Press "Enter" to skip to content

UO should fire Dana Altman for cause – or get rid of Gottfredson

BBall Coach Dana Altman recruited a player with a sexual assault history, then he let two others play in games despite the fact they were under investigation by the police for even more serious allegations. His November 2013 contract has a morals clause:

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 10.33.35 AM

His excuse could be that these actions were approved by his bosses: AD Rob Mullens and President Mike Gottfredson. If so, fire them. Gottfredson’s contract, here, doesn’t say anything about ethical responsibilities, but it does allow the board to get rid of him with 30 days notice.

Provost Scott Coltrane would make a fine Interim President. And from what I hear, he would have much more support from the faculty and Deans as permanent UO President than Gottfredson has ever had.


  1. concerned parent 05/07/2014

    The problem here is this course of action is justified… witch hunt, no secret investigation to generate lies and justification, just the plain old truth. Ouch.

  2. alum 05/07/2014

    Gottredson is going nowhere.

    • Gott Gutts? 05/07/2014

      Yep, going nowhere fast. And, he’s taking the UO with him.

  3. Jack 05/07/2014

    In what world should he have benched these players? The police specifically instructed the University to not take any actions regarding the players so as to not compromise the integrity of the investigation. So every time there is an allegation against a student athlete, the immediate recourse is to punish them? Makes no sense

    • Youngin' 05/07/2014

      What the police instructed is irrelevant

      The Dear Colleagues Letter is clear about this:
      “Regardless of whether a harassed student, his or her parent, or a third party files a complaint under the school’s grievance procedures or otherwise requests action on the student’s behalf, a school that knows, or reasonably should know, about possible harassment must promptly investigate to determine what occurred and then take appropriate steps to resolve the situation. As discussed later in this letter, the school’s Title IX investigation is different from any law enforcement investigation, and a law enforcement investigation does not relieve the school of its independent Title IX obligation to investigate the conduct. The specific steps in a school’s”

      “Police investigations may be useful for fact-gathering; but because the standards for criminal investigations are different, police investigations or reports are not determinative of whether sexual harassment or violence violates Title IX. Conduct may constitute unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX even if the police do not have sufficient evidence of a criminal violation. In addition, a criminal investigation into allegations of sexual violence does not relieve the school of its duty under Title IX to resolve complaints promptly and equitably”

      Also, investigations and response have to be immediate:
      “If a school knows or reasonably should know about student-on-student harassment that creates a hostile environment, Title IX requires the school to take immediate action to eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects.”

      Waiting because the cops told you to is explicitly banned by title IX
      “Schools should not wait for the conclusion of a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding to begin their own Title IX investigation and, if needed, must take immediate steps to protect the student in the educational setting. For example, a school should not delay conducting its own investigation or taking steps to protect the complainant because it wants to see whether the alleged perpetrator will be found guilty of a crime.”

      • SomeGuy 05/07/2014

        “Waiting because the cops told you to is explicitly banned by title IX.”

        Actually, what you posted doesn’t say that at all; it merely says that the presence of a police investigation does not relieve a school of its independent duty to promptly investigate. It is silent, however, on the situation here, where there was not only a police investigation, but pursuant to that investigation, the police explicitly told the UO not to investigate.

        • Youngin' 05/08/2014

          “Actually, what you posted doesn’t say that at all”

          Um yes it does

          “it merely says that the presence of a police investigation does not relieve a school of its independent duty to promptly investigate”

          not reliving a school of its requirements to investigate means the school *must* investigate because of the requirement for immediacy. Not investigating because the EPD asked them to is not permissible under federal law. End of story.

          Your attempt to argue that this situation is somehow different because of a police request is laughable. Local police investigations do not supersedes legal requirements under title IX, “Schools should not wait for the conclusion of a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding to begin their own Title IX investigation” does not leave a lot of interpretive wiggle room.

          The guidance *does* allow a school to delays its own fact finding for the police, but it is not permitted to delay the rest of the procedure. Schools are not allowed to have agreements with police departments which prevent them from meeting title IX requirements, and the delay in fact finding can’t prevent a school from taking interim steps to protect the campus community.

          “Any agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a local police department must allow the school to meet its Title IX obligation to resolve complaints promptly and equitably. Although a school may need to delay temporarily the fact-finding portion of a Title IX investigation while the police are gathering evidence, once notified that the police department has completed its gathering of evidence (not the ultimate outcome of the investigation or the filing of any charges), the school must promptly resume and complete its fact-finding for the Title IX investigation.25 Moreover, nothing in an MOU or the criminal investigation itself should prevent a school from notifying complainants of their Title IX rights and the school’s grievance procedures, or from taking interim steps to ensure the safety and well-being of the complainant and the school community while the law enforcement agency’s fact-gathering is in progress. OCR also recommends that a school’s MOU include clear policies on when a school will refer a matter to local law enforcement.”

          Acording to the EPD, the UO was notified of the end of the “investigation” was April 8th. That was literally a month ago.

          • SomeGuy 05/08/2014

            OK, so you clearly mis-characterized the Title IX DCL in your first post. Got it.

    • snowball 05/08/2014

      Throw a snowball and get suspended from the team and miss a bowl game.

      Participate in alleged gang rape and 6 weeks later players watch as the adults scamper to offer circular justifications and coaches don’t say anything. This culture is depraved.

      Altman should do the right thing and offer his resignation.

  4. Sharon 05/07/2014

    It makes no sense to say that benching the players would compromise the investigation. Also, why did EPD wait until April 3 to interview the players when they interviewed the victim on March 14? Normally, you try to interview people asap. It compromises the investigation to wait almost a month. But since the Ducks weren’t eliminated from NCAA tournament until March 22, So it’s no mystery why Officer Hall put it off for a week. Why he waited two more weeks after that is a mystery.

  5. Anonymous 05/07/2014

    So UO sat on this for a month, after the EPD investigation had ended?

    Perhaps they were worried that if it went public more women would come forward, creating further embarrassment for the Ducks.

    And even worse, the potential for uncovering new sexual assaults that might encourage the DA to take it to a grand jury.

    • No Facts 05/07/2014

      Has anyone on here even read the report? There is a very mighty reason why the DA chose not to pursue any charges. This whole story is full of holes. While no one actually knows what happened that night except for those involved, the facts do not paint a clear picture at all. The victim’s statements do no match up with those presented by 3rd parties. The timeline is inconsistent. Her actions are not what one would expect from someone in her position (sleeping with her attacker and then having sex in the morning). She didnt want them to get in trouble, “only to get a slap on the wrist”. She was angry with ther father for reporting it due to “timing”.

  6. writecide of daforce 05/07/2014

    Story full of holes? university admin specialize in filling in those holes to make the story they want to see; athletics is a great place to be if you need protection from the truth…..

  7. anonymous 05/08/2014

    Has anyone considered this girl may have been roofied?

  8. Sharon 05/08/2014

    Has anyone considered this girl may have been roofied?

    page 5: During the ride she was given a “small sip of nasty alcohol and they made me take two drinks.:
    page 14 : While in the cab, someone gave her a brown colored liquid to drink. She said it came from a bottle shaped like an apple and tasted terrible.
    Page 23: On April 3, Dotson told Officer Hall he didn’t remember giving her a drink in the cab
    Officer Hall does not interview Richard Amarti who was also in the cab or the cab driver Joshua Davey. He doesn’t ask Artis about the forced drink in the car and doesn’t interview Austin.
    I think the fact that she was willing to drink a “terrible” tasting beverage is evidence of impaired judgment. I think it’s likely she was roofied in the cab and possibly earlier at the party that was so rowdy it had to be shut down by EPD.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *