Sad news from campus

[mohr5150]

The front page of the paper today read, "Xavier faces Federal Probe" due to the Dean trying to cut a deal with a suspected rape victim. This is so freaking sad and another major black eye on the university. Unfreakingbelievable. This guy needs fired right now, and some shit needs to be taken care of. Our school is looking very bad right now. Very disappointing.

[stophorseabuse]

This is the FIRST black eye. The basketball thing shouldn't emberass anyone. It was a fight in a sporting event.

[mohr5150]

I understand what you're saying, but it was a black eye in public opinion, and public opinion means a whole hell of a lot for a university.

[bobbiemcgee]

Sounds like a mess.

[Muskie in dayton]

This is the FIRST black eye. The basketball thing shouldn't emberass anyone. It was a fight in a sporting event.

I agree on point #2, but this IS the second black eye. The first being the Administrations' handling of everything post-Shootout. Notice how both have the same person's name stamped on them? I also couldn't help but notice the similarities between this and how the Archdiocese handled the child abuse scandals a decade ago. I don't know what the hell is going on there right now, but I hope the Board of Directors acts swiftly to remove anyone and everyone involved in this.

As a father of two daughters, I can't imagine how angry and victimized I'd feel if this were my daughter. This makes my skin crawl.

[Juice]

I was told that Luther Smith was fired. I don't know if anyone else has heard this.

[ballyhoohoo]

At the heart of the scandal, Luther "reflectin and geuflectin" Smith.

Luther, you're a kettle, this is pot calling, your black

I demand Luthers job and head.

http://cincinnati.com/dontmiss/article?a=2012301140080&f=2536

[xudash]

I was told that Luther Smith was fired. I don't know if anyone else has heard this.

Given recent events, he damned well better be fired.

Xavier has demonstrated a long track record since Father Hoff of bringing in solid talent. If it's true no one bats a thousand, this clown is the guy that knocked us under 1.000.

[xubrew]

I understand what you're saying, but it was a black eye in public opinion, and public opinion means a whole hell of a lot for a university.

Yes. That's how universities get themselves into trouble. Public opinion means more than anything else. Looking good becomes more important than just being good. There are many universities out there that are great places where students have great experiences. What's annoying (at least to me) is when those universities feel compelled to be the first ones to tell you that. At the same time, whenever something bad does happen, the first reaction isn't compassion and a desire to do what's right and fix the problem. The first reaction is one of self-consciousness, and wanting to do what's necessary to not look bad.

To me, it seems as though that happens all the time at a lot of places, and that's very disappointing. If you're good, people will see it. You don't have to be the first ones to tell them that. At the same time, no one is perfect, so there is no need to put on a charade as if you were. If you do, you come off looking like someone who wants to look good and act perfect more than anything else, and that's hardly an admirable characteristic.

[XULucho27]

Wow. This is really, really awful stuff. The University, after multiple allegations of sexual assault against the accused, allowed him to finish the semester and remain on campus. How he wasn't expelled the moment that they found him responsible under the Handbook for Sexual Assault is beyond me.


“You declined that offer,” Smith e-mailed to Burgio in early December. “If you are now interested in that arrangement, I would need to determine with Sean if that offer still remains on the table.”

That quote is despicable. Luther Smith, the DEAN of students, whose primary role should be to protect the welfare and safety of the students was negotiating on behalf of a student who had already been found to be in violation of the student code of conduct for sexual assault. THAT, is absolutely disgusting.

[STL_XUfan]

Encouraging a victim that has demonstrated the courage to come forward to hide her claim in an under the table deal is terrible. Luther Smith had a duty to send this incident through the proper channels to determine what happened, not try to make it all go away. Dean Smith should be dismissed from his position immediately.

[XUXC2009]

I have a feeling this is just the tip of the ice berg. I heard rumors of this sort of thing happening while I was there, there was even article in the Enquirer a year or two ago talking about the exact same thing happening only it involved different people.

I have feeling this involves more than Luther Smith. I think anyone who had a part in this should be canned, if that means every administrator is fired so be it. This is one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen in local news in a long time.

[SlimKibbles]

I encourage every to email their disgust to Luther smith and father graham. Luther Smith must be removed and anyone else involved with this attempted cover up.

Luther Smith no longer works for the university. An e-mail was sent out to faculty on Friday.

[muskiefan82]

Luther Smith no longer works for the university. An e-mail was sent out to faculty on Friday.

This is God making good out of bad.

[Fireball]

You have to wonder how a guy got a job like this when it is clear to everyone that he hasn't anything close to the skill to do it. Kudos to the university for dumping Smith.

[xavierj]

So this is the high and mighty guy who wanted to suspend students for their actions at the UC game? Makes sense.

[Porkopolis]

So this is the high and mighty guy who wanted to suspend students for their actions at the UC game? Makes sense.


My guess is that he already knew he was in trouble and wanted to try something--anything--to make himself look better in the eyes of the university. I'm glad to see him gone.

[XU 87]

Let's remember a few things which are not in dispute. Xavier did not just sweep these allegations under the rug or try to make them go away. Hearings were held and the Marron kid was expelled. What he was found guilty of is not clear. And Xavier apparently reported these incidents to the police.

We also know that these cases went to trial in a criminal court and judge, who is a former prosecutor and is not known for being soft on crime, found Marron not guilty in both cases.

This federal investigation was started because a complaint was filed a few weeks after the "not guilty" verdict. And right now, it's just that, an investigation. Despite the article's declarations, Xavier has not been found "guilty" of anything.

In addition, some of the claims are procedural in nature (failure to timely give witness statements, granting of a continuance,).

I also took issue with the statement that "Luther negotiated on behalf of the accused". Marron agreed to drop out of school, immediately, if the charges were dropped. I wouldn't call that "negotiating". I wouldn't call that pressuring her to drop the charges, as the article insinuates.

I haven't heard Xavier's side of he story and may not, since they apparently have to abide by confidentiality laws.

I think this is a one sided, biased article with the intent to make Xavier look bad. I particuarly note the wild accusations and opinions made without any factual support by the former social work professor. It's not even clear if the former teacher knows one thing about this case, other than the accusations made in the complaint. Now maybe these charges could have been handled better. I don't know. But my guess is that this wasn't handled perfectly, although I suspect that these matters never are, since they involve the competing interests of the accused and accusor.

But the statements, or insinuations, in this article that "Xavier discriminated against sexual assault victims" and that "Xavier was just trying to protect its reputation" are just nonsense.

[XUXC2009]

Let's remember a few things which are not in dispute. Xavier did not just sweep these allegations under the rug or try to make them go away. Hearings were held and the Marron kid was expelled. What he was found guilty of is not clear. And Xavier apparenlty reported these incidents to the police.

We also know that these cases went to trial in a criminal court and judge, who is a former prosecutor and is not known for being soft on crime, found Marron not guilty in both cases.

This federal investigation was started bcause a complaint was filed a few weeks after the "not guilty" verdict. And right now, it's just that, an investigation. Despite the article's declarations, Xavier has not been found "guilty" of anything.

In addition, some of the claims are procedural in nature (failure to timely give witness statements, granting of a continuance,).

I also took issue with the statement that "Luther negotiatd on behalf of the accused". Marron agreed to drop out of school, immediately, if the charges were dropped. I wouldn't call that "negotiating". I wouldn't call that pressuring her to drop the charges, as the article insinuates.

I haven't heard Xavier's side of he story and may not, since they apparently have to abide by confidentiality laws.

I think this is a one sided, biased article with the intent to make Xavier look bad. Maybe these charges could have been handled better. I don't know. But my guess is that this wasn't handled perfectly, although I suspect that these matters never are, since they involve the competing interests of the accused and accusor.

But the statements, or insinuations, in this article that "Xavier discrimated against sexual assault victims" and that "Xavier was just trying to protect its reputation" are just nonsense.

I would. Why would Luther Smith even tell her that if it was for anything other than trying to sweep it under the rug or protect X's image? I'm personally insulted that Smith even thought that was a proper course of action. As you said, it went to trial and the kid was committed, but so what? The facts that we can see are that a girl alleged a sexual assault against a boy, and Luther Smith decided that it would be appropriate to tell this girl if the charges were dropped the boy would leave the school. Why give an accused rapist any bargaining power? (Remember at this time he was just accused and had not yet been acquitted.) That is straight up disgusting and pathetic.

[XU 87]

This was a disciplinary hearing scheduled to see if the kid was 1) guilty of whatever he was charged with and 2) what his punishment should be (should he be kicked out school). If he agrees to leave school, I don't see the need for a hearing.

One note- I'm not reading this as Luther requesting criminal charges be dropped. I'm reading it as the complaint filed with the university be dropped in return for Marron leaving school.

[xubrew]

This was a disciplinary hearing scheduled to see if the kid was 1) guilty of whatever he was charged with and 2) what his punishment should be (should he be kicked out school). If he agrees to leave school, I don't see the need for a hearing.

One note- I'm not reading this as Luther requesting criminal charges be dropped. I'm reading it as the complaint filed with the university be dropped in return for Marron leaving school.

Here's my question. (not an implication, but a QUESTION. I don't know the answer).

If I understand this correctly, it is no longer a police matter. It is only a university matter.

With that in mind, if he left school immediately, what difference would it make if the chargers were dropped or not?? It's a university matter. If he leaves the university, the case is closed. Isn't it?? Why would it matter to the perpetrator if the charges were dropped if he was leaving anyway??

[Xman95]

Three things... First, Luther Smith is an idiot. Second, Luther Smith is an idiot. Third, Luther Smith's mother gave birth to an idiot.

[XU 87]

From how i read it, i am led to believe that Sean Marron told the dean of students that he would leave right away if the victim dropped the charges against him.

The parents' complaint specifically alleges that she was asked to forego the hearing if he agreed to leave school. The complaint makes no mention of dismissing criminal charges.

This is why we shouldn't speculate and guess about such a serious issue, and why we shouldn't indict based on speculation, guesswork and not knowing all the facts, or just hearing one person's side of the story.

[wkrq59]

87,we are in agreement and I too am not only puzzled but near to outrage.
But first, I want to sing you a little song. (Still like that old Gene Autry line).
Seriously, I hope all the knee jerkers will not even try to equate or relate the unfortunate occurrences of Dec. 10 --except 76-53-- with this insanity. I think what we have in the matter of Mr. Smith is a question of an attempt to cover up a felony, as well as the act of interfering with a police investigation.
But far worse, that story was a not so subtle attempt to tarnish the name of Xavier as evidenced by the wording and the headlines.
This is not a case of apples v. oranges, it's far more serious, like watermelons v. lemon seeds to equate the Dec. 10 mess with the Smith thing.
Both situations gave Xavier a black eye, but the game incident is far less serious than the sexual thing. It is still a game, and Xavier's over-reaction made the incident far worse than it actually was.
Remember this, ESPN, like many Xavier fans and alums think that because they pay for a game broadcast, they own it. Because they buy the rights they do control them. Fans, boosters and alumni who give to athletic programs GIVE, they do not buy. Some think they do but they don't.
Look, apologies have been made and overdone, punishment has been dealt and overdone. Games have been lost and losses overblown, but three games have been won in a row and hopefully the string of victories will continue.
Simply put it's time for everyone to start acting like Xavier people and stop the damn blame game and move on. To continue to insist on a pound of flesh--make that a ton--is just stupid and ignorant. It's over. Let the horse be buried and let's get on with the season. And please, let's stop harping on TU Holloway because he is not a thug and really seems to be taking everything way too seriously. This is after all still a game we're talking about and this young man has already done a lot for Xavier. What kind of Christians are we if we can't forgive and let life go on? If we can't, I pity us, really.

[xeus]

Let's remember a few things which are not in dispute. Xavier did not just sweep these allegations under the rug or try to make them go away. Hearings were held and the Marron kid was expelled. What he was found guilty of is not clear. And Xavier apparenlty reported these incidents to the police.

We also know that these cases went to trial in a criminal court and judge, who is a former prosecutor and is not known for being soft on crime, found Marron not guilty in both cases.

This federal investigation was started because a complaint was filed a few weeks after the "not guilty" verdict. And right now, it's just that, an investigation. Despite the article's declarations, Xavier has not been found "guilty" of anything.

In addition, some of the claims are procedural in nature (failure to timely give witness statements, granting of a continuance,).

I also took issue with the statement that "Luther negotiatd on behalf of the accused". Marron agreed to drop out of school, immediately, if the charges were dropped. I wouldn't call that "negotiating". I wouldn't call that pressuring her to drop the charges, as the article insinuates.

I haven't heard Xavier's side of he story and may not, since they apparently have to abide by confidentiality laws.

I think this is a one sided, biased article with the intent to make Xavier look bad. I particuarly note the wild accusations and opinions made without any factual support by the former social work professor. It's not even clear if the former teacher knows one thing about this case, other than the accusations made in the complaint. Now maybe these charges could have been handled better. I don't know. But my guess is that this wasn't handled perfectly, although I suspect that these matters never are, since they involve the competing interests of the accused and accusor.

But the statements, or insinuations, in this article that "Xavier discrimated against sexual assault victims" and that "Xavier was just trying to protect its reputation" are just nonsense.

Excellent analysis 87. Keep up the good work, fighting for truth, justice, and the Xavier way.

Can we get birdman to weigh in on this with respect to FERPA?

[danaandvictory]

But far worse, that story was a not so subtle attempt to tarnish the name of Xavier as evidenced by the wording and the headlines.

Who is it that benefits from the massive anti-Xavier media conspiracy? I'm honestly curious.

[bleedXblue]

Who is it that benefits from the massive anti-Xavier media conspiracy? I'm honestly curious.

I'm sure 90% of the decision makers of the Enquirer are UC fans.

They love this stuff and are raking Xavier over the coals.

I sure hope that Xavier stands up for itself and has some good legal/PR resources to make sure that the TRUTH and the FACTS get reported accurately.

I think the time has come for Xavier to do SOMETHING.

[XU 87]

Who is it that benefits from the massive anti-Xavier media conspiracy? I'm honestly curious.

A newspaper that believes "scandals", particularly involving a Catholic institution, will sell more papers.

[Kahns Krazy]

The parents' complaint specifically alleges that she was asked to forego the hearing if he agreed to leave school. The complaint makes no mention of dismissing criminal charges.

This is why we shouldn't speculate and guess about such a serious issue, and why we shouldn't indict based on speculation, guesswork and not knowing all the facts, or just hearing one person's side of the story.

I don't think complaints of this nature should ever be dropped. Once the allegation is made, it deserves to be followed through on. I certainly don't think a representative of the school should be encouraging a student to "forego" a hearing if a student simply agrees to leave the school. That is a cover up.

[XU 87]

I don't think complaints of this nature should ever be dropped. Once the allegation is made, it deserves to be followed through on. I certainly don't think a representative of the school should be encouraging a student to "forego" a hearing if a student simply agrees to leave the school. That is a cover up.

At some point, I think I read in the article, or perhaps in the timeline, that Xavier reported this matter to the Norwood police around October 2010. I don't see that part anymore (if it was removed that would be interesting.)

But you don't cover incidents up by reporting them to the police.

[An X Fan]

Who is it that benefits from the massive anti-Xavier media conspiracy? I'm honestly curious.

If you want to believe in anti-Xavier conspiracies (and I wouldn't completely disagree), Margaret Buchanan, the President and Publisher (http://news.cincinnati.com/section/CONTACT/Contact-Us) of the Enquirer, is on UC's Board of Trustees (http://www.uc.edu/trustees/trustees.html).

Just sayin'.

She is a UC grad, so a position on their Board isn't unwarranted. But it is a massive conflict of interest. Q, thoughts on that?

[ThrowDownDBrown]

All those who had a hand in this and aren't already fired should be forced to attend a reflection session or be threatened that they'll never work at Xavier again until they do so

[bleedXblue]

Just read the artcile in its entirety.

Xavier allowed a student who was found guilty of a sexual assault to remain on campus and finish a semester.

WTF are they thinking ?

Immediate expulsion should have taken place. I wouldnt want my kid there knowing someone like that is walking around on campus.

[XUFan09]

I wish this was just a case isolated to Xavier and a couple other places.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11830&pageid=37&pagename=Page+One

Days before filing her complaint, Russell learned that the local district attorney wouldn’t press criminal charges — a typical outcome. Experts say the reasons are simple: Most cases involving campus rape allegations come down to he-said-she-said accounts of sexual acts that clearly occurred; they lack independent corroboration like physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. At times, alcohol and drugs play such a central role, students can’t remember details. Given all this, says Gary Pavela, who ran judicial programs at the University of Maryland, College Park, “A prosecutor says, ‘I’m not going to take this to a jury.’” Often, the only venues in which to resolve these cases are on campus.

[LadyMuskie]

A newspaper that believes "scandals", particularly involving a Catholic institution, will sell more papers.

If the Enquirer has a vendetta against Xavier, for whatever reason, then there is one more reason why Xavier should be doing all that it can to do things the right way. There are many super intelligent people at Xavier who had to know that the handling of this case (and maybe others) was a giant clusterf--k. If the vendetta is such that the Enquirer is reporting lies, or intentionally skewing the facts to mislead the public, then Xavier should retaliate by suing the Enquirer the way Chiquita did.



I don't think complaints of this nature should ever be dropped. Once the allegation is made, it deserves to be followed through on. I certainly don't think a representative of the school should be encouraging a student to "forego" a hearing if a student simply agrees to leave the school. That is a cover up.

I agree 100%. Saying these things to students is a disservice to the accused and the victim. These situations are too serious to be handled in the manner with which Xavier handled it.

[danaandvictory]

A newspaper that believes "scandals", particularly involving a Catholic institution, will sell more papers.

So the Enquirer should just ignore a sex scandal at a Catholic institution? Or it should sugarcoat it? Why the hell would they do that? And since when is a newspaper focusing on a story to sell papers, i.e., to make money for their shareholders, frowned upon by the Galtian hypercapitalist supermen of Xavier Hoops?

I remember when similar stories were coming out at Miami - the local media skewered them. Maybe people don't remember it as well because it wasn't their school, but it was a huge story for a long period of time.

Wake Forest got justifiably raked over the coals for a similar scandal involving their basketball team. SLU as well.

[XU 87]

I was responding to your question about why there would be an anti-Xavier conspiracy. While I don't think there is some conspiracy against Xavier, I do think the article was completely slanted, one sided, and misleading. One reason for that is because I think "scandals", particularly those involving Catholic institutions, may sell newspapers.

I did not say that the newspapers should ignore sex scandals at a Catholic institution. But if they cover a story, any story, at least be fair and unbiased.

[danaandvictory]

That's just it, though. Xavier refused to make comment on the article, citing privacy concerns. That may well be valid. But the reporter isn't going to spike the story just because XU won't comment. So the only way to write the story was to lay out the allegations made.

THe only problem I had with the way the story was written was the quotes from the former Social Work professor. It wasn't clear from my first reading why she had anything of interest to say about the issue or any familiarity with the case itself. But I was also eating breakfast so maybe I missed it.

[Kahns Krazy]

At some point, I think I read in the article, or perhaps in the timeline, that Xavier reported this matter to the Norwood police around October 2010. I don't see that part anymore (if it was removed that would be interesting.)

But you don't cover incidents up by reporting them to the police.

I'm trying not to be too biased because of my familiarity with another situation that occured at X that bears a striking similarity to this one. My cynical take on it is that if X reported it to the police, it's because they knew that this particular woman wasn't going to let it drop and they'd be in a world of sh*t if they didn't report it first (when they were supposed to).

In the situation that I know of, it was not reported to the police, and the Xavier representatives made it clear that they would not support the victim if she chose to pursue it herself. It seems really unlikely to me that I happen to be aware of the lone other instance of the Xavier administration defending the university before an alleged victim.

[XU 87]

I didn't say they should have spiked the story. I said the story was slanted, one sided, and biased. For example, they had a sub-headline asking "Does Xavier discriminate against sexual assault victims". That's very, very big accusation disguised as a question, and implies that Xavier intentionally treated her differently (worse) than students who were not sexually assaulted. But there's no claim that X discriminated against the victim.

There is another paragraph which says that "there are complaints from faculty and students that Xavier is more interested in preserving its image than addressing sexual violence." All I read were some quotes from one former faculty member and one current student, who is the head of the sexual violence committee. And the former faculty member just happens to say Xavier was wrong as well as making other disparaging statements about Xavier, none of which are factually referenced. I wonder if there were other people out there who would have said "Xavier handled this properly from what I can see." I suspect the reporter didn't look for such a person.

And I'm pretty sure that at one point there was mention of X going to the Norwood police. I don't see that anymore and I am wondering if it was removed.

[LadyMuskie]

And I'm pretty sure that at one point there was mention of X going to the Norwood police. I don't see that anymore and I wondering if it was removed.

I didn't read the story online, I read it in the actual paper. There was no mention of Xavier contacting the Norwood police. I actually checked the paper again just to make sure I wasn't skipping it and I didn't see it in the print article.

That said, I've been told that Xavier Police are only equipped to handle so much before they need to call in backup from either Cincinnati or Norwood (as parts of the campus are in different jurisdictions). For example, if a murder occurred on the soccer fields, CPD would be called to handle the investigation because Xavier 5-0 isn't equipped to handle that.

[Kahns Krazy]

IAnd I'm pretty sure that at one point there was mention of X going to the Norwood police. I don't see that anymore and I wondering if it was removed.

This statement is in the complaint.

[XU 87]

I don't think the part about contacting the police was in the actual story. I thought, but am not sure, it was in the timeline, which is on-line. And I also remember reading something (in the timeline?) where they discuss how the Xavier police ordered Marron not to have contact with the accuser. I don't see that anywhere at this point. But maybe I read this somewhere else.

P.S. Kahn's has answered my question.

[XULucho27]

Just read the artcile in its entirety.

Xavier allowed a student who was found guilty of a sexual assault to remain on campus and finish a semester.

WTF are they thinking ?

Immediate expulsion should have taken place. I wouldnt want my kid there knowing someone like that is walking around on campus.

This is what really gets met and I'm glad you noticed it as well. According to the timeline on the side of the article he was found responsible for violations of the Handbook pertaining to “Respect for Others, specifically sexual assault, rape or any form of sexual contact or conduct with another person without consent of that person” stemming from a November 2008 incident.

He is, SOMEHOW, allowed to return for the Spring Semester where in March of 2009 there is a SECOND allegation of sexual assault by another student, the one who filed the complaint. In October of 2010, the second victim, the one in the article, files the complaint with campus police. The victim then files the complaint with the University on November 6th. Before the disciplinary committee even convenes, Luther Smith tells the victim that if she drops the assault complaint the student would agree to leave.

This is where there is a lack of detail. There is a disciplinary hearing and he is again found responsible, this time he is expelled. For some deranged reason, he is allowed to finish the semester. Following the timeline it is about this time that there is the second e-mail exchange between Luther and the victim:


“You declined that offer,” Smith e-mailed to Burgio in early December. “If you are now interested in that arrangement, I would need to determine with Sean if that offer still remains on the table.”

This e-mail, to me, is incredibly disgusting. Luther needed to check with a twice "convicted" (used loosely because I don't know how else to describe being found responsible for rape in a disciplinary hearing) assailant to see if the arrangement was still appropriate? Fuck that. I will reserve complete indignation because I don't have all of the information, but this just looks incredibly shady.

The fact that he was only suspended for a semester and then allowed to return to campus, restrictions notwithstanding, is crazy enough IMO, but I just can't get around those e-mails from Luther, first pleading that she drop the charges (and pleading is correct because after she's staunchly refused Luther's offer he tells her to consider it for 48 hours) and then telling her he has to "determine with Sean if that offer is still on the table." The dude needed to go. I don't think it's a systemic University problem. The disciplinary committee certainly needs to be firmer in its punishments, but the main instigator in this, according to the article is Luther.

Again, I completely understand that we don't have all the facts, and most likely never will. But based on that timeline, which is proven, and the e-mails, which are in black and white, I think the situation was terribly mismanaged. One of the guilty parties, seems to have been appropriately dealt with.

[LadyMuskie]

THe only problem I had with the way the story was written was the quotes from the former Social Work professor. It wasn't clear from my first reading why she had anything of interest to say about the issue or any familiarity with the case itself. But I was also eating breakfast so maybe I missed it.

I'm not sure what she had to do with anything either. I guess her comments were meant to provide a perspective from a female on the way women are treated on campus. However, I never felt like women were valued less by Xavier or treated differently than the men on campus while I was there. In fact, while I was there it was 60% females and 40% males on campus, so I'm not sure that that constitutes a devaluing of the female experience on campus.

[LadyMuskie]

The fact that he was only suspended for a semester and then allowed to return to campus, restrictions notwithstanding, is crazy enough IMO, but I just can't get around those e-mails from Luther, first pleading that she drop the charges (and pleading is correct because after she's staunchly refused Luther's offer he tells her to consider it for 48 hours) and then telling her he has to "determine with Sean if that offer is still on the table." The dude needed to go. I don't think it's a systemic University problem. The disciplinary committee certainly needs to be firmer in its punishments, but the main instigator in this, according to the article is Luther.

.

I agree with you almost entirely. My concern, however, is this: who was responsible for Luther Smith being allowed to "go rogue" (for lack of a better term) for so long?

Luther Smith has to have had a boss, even if it was Fr. Graham. Who was failing at his/her job by not reigning in Mr. Smith? Either he had the "okay" from his higher ups to say and do what he did, in which case it is a problem that reaches higher than his pay grade. Or, he didn't have the backing of his bosses and went out on a limb (in this case and with the reflection session nonsense, to name a few) and therefore his boss(es) still wasn't doing his/her job because he had gone off the reservation more than once and was allowed to continue in an administrative capacity at Xavier.

I have no problem with declaring that Luther Smith needed to be fired, but I also think that Luther Smith is taking the fall for several other people not doing their jobs in the way which most benefits the University as a whole. For me, the University doesn't get a pass on this or Luther Smith's other stupid moves, because he should have been held accountable by someone higher up. The way I see it, one way or the other, someone making more money than him, is just as responsible if they allowed him to continue to do these things on campus without reprimanding him or firing him long before this all became public. If he was/is such the cancer he is being made out to be (between this case and the reflection session) then why was he allowed to remain on campus for so long in that position?

[XULucho27]

I agree with you almost entirely. My concern, however, is this: who was responsible for Luther Smith being allowed to "go rogue" (for lack of a better term) for so long?

Luther Smith has to have had a boss, even if it was Fr. Graham. Who was failing at his/her job by not reigning in Mr. Smith? Either he had the "okay" from his higher ups to say and do what he did, in which case it is a problem that reaches higher than his pay grade. Or, he didn't have the backing of his bosses and went out on a limb (in this case and with the reflection session nonsense, to name a few) and therefore his boss(es) still wasn't doing his/her job because he had gone off the reservation more than once and was allowed to continue in an administrative capacity at Xavier.

I have no problem with declaring that Luther Smith needed to be fired, but I also think that Luther Smith is taking the fall for several other people not doing their jobs in the way which most benefits the University as a whole. For me, the University doesn't get a pass on this or Luther Smith's other stupid moves, because he should have been held accountable by someone higher up. The way I see it, one way or the other, someone making more money than him, is just as responsible if they allowed him to continue to do these things on campus without reprimanding him or firing him long before this all became public. If he was/is such the cancer he is being made out to be (between this case and the reflection session) then why was he allowed to remain on campus for so long in that position?

I never even thought of it in this fashion. I think you're dead right, too. I, admittedly have a bias against Luther. I've had friends have several, unwarranted run-ins with him over our 4 years at X. Never liked him, never will. But I do wholeheartedly agree with your points.

[LadyMuskie]

I never even thought of it in this fashion. I think you're dead right, too. I, admittedly have a bias against Luther. I've had friends have several, unwarranted run-ins with him over our 4 years at X. Never liked him, never will. But I do wholeheartedly agree with your points.

I think he was after my time, so I have no personal knowledge of him, but I have to say that I'm not a fan based on the emails I've seen from him on this issue and the reflection session issue.

[Kahns Krazy]

I just can't get past the part where a multiple offender sexual assault perpetrator was allowed to finish a semester after being expelled, while a victim was left to navigate dealing with her class load and professors on her own.

I find myself believing the account as it is written in the complaint. It is only one side of the story, but there are some facts in there that have to be substantiated. It would have to take an amazing other side of the story to convince me that the truth is other than multiple people at Xavier (not just Smith) treated this young lady like shit.

[LadyMuskie]

I just can't get past the part where a multiple offender sexual assault perpetrator was allowed to finish a semester after being expelled, while a victim was left to navigate dealing with her class load and professors on her own.

I find myself believing the account as it is written in the complaint. It is only one side of the story, but there are some facts in there that have to be substantiated. It would have to take an amazing other side of the story to convince me that the truth is other than multiple people at Xavier (not just Smith) treated this young lady like shit.

I agree completely. I don't think that Luther Smith was the only person employed by Xavier doing the wrong thing in this case, and that concerns me. As a mother, if my daughter (or if I had a son) was ready to enter college at this point, honestly, these things would give me pause if she was considering Xavier. It's bad enough that horrible things happen on college campuses, but to think that the University doesn't do its damnedest to make sure that it doesn't happen more than once and that the victim isn't helped in as many ways as possible is just wrong. The way this reads is that Xavier was more concerned with saving face than helping this young woman. I don't remember seeing that in Xavier's mission statement.

[paulxu]

After watching what has happened to our school in the aftermath of the UC game, I am more leery now than ever when a story only has one side.
If you just listened to ESPN announcers, and read what the media wrote, you would think that XU was equally to blame. A careful study of the tape, and understanding that school/A10 officials reviewed punishments, leads you to understand that this is clearly not the case.

I can't read the complaint, but I'm trusting what you all say that it paints a bleak picture of the University's handling of the entire matter; especially letting the guy stay in school.

But we haven't heard the other side; or seen all the facts. For example: who called the police in? The young lady, or did the University rightly forward the complaint to them for investigation?

Are the criminal charges he was acquited of the same as these incidents? Not easy to tell from the newspaper article. If they are a different set than there's an even bigger problem.

By no means do I offer excuses for anything the University failed to do to protect the young lady, if that is what happened. It's just I'm so jaundiced by the media's handling of the UC game, that when only one side is presented I am slower now to come to any conclusive judgement.

Just yesterday one of Fine's accusers at Syracuse admitted to making up his allegations. And the Duke lacrosse team media firestorm should give everyone pause.

I hope we get the complete facts some day. And I sincerely hope that if University officials didn't handle this correctly that they are disciplined just like our players were disciplined. (With the exception of Tu who shouldn't have been punished for speaking.)

[wkrq59]

I know it's a cliche but "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.!":D

[DoubleD86]

I just can't get past the part where a multiple offender sexual assault perpetrator was allowed to finish a semester after being expelled, while a victim was left to navigate dealing with her class load and professors on her own.

I find myself believing the account as it is written in the complaint. It is only one side of the story, but there are some facts in there that have to be substantiated. It would have to take an amazing other side of the story to convince me that the truth is other than multiple people at Xavier (not just Smith) treated this young lady like shit.


I agree completely. I don't think that Luther Smith was the only person employed by Xavier doing the wrong thing in this case, and that concerns me. As a mother, if my daughter (or if I had a son) was ready to enter college at this point, honestly, these things would give me pause if she was considering Xavier. It's bad enough that horrible things happen on college campuses, but to think that the University doesn't do its damnedest to make sure that it doesn't happen more than once and that the victim isn't helped in as many ways as possible is just wrong. The way this reads is that Xavier was more concerned with saving face than helping this young woman. I don't remember seeing that in Xavier's mission statement.

These two posts sum my feelings completely. I know the entire story isn't out, but it seems hard to believe Xavier's side of the story could make me feel any better about this ordeal, short of proving it all to be a lie (which seems unlikely due to everything else in the story). I love Xavier, but I also tend to have an incredibly cynical view on the world and especially large money corporations, which is what Xavier is when it comes down to it. It is a lot more likely, in my mind, that this story arose from a (at least partial) attempt to save the University's image at the expense of total protection of the student.

This isn't the first time a University has done such a thing, and sadly I think it happens so much more than people realize. For a University, the image and reputation is HUGE. So much of the University's success is tied to how people view the University. Better reputation (academically, socially, athletically, etc) leads to more applicants and more students, better students. More and better applicants also leads to the ability to increase tuition. More, better students leads to a larger alumni base and a more successful base. A large, successful alumni base leads to a larger endowment. A University's lifeline is it's image. Sadly, it seems as if Xavier dropped the ball with this student in an attempt to help its image. (Still not conclusive because of a lack of facts, but seems that way and IMO likely)

As for Luther Smith, I am very happy he is gone (and that has nothing to do with the Reflection Sessions). Anyone who in anyway uses feelings about the reflection sessions/UC game as an influence on this issue is misguided. Frankly, bringing it up in this thread is misguided in my opinion. I love Xavier Basketball, but it is a game played by people I don't know. Nothing about Xavier Basketball compares in seriousness to this allegation and possible situation. I am happy Luther Smith is gone because in two emails I learned everything I need to know to be completely sure he is not fit to be in a leadership position at one of the two University's I have received a degree from. Even if the school did everything else by the book, his two emails as well as letting the kid stay in school at all during it all shows a failure by the Administration. I am also very confident in saying it is not just Luther Smith that was involved with this, and I hope anyone else found to be a part of this is also punished justly.

I will get off my soapbox now, but this story sickens me and pisses me off. This also goes so far beyond basketball that I am a little surprised that anyone brought it up in this thread as well.

[LadyMuskie]

After watching what has happened to our school in the aftermath of the UC game, I am more leery now than ever when a story only has one side.
If you just listened to ESPN announcers, and read what the media wrote, you would think that XU was equally to blame. A careful study of the tape, and understanding that school/A10 officials reviewed punishments, leads you to understand that this is clearly not the case.

I can't read the complaint, but I'm trusting what you all say that it paints a bleak picture of the University's handling of the entire matter; especially letting the guy stay in school.

But we haven't heard the other side; or seen all the facts. For example: who called the police in? The young lady, or did the University rightly forward the complaint to them for investigation?

Are the criminal charges he was acquited of the same as these incidents? Not easy to tell from the newspaper article. If they are a different set than there's an even bigger problem.

By no means do I offer excuses for anything the University failed to do to protect the young lady, if that is what happened. It's just I'm so jaundiced by the media's handling of the UC game, that when only one side is presented I am slower now to come to any conclusive judgement.

Just yesterday one of Fine's accusers at Syracuse admitted to making up his allegations. And the Duke lacrosse team media firestorm should give everyone pause.

I hope we get the complete facts some day. And I sincerely hope that if University officials didn't handle this correctly that they are disciplined just like our players were disciplined. (With the exception of Tu who shouldn't have been punished for speaking.)

I understand what you're saying but the accused was accused (according to the article) more than once by more than one woman on campus. There are facts, not opinions, but facts that state he was twice found guilty by an on-campus disciplinary board for unwanted sexual advances and/or rape. That's not conjecture. That is what happened. He was not dismissed by the University as he should have been per the University's own handbook. So, he was found guilty of two seperate incidents by the disciplinary boards set up by the University to handle these cases, but then the University does not follow through with its own process. Then Luther Smith sends this girl an email saying that if she drops her charges they'll make him (the accused) leave campus when he already should have been removed from campus since he had been twice found guilty by the University's disciplinary board. Those emails are in black and white unless the accuser is creating these emails in her spare time. All of these things are facts and they aren't made up by the Enquirer.

Where there is smoke there is usually fire. Either he is the unluckiest SOB on campus, or he has a problem. If the disciplinary hearings found him "guilty" both times, then there was enough there to make those people think that he should be removed from campus per the handbook. Why wasn't he removed? Why was he allowed to remain on campus with his victims?

As for the criminal charges, I have no idea why he was acquitted, however, having worked for a criminal defense attorney I know that some people are acquitted for reasons having nothing to do with innocence. We had clients who were acquitted for lack of evidence, problems with filing procedures, problems with the way evidence was handled, etc. I don't know if that was the case in this particular instance, but it is not unheard of.

I really think that we need to separate this from the Shootout. For one thing, these accusations are far more serious than the Shootout fight ever was and the two aren't even comparable. Beyond that, just because we were unfairly targeted post Shootout, doesn't mean we're always going to be unfairly targeted at every turn. Is our complex with the media this big? I sincerely hope that the accusations are all false and that this entire thing has been made up, but unfortunately there are things that are in black and white and which are facts provided by Xavier that can't be ignored. Xavier handled this situation very, very poorly, and as I've said before that's a disservice to both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator. The Enquirer, as lousy of a newspaper as it is, had nothing to do with how Xavier handled the situation with which it was presented, and if the article is filled with nothing but falsehoods and libel, then Xavier should sue Gannet like Chiquita did.

[homogeneous weasel]

Kathleen Simmons is the head of the office of student involvement which Luther Smith reports to. I looked at the faculty website and Luther's new job is in the office of the provost.

I read it that way as well. In the faculty directory, Luther's title is now listed as "Office of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer." Based on the university's org. chart, it looks like he was promoted!

http://www.xavier.edu/hr/documents/Org-Chart-University-9-9-11.pdf

Can someone with more information shed some light on this?

[paulxu]

Lady, I don't disagree with your summary; especially since I can't read the complaints.
Yes, the situation is much more serious with the student problem than the basketball game.
They can't be completely separated because they are "news." Negative news leads the airways, internet and newsprint. It always does. So it's another negative story about my alma mater.
I'm cynical lacking the complete set of facts because of my age; and the correction of the mistake never getting the airtime of the mistake coverage itself. You don't see anyone correcting the game situation do you? It's still as much our fault if not more. That may never change.
Most of all I'm saddened that some young woman had to go through any sort of experience of harrassment/assualt or worse at my school.

[bleedXblue]

Im just curious how you can justify keeping a kid on campus after the university has found him guilty of sexual assault or rape ?

Really looking for some good reasons why this makes any kind of sense ?

Im at a loss for why X would do this ?

[xuhoops]

I read it that way as well. In the faculty directory, Luther's title is now listed as "Office of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer." Based on the university's org. chart, it looks like he was promoted!

http://www.xavier.edu/hr/documents/Org-Chart-University-9-9-11.pdf

Can someone with more information shed some light on this?

Yep, you're correct. Luther was not fired, just "re-assigned." As someone mentioned earlier, as Dean, Luther reported to Kathleen Simmons, Associate Provost for Student Life & Leadership, who reported to the Provost. Not sure what his "new" role really entails, but the University sure was quick to remove him from the Dean's web page. Kathleen's really the one in control and who runs everything in that division, Luther's name is just on everything as he has the most direct contact with students etc. and does her bidding.

Hopefully the new Provost takes a long, hard look at that division... clearly it's been nothing but an unorganized embarassment over the past few weeks (and if this is how Luther and Simons really handled the allegations of rape/victims/accused... it's been a mess for a lot longer than the past few weeks...)

[blobfan]

Im just curious how you can justify keeping a kid on campus after the university has found him guilty of sexual assault or rape ?

Really looking for some good reasons why this makes any kind of sense ?

Im at a loss for why X would do this ?

That's really what it boils down to for me. He was found guilty by the committee and expelled. Why was her still there? I believe the article said it was official right before finals, so I can see his professors not knowing what happened. But for Luther or someone in his office to not personally escort the kid off campus strikes me as odd.

[KingCole]

Just saw that not only was Luther Smith reassigned, Kathleen Simmons was placed on "leave". The article link is below.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120117/NEWS/301170027/XU-administrators-replaced?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

[MADXSTER]

Speaking in General,

"University Police" seem to be a loophole in the justice system and appears to be a conflict of interest. It would seem to best serve all individuals across the nation if 'certain crimes/acusations' or maybe 'degree of felony' directly involved the local authorities as well as the University Police.

On a side note, how ironic is it that the same high horse individuals who ongoingly persecuted the basketball team were trying to sweep something a 1000 times worse under the rug. smh

[LutherRackleyRulez]

On a side note, how ironic is it that the same high horse individuals who ongoingly persecuted the basketball team were trying to sweep something a 1000 times worse under the rug. smh


MadX,


Amen bro!!!

[Kahns Krazy]

Reassigned and leave. What the hell does it take to get fired around there?

[paulxu]

Say you have gangstas on your team?

[Clinton Springs]

The Kathleen Simons mentioned in the article, would probably be former 7 foot walk on Adam Simons mother, wouldn't he? I know he attended X for free as his mother worked for the university.

[Muskiefornia]

Sean Marron went to UC his suspended semester.

[An X Fan]

The Kathleen Simons mentioned in the article, would probably be former 7 foot walk on Adam Simons mother, wouldn't he? I know he attended X for free as his mother worked for the university.

No, separate people.

Adam's mom / step-mom (?) is Gail Goestenkors, formerly the head women's basketball coach at Duke, now at Texas. I believe Adam used Duke's tuition exchange program, via his mom / step-mom, to attend Xavier.

[LadyMuskie]

Speaking in General,

"University Police" seem to be a loophole in the justice system and appears to be a conflict of interest. It would seem to best serve all individuals across the nation if 'certain crimes/acusations' or maybe 'degree of felony' directly involved the local authorities as well as the University Police.

On a side note, how ironic is it that the same high horse individuals who ongoingly persecuted the basketball team were trying to sweep something a 1000 times worse under the rug. smh

Completely agree!


Reassigned and leave. What the hell does it take to get fired around there?


Say you have gangstas on your team?

Paul's right. Or maybe if they head to UC's campus and start trash talking and taunting their counterparts there, they'll get the boot. At this point, I'm fairly certain someone could determine Luther Smith and Kathleen Simons orchestrated Kennedy's assassination and they'd just be reassigned or placed on leave. Job security rocks at Xavier.:rolleyes:

[xubrew]

I don't think these OCR probes are necessarily a bad thing. Other schools undergoing the Title IX probe for these reasons are Yale, Marquette, Virginia, Duke, Harvard and Princeton. I'm sure there are others.

I know nothing about this specific case, and am not going to say anything about it. I will speak to what I generally think one of the problems is.

I think universities, particularly private universities, oftentimes get caught up in their own bubble, so to speak. They have their own rules, guidelines and identity, and that can become their entire frame of reference for everything. When it comes to issues such as sexual assault and/or rape, they oftentimes have different definitions of what constitutes sexual assault than what the laws of the state do. I think that is at least part of the problem.

Sexual assault is definitely a police matter. So, if the police are involved, and then decide no crime was committed, I can see how the university is an awkward situation. If they expel him/her, the student is going to go crazy because they're being expelled for something that the police is saying they didn't do. Do they handle it internally and not involve the police?? That's not right. Do they expel them anyway?? They can, but they also may want to duck.

So, that's the general problem as I see it. Schools define it differently, but have no real plan or procedure in place (or at least not an effective one) to deal with it when it comes up. That, and oftentimes the leadership doesn't know what they're doing. They probably don't consult with people. If you're not accustomed to dealing with sexual assault, you should probably consult with someone who is. The tendency of most universities is to try and handle it themselves, when they clearly can't. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that of all these schools being investigated, none of them had anyone in charge that had a clue.

my $0.02

[Muskiefornia]

Not to diminish the severity (but actually to diminish the severity) this involved stalking and not rape if I am not confused.

[xu95]

Not to diminish the severity (but actually to diminish the severity) this involved stalking and not rape if I am not confused.

I believe it was rape first and than a topping of stalking.

xu95

[LutherRackleyRulez]

Per The Daily Bellweather....






Hamilton County Officials Ignore Judge's Order
Sealing Xavier University Rape Case Records:
Court Clerk Snafu Allows Details To Emerge








http://thebellwetherdaily.blogspot.com/2012/01/hamilton-county-officials-ignore-judges.html

[SlimKibbles]

...But the court files obtained by The Daily Bellwether make clear there was no coverup by campus authorities or police in Norwood. Both cases received prompt attention as criminal matters when reported by the female students. Neither incident took place on campus. And one of the female students gave differing versions to Xavier and Norwood police.

That's interesting. In addition to that, one of the girls waited 18 months before reporting anything to police.

[LutherRackleyRulez]

Per Enquirer.....






XU faces third civil-rights complaint






http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20120217/NEWS/302170162/XU-faces-third-civil-rights-complaint?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CSPT0104% 7Cs

[paulxu]

I wish Fr. Graham would spend more time on this issue than worrying about our basketball players. These things are blights upon the name of a Jesuit university...not players standing up for the strength of their teammates.

I just wonder if any of the high rollers are concerned about this stuff, and barrage his phone/in-box with their comments.

These are very tough situations. You could have anything from 2 kids getting completely bombed and one deciding she didn't mean to go that far...to far worse scenarios where date-rape drugs and intentional harm are committed.

I was gratified to learn that in some instances (I think the first 2) that the police were notified by the University. Exactly the right thing to do, and what the church should have done years and years ago.

But why can't they get their act together on campus with handling these things the correct way? The young women on our campus deserve to know they can attend school in a non-threatening environment and one that addresses legitimate concerns.

Boggles the mind that they can't figure this all out. Maybe good, corrective steps have been made in the whole process, and we are just seeing the old stuff play out to a necessary conclusion. I sure hope so.

[LadyMuskie]

I wish Fr. Graham would spend more time on this issue than worrying about our basketball players. These things are blights upon the name of a Jesuit university...not players standing up for the strength of their teammates.

I just wonder if any of the high rollers are concerned about this stuff, and barrage his phone/in-box with their comments.

These are very tough situations. You could have anything from 2 kids getting completely bombed and one deciding she didn't mean to go that far...to far worse scenarios where date-rape drugs and intentional harm are committed.

I was gratified to learn that in some instances (I think the first 2) that the police were notified by the University. Exactly the right thing to do, and what the church should have done years and years ago.

But why can't they get their act together on campus with handling these things the correct way? The young women on our campus deserve to know they can attend school in a non-threatening environment and one that addresses legitimate concerns.

Boggles the mind that they can't figure this all out. Maybe good, corrective steps have been made in the whole process, and we are just seeing the old stuff play out to a necessary conclusion. I sure hope so.

I agree. It seems this is being handled as poorly as the aftermath of the fight.

[Snipe]

Duke seemed to survive the Lacrosse incident.

[GoMuskies]

Duke seemed to survive the Lacrosse incident.

Duke apparently was all TOO happy to accuse and prosecute their students. Xavier may have the opposite problem.

[Snipe]

The kid was prosecuted and found not guilty.

Laura Collier's profile here (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/laura-collier/35/836/749) says she was in "Gender and Diversity Studies"

She led a charge that 1 in every 4 women nationally and at Xavier were victims of rape and sexual molestation. The Newswire article is here (http://yearbook.xu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p137701coll005/id/24963). Her stats and the argument that 1 out of every four college women is rapped is garbage. I am sure here "Gender and Diversity Studies" confirmed her world view.

I am not buying it. Color me unimpressed.

Where does Sean go to get his reputation back?

[paulxu]

I suspect we'll always be in the dark about many of the particulars of these cases.
But there is the story on the second page of the article that is very confusing. I assume it is not one of the 3 cases that might involve this Sean guy.

You've got a woman who claimed to have been assaulted by a Xavier student.
The assault appears to have happened after she graduated from Xavier.

She files a claim with Luther's office. Why? To get the guy (assumedly still a student) punished by the university? He appears to tell her that X can't do anything because she's not a student anymore. Who knows why he even scheduled a hearing.

Then, you learn that she testifies before a grand jury who fails to indict.
So...somehow the correct thing does happen, whether on her own or Luther's suggestion, or whatever. But the police do in fact get involved, and they do take the case to the grand jury.

To Snipe's point about Duke, this is probably one case where X handled it right. The woman has graduated, she's no longer an X student, the disciplinary procedure is not the right place for her claim...it should go to the cops, and it does. Not enough evidence to indict.

So what's that whole story doing in this mess about the Marion kid other than to make X look bad?

Call the cops. Always. First thing. If you have been harmed and are concerned about your safety.