Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Shrmdougluvr, post: 3847486, member: 396"] You must have missed the dozen or so posts outlining the Title IX process (assuming this is a Title IX issue). :rolleyes:;) Here's the overview, under the existing structure, which began effective this past August (and as [USER=277]Willy75[/USER] alluded is currently under review by the Department of Education): [LIST] [*]Title IX does not apply if the incident occurred off campus and was not related to school (e.g., incident at one of those dumpy homes off Euclid during a party on a Friday night). [*]A formal complaint must be filed to trigger the investigatory process. This can only be made by an alleged victim. No longer can someone formally complain on behalf of someone else. Except a Title IX Coordinator can bring a formal Title IX complaint on an alleged victim's behalf, but only after they have received an informal complaint (which every university employee has the obligation to bring forward). For that to initially happen, generally the complained of conduct must be severe. It can also occur if a complainant withdraws the formal complaint out of fear. [*]There is an informal complaint mechanism, that involves putting in place "supportive measures" for both the complainant and the accused. This also are applied to formal complaints as well. [LIST] [*]Supportive measures cannot be punitive [/LIST] [*]A "grievance process" is used for formal complaints. [LIST] [*]This is what most would consider to be the investigation. [*]The matter gets referred to a trained investigator who "investigates." [*]Both parties have the opportunity to review the investigators notes and ask questions of the witnesses. This could occur in person via a "hearing" but is more likely to occur in writing, with the investigator going back and forth as a conduit. [*]The investigator completes a report of his her findings. [/LIST] [*]A decision maker receives the investigatory report with background materials and makes a determination (i.e., whether either substantial evidence/a preponderance of the evidence shows the complained of acts occur and rise to the level of sexual harassment). [LIST] [*]This must occur within a "reasonable" time frame, which is not prescribed (unless the policy sets forth a clear timeline). [/LIST] [*]Both parties have the right to appeal to yet another individual, but the grounds are limited. [LIST] [*]New evidence has emerged. [*]Decision maker had a conflict of interest. [*]Procedural irregularity. [/LIST] [*]The accused is considered innocent until a decision maker makes a finding to the contrary. [LIST] [*]Removing the student pre-decision is not an option unless the student poses a danger. [/LIST] [/LIST] In short, Chase will be back at the University, attending classes, with his financial aid package, unless a finding is made that he committed an act that violated Title IX (assuming that's what's going on here). I do not see how he has a legal right to be with the team, but given his protected class status (i.e., he is Native American), I can imagine the University is being extra careful with respect to prematurely taking any adverse actions. If there is no finding that Chase violated Title IX, then its going to be very interesting to see how his status with the team evolves. Edit: Sorry about the snark in the first paragraph. I was annoyed that seemingly informed posters have been referencing this process throughout, and a Jovan Miller instagram post has more significance. That's on me. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?