It depends on what and whose definition is used. Some people and some states' laws distinguish rape and sexual assault as penetration due to violence or threat of (rape) vs. penetration without consent (sexual assault). Others use the terms interchangeably and still others (including Florida I believe but don't hold me to this as I don't practice law in the Sunshine State) don't use either term and instead refer to it as sexual battery. So depending on what definition is used, evidence may have been obtained were an medical examination done.
I believe you basically said the same thing that I said, perhaps more from your frame of reference. My intention was to explain that it really doesn't matter if criminal activity occurred according to law enforcement, from the university's point of view they are trying to ensure compliance with Title IX and ultimately ensuring the safe educational environment.While I agree with some of what you said, you missed the mark on parts of your post. Title IX is a policy that deals with sexual discrimination for schools or activities receiving federal funding. It actually specifies sexual related crimes as one area that is covered so to say it has nothing to do with criminal activity is wrong. You are correct that the hearing isn't a trial, but while the hearing may be about determining if an unsafe environment was created it is also just as much a part of UF having a specific set of procedures in place to comply with Title IX requirements. That is what, in part tripped FSU up. FSU settling with Winston's accuser (they would have most likely lost their case had they not settled) wasn't proof that she was assaulted. It was really about the fact that as a university they didn't follow proper procedures when the alleged assault was brought to their attention. Had they followed a well designed and documented process they may have won the lawsuit. UF was looking to avoid the same fate as FSU, hence the suspension from campus and the hearings for Treon and Callaway.
I have no contention with your legal brief. I just think the claimant did not think that way when she lodged
no claim of being raped. Her idea of rape would be like what our idea of rape is. Her story must have left no
purchase-point for her lawyers to hook any rape charge to.??
There are many ways of looking at this. Maybe bring in a Judge from outside who is more likely to want to at least see some evidence to boot someone out of school. The problem with these hearings many times is you have these political leaning people making the decision and many times they will rule against someone with practically no evidence but an accusation. After reading some articles on these hearings many are a joke basically.
GIG, since Title IX deals with the FedGov why not have several "semi-retired" Federal judges who'd like
a 2-3 day vacation to parts unknown.??
Whether her claim is valid or not has NOTHING to do with us picking a known booster to hear the case. It's ridiculous. Someone really dropped the ball on this one.
Our PR Dept didn't see this coming from a mile away? Why put the university in this position? They couldn't find an arbiter that wasn't a booster? Come on...
Seriously. If her claim is BS why give them any ammo at all? Sorry...just trying to wrap my head around it.
Complainant never goes to the police? Complainant's attorneys never go to the police? Complainant's attorney is outraged that complainant's prior sexual activity has been included in hearing?
Something smells fishy about this whole case, especially given Treon transfers, says sorry, and is then absolved, yet Calloway is still on the hook.
My guess is that this all dies out. UF did their due-diligence, suspending the 2 whike collecting 1,000 pages of testamony including conflicting text/vmails.
After FSU fiasco, my bet is that they have this one covered.
You're correct. Also, at the risk of sounding like a callous Dick which isn't my intent, who do we get for the hearing? A scUM grad? A 'Nole grad? How about a Bama, UGA, USF, Auburn grad, etc??? My point is that most everybody will have what appears to be a bias on the surface so it's not an easy position to be in. Maybe we shouldn't have chosen a UF grad that donated money to the program...but would Clune have complained if we hired a UF grad that had never given a penny to the sports program? I'd venture a guess that he would have. And let's keep the lawyer's donations in perspective; he gives something like $5-$10k per year. A tidy sum for the average Joe but this isn't like he was Ben Hill Griffin giving $100 million dollars. Again, I'm not trying to make light of the allegations but most anybody we chose would have some perceived bias.
Completely disagree. If you think you are going to win on the merits of the case...why give the appearance of impropriety? It makes me think that the case against AC is bad.
You disagree with my premise that most anybody selected has some sort of bias? You also disagree that Clune wouldn't have objected to a UF grad who didn't donate money to Gator athletics being selected as the judge in this hearing? By all means, tell me who should have been selected???
And just to bring you up to speed, this hearing wasn't "Alleged Victim vs. UF"...it was "Alleged Victim vs. Antonio Callaway". See my previous post for the explanation about that and why it matters..,doing so will also help educate you.
Seriously...you think he was a fair choice as an arbiter? Come on...