwhelming evidence to the contrary vote to free Tubman? And yes, the SRB has an interest in protecting UK... The company you work for has an interest in protecting the company...you have an interest in protecting your family so in cases where there might be a perceived threat or the possibility of an undesired outcome they all reserve the right to take action to mitigate that perceived threat or outcome. If you and another employee at your work don't get along and the company sees you 50.1% responsible they may fire you. Right?

 

[fuzz77]

And wasn't that the reason for a lot of the marches, riots, protests, etc back in the 60s and forward, and weren't those denials of equal access to education opportunities within the framework of the published policies and laws at the time?

Because they can do whatever they want to doesn't make it right.

Good lord man... are you really that dense?

I guess you missed the "within the framework of their published policies and within all laws, state and federal." part of my statement. The things they marched, rioted and protested about are now all against the law.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

In theory, I understand that. In practicality, for the university to throw its hands in the air any time it's one person's word against the other's would be to make it nearly impossible to address the (very real) issue of sexual assault on college campuses. IMO the current climate as it pertains to college sexual assault, with over 100 universities currently being investigated by the federal government (with the potential for extremely consequential financial punishment) for failure adequately to address the issue, does force UK to take some sort of action. Is Tubman unfortunate in that he is in the middle of this sort of case at the "wrong time?" Maybe. But I think implications that the university is simply choosing to scapegoat a very clearly innocent man in order to win some sort of abstract public relations points is a bit of a reach. As I said in my very first post on this topic, there is no way to address this case that would satisfy all parties.

Further, while I grant that members of the UK community cannot be truly without bias in issues like this, it's also true that by your and my very presence on this board, we must acknowledge our own inherent biases with regard to this case as well. I get why people are upset about this; I just happen to think it's an intellectually weak argument for one to yell "conspiracy" because a decision was reached that one may not like.

I hear what you are saying. However, a decision based on the reasons you give is a violation of UK's written policies and that, I would think, would be actionable in court. UK can't decide that because of today's climate they have to be tougher on sexual assault accusations to the extent that they ignore their written policies. The evidence has to meet the standard they publish, period. All other speculation really has nothing to do with the case and should have played no part in the decision. Again, I hope they did what was right and correct by their written policies, but I don't think it is unreasonable to have some doubt based on what we know.

 

[johnnyrockets]

I hear what you are saying. However, a decision based on the reasons you give is a violation of UK's written policies and that, I would think, would be actionable in court. UK can't decide that because of today's climate they have to be tougher on sexual assault accusations to the extent that they ignore their written policies. The evidence has to meet the standard they publish, period. All other speculation really has nothing to do with the case and should have played no part in the decision. Again, I hope they did what was right and correct by their written policies, but I don't think it is unreasonable to have some doubt based on what we know.

I disagree that UK's pursuing the case more aggressively in light of the current climate amounts to a violation of their written policies rather than just a different interpretation. I suspect the policies (referring mostly to the code of conduct) are intentionally vague enough to allow UK some leeway to address cases like this in just about any way they choose. Absent a retraction by the young lady (which seems unlikely), I'm not sure Tubman has a legal leg on which to stand, but I may be wrong about that.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

First, contention in that context has nothing to do with tension. Contention is an assertion, especially one maintained in argument..

Second, "preponderance of the evidence" is a subjective standard. The determination of the grand jury is based on a vote of the jurors and requires a 75% (9 of 12) vote to return a true bill. Fact is that a majority of grand jurors could think that he was guilty or that at least should stand trial and the jury as a whole still return a not true bill. On the other hand the SRB requires only a 2/3's vote. So both the GJ and the SRB could see the matter in the exact same porportion and return different ruleings.

Third, any violation of the Code of Conduct could be grounds for dismissal. It is alleged that Tubman bit the girl on the shoulder leaving a mark...that could have been pretty easily verified. Were there text messages that made it evident that Tubman was harrassing the girl??? I don't know!!!! Just trying to make the point that the SRB could have ruled on a wider array of things than just the rape charge presented to the Grand Jury.

Lastly, we all have biases including people who serve on grand jurys. I doubt there is a human alive that doesn't have some bias. Do you know that there weren't 4 UK football fans on that GJ that without overwhelming evidence to the contrary vote to free Tubman? And yes, the SRB has an interest in protecting UK... The company you work for has an interest in protecting the company...you have an interest in protecting your family so in cases where there might be a perceived threat or the possibility of an undesired outcome they all reserve the right to take action to mitigate that perceived threat or outcome. If you and another employee at your work don't get along and the company sees you 50.1% responsible they may fire you. Right?

You are right about the word contention. He asked if I was making a certain contention about how UK handled the case and I replied that I am not making a contention of any kind. It had nothing to do with the supposed tension between the academic and athletic side. I know the difference between the two words and I used both of them correctly. You need to read a little closer.

Most of the rest of your points are based on conjecture and speculation and involve no facts at all, so I won't bother to address them. That being said, she admitted to biting Tubman on his hand. If the bite was the reason he was dismissed instead of the rape allegation, then wouldn't she have to be dismissed also? Your logic there is very much flawed.

You write off trying to have unbiased people presiding over cases like this as if it's unimportant, yet it is a corner stone of our justice system. The difference in UK and the other examples you site are that UK is a taxpayer funded institution and because of that must have policies that treat everyone fairly and consistently. A private company, or me protecting my family, has no such obligations. UK has an obligation to be unbiased and treat people according to the standard they laid out. I don't know that they didn't do that, but it certainly is not unreasonable to have doubts in this situation.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I disagree that UK's pursuing the case more aggressively in light of the current climate amounts to a violation of their written policies rather than just a different interpretation. I suspect the policies (referring mostly to the code of conduct) are intentionally vague enough to allow UK some leeway to address cases like this in just about any way they choose. Absent a retraction by the young lady (which seems unlikely), I'm not sure Tubman has a legal leg on which to stand, but I may be wrong about that.

The standard of proof is pretty clearly spelled out. They use a preponderance of the evidence standard, which they define as more likely than not to have occurred. I'm not sure how that can be reinterpreted. It is pretty clear. The question is did the factual evidence support the conclusion based on that standard? If it did, they did the right thing. If it didn't, they should not have done what they did. As a public, tax payer funded institution, they can't do whatever they want, and they shouldn't be able to do whatever they want. There are, and should be, policies in place that protect the rights of students who attend the university against being treated differently than their peers. Like I said before, I don't know if the board did anything inappropriate, but I don't think it is unreasonable to have doubts. People do things every day to protect their own interests and ignore written policy in the process. I just can't understand why you and Fuzz are so sure that everything was concluded according to policy and fairness based on what we know. How can you be so trusting and sure of the motives of the board? History has taught me that people will not always do the right thing when they think they have unquestioned power.

 

[johnnyrockets]

The standard of proof is pretty clearly spelled out. They use a preponderance of the evidence standard, which they define as more likely than not to have occurred. I'm not sure how that can be reinterpreted. It is pretty clear. The question is did the factual evidence support the conclusion based on that standard? If it did, they did the right thing. If it didn't, they should not have done what they did. As a public, tax payer funded institution, they can't do whatever they want, and they shouldn't be able to do whatever they want. There are, and should be, policies in place that protect the rights of students who attend the university against being treated differently than their peers. Like I said before, I don't know if the board did anything inappropriate, but I don't think it is unreasonable to have doubts. People do things every day to protect their own interests and ignore written policy in the process. I just can't understand why you and Fuzz are so sure that everything was concluded according to policy and fairness based on what we know. How can you be so trusting and sure of the motives of the board? History has taught me that people will not always do the right thing when they think they have unquestioned power.

If you truly don't understand how written policies (be they university, business, or otherwise) can be interpreted differently in different contexts, we're at an impasse. I didn't say the standard (preponderance of evidence) has been reinterpreted. I'm saying the language, all of it, is vague enough to allow a lot of depth and breadth to those adjudicating these decisions. For example, I'm confident that the code of conduct language could have allowed the university to expel the four kids that got in trouble for shooting AirSoft pistols on campus if it had wanted to. They chose not to do that, because they thought it didn't make sense given the context, but that doesn't mean they were wrong (or right). Maybe Tubman was removed because of something related to the rape accusation but not for rape itself. What if the text messages were felt to represent "harassment?" Harassment is enough to warrant expulsion, I'm sure. Quick, write down a robust and perfectly clear definition of harassment. You can't do it. That's my point. Language is subject to context and interpretation. Ten years ago, Tubman may not have been expelled for this. Context has changed. If you believe he was punished too severely given the (very limited) evidence we have to examine, that's your opinion. To state that the university has wronged the man and it should be ashamed and is a disgrace to the state and its alumni is baseless.

I've never said I am "sure that everything was concluded according to policy and fairness," but my default is not to assume that the school is out to persecute specifically any of its students. All that said, this is getting a little too granular to be worthwhile at this point. I think the drive by posts about how long the thread has gone on, while glib, are the truest things that have been written in this space. I'll leave y'all to it. It's been interesting.

 

[loucatfan]

History has taught me that people will not always do the right thing when they think they have unquestioned power.

Great point.My experience as well. I have seen many people not equipped to have power abuse it when all of a sudden they find themselves in a position of power .

The problem here is compounded by the fact that the true professionals in this area (Larson's office) obviously felt something didn't ring true and chose to not push the Grand Jury to indict.
The SRB should have followed suit. Perhaps some ruling not allowing him to go to her dorm or be in any classes with her I could understand. But to basically kick him out by giving him no choice but to transfer is over the top. I think that is why this thread just won't die.

Hopefully it will still be going on this time next year as we follow Tubman's career at another school.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

The SRB and the Grand Jury have little, if anything, to do with each other. The GJ's role is to determine criminal culpability. The justice system is very deliberately designed to protect the accused. In this case, it performed its function admirably. There was not sufficient evidence presented to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and Tubman could not be forced to testify against himself. Perfect. Just the way it is meant to work. I'll again remind everyone that a failure to indict is NOT equivalent to a statement of innocence.

The SRB, and UK in general, have no such role. In fact, the university is tasked with the much more complicated job of protecting the interest of the accused, the interest of the accuser, the interest of students not involved with the case, the interest of alumni, and yes, the interest of the university as a whole. Their determination need not be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Students at UK have no "constitutional right" to attend school there (whether it is a state school with state funding or not). There is a code of conduct which UK deliberately makes extremely vague so that they can make determinations like these as they see fit.

All of this "lack of due process" and "unconstitutional" and "kangaroo court" chatter is nonsense. The university has no legal obligation whatsoever to allow admittance or continued enrollment. To anyone. If the code of conduct has been determined to have been violated, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CRIMINAL WRONGDOING, they can remove someone from the school. I get that it might not be fair in the eyes of some, and I continue to contend that most people only care because they think Tubman could have helped us win football games, but it's not a miscarriage of justice, and it's not going to ruin the young man's life (the negative impact on him personally stems mostly from the event and subsequent accusation, not the way it has been handled by the university).

Again, I, like fuzz and bbblazing, have no ill wishes towards Tubman. I wish none of this had ever happened. I wanted to see him on the field for us. I will wish him well personally wherever he lands (and will pull for his team as long as it isn't Louisville). But he isn't being victimized by the university here. Sexual assault is an extremely complicated issue, and I don't expect it to be solved on this board, but those of you who think nothing has to change in the way all of us approach the topic are going to continue to be exasperated by cases like this every now and then.

The standard of proof for a grand jury is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is the relatively low standard of probable cause.

 

[fuzz77]

Most of the rest of your points are based on conjecture and speculation and involve no facts at all, so I won't bother to address them. That being said, she admitted to biting Tubman on his hand. If the bite was the reason he was dismissed instead of the rape allegation, then wouldn't she have to be dismissed also? Your logic there is very much flawed.

You write off trying to have unbiased people presiding over cases like this as if it's unimportant, yet it is a corner stone of our justice system. The difference in UK and the other examples you site are that UK is a taxpayer funded institution and because of that must have policies that treat everyone fairly and consistently. A private company, or me protecting my family, has no such obligations. UK has an obligation to be unbiased and treat people according to the standard they laid out. I don't know that they didn't do that, but it certainly is not unreasonable to have doubts in this situation.

You won't address the "conjecture and speculation" because you cannot do so without totally blowing your argument out of the water. We don't know the facts so we must fill in the blanks with "conjecture and speculation". You talk as if "preponderance of evidence" is some absolute standard, it is not. Why do we need 12 people and why does it take a 75% vote if "preponderance of evidence" is absolute? If it isn't absolute then how grey must it be before we consider it black? Why 75%...it's only 66.7% is some other states. The DA didn't have to take the case to the Grand Jury. If he felt there was no case then he could have dismissed it himself. Bottom line is we have to choose if it is black or white when in fact it is some shade of grey. If we knew it was 0% grey, 50% gray or 66.7% grey...wouldn't that matter to you as to how sure, help your understanding of how a different group could come to another conclusion???

The fact that UK is a taxpayer funded insitution only means that they must treat protected groups fairly, last I checked "Accused violators of the student code of conduct" is not a protected group. They have the very same obligation that any publicly traded company or any buisness that does business with the public sector. They cannot descriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation...

 

[fuzz77]

Great point.My experience as well. I have seen many people not equipped to have power abuse it when all of a sudden they find themselves in a position of power .

The problem here is compounded by the fact that the true professionals in this area (Larson's office) obviously felt something didn't ring true and chose to not push the Grand Jury to indict.
The SRB should have followed suit. Perhaps some ruling not allowing him to go to her dorm or be in any classes with her I could understand. But to basically kick him out by giving him no choice but to transfer is over the top. I think that is why this thread just won't die.

Hopefully it will still be going on this time next year as we follow Tubman's career at another school.

Lou, why did Larson take the case to the Grand Jury? He didn't have to do so. If he was so cock-sure there was nothing there, drop the charges and be done with it.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You won't address the "conjecture and speculation" because you cannot do so without totally blowing your argument out of the water. We don't know the facts so we must fill in the blanks with "conjecture and speculation". You talk as if "preponderance of evidence" is some absolute standard, it is not. Why do we need 12 people and why does it take a 75% vote if "preponderance of evidence" is absolute? If it isn't absolute then how grey must it be before we consider it black? Why 75%...it's only 66.7% is some other states. The DA didn't have to take the case to the Grand Jury. If he felt there was no case then he could have dismissed it himself. Bottom line is we have to choose if it is black or white when in fact it is some shade of grey. If we knew it was 0% grey, 50% gray or 66.7% grey...wouldn't that matter to you as to how sure, help your understanding of how a different group could come to another conclusion???

The fact that UK is a taxpayer funded insitution only means that they must treat protected groups fairly, last I checked "Accused violators of the student code of conduct" is not a protected group. They have the very same obligation that any publicly traded company or any buisness that does business with the public sector. They cannot descriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation...

Okay, I'll try this another way. It sounds to me like you are agreeing that if the facts of case are limited to what we know, then there would be doubt in your mind that the evidence would meet the standard of proof, but since UK ruled that the evidence did meet the standard of proof, something else must have been presented that we don't know about, or they kicked him out of school for some other reason where they had evidence that met their standard of proof. If that is what you are saying, then I can understand that and partially agree. My only problem, if that is what you are saying, is that assumes the board would act in an unbiased way and only on the facts presented in the case. If we assume the board would act in an unbiased manner and in accordance with their written policies, then it makes sense to assume there are other important facts that came out that we are not privy to. However, that line of reasoning begs the question of what facts (oral testimony is not facts) would the SRB have seen that the Grand Jury did not? It's hard to imagine factual evidence being presented to the SRB that was not presented to the Grand Jury.

The preponderance of the evidence standard is not absolute. However, there still has to be evidence of some sort in order to meet that standard of proof or the people deciding the case aren't doing there jobs appropriately. For example, in the case of a he said/she said situation, without any other factual evidence, if a "juror" says that meets the standard of proof, then that juror is not doing his/her job. It may not be an absolute standard, but there has to be some factual evidence to support the verdict besides one person's word against another.

The taxpayer funded argument has nothing to do with protected classes. It has to do with the reasonableness of the standard used to make the decision in the case. As a private business, I can fire you because you are ugly. Since UK is taxpayer funded, it would be inappropriate to have such a standard in place. That being said, it appears that the standard used by UK is appropriate and reasonable. The question is did they follow it. I used the taxpayer argument in response to people claiming that the language should be vague and allow UK to do whatever they wanted in the these circumstances. That is absolutely false. In no way should UK's standard be vague and allow them to act without applying an objective standard of proof to each case and treating every student in a consistent way. In my mind, as a taxpayer, that consistent manner would involve treating every student as innocent unless the preponderance of the evidence suggested otherwise. As I have said numerous times, I hope UK acted in that manner, but I think it is reasonable for people to have doubts that they did.

 

[Bigbluediddy63]

You have no constitutional right to attend UK or any college/university, public or private. They are free to admit and for that matter, dismiss whomever they please as long as they do so within the framework of their published policies and within all laws, state and federal.

So you are saying UK is above the law? If the framework of a public institution goes against the law, I would say that that "framework" is illegal and must be changed, especially at a public institution. This issue is actually pretty black and white from where I sit, all of the legal speak and endless jargon can't change the fact that Lloyd Tubman, albeit by default was proven innocent in the court of law. I don't care if it is a grand jury, or judge Judy, it doesn't matter. I'd say the young man will move on because he wants to play football as soon as he can, but the young man has grounds for a huge lawsuit and would likely receive a nice settlement. No way UK would want the PR for fighting this if they don't have the guts to reinstate a man presumed innocent in the court of law. Jessie Jackson and the whole gang would blow this up on them. I'm surprised they already haven't.

 

[loucatfan]

Lou, why did Larson take the case to the Grand Jury? He didn't have to do so. If he was so cock-sure there was nothing there, drop the charges and be done with it.

prosecutors do that all the time to protect themselves. I can't cite it but someone did a study of federal prosecutors taking cases to the grand jury and in over 200,000 cases the grand jury only disagreed with the prosecutor twelve times. Frankly due to Ferguson and other issues I have long thought we should do away with grand juries. Half the states do not have them.

They really only serve the purpose of allowing the prosecutor to say he didn't dismiss a case that the grand jury did when it has no merit.

My main point in all of this is Larson't office is incredibly tough on criminals especially rapists. They obviously smelled a rat here and were smart enough to not pursue it .

I simply don't believe a combination of a group of college kids and a professor who perhaps attended a conference on the subject have any business at all second guessing the true professionals on a subject this serious . It won't be the first time a black man has been wrongly treated by an American judicial body ( in this instance the UK judge wannabe's on the SRB) . Hopefully it will be one of the last.

Years ago I was asked by the President to serve on the White House Council of Prosecutorial relations regarding Habeas reform. Although I am a very very conservative guy in my personal habits and my political philosophy I became totally convinced that a lot of men in this country both black and white have been wrongly convicted simply because they look like a criminal which was coupled with bad oral testimony. Thank God DNA is now exonerating many of those wrongly convicted.

Tubman is a huge man and I suspect that played into the decision of some wannabe jurists taken in by his looks and her statements. The fact Larson's professional would not touch it told me all I need to know in this instance.

Lou

 

[Vandalayindustries]

So you are saying UK is above the law? If the framework of a public institution goes against the law, I would say that that "framework" is illegal and must be changed, especially at a public institution. This issue is actually pretty black and white from where I sit, all of the legal speak and endless jargon can't change the fact that Lloyd Tubman, albeit by default was proven innocent in the court of law. I don't care if it is a grand jury, or judge Judy, it doesn't matter. I'd say the young man will move on because he wants to play football as soon as he can, but the young man has grounds for a huge lawsuit and would likely receive a nice settlement. No way UK would want the PR for fighting this if they don't have the guts to reinstate a man presumed innocent in the court of law. Jessie Jackson and the whole gang would blow this up on them. I'm surprised they already haven't.

Above the law? They didn't break any laws and that framework is abiding by the laws in Kentucky.

 

[BBBLazing]

I swear, this thread is going to allow me to get rid of cable. I need no more entertainment. A couple of responses:

1. Cat in the hat says that "oral testimony is not evidence." This is absolutely wrong. Any adjudicative body, be it a grand jury, a trial jury, or a student review board, hears testimony and has to weigh the credibility of that testimony. Just because two people tell opposite story does not mean it is a tie and there can be no decision. The jury or board can not believe one of the parties, for all kinds of reasons, and rule against them. Oral testimony is the most common type of evidence and people are convicted all the time with out physical evidence.

2. Lou consistently refers to "Ray" and the Lexington prosecutor's office as the real professionals here. I assume Lou is correct that "Ray" is tough on rape and a true professional. But, he was asked to do something that the UK board was not asked to do. The grand jury's failure to indict is not relevant to the question of whether Tubman violated any UK policies. Someone posted the code that clearly laid out the fact that a failure to prosecute, much less indict, does not factor in to the decision of the UK board. They may or may not have even been aware of that fact.

3. Lou also refers to the fact that a lot of people have been convicted because they look like criminals. This is true. It is wrong, but true. Did any of you go on the internet to complain about any of those people going to prison? If not, why are you here complaining about someone not playing football for your favorite team. Obviously because you want your team to do well.

4. UK's board is not an American Judicial Body. Nothing "judicial" about it.

5. None of us know. Even the well reasoned posts on here are full of speculation. Lou's recent post spoke of a professor on the board that "perhaps attended a conference" on rape. There is absolutely no evidence or reason to speculate that a professor on that board had attended such a conference. I know everyone is using hypotheticals to show their point. Fuzz keeps talking about maybe there are texts. My major point is no one knows. Those facts don't exist.

6. The grand jury and the UK board were deciding two different things. I'm not assuming that either of them were right or wrong. I've not said that either of them were right or wrong. I've only said that people that say that either was wrong does not know what they are talking about and are making too many assumptions.

7. Whoever that said that Tubman has a great lawsuit is ignorant of the law.

As I've said before, I enjoy the discussion, especially since it is helping me get my post count up.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I swear, this thread is going to allow me to get rid of cable. I need no more entertainment. A couple of responses:

1. Cat in the hat says that "oral testimony is not evidence." This is absolutely wrong. Any adjudicative body, be it a grand jury, a trial jury, or a student review board, hears testimony and has to weigh the credibility of that testimony. Just because two people tell opposite story does not mean it is a tie and there can be no decision. The jury or board can not believe one of the parties, for all kinds of reasons, and rule against them. Oral testimony is the most common type of evidence and people are convicted all the time with out physical evidence.

2. Lou consistently refers to "Ray" and the Lexington prosecutor's office as the real professionals here. I assume Lou is correct that "Ray" is tough on rape and a true professional. But, he was asked to do something that the UK board was not asked to do. The grand jury's failure to indict is not relevant to the question of whether Tubman violated any UK policies. Someone posted the code that clearly laid out the fact that a failure to prosecute, much less indict, does not factor in to the decision of the UK board. They may or may not have even been aware of that fact.

3. Lou also refers to the fact that a lot of people have been convicted because they look like criminals. This is true. It is wrong, but true. Did any of you go on the internet to complain about any of those people going to prison? If not, why are you here complaining about someone not playing football for your favorite team. Obviously because you want your team to do well.

4. UK's board is not an American Judicial Body. Nothing "judicial" about it.

5. None of us know. Even the well reasoned posts on here are full of speculation. Lou's recent post spoke of a professor on the board that "perhaps attended a conference" on rape. There is absolutely no evidence or reason to speculate that a professor on that board had attended such a conference. I know everyone is using hypotheticals to show their point. Fuzz keeps talking about maybe there are texts. My major point is no one knows. Those facts don't exist.

6. The grand jury and the UK board were deciding two different things. I'm not assuming that either of them were right or wrong. I've not said that either of them were right or wrong. I've only said that people that say that either was wrong does not know what they are talking about and are making too many assumptions.

7. Whoever that said that Tubman has a great lawsuit is ignorant of the law.

As I've said before, I enjoy the discussion, especially since it is helping me get my post count up.

I never, ever, said oral testimony is not evidence. Of course it's evidence. I said oral evidence does not represent factual evidence. Oral evidence is something that must be judged based on the psychical evidence that might support what is being testified to. I doubt very seriously that people get convicted of crimes based on nothing more than he said/she said testimony. A conviction requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no way to meet that standard of proof based solely on he said/she said testimony. If a jury is simply judging a case based on who they believe and who they don't, with no additional physical evidence to support that conclusion, they aren't doing their jobs.

 

[WildCard]

The SRB and the Grand Jury have little, if anything, to do with each other. The GJ's role is to determine criminal culpability. The justice system is very deliberately designed to protect the accused. In this case, it performed its function admirably. There was not sufficient evidence presented to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and Tubman could not be forced to testify against himself. Perfect. Just the way it is meant to work. I'll again remind everyone that a failure to indict is NOT equivalent to a statement of innocence.

The SRB, and UK in general, have no such role. In fact, the university is tasked with the much more complicated job of protecting the interest of the accused, the interest of the accuser, the interest of students not involved with the case, the interest of alumni, and yes, the interest of the university as a whole. Their determination need not be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Students at UK have no "constitutional right" to attend school there (whether it is a state school with state funding or not). There is a code of conduct which UK deliberately makes extremely vague so that they can make determinations like these as they see fit.

All of this "lack of due process" and "unconstitutional" and "kangaroo court" chatter is nonsense. The university has no legal obligation whatsoever to allow admittance or continued enrollment. To anyone. If the code of conduct has been determined to have been violated, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CRIMINAL WRONGDOING, they can remove someone from the school. I get that it might not be fair in the eyes of some, and I continue to contend that most people only care because they think Tubman could have helped us win football games, but it's not a miscarriage of justice, and it's not going to ruin the young man's life (the negative impact on him personally stems mostly from the event and subsequent accusation, not the way it has been handled by the university).

Again, I, like fuzz and bbblazing, have no ill wishes towards Tubman. I wish none of this had ever happened. I wanted to see him on the field for us. I will wish him well personally wherever he lands (and will pull for his team as long as it isn't Louisville). But he isn't being victimized by the university here. Sexual assault is an extremely complicated issue, and I don't expect it to be solved on this board, but those of you who think nothing has to change in the way all of us approach the topic are going to continue to be exasperated by cases like this every now and then.

Probably the best take on this complex subject in this long, long thread. I have highlighted 2 points for emphasis. I will add that even if a criminal offense (e.g., rape of any degree, sexual assault, etc.) cannot be proven, under Title IX, UK must still maintain a campus environment that is free of all forms of sexual discrimination and have an established procedure for investigating ANY complaint of sexual discrimination, harassment or violence. Failure to do so puts ALL university federal funding at risk.

Peace

 

[BBBLazing]

I never, ever, said oral testimony is not evidence. Of course it's evidence. I said oral evidence does not represent factual evidence. Oral evidence is something that must be judged based on the psychical evidence that might support what is being testified to. I doubt very seriously that people get convicted of crimes based on nothing more than he said/she said testimony. A conviction requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no way to meet that standard of proof based solely on he said/she said testimony. If a jury is simply judging a case based on who they believe and who they don't, with no additional physical evidence to support that conclusion, they aren't doing their jobs.

Then there have been a whole lot of juries in our country that haven't done their jobs.

 

[jauk11]

Probably the best take on this complex subject in this long, long thread. I have highlighted 2 points for emphasis. I will add that even if a criminal offense (e.g., rape of any degree, sexual assault, etc.) cannot be proven, under Title IX, UK must still maintain a campus environment that is free of all forms of sexual discrimination and have an established procedure for investigating ANY complaint of sexual discrimination, harassment or violence. Failure to do so puts ALL university federal funding at risk.

Peace

So, if and when he applies for admission to WKU or UL (assuming he still wants to play football, doubt if they would touch him otherwise) would you be in favor of admitting him? And remember all the other players kicked out of other schools with proven crimes that jurich and BP have welcomed with open arms to Transfer U.

Willie that jurich personally vouched for wasn't just a criminal, he is serving a life prison term as a HABITUAL criminal.

 

[BillyBones]

Well, since Vandalay Industries didn't really exist; George just used it to sound important, maybe the poster just sits around and post all day instead of actually working.

actually I have a 50 hour a week job..thanks

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Then there have been a whole lot of juries in our country that haven't done their jobs.

On basis are you concluding that? Do you think that he said/she said testimony with no physical evidence to support either side meets the standard of beyond reasonable doubt? I don't believe people are convicted on that basis. I will say again, if they are jurors aren't doing their jobs.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

There absolutely was physical evidence in the Tubman case. Whether it was presented, credible, or believed, I have no idea but it did exist, at least according to the police report.

 

[fuzz77]

On basis are you concluding that? Do you think that he said/she said testimony with no physical evidence to support either side meets the standard of beyond reasonable doubt? I don't believe people are convicted on that basis. I will say again, if they are jurors aren't doing their jobs.

Cat, regardless if you think or I think that he said/she said testimony reaches any particular threshold or not...convictions have been produced on less. Sometimes the system fails. Sometimes it fails to convict the guilty and sometimes it convicts the innocent. And let's not kid ourselves, the requirement to be a juror is pretty low. In Kentucky the requirement is to be at least 18 yrs old and have filed a Ky state income tax return. I see lots of people every day that I shudder to think that they would ever sit in judgment of my future. But to blame it on the jury overlooks the skills or lack thereof of both the defense and prosecution attorneys as well as the judges that preside over the cases.


We can go round and round here forever but the bottom line is that there are too many unknowns for anyone to make a logical, rational judgement on this matter. Any judgments being made by anyone not either connected to the case, on the Grand Jury or on the SRB are totally emotional in nature. That is fine. We all make emotional judgments. We see the calls that go against our team but rarely notice the ones that went our way. We criticize the failures of politicians from the “other party”, but white-wash the failures of the ones from your own party of preference. It’s ok. Just realize and admit it is emotion and not knowledge that drives you to your conclusion.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Cat, regardless if you think or I think that he said/she said testimony reaches any particular threshold or not...convictions have been produced on less. Sometimes the system fails. Sometimes it fails to convict the guilty and sometimes it convicts the innocent. And let's not kid ourselves, the requirement to be a juror is pretty low. In Kentucky the requirement is to be at least 18 yrs old and have filed a Ky state income tax return. I see lots of people every day that I shudder to think that they would ever sit in judgment of my future. But to blame it on the jury overlooks the skills or lack thereof of both the defense and prosecution attorneys as well as the judges that preside over the cases.


We can go round and round here forever but the bottom line is that there are too many unknowns for anyone to make a logical, rational judgement on this matter. Any judgments being made by anyone not either connected to the case, on the Grand Jury or on the SRB are totally emotional in nature. That is fine. We all make emotional judgments. We see the calls that go against our team but rarely notice the ones that went our way. We criticize the failures of politicians from the “other party”, but white-wash the failures of the ones from your own party of preference. It’s ok. Just realize and admit it is emotion and not knowledge that drives you to your conclusion.

I agree with much of what you said, but you are dead wrong about one thing. I haven't reached any conclusions. There is no way for me to know for sure if they acted appropriately or not. I hope they deliberated in a fair and just manner. I am simply saying that it is not unreasonable, based on the limited facts we have, to have concerns about the integrity of the process. I really don't understand why that is such a contentious point of view. I don't generally have a lot of trust in boards when they deal with anything where there might be a public backlash or a political backlash because my experience is that people will take the easy way out instead of standing up and doing what is correct. I'm not saying that is what happened here. I'm saying I have concerns that it may have happened here based on what little we know. That, to me, is a very reasonable concern.

 

[loucatfan]

I agree with much of what you said, but you are dead wrong about one thing. I haven't reached any conclusions. There is no way for me to know for sure if they acted appropriately or not. I hope they deliberated in a fair and just manner. I am simply saying that it is not unreasonable, based on the limited facts we have, to have concerns about the integrity of the process. I really don't understand why that is such a contentious point of view. I don't generally have a lot of trust in boards when they deal with anything where there might be a public backlash or a political backlash because my experience is that people will take the easy way out instead of standing up and doing what is correct. I'm not saying that is what happened here. I'm saying I have concerns that it may have happened here based on what little we know. That, to me, is a very reasonable concern.

Well said

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

There absolutely was physical evidence in the Tubman case. Whether it was presented, credible, or believed, I have no idea but it did exist, at least according to the police report.

Which, most likely was just that they had sex. There is no reason to suspect anything further. If there was he would have been indicted, so the physical evidence was most likely irrelevant.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

There must be reasons to suspect something further given their decision. You have no idea what the physical evidence consists of - you're just guessing like everyone else.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Blazing, how do you know that the UK factfinder was not deciding the same issue as the Grand Jury?

 

[Caveman Catfan]

There absolutely was physical evidence in the Tubman case. Whether it was presented, credible, or believed, I have no idea but it did exist, at least according to the police report.

What we know is that the GJ did not find the physical objective evidence as supporting the allegation of rape or sexual assault in the context of the total body of evidence.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

Which, again, isn't relevant to what UK determined.