Steve Duin quotes Professor Jennifer Freyd’s questions for President Gottfredson, in the Oregonian:
Late last week, Kelly McIver, communications director for the University of Oregon Police Department, told Freyd in an email that the March 8 incident “is not in the log because it did not generate a UOPD case number, which was because (a) it occurred outside of our Clery boundaries and out of our patrol jurisdiction, and (b) because the agency of jurisdiction did not request that we take a courtesy report.”
The first allegations of sexual assault stem from a home in the 1200 block of East 22nd Avenue in Eugene, four blocks from the UO campus.
On Saturday, Freyd argued in a letter to McIver and UOPD Chief Carolyn McDermed that a police-log entry was “in line with the spirit of (the) Clery Act” and essential to student safety.
The 1990 federal Campus Security Act — named for Jeanne Clery, a 19-year freshman who was raped and murdered in her Lehigh University dorm room in 1986 — mandates that universities report crimes that occur on or around campus.
What about this case,” Freyd writes, “would not obviously be a matter of student safety: a report of sexual assault (involving one student who had a prior report) very near campus at a party with multiple UO students that was reported directly to the UOPD?
“Not only was there no alert email, there wasn’t even a crime log? Note that the university has acknowledged this report required an internal investigation: on what basis would that be required but a police log not required? Why would the safety of students be dismissed in favor of some legal loophole?
“In whose interest are you operating?”
Keep in mind that there is still nothing suggesting UO ever intended to tell the campus about the alleged gang rape, which came to light nearly 2 months later, only because sports reporter Andrew Greif starting asking why the players weren’t at practice.
And Thomas Boyd posts the 3/19 video of Altman explaining why he was comfortable bringing Brandon Austin to UO, here. This was the day after Altman learned that the Providence College sexual assault allegations had led to a Providence police investigation (still continuing). It was 10 days after the alleged rape at UO was reported to Gottfredson. According to UO’s claimed timeline, at the time of this interview Altman did not “officially” know of these new allegations.
Meanwhile, up in Corvallis an OSU star athlete got drunk over the weekend, and broke a window. He was immediately arrested and jailed.
“Keep in mind that there is still nothing suggesting UO ever intended to tell the campus about the alleged gang rape, which came to light nearly 2 months later, only because sports reporter Andrew Greif starting asking why the players weren’t at practice.”
Explain why it was obligated to do so? I think we can all agree that 1) there is a colorable argument that the UO may have been required to report that *a* rape was reported on the crime blotter per Clery, and 2) the UO had an obligation pursuant to Title IX to begin an investigation as soon as the police finished theirs on or around April 9. But why was UO obligated to reveal any additional information to the public? Are the names of the accused or other details publicly revealed every time there is a rape accusation?
Editor: Deleted for N/C>e.
Here’s how to file a Clery Act complaint:
http://clerycenter.org/how-file-campus-sexual-assault-victims%E2%80%99-bill-rights-clery-act-complaint
Email the complaint to: [email protected]
and/or Call: 1-800-433-3243
and/or for complaint assistance contact:
(484) 580-8754 or by email at [email protected]
Clearly – horrible situation. And everyone’s names should be put in the public record so they can be publicly flogged by the “journalistic” noodle. But it seems like trial by journalism has trumped trial by jury by peers (much less presupposes that legal charges will even be filed).
A noble ideal, indeed, and one which our criminal justice system is supposed to strive for. The problem is that the issues being discussed in outrage here are not about the criminal proceeding, or lack thereof, in this situation.
Campus discipline under the student conduct codes is different than criminal justice. You may not agree with that as a concept, that that does not change the fact that the university has a social contract that it requires students to adhere to that is different than the criminal code. Should that be reformed in favor of “innocent until…” and “beyond reasonable doubt…”? Perhaps – and that is an excellent discussion: How is the student code different and why did it get that way.
Regardless of whatever philosophical rabbit hole that conversation may take you, it still does not change the fact that the social contract does, in fact, exist between the institution and its students, and, most important in this particular case, those who are entrusted a the highest levels of maintaining the administrations end of the contract (to promote safety and security, which, I have heard, is the top priority) failed to uphold their end of the bargain.
An incident occurred, and a crime was alleged. Knowledge of the incident, and the identities of alleged perpetrators of the incident, were known – Gott, himself, admitted he knew prior to the team leaving for the tourney. The fact is, as has been admitted by Gott et. al. on the record last week, that the University failed to follow it’s own procedures; failed to follow federal guidelines for reporting and independently investigation such incidents; and failed (repeatedly) to be forthcoming about the process and players used to make sure that this incident did not leave any part of the University community at risk.
All, I’m sure, in the interest of the top priorities: Safety and security.
Oh, I don’t know, a uni fails to follow SOP for two months, possibly breaks fed law, allowing three bballers to continue playing until such time they’re no longer needed, maintaining an explanation that is so far fetched not even the local beat writer can support, local LEO’s agree that something very wrong took place, but can’t prosecute, one of the three players is being investigation for a similar crime at his former uni, the way the story breaks is because journalists, doing their job, realize that those three players aren’t around. I gotta tell yass, if you’re blaming the media for this situation, then I gotta tell yass, you were born way too late, Richard Nixon/CREEP could have used someone like you….