3 SLU Players Questioned on Sexual Assault

[An X Fan]

Per the Post-Dispatch (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/slu/story/E21B1D0FD5B8E7DD8625771A0069BCF7?OpenDocument).

The article doesn't name the players questioned but someone with knowledge at SLU told me who the 3 are - and 2 are key players.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[MuskieMark]

I was told by a friend that goes to SLU that it was Reed and Mitchell, which would be a huge loss for them.

[smileyy]

That's pretty brutal. When there's multiple players involved, it seems like there's much less chance of it being a grey area in terms of sobriety and consent as compared to a 1-1 situation.

[An X Fan]

I was told by a friend that goes to SLU that it was Reed and Mitchell, which would be a huge loss for them.

The 2 players MuskieMark notes are the two players that were told to me.

[Pablo's Brother]

were they partying with LT or d-bag Ben?

[STL_XUfan]

Story was just updated. Case was presented to the prosecutors office and they decided that no charges will be filed.

[Masterofreality]

What? There is sex in St. Louis?

Who knew?

[Muskie]

Story was just updated. Case was presented to the prosecutors office and they decided that no charges will be filed.

That's good to hear. A strong SLU is better for the conference.

[waggy]

By Ann Rubin

St. Louis, MO (KSDK) -- Prosecutors said there was not enough evidence for charges. But months after allegations of sexual assault against two St. Louis University basketball players, they are facing discipline from the school.

Sources say the players have appealed their punishment and expect results as soon as this week.

The committee that handed down the decision is made up of faculty, staff and students. It is their job to uphold the school's code of conduct. The allegations of sexual assault were made by a female student last spring.

And while the Circuit Attorney's office found there was not sufficient evidence for charges, the school has a different burden of proof. In fact, the school's code of conduct expressly states that determinations shall not be subject to change if charges are dismissed, reduced or resolved.

Sources say the players are looking at a year's suspension and they wouldn't be able to live on campus upon their return. There is still some question about their future with the team.

For now, it's a waiting game. The basketball players have filed their appeal and a decision could come any day.

On campus, SLU students have been following the case.

"What type of standards of conduct did they violate that she didn't?" said law student Larissa Dee.

Student Jesse Meridian said, "They shouldn't be given any special treatment because they're athletes."

But whatever the outcome, students fear that because the players are black and the accuser is white, there may be backlash.

"I don't know that SLU is well equipped to be able to handle those questions that are going to arise, these race questions," said law student Ollie Green.

The school released the following statement: "St. Louis University takes any allegation of violations of its code of student conduct seriously and has a fair and impartial student conduct process that is modeled after the best practices of colleges and universities around the country. The student conduct process is confidential, and any comment from the University regarding student conduct issues would not come until the entire process-including appeals-is completed, and it may not be able to comment even then."

"Being a person who's had a little bit of experience with the student conduct process, I've actually found that I think it's pretty fair," said law student David Gregory.

As for the appeal, that is handled by the Vice President for Student Development.

KSDK

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=218880

[Cheesehead]

That doesn't sound good and just because the Prosecutor didn't file charges doesn't mean the players didn't do something wrong or illegal. It could mean they felt the case would be hard to convict.

Not saying they are innocent or guilty but it's plausible for the university to invoke punishment despite no criminal charges or convictions.

Rick's stay may be short if this hurts the program's reputation and he can't produce enough wins.

[gladdenguy]

Where is DWest on this matter?

[GoMuskies]

Sounds a lot like the C.J. Anderson situation. Luckily for us, the accusations against him were apparently bogus. Hopefully the same here.

[kyxu]

Sounds a lot like the C.J. Anderson situation. Luckily for us, the accusations against him were apparently bogus. Hopefully the same here.

I remember during the 07-08 season when CJ was at the line at SLU, the student section was taunting him, chanting "no means no!" Glass houses.

[waggy]

Reading up on this on the SLU forum and I guess there were originally 4 players involved to varying degree. 2 have since transferred.

If I'm not mistaken St. John's is getting an SLU transfer.

[smileyy]

Sounds a lot like the C.J. Anderson situation. Luckily for us, the accusations against him were apparently bogus. Hopefully the same here.

Not knowing details about either situation, but having been in varying degrees of intoxication and libidinousness, and around other people in varying states, it's not a stretch to say that there are a lot of activities that can take place that range from regrettable to reprehensible that also don't result in legal or disciplinary action.

There's a big fuzzy area between fully consensual sex and sexual assault.

[Masterofreality]

There's a big fuzzy area between fully consensual sex and sexual assault.

Apparently not with most girls today.

[X-band '01]

Sounds a lot like the C.J. Anderson situation. Luckily for us, the accusations against him were apparently bogus. Hopefully the same here.

But here's where the roads diverge - was CJ ever disciplined by Xavier due to said accusations? It's not a done deal, but if the players are suspended for the Billikens for the course of a year, that's going to hurt their program considerably.

Not that it's the same thing, but the 8 guys on the Chicago White Sox were never convicted in a court of law of gambling and throwing the World Series. That's when Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis stepped in and gave all 8 players lifetime bans for their involvement. My point is simply that the court system and a school's/league's discipline system have 2 different sets of rules.

[xubrew]

My point is simply that the court system and a school's/league's discipline system have 2 different sets of rules.

my experience is that this is correct.

universities, particularly private and religiously affiliated universities, have different definitions of what does and does not constitute sexual misconduct than the courts do. when i was in graduate school i had an assistantship in residence life. the school's policy was that sexual contact of any kind with a female student who was intoxicated, even if it was consensual, was considered to be sexual assault on the part of the male and grounds for immediate expulsion. consensual sex with a partner who is intoxicated is not against the law. if the police and courts were ever involved, it would be thrown out immediately. however, the university has a different standard. fwiw, i personally think that is a crappy policy. anyone who has been on vacation with their wife or girlfriend has probably had a sexual encounter while intoxicated, and to me that doesn't even come close to what i would consider to be sexual misconduct and CLEARLY isn't against the law, but that same action (or a similiar action) would get you thrown out of the university if reported. but that's beside the point. i'm merely pointing out that the rules and standards are different.

i don't know what the facts of the case are at SLU, but seeing that it is a private university that is religiously affiliated, they could have their own definition of what constitutes sexual misconduct as well. i don't know if that is the case or not. for all i know the courts just didn't feel there was enough evidence. however, they may have just decided that the players broke no laws whatsoever and the university is holding them accountable for their own policy.

[waggy]

My guess is this gets worked out because it has to. 2 players are gone, and 2 players remain.

[GoMuskies]

But here's where the roads diverge - was CJ ever disciplined by Xavier due to said accusations?

Yeah, I think CJ got expelled and had to go through the university honor court to be reinstated.

[MuskieMark]

A buddy of mine that is a big SLU fan just informed me that Willie Reed has been kicked off the team. I'm assuming it is due to the sexual assault allegations from awhile back.

[THRILLHOUSE]

I heard that Kwamain Mitchell is out too. Tough break for the Billikens.

[Muskie]

Looks like they might be able to play at Second Semester.

[xunorm]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/slu/article_ea1cd948-d70a-11df-9ba1-00127992bc8b.html


Not much information, just the basics. This would definitely be 2 steps back for the program.

[bobbiemcgee]

made me laugh from the Billiken board:

Yep, I'm guessing we hang with everybody, win 17-20 games, make good progress, and think next year will be "The Year." In essence we've become Dayton Fans.......

[GoMuskies]

Looks like they might be able to play at Second Semester.

That's certainly the worst-case scenario from the league's perspective. Suck in the pre-conference with these guys out and then start beating conference opponents once the team is back to full strength.

[bobbiemcgee]

Willie Reed Sr sez if they don't lift the suspension, Willie won't be back.

[Muskie]

Willie Reed Sr sez if they don't lift the suspension, Willie won't be back.

If he doesn't come back SLU's FT percentage will improve by 10% or more.

[Cheesehead]

Willie Reed Sr sez if they don't lift the suspension, Willie won't be back.

Boo hoo. So, the kid's Dad is basically issuing a threat. Real Nice. Stay classy.

If I were Rick (and thank God I am not, as it would mean I was morbidly obese AND bald), I would say "See ya, Willie!"

[Muskie]

Willie Reed has apparently asked for his release (or did yesterday). His dad was on local St. Louis radio raising a stink about not receiving it yet this morning.

[xubrew]

Willie Reed has apparently asked for his release (or did yesterday). His dad was on local St. Louis radio raising a stink about not receiving it yet this morning.

geez, have they even had time to process it yet?? at least give them until the end of the day before going ballistic about "not having it yet." hell, maybe even the end of the week...

[madness31]

This is a big blow to A-10 basketball as SLU should have done quite well out of conference. Obviously there might be more important personal concerns here but I'll focus on the impact to X. It will be even worse if one or both players come back for conference play and are enough to take the team from mediocre to good. It will be a repeat of a few years back when some of the bottom dwellers from out of conference had big wins in conference and eliminated several tourney bids. This has the potential to put some A-10 teams on the bubble or remove them from the bubble if SLU struggles out of conference but does well in conference. Even without the return of either player they could dramatically improve as the season goes on considering their youth. Then again maybe they will still be good without these two or will remain bad in conference and cause less harm.

[DC Muskie]

Well said Mad-

This really sucks all around. Especially for the woman first, then the players, then SLU, then the A-10.

I hate reading stories like these.

[POLLYANNA]

CBSSports.com wire reports
Oct. 13, 2010 ST. LOUIS -- Saint Louis will open practice this week without two top players.

The school said Wednesday that point guard Kwamain Mitchell and center Willie Reed are not currently enrolled. The 6-9 Reed averaged 12.4 points and 7.9 rebounds and Mitchell averaged 15.9 points and three assists last year, when both were sophomores.

The school said federal law did not allow them to release any additional information without the consent of the students involved.

[Denver Muskie]

Aren't they suspended?

[xubrew]

This is a big blow to A-10 basketball as SLU should have done quite well out of conference. Obviously there might be more important personal concerns here but I'll focus on the impact to X. It will be even worse if one or both players come back for conference play and are enough to take the team from mediocre to good. It will be a repeat of a few years back when some of the bottom dwellers from out of conference had big wins in conference and eliminated several tourney bids. This has the potential to put some A-10 teams on the bubble or remove them from the bubble if SLU struggles out of conference but does well in conference. Even without the return of either player they could dramatically improve as the season goes on considering their youth. Then again maybe they will still be good without these two or will remain bad in conference and cause less harm.

there is something to what you're saying, but i wouldn't ring my hands too much over it. they should be able to win the following games with or without them...

austin peay
rockhurst
tennessee state
iupui
portland
jacksonville
northeastern
east tennessee state
bowling green

they play at duke, and probably wouldn't win that one even with those two guys. missouri state and georgia appear to be the only two games where having them would have made a big difference in the outcome, and even without them they still might be able to win at least one of them.

[STL_XUfan]

rockhurst


Rockhurst is D-II and won't help their record.

[xubrew]

Rockhurst is D-II and won't help their record.

you're right, at least as far as the rpi is concerned. nevertheless, my point is still that them being suspsended won't necessarily have a huge outcome on the majority of their ooc games anyway...

[wkrq59]

The most troubling thing about this whole mess is the reaction of the St. Louis Billikens fans. Or are they true fans and not just furious bettors? If you look at the comments in the Stl today they are mostly anti the president and almost all of the negative ones accuse the woman of "asking for it," "having buyer's remorse," or just plain being a slut. You would think from some of the comments those two players are holy innocents! If those two are really as good as they are supposed to be, they've seen the last of St. Louis and will play in the DL this season and the NBA or Europe next season.:D

[Muskie]

The most troubling thing about this whole mess is the reaction of the St. Louis Billikens fans. Or are they true fans and not just furious bettors? If you look at the comments in the Stl today they are mostly anti the president and almost all of the negative ones accuse the woman of "asking for it," "having buyer's remorse," or just plain being a slut. You would think from some of the comments those two players are holy innocents! If those two are really as good as they are supposed to be, they've seen the last of St. Louis and will play in the DL this season and the NBA or Europe next season.:D

Agree Q.

Although I suppose if Mitchell wants to come back, they could redshirt him? So he wouldn't lose a year.

[GuyFawkes38]

I noticed that a couple reasonable SLU voices at the A10 board didn't approve of how the administration handled the situation.

It's a very touchy subject that I don't want to offend anyone on. But I do find it a little troublesome that campus discipline committees penalize many more students for sexual assault and harassment than the public courts. That leads to 2 possible breakdowns in justice. Prosecutors and the courts aren't doing enough to bring perpetrators to justice. Or the university discipline committees are too aggressive and infringe upon rights which the courts take into account.

Of course, I guess it's natural that universities have a lower burden of proof and grant less rights to students. But it still feels odd. If Mitchell and Reed did do it, they should be prosecuted in a real court. The fact that they weren't leads some to question SLU and their secretive discipline process.

This definitely sucks.

[wkrq59]

I noticed that a couple reasonable SLU voices at the A10 board didn't approve of how the administration handled the situation.
It's a very touchy subject that I don't want to offend anyone on. But I do find it a little troublesome that campus discipline committees penalize many more students for sexual assault and harassment than the public courts. That leads to 2 possible breakdowns in justice. Prosecutors and the courts aren't doing enough to bring perpetrators to justice. Or the university discipline committees are too aggressive and infringe upon rights which the courts take into account.
Of course, I guess it's natural that universities have a lower burden of proof and grant less rights to students. But it still feels odd. If Mitchell and Reed did do it, they should be prosecuted in a real court. The fact that they weren't leads some to question SLU and their secretive discipline process.
This definitely sucks.

Guy, two words best answer your concerns: BEN ROETHLISBERGER.
The prosecutor - DA in that case in Georgia declined prosecution because he claimed there was not sufficient evidence to indict. That sent two clear messages to the general public and women --Money and fame talks and the woman in question lost any rights she had because she "appeared to be drunk." He might as well have added, "she was asking for it"--asking to have a 6-5, 240-pound professional athlete follow her into the women's rest room, and allegedly rape her???-- I forget which publication did the profile on Big Ben but comments from his home town and from the neighborhood in Pittsburgh or nearby suburbs where he lives weren't very flattering.
There is in this country--or there used to be, take your pick--a presumption of INNOCENCE until proven GUILTY. But some prosecutors seem to take the easier way out. Besides, why embarrass a school and a potential future star athlete especially in the case of an alleged rape?
Oh, I'm well aware that cases like the Duke lacrosse team occur, but the circumstances from everything we've read were way different. I am also quite sure St. Louis University's legal advisors were very careful to counsel the disciplinary committee or whatever their title is to avoid potential lawsuits. :(

[GuyFawkes38]

I wrote that the fact that universities penalize sexual misconduct more often than the public legal system suggests that prosecutors and the courts might not be handling the cases properly.

It's a tough issue. Universities have no legal responsibility to be transparent. And that lack of transparency perhaps encourages women to come forward in anonymity, which is a really good thing.

But on the other hand, that lack of transparency brings up a lot of questions which will never be answered. And that lack of transparency could lead to errors and corruption in the disciplinary process.

[muskiefan82]

It sounds like Reed and Mitchell won't play anyway...

ST. LOUIS -- Saint Louis will open practice this week without two top players.

The school said Wednesday that point guard Kwamain Mitchell and center Willie Reed are not currently enrolled. The 6-9 Reed averaged 12.4 points and 7.9 rebounds and Mitchell averaged 15.9 points and three assists last year, when both were sophomores.

The school said federal law did not allow them to release any additional information without the consent of the students involved.

[Muskie]

Reed is transferring. He won't be back. Mitchell's attorney says he intended to re-enroll for second semester, but I have no idea what games he would be available for (I don't know when SLU's semester starts).

[Emp]

Ran into a Double Bill (undergrad and SLU law) on Friday, he was choking on the bad news. Thought it was an easy call, but couldn't get details on that.

The surprising element for this story is that there is no prosecution. That is a sea shift in recent legal history. If a witness/victim comes forward and charged conduct that if believed would amount to a crime, the prosecutor never used to judge cred and conclude the witness was unreliable, etc. Exhibit A, Lou Banks bangs a Xavier coed, she says rape, he has to face a trial.

The balance between conflicting witness statements and putting someone to the expense and publicity of a criminal charge is a tough one, but it troubles me for reasons I cannot quite articulate that a prosecutor now gets to make witness veracity calls.

[Muskie]

Ran into a Double Bill (undergrad and SLU law) on Friday, he was choking on the bad news. Thought it was an easy call, but couldn't get details on that.

The surprising element for this story is that there is no prosecution. That is a sea shift in recent legal history. If a witness/victim comes forward and charged conduct that if believed would amount to a crime, the prosecutor never used to judge cred and conclude the witness was unreliable, etc. Exhibit A, Lou Banks bangs a Xavier coed, she says rape, he has to face a trial.

The balance between conflicting witness statements and putting someone to the expense and publicity of a criminal charge is a tough one, but it troubles me for reasons I cannot quite articulate that a prosecutor now gets to make witness veracity calls.

Prosecutor's make judgment calls on witness credibility all the time.


However, in this case the School Judicial Board found that both players had violated the SLU code of conduct despite their being no criminal action according to the prosecutor. Different burdens in two different proceedings get you a mixed bag of results.

[xubrew]

didn't one of the player's attourneys state that SLU acknowledged that they were not guilty of sexual assault?? that seems to indicate that they were being suspended for something other than the legal definition of sexual assault.

[Masterofreality]

didn't one of the player's attourneys state that SLU acknowledged that they were not guilty of sexual assault?? that seems to indicate that they were being suspended for something other than the legal definition of sexual assault.

Probably for attempting to have sex at all in St. Louis

[Muskie]

didn't one of the player's attourneys state that SLU acknowledged that they were not guilty of sexual assault?? that seems to indicate that they were being suspended for something other than the legal definition of sexual assault.

Yes, as I understand it. They were suspended for violating various provisions of SLU's student handbook.

[Masterofreality]

Yes, as I understand it. They were suspended for violating various provisions of SLU's student handbook.

Shouldn't Fat Rick be suspended for eclipsing the sun?

That would be a violation of SLU Handbook provisions for general campus welfare.

[Cheesehead]

It's also important to remember that SLU is a private university and they can do pretty much what they want; discipline-wise. The burden of proof is no where near the same as in the court of law. Being a religious based university, it's also more about morals than criminal behavior. At XU, it's the same thing.

I had friends while at X who faced the university discilpinary committee for behavior that was not prosecuted. It's very secretive and the the person is really at the mercy of the committee members.

[Kahns Krazy]

Shouldn't Fat Rick be suspended for eclipsing the sun?

That would be a violation of SLU Handbook provisions for general campus welfare.

Apparently, the U.N. is against it too.

http://io9.com/5665736/blotting-out-the-sun-to-slow-down-global-warming-could-be-outlawed

Though Monty is a big fan...

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/2010/10/custom_1287272307493_burnssun.jpg

[boozehound]

I had friends while at X who faced the university discilpinary committee for behavior that was not prosecuted. It's very secretive and the the person is really at the mercy of the committee members.

Yeah. It can sometimes be pretty beneficial if you get caught drinking underage or something else that is relatively minor. Most of the time they just call your parents and make you do some charity work.

[Cheesehead]

Yeah. It can sometimes be pretty beneficial if you get caught drinking underage or something else that is relatively minor. Most of the time they just call your parents and make you do some charity work.

Or pay fines. I know I contributed to the campus beautification project with (2) $50.00 fines freshman year.

[xubrew]

Yeah. It can sometimes be pretty beneficial if you get caught drinking underage or something else that is relatively minor. Most of the time they just call your parents and make you do some charity work.

there are two ways of looking at it. if you're caught by the city police for something minor like underage drinking, there is a far better chance that they'll just let you go. it's just that if they don't, you'll probably be in more trouble...at least long term.

if you're caught by the university, they almost never let you go, but in the long run you're probably in less trouble.i know at xavier that most of the time the cincinnati police showed up at a party, they pretty much just told you to be quiet and shut it down, and that was that. however, for the times they actually took action, your life was probably much more misserable. when xavier showed up, they wanted names and took real action far more often, but it never went any further than that.


when i was in grad school i had an assistantship in student affairs, so i worked in res life, sat on the judicial boards, and all that good stuff. the penalties at the university were actually more expensive and more time consuming (writing papers, research classes, community service, etc) for drugs and alcohol than were that of the law. the difference was that it was all internal and would never show up on any sort of background check. so, i guess it depends on what you prefer. when it came to sexual misconduct, they actually had a completely different standard and definition than what the courts had. for instance, a man who had sex with a woman who was intoxicated was guilty of sexual misconduct, even if it was consensual. that doesn't even come close to matching the legal definition of sexual assault. now, they term they used was sexual "MISCONDUCT" and not sexual ASSAULT, but still, the implication is the same, and if found guilty they would almost automatically be suspended or expelled. i hated the policy. for that matter, i hated the assistantship. if i learned anything, it is that i didn't want to ever work in residence life or student affairs again, but that is another story.

for that reason, i can't help but to think that it is very possible that what happened at slu may not be as bad as what it appears. student affairs people at private schools that are religiously affiliated live in a different world. i'm not saying i think they're innocent. i'm merely saying that it would not surprise me at all if they didn't get a fair shake...

[boozehound]

Very good points all around brew.

Frankly aspects of that policy don't seem very reasonable at all. What if 2 students engage in intercourse while intoxicated? Are they both guilty of 'misconduct'? If not, why? Why is only the male guilty?

[xubrew]

Very good points all around brew.

Frankly aspects of that policy don't seem very reasonable at all. What if 2 students engage in intercourse while intoxicated? Are they both guilty of 'misconduct'? If not, why? Why is only the male guilty?

according to the policy at the institution i was at at the time i was there, in that scenario, the male is guilty, the female is not.

the only explanation i have as to why is because...well...student affairs people at private universities live in a different world...at least at that university, and probably at others as well. i'm not entirely sure what color the sky is on their planet, but i'm pretty sure it isn't blue. that's just how they perceive things to be. it's also complete bullshit.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Heartbreaking for SLU basketball. This was the year to make it back to the dance. even worse Willie is going to Kansas State, gross.

Suprisingly I am not well informed on the situation at this point. I thought it was done with back in May. My firend in St. Louis told me that the local media and St. Louis fans arent real happy with the way SLU has handled the situation for various reasons. Apparently one of the requirements to come back from the suspension was for Reed and Mitchell to write letters of apology for the alleged sexual assault. Thats the biggest reason Reed is transferring because they would be essentially admitting guilt and I it could open them up to a civil lawsuit from the girl involved? Not sure all the details but it certainly is frustrating.

If they are at fault and really did this why not just expell them and be done with it? I think some are confused with the suspension. Who knows. Ugh!

[xu05usmc]

As far as all this sexual assault stuff goes and how schools deal with it the Enquirer dedicated an entire Sunday Forum a year or two ago about it and basically slammed UC, XU, and NKU with how they deal with it. There was a story involved about two athletes at one of the schools, can't recall which one, but the girl's story made it seem like the school was pressuring her not to take it to the police, and were doing everything possible to prevent her from doing so. Truth be told, sexual assault is a much bigger problem on college campuses than colleges, or most of us, are willing to admit.

I actually laud SLU for taking the stand and disciplining those guys even though the prosecution did not press charges. Same praises should go to Roger Godell for his actions with Ben Roethlisberger. Who knows, proactive and aggressive disciplinary measures might knock some sense into the morons who go out and do that kind of crap.

There are different burdens of proof. Remember how OJ was acquitted of murder but liable civilly?

[xubrew]

I actually laud SLU for taking the stand and disciplining those guys even though the prosecution did not press charges

if SLU took the action they did because they were able to reasonably conclude that the guys were guilty, then i laud them as well. however, based on my own experiences with university judicial boards, i cannot help but question if it was a fair decision. i'm not saying that i definitely disagree with it. very little was released to the public, and for all i know they should have been punished even more harshly. however, i'm not willing to definitely assume it was completely fair either. i really don't know. maybe it wasn't fair. i've been privy to situations that i didn't think were fair. at the very least, i'd be willing to listen to the two guys' side of the story.


There was a story involved about two athletes at one of the schools, can't recall which one, but the girl's story made it seem like the school was pressuring her not to take it to the police, and were doing everything possible to prevent her from doing so.

i'd be interested in reading that if you can find it. that is very dissapointing to read, but it is also very believable. i don't know for certain what the laws are in ohio these days, but in my experience once an offense reaches the stage of where it would be considered a felony, the university is legally obligated to involve law enforcement.

underage drinking, vandalism, disorderly conduct, fisticuffs, etc (essentially 95% of what happens), not a problem. deal with it internally. in fact, don't even bother outside law enforcement because they have better things to do.

cocaine trafficking, rape, guns, etc, universities cannot simply deal with internally. if they don't notify the police, then THEY are breaking the law. having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if there were cases when universities should have involved outside law enforcement, but didn't.

[CinciX12]

Yeah X doesn't do anything past internally for disorderly conduct.

But we won't go into why I know that:D

[Masterofreality]

Yeah X doesn't do anything past internally for disorderly conduct.

But we won't go into why I know that:D

And we also won't go back into the archives, which hopefully have been lost in transfer, for the record of a certain poster who graduated 38 years ago. It's has a few smudges.;)

[D-West & PO-Z]

From what I have heard the girls father is a big donor. Also at the student hearing no parents or lawyers are supposed to be present, she had both. I also have heard she is no longer enrolled at SLU. Hey if it happened there is no excuse and not only should Reed and Mitchell have been suspended but they should have been expelled. It just seems like a real dicey situation, who knows the truth?