Ah, you don't really think that institutions of any type can ignore the Constitution, do you? Looks like you are in dire need of female companionship if you are ranting against "Me Too" and claiming that the males have lost their Innocent until proven guilty presumption. You can't possibly think that, can you?
"Incident that happened on a recruiting trip" (Lathon)
- Thread starter FeralFelidae
- Start date
Think that they would have mentioned student-athlete if it was one, And this would most certainly had been made public if the conduct involved a student athlete at the time, imo. Guessing it was a regular NU student. And the complain is a separate one, indicating that it is unrelated to the recruit complaint.
Last edited:
They did lose precisely that under the Obama Administration. Fortunately, DeVos and the Trump Administration rescinded that guidance.
Lara and I are still together, thanks for asking. One day at a time.
Institutions have no obligation to follow the Constitution. No presumption of innocence, no free speech, etc. They are subject to laws and to certain mandates if they accept federal money. But go try to exert right to privacy over your work computer.
Hope you're relationship Lara works out and good luck. Guess I did actually mean that they have to our countries laws and not specifically the Constitution. BTW, does NU accept any federal funds?
There are several deeply embarrassing posts in this thread. Particularly if they are coming from alums.
I assume this is all in relation to the daily article?
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/...llege-gender-bias-and-failure-of-due-process/
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/...llege-gender-bias-and-failure-of-due-process/
Of course not, But that is not what the article is discussing. It is discussing a Title IX suit, of which there have been many lately, directed at a number of institutions. If either of these two individuals had even been arrested for sexual assault, then I doubt that these suits would have filed.
I would think so but I’m not sure how strings are attached. This wasn’t my area of practice. Might be like CBP and the grey zone as applied to a speculative student - no due process. But you can bet your ass that libel and slander laws apply.
Truth is a defense but shifts the burden to prove. The challenge to afford representation is always damages. If Lathon is showing he may have the game that is worth dough, diminished by the slander, I can see a lawyer rolling the dice.
And I’m all for it. Truth is a defense. Let NU prove their case or pony up. Someone once said something about letting many guilty free is better than locking up one innocent man. Kavanaugh has shown metoo has hurt one innocent man. Time to reap any toll for any man proven to be wrongly accused.
Read the whole board. Be thoroughly embarrassed. Then move along.
What libel or slander law was broken when the University neither said or wrote anything about the Lathon case other than the fact that his admission was revoked?
Who knows? Seems like he became persona non grata across D1. Somehow something got out and around.
My hunch is that NU has very good legal representation, and the plaintiffs probably went the Libel/Slander route before deciding it was a dry hole and went to Title IX as a second (long shot) approach. But I agree with you, who knows? And anyway, who's on First.
Where did I throw those around exactly? Pretty liberal interpretations, but like NU, I suppose I'm free to voice my thoughts and opinions. If you or NU feels that I have libeled them - sue me. Truth is a defense - so discovery could be fun
Hey gcg - not to mince words, but I think I noted that, while they may not be subject to Constitutional constraints, they are subject to libel and slander. I don't think I said they were guilty, or innocent. But as an anti-Trumper, I'm sure you can appreciate presuming guilt when it seems to go that way. I mean, that is often your argument on the Rant board. I wouldn't want you to add hypocrite to your list of deficiencies. Your welcome.
Where did I throw those around exactly? Pretty liberal interpretations, but like NU, I suppose I'm free to voice my thoughts and opinions. If you or NU feels that I have libeled them - sue me. Truth is a defense - so discovery could be fun
You’re the only one to bring it up on the entire thread.
But you’re totally right. Him ending up at UTEP totally was because Collins and NU were calling around on a character assassination campaign, not because he was released from his scholarship long after signing day when opportunities were few and far between.
Aren’t you also presuming guilt on NU/Collins’ part by even bringing up slander and libel?
My guess is that it was more like other schools wondering what the story was and calling Collins/NU to see what the story was, and them being told what NU knew...I doubt CCC had the time to be calling around the country on a smear campaign when at that point, he really needed to figure out what he was going to do for a lead guard for the upcoming season. None of us know exactly how things went, though.
Of course they did. And based on my experience with them, I guarantee the compliance department was 100% above board with what was discussed.
Sssshhhhhhh, that would possibly give rise to libel/slander and really piss off gcg.
“I’m sorry, the investigation is pending and I cannot comment further” is probably enough so scare off the majority of other programs.
Sure - this is basketball, so you should probably say hoops, but whatever. That is a give up response.
Said tongue in cheek - but probably true.
Any way, it doesn't matter - this matter moves to the Court system. Maybe someday we will learn more.
What ever happen to the Vassar case? Get dismissed? Settle?
His federal lawsuit was about to be dismissed in federal court last August due a similar ruling in another case, so he dropped the lawsuit and re-filed in state court. Since that suit is fairly new, guessing it it is still in progress since there have been no new articles on it.
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2018/...re-filed-against-northwestern-in-state-court/
No, I’m friends w your mama.
It’s been a mama joke night around here so I couldn’t resist. Happily await the spanking from FA for being mean to this jerko.
Oh btw, we are on the same side on the rant board. Really has to bother you that we have things in common
TTYL brother.
Oh btw, we are on the same side on the rant board. Really has to bother you that we have things in common
No, I mean it. Just ask him...
Wow, this thread blew up.
If it is indeed the case that Lathon didn't get his due process, does that bother anyone here?
If it is indeed the case that Lathon didn't get his due process, does that bother anyone here?
I thought about that as well but wouldn't you assume that all recruits sign some sort of code of conduct form prior to an overnight? And wouldn't you think that underage drinking (I'm assuming he was drinking since it sounds like she was) and sex with a student would be violations? Even if this was consensual, I suspect NU had the right to revoke his scholarship on other grounds. We're not Louisville after all. I guess his beef that we smeared him might have merit. I'd be surprised though since virtually no information made its way to this forum. If CCC was talking sh_t to other schools, surely it would make its way here.
Also, where the hell was his host during this whole encounter? Dude, you done f_cked up. Here is some pure conjecture to rile folks up, maybe one of our many grad transfers left because he made it into CCC's doghouse after this event.
If I'm reading the same article from the Daily, the intoxication pertains to the second complaint, which I interpreted as the "not Lathon" complaint, since the first complaint mentioned in the article pertained to the athletic recruit and the second did not:
"The second complaint claims NU “engaged in a flawed Title IX process” and failed to conduct a fair investigation. It accuses investigators of a 'gender-biased investigation' that ultimately found the student responsible for sexual assault.
In a reference to alcohol consumption during the alleged incident, the complaint says Northwestern 'lessened the standard for being unable to consent from requiring incapacitation to intoxication.' University policy currently states that 'incapacitation is a state beyond drunkenness or intoxication' when alcohol is involved."
Here's what the article said about the first complaint (I see nothing about alcohol, so it may or may not be involved):
"The athletic recruit accused the University of discrimination on the basis of race, sex and age, as well as retaliation. He was accused of sexual violence against a student and apparently received disciplinary action from Northwestern. He is asking NU to 'reverse & expunge the Title IX findings and/or allow' him 'to have due process for the Title IX proceedings.'
'Either process would allow [redacted] to reinstate his name, character and reputation so he can be admitted into a Division 1, high major university,' the complaint reads. 'This reverse process should also amend [redacted] ability to be admitted into a prestigious university with reputable academic, afford more career prospects and increase his earning potential.'
The complaint also asks for Northwestern to publicly post the findings of its investigation on social media, submit documents to 'each college that declined his admission' and provider clearer information and Title IX resources to its coaches, recruits and parents."
So, it's clear that this student believes he was not given due process during NU's investigation, and on the basis of this investigation, his name is now attached to some sort of record (a black list?) that has prevented him from being accepted at a number of schools.
Yeah, if NU conducted its own investigation under Obama-era Title IX rules that don't give sufficient due process protections to the accused, and then on the basis of this investigation put his name on some sort of black list that has prevented him from being admitted to other schools, that troubles me greatly. If the man is guilty of sexual assault, wouldn't that be a crime and something that should be prosecuted in a real court? But if there's insufficient evidence to prosecute in a court, then why is it fair to put his name on a black list based on an internal investigation that doesn't meet the same standards of proof and rights of the accused, and spread this black list around to punish the student and deny him admission at other prestigious schools?
Does this not bother anybody else here? And you people who have made sure that we all know that you're in the know, how much do you know about the conduct of the investigation that you're so confident to make such ugly posts here in this forum about this student?
The article is somehat of a mess, so it is tough to tell which claim is which; also, I would not rely on the reporter having gotten it correct, either. The only way to know for certain is to read the actual complaint, which is not public.
