Update: I’m here w/ about 10 TV cameras, 50 or so reporter types, and another 50 faculty and students. I’ll try and live blog a little, but I’m not I’ve got the stomach for it.
PR flack Toby Klinger introduces the rules. Brief remarks from Gott, followed by Q&A. ONLY 20 MINUTES TOTAL! Crowd giggles.
Gottfredson blames 2 months of privacy on police cooperation, FERPA. He’s still playing with dates – EPD claims they told UO investigation was over 4/8. Gott claims 4/24. Still won’t say when he would have warned campus, if the sports reporters hadn’t broke the story.
“We will appoint an independent panel …” Yup.
11:12, time for questions:
Woolington: Why the gap? Holmes: We started our investigation on the 8th, we couldn’t get it until the 24th?
Q: When were the players suspended? April 30.
Q: Where you and Altman aware at the tournament? A: Didn’t even know which players.
Wollington: Who is paying for the players lawyers? RH: No idea, don’t even know their lawyers.
Q: Why were they kicked off the team? RM: Conduct that we didn’t want out in public.
Q: Why are you hiding behind FERPA? MG: To protect ourselves. Whoops, I mean the students.
Q: Why did you wait so long with no notification? RH: These sorts of things happen all the time, we don’t notify.
Q: What’s the status of the federally required investigation.
Wollington: Why hasn’t the IAC met since since Feb? Gottfredson: I don’t know, ask the Chair. [Bullshit].
Q: Are you going to expel these students? RH: Can’t say.
Q: Is Dana Altman going to be coach next year? RM: Yes.
Q: Gottfredson, did you know the names? A: Yes.
Gottfredson: The safety and security of our students is our top priority [after sports cash, that is].
5/9/2014: 11AM at the Ford Alumni Center KEZI will cover it live.
Rumor is that Altman will be the designated scapegoat. Mistakes were made. Gottfredson will appoint a hand picked team of “experts” to investigate UO’s response and report back during the summer when the students aren’t here.
Or Gottfredson will surprise us, accept responsibility, and resign.
Another rumor is that Mark Yuran quit UO because he wouldn’t go along with the JH cover-up.
Another rumor is that Gottfredson shut down the Senate Intercollegiate Athletics Committee the day after he realized the rape allegations were going to go public after all.
I think Bill secretly is hoping for the return of Berdahl.
I rather suspect Bill is hoping for competent and principled leadership. Like most on campus, really.
You get what you deserve
Conspiracy or incompetence?
Yes.
Oh… and that podium looks like shit. Gottfredson should have spoken in front of the glowing wall of screens over in the football palace. This is, after all, a recruitment exercise, isn’t it?
Humble request: if you liveblog, can you do so honestly and accurately, instead of representing everything in a snarky, cynical, and often inaccurate light?
But then who would want to read this?
People interested in facts.
Typical Gott approach – announce right up front that they only have 20 minutes (“other important matters to attend to”). He’ll talk for 17 and leave 3 for questions….my prediction.
Hasn’t said anything yet.
Within 24 hours of seeing the police report, they took action? Why did it take UO so long to look at the report?
Handled it very well. I thought it was clear and effective.
She has absolutely no idea who their lawyers are? Really?
Did the AD really say he was not aware of Austin’s history but confident in the vetting process?
He just admitted he was aware of the student identities prior to the NCAA tournament.
The President admitted that and said he did not tell the AD. And if you believe that…
Why do I not see this incident in the Crime Alert pages?
Gott’s last words: “The safety and security of our students is our top priority.”
Starting today?
OK, I was wrong…13 minutes for questions. Really? That’s it? That’s all the time they have for this?
That is plenty of time for questions. Maybe they should have asked better questions.
Watching this, I was inclined to agree with a recently politicians’ characterization of “lamestream media…”
Mullens says that he did not know the identity of all three players before the tournament.
Gottfredson says he knew the identities before the tournament.
Please, someone keep up with their inconsistencies and call them out.
Same old from Gottfredson. Dude, saying it does not make it true!!!!
Yeah, not a very tough press – let them off the hook on several statements. Like, why did they wait until they received the report when they knew the investigation was closed on April 8. And, why did it take 6 days from receipt of the report (April 24) for Mullens to get it and act (April 30).
Also, Gott lied about the IAC, or not so cleverly dodged.
Wow. Just wow.
Here’s what went wrong: The whole reporting and investigation of the original incident. The CYA timeline explanations. Blaming the EPD for telling the school what to do. Not owning any flawed process that allowed this to happen in the first place. Mouthing platitudes about safety, privacy, and respect for laws and processes.
After watching this performance, Gott & Co. would have done better to stay sheltered in their offices and not open their mouths. Instead of getting ahead of this so it can be put behind them, they have raised more questions than answers.
How can a university president on the one hand state that he knew the names of the accused prior to the tourney, and admit that the stood by and essentially did nothing, and finish with “The safety and security of our students is our top priority?”
Housecleaning is in serious order.
Wow.
We can stop expecting Gott to lead – it ain’t gonna happen. He doesn’t have it in him. He has done nothing but mouth platitudes since he got here.
And on Brandon Austin – didn’t do their due diligence. Maybe the NCAA ought to do something like, I don’t know, something crazy – make a rule that a player suspended from one program can’t transfer to another until it’s all cleared up. Second chances are one thing, but to allow that without settling the first issue creates incentives to get rid of problems rather than dealing with them.
I as a nominal fan of cbb knew about the noise surrounding Austin at Providence. Mullens didn’t. Ok.
the identity of the players he would have been obliged to suspend them. Better not to know. So I can believe that he never asked, and no one told.
Believe it or don’t, but Mullens works for Gott. Gott knew the identities of the alleged assailants prior to the NCAA tournament – he admitted that to an open microphone streaming live to the world less than an hour ago.
So Gott knew – and, if you believe the platitudes he was mouthing this morning, you can only conclude that he therefore made the decision to not act upon that knowledge. Mullens’ (ostensible) boss knew, and should have known what to do with that information. So if Mullens didn’t, in fact, know, then…
Gott didn’t do anything, because, as you know, the “safety and security of our students is our top priority.”
Gott said that EPD instructed to not not play the players (sorry for the double negative); from his statement: “The Eugene Police Department requested we not do anything that might hinder their criminal investigation—including suspending players or not playing them in a game”
It isn’t clear from his response today whether playing the players is Gott’s interpretation of “not do anything that might hinder their criminal investigation” or whether the prohibition from pulling the players was explicitly said by EPD. I’d like clarity on that point.
Right – Gott mouths the words about doing the right thing, but the guidelines are clear: the EPD does not dictate student conduct disciplinary actions.
There are many places where once a player’s name shows up on a police report, the campus errs on the side of safety and security and suspends that player’s activities as a representative of the money-making machine until the resolution of whichever investigation is relevant. On those campuses, the notion of “innocent until proven guilty” is superseded by the immediate safety and security priorities of the campus writ large.
Then there are places like UO…
Can you please elaborate on the logic of suspending players upon a mere accusation? What purpose would that serve? And would that purpose outweigh the potential downsides of immediately drawing public attention and scrutiny to the players when little information was available? And is your position that we should suspend every athlete upon a mere accusation of a crime going forward, or only on a case-by-case basis?
I don’t have a clear opinion on the above, but I get the sense that a lot of people aren’t rigorously thinking through these and other issues before leveling various accusations at those involved.
Up the road in Corvallis, a few players for the basketball program have been suspended from team activities for actions that resulted in no criminal charges. Word got out, to a coach, that something happened; discipline happened. Simple logic: the coach and the institution are holding their players to a high standard of conduct; indeed, all students on campus are held to higher standards than the bar for criminal prosecutions. Campus rules are a different set than the criminal code, in part because campus administrators wish to maintain their students in a greater degree of safety and security (some would call that a “top priority”) than the criminal code, and the criminal prosecution process, will afford.
Can you answer the specific questions I asked above please?
SomeGuy asks, Can you answer the specific questions I asked above please?
I did. And will again…specifically:
Can you please elaborate on the logic of suspending players upon a mere accusation? See previous response.
What purpose would that serve? Campuses, like the University of Oregon, are responsible for the safety and security of their campus community. Some administrators identify this responsibility as their campus “top priority.” As we have seen in many cases over the years, the criminal justice system, by placing the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in front of convictions, is not the best way to keep people who commit crimes against other persons and/or property from doing more harm after their first acts. Additionally, the time that it takes criminal prosecutions to go forward renders immediate relief almost impossible to victims and survivors of any alleged perpetrators of violent activity. Given that college campuses are administratively free from the same burdens of proof and time that prosecutors are, they choose means and methods that result in more immediate relief and/or discipline as the result of alleged criminal activities.
And would that purpose outweigh the potential downsides of immediately drawing public attention and scrutiny to the players when little information was available? That question has been asked and answered in legislatures throughout the land, including Oregon, and through rules and guidelines that come from federal statute. The fact that the UO can act swiftly and be in compliance with the law – it it should ever choose to do so – says that the purpose of making safety and security the top priority does, ipso facto, outweigh public scrutiny and attention.
And is your position that we should suspend every athlete upon a mere accusation of a crime going forward, or only on a case-by-case basis? If the campus authority believes there is credible evidence that an athlete – or any student – may have commited a crime, then yes. And many campuses do suspend students pending a longer criminal investigation, opting to err on the side of safety and security. Upon acquittal, reinstatement is most often the norm.
Fishwrapper at 1:17–
Thanks; I appreciate you answering my questions.
I think the problem that your answers raise is that they assume the university had the ability to do some sort of fact investigation:
“If the campus authority believes there is credible evidence that an athlete – or any student – may have commited a crime, then yes. And many campuses do suspend students pending a longer criminal investigation, opting to err on the side of safety and security. Upon acquittal, reinstatement is most often the norm.”
However, here, the UO had no such opportunity to determine whether there was “credible evidence” that there was a crime because the Eugene Police spefically requested that the UO not conduct an independent fact investigation, and the UO was entitled, under federal law, to obey. All the UO had, then, was an accusation by an alleged victim’s father. Nothing else. The question is, is THAT enough information on which to suspend a player? And is that going to be the administration’s position going forward?
Like I said, I don’t necessarily disagree with a lot of your sentiment, but I think we need to acknowledge that the suspend/don’t suspend decision was not as clear-cut as many people are making it out to be.
A student’s father reported to the UOPD that his daughter had been the victim of unwanted sex acts. First alert.
The president admitted he knew the names of the students alleged to have committed these acts, and let them continue in their role as ambassadors of the UO on the NCAA national stage.
Once the report by the father became known, the opportunity for credible evidence began and the responsibility of the university to investigate began.
Repeatedly, the UO line is that EPD said that the UO should sit on their hands. Repeatedly, this has been denied by EPD. Additionally, the UO has a responsibility to perform their own investigation, to their own standards of evidence, and provide disciplinary action, including interim actions pending investigation.
They did not. Even if the EPD did ask UO to sit on it pending their investigation (which has been denied), the UO continued to do so (sit on it) for weeks after they were informed that the EPD’s report was available.
No, merely suspending a player or a general population student on a dad’s complaint is not appropriate. However, it was clear to all involved that the dad’s complaint quickly escalated to much more than a worried phone call. The UO knew that a criminal complaint was filed – it was a UOPD officer who initiated the complaint, right? The holes in Gott’s performance today indicate not merely an ex post facto coverup of inappropriate follow-up, but also hat those who are handling the public face of the university’s involvement are incompetent at their jobs.
“Once the report by the father became known, the opportunity for credible evidence began and the responsibility of the university to investigate began.”
That’s not correct. Read the April 4, 2011 Title IX Dear Colleague Letter addressing this exact point. Schools are allowed to wait for police departments to conclude their investigations before beginning their own. Given that the EPD asked the UO not to investigate (and I realize they didn’t ask the UO not to suspend the players–that’s a separate question), it was reasonable for the UO not to do so.
You say that an accusation is not enough to suspend a player. That’s all the UO had, and it’s all the UO COULD HAVE unless they decided to sidestep the EPD’s clear request.
Excellent points, Fishwrapper at 2:01pm
So Mullens knew and Gottfredson knew … who else? Altman knew but Gott has said he won’t lose his job. Someone has to be fired, either for genuine reasons or as a symbolic gesture.
This situation is still unfolding and the chain (loop-de-loop?) of communication between UO Athletic Dept., JH, UOPD and EPD from the time the dad called becomes increasingly important. It seems like there’s still an elephant in the room somewhere.
What if the “mere accusation” was not of rape but of assault. Say the person is accused of assaulting someone and taking his wallet. And it also turns out the accused had done this before, at a different institution, and got suspended for that. Should we then suspend the suspect base on this “mere accusation”? Try to answer honestly. Let’s assume someone you know is the alleged victim.
History indicates non-athlete students can and will be harassed (or suspended from UO access or activities) for far less….. if it suits the whims of this reckless admin.
What if @ 1:43–
Your hypo needs some more details. Who’s making the accusation–the victim, or the victim and 40 witnesses? Have I (as coach or athletic director) talked to the accused and heard his/her side of the story (assuming this is before I’ve been asked not to do an independent investigation by the police)? Has the accused been arrested?
I don’t think your hypo helps elucidate the question because it’s too fact dependent. Going back to the present situation: my point all along is that the suspend/don’t suspend decision was a judgment call; it was not clear-cut.
It was not an explicit charge from EPD to not suspend the players – read their statements on this in the many news stories. Even so, players are suspended across the country all the time for “undisclosed violations of team rules” pending an investigation. It doesn’t seem too hard to imagine they could have done that here without jeopardizing a police investigation.
TO follow up, at least one reporter claims that EPD told him that they made no request regarding playing time:
https://twitter.com/johncanzanobft/status/464226476985159680
So, either
(1) this reporter has correct info from EPD and,
Gott is misrepresenting the decision to play the players:
It was his *interpretation* of “not interfering”, not a direction of EPD.
or
(2) this reporter has bad information.
I wish someone would crosscheck Gott’s account of EPD’s instructions with EPD itself.
That would clear things up.
From the RG report on 5/7 (by Diane Dietz)
Eugene police spokeswoman Melinda McLaughlin……said police were not concerned about who participated in the NCAA basketball tournament as it conducted its investigation.
Question: President Gottfredson, Josephine Woolington reported in today’s Register Guard that there is a Federal law know as the Federal Camus Security Act that mandates that universities inform students of rapes near campus. As a criminologist, you probably have heard of the crime “Official Misconduct in the Second Degree” as defined in Oregon Revised Statutes 162.405. This crimes applies to a public employee who fails to conform to a statute pertaining to office. When Officer Loos and his chain of command failed to notify UO students about the rape, they ostensibly engaged in second degree OM, a Class A misdemeanor. There is also probable cause to charge Police Chief Carolyn McDermed (a former EPD lieutenant), Robin Holmes, you and anyone else aware of the sexual assault with this crime. Given the public concerns about the role of the Lane County District Attorney in the comedy of errors in this investigation, the investigation of criminal behavior by you, Loos, McDermed, etc. should be conducted by Attorney General Rosenblum. As a professional courtesy, I will cc: you on my letter to her. Have a great weekend and Go Ducks.
^^^ What she said. ^^^
I am not debating at this time whether or not Gott *should* have pulled the players. What I am trying to square are
(1) Gott’s statement today that EPD told him to not pull the players
and
(2) media reports that EPD made no such request.
Maybe it would not be right to pull the papers (although I tend to think it probably would have been a good idea.) BUT, the point is that Gott is representing the decision as not his own, that he was bound by the request of EPD. That representation of the decision to allow the players to remain in the tournament, in my mind, are not consistent with what EPD actually said. It would appear possible that it was in fact a judgment call on his part. We can debate whether that is a good or bad judgement at another time; what I want to know now is whether it is accurate to portray this as a situation in which his hands were tied by EPD.
For the record, I appreciate the snarky, cynical, remarks. Free speech is still a constitutional right, last time I checked.
I don’t like the snarky cynical remarks when UO Matters is putting them in someone else’s mouth. If he wants to make them on his own I think that is great, but when he is essentially quoting or paraphrasing I think it crosses the line.
Max Powers: Adding “Bullshit” at the end of a quote, is not “putting them (those words) in someone else’s mouth”. If you don’t like the writer’s style, then don’t visit the blog. Obviously enough other readers find it acceptable. Honestly, this sequence of events is wrought with bullshit, so the writer is fairly accurate. He does not claim to be a reporter, quoting the press conference verbatim. He adds personal commentary that often is quite truthful, I think. Snarkiness & cynicism are an art form. If you want just straightforward news reporting, visit media sites. But be forewarned, they get it wrong fairly often, with their own bias added, just a bit more subtle.
As long as they’re clearly labeled as editorials. (And UOM seems to have done that here.) When you purport to report facts, on the other hand, you should report facts.
And learn what “Free Speech” is.
So easy to just say, “If you don’t like it don’t read it” or “Learn what free speech is.” You can’t pretend to be a serious journalist and at the same pepper quotes of someone with your own words and commentary as if it came from the person speaking. Otherwise you are just another Colbert, Hannity, Stewart, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. You are entertainment, not news.
Actually free speech means the Govt can not suppress your speech, it is not a right to be a dick. Bill claims to be a journalist, but uses none of the standards of professionalism that most journalists are held to. Face it, this is a gossip site. If you are using it for information, your views will be slewed. Pretty much any conversation I have with colleagues that state “well I heard on UOMatters…” has the same weight for me as pure rumor.
Free speech was also in the constitution of the Soviet Union.
Let’s face it, this whole matter was botched, from the time the athletic department took on a new student athlete with a sexual assault pending, to deciding to let the accused play (yes this is a serious matter, not parking ticket violations), and then keeping it hushed until the press & police made it public. Can’t help but get the impression that they would never have gone public with this reported incident, if given the choice. “Teflon justice” for athletes at the U of O– nothing sticks. I still want to know if any of these three basketball players are on free ride scholarships for sports. Is that public information? It’s student money.
It is obvious the UO, EPD and LCDA did not want it to become public. I still don’t understand how it did. I read somewhere that sports reporters found out first. Does anyone know how it became public?
Altman will be doing a press conference @ 3. He could probably just as easily get up & say “what they said” (Gottfredson & Mullens), & save some time. Just for fun, how many times do you think he will use the phrase “The safety and security of our students is our top priority?” (So explain how he chose a new student with pending sex abuse charges to be welcomed into the U of O community?). The current answer is he did not know. For his $12.5 million dollar salary, he should either know, or be held responsible for not knowing. Vet your players, Mr. Head Coach.
The latest news is the 3 are no longer suspended, but dismissed from the team– but Altman stays. Also they are dismissed from the team, but not expelled from the college? Who feels comfortable being in class, or on campus with a gang raper? Wow! First they keep the facts secret, now they make decisions before the review has even begun. U of O admin- your timing is awful.
The safety and security of our students is our top priority- Really? then fire Altman.
http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ssf/2014/05/damyean_dotson_dominic_artis_a.html
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas using one’s body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers.
Freedom of speech includes OPINION. An opinion can be snarky & cynical, that is what makes it free speech. No one is forced to read this blog– it is optional & you can write your own blog in any style you wish. I’ll even suggest a name: Sans snark & cynicism.
(see above) Actually free speech means the Govt can not suppress your speech, it is not a right to be a dick. Bill claims to be a journalist, but uses none of the standards of professionalism that most journalists are held to. Face it, this is a gossip site. If you are using it for information, your views will be slewed. Pretty much any conversation I have with colleagues that state “well I heard on UOMatters…” has the same weight for me as pure rumor.
Actually, free speech means the Govt cannot suppress your speech, which logically means you DO have a fundamental, Constitutional right to be a dick. That is the point.
And, by your own logic, your own comments, because they are on UOMatters, have the same weight as pure rumor and should not be viewed as good information. Therefore, you can’t be right.
Of course, you are free not to be here reading this…but here you are.
Start your own damn blog, and present your own damn version of dickishness to the world. That’s what freedom of speech means…
Thanks for having my back Fishwrapper. Uh, I think.
No, thank you for the forum…
Yes please go on making things up then at the same time complain that UO Matters is a news organization and need to be let in to every meeting.
Considering how this administration willingly makes decisions based on rumors when it suits them….and that the threshold for action based on student conduct code is much lower than that for legal action; the lack of response is terrifying for students, faculty and staff that interact with UO athletes and sets one serious precedent. This admin will not hold them accountable unless it becomes national news.
Max,
What is a “news organization” by your definition? By law, and as defined by the state of Oregon, UOMatters is, in fact, a news organizaiton – and that is an important distinction here. How can a state agency exclude a registered news media organization, recognized as such by the very state under which the agency derives it existence, from an event open to the public, or if not the public, to the news media?
You may not like UOMatters take on events; you may not like the opinions that bleed into most of the reportage presented on this site; hell, you may not even care for his taste in scotch (and I would welcome that discussion, if only to prove to you that I can be on your side…), but when we start having state agencies selectively dictating what is a “news organization” and what is not, when that bar has already been set and met, we start heading into some very disturbing ground upon which I would not want any state’s agency to find any purchase at all.
Here’s a case where the DA ultimately decided not to press charges, even after looking at all the evidence available for a long time. In such a case I’m not surprised that the threshold for suspending these students may not have been met early on in the process. Put your pitchforks down people.
Your logic, if it can be called that, is more than a bit fuzzy, Anonymous. According to Gott own words: We received the police report on April 24. That enabled us to take action without jeopardizing a criminal investigation … working with the UO Athletic Department, we took the following action: The three student-athletes were suspended. They will not be playing basketball at Oregon again.
Since the DA decided the “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold could not be met, he chose to not prosecute. But clearly the threshold for university discipline was met – the president himself is standing behind the decision to dismiss the players from the team. Or are you asking Gott to reinstate the players? By your reasoning, he’s got a bit of a pitchfork in play here, too.
You misunderstand. The pitchforks seem to be out about the timing of the suspensions. The point is that the evidence in this case is complex so it’s perfectly reasonable that the students weren’t suspended early on in the process.
Anonymous, you appear not to be familiar with past player suspensions while investigations were underway. Pitchforks are out because the administration was in the process of hiding behind FERPA in the hopes of keeping this from becoming public.
I find the words of Richard Clarke in his testimony before the 911 Commission appropriate here. There is an example of how one expresses responsibility for a terrible occurrence. Something similar from the UO leadership is the only appropriate response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_pj9JiIXC4
“Here’s a case where the DA ultimately decided not to press charges, even after looking at all the evidence available for a long time. In such a case I’m not surprised that the threshold for suspending these students may not have been met early on in the process. Put your pitchforks down people.”
You have got to be kidding. There is more than probable cause to charge them. The DA has a very, very long rap sheet of failing to prosecute Ducks.
Isaac Remington charged with DUII (dismissed)
Josh Huff charged with DUII and speeding (not guilty)
Tyson Coleman charged with minor in possession and interfering with police (not sure)
Kiko Alonso charged with burglary, criminal trespass and two counts of criminal mischief (2 years probation, 200 hours community service, “diversion” program for criminal trespass, DA drops felony burglary) [no record in Lane County Courthouse]
Dustin Haines charged with interfering with police (dismissed)
Cliff Harris 118 mph on I5, harassment, domestic violence, speeding and no license (Washington County), possession marijuana (New Jersey) 118 mph fined $1620, 18 months probation, 100 hours community service
Jeremiah Masoli stealing from fraternity, possession of marijuana (12 months probation, 140 hours community service)
Garrett Embry stealing from fraternity (12 months probation 140 hours community service)
Rob Beard charged with fourth degree assault and harassment (not sure)
Matt Simms charged with assault (not sure)
LaMichael James charged with physical harassment and domestic violence (24 months probation and 1 game suspension))
Troy Hill menacing and criminal mischief (plea deal, ,drop criminal mischief, $200 fine, 36 months probation 70 hours community service, 3 days jail)
Colt Lyerla possession of cocaine (not sure)
Bottom line: If you are an Oregon athlete, DA Gardner (a UO law school alum) gives you a get out of jail free card.
That’s a very interesting list. However, are these punishments less than in non-UO athlete cases?
One of these athletes was my student when the “incident” happened. I can say he took quite some hits – publicly, AD, police investigations, etc. – and I was worried he would not stay “on track”.
Obviously, there have to be sanctions but remember that UO is still an educational institution and we should be careful with asking for everincreasing punishments. U.S. incarceration rates are already high enough.