Attorney: Dayton's Pierre will fight suspension

[N2663R]

Originally Posted by TheSixthMan If Pierre does not receive and an injunction do you believe he is playing for the Flyers after December 22? Or does he take his talents elsewhere? Posted via Mobile Device

Not sure, but I wonder what Archie's advice would be?

[FlyerNation23]

In the hearing yesterday, Pierre stated that he wanted to be playing professional ball next summer. The only school that will allow DP to play college bball this year and be ready to play pro ball in the Summer is UD.

If Pierre does lose the injunction, what is his next step? Does he still go forward in trying to sue the school? If he already lost the injunction, how would he win in future cases?

Archie recruited DP to play at UD 3 years ago, why couldn't he recruit DP for one more semester? UD made it clear that it is a 1 semester suspension, can DP put this situation in the past and lead us to the tourney in March? Guess we will not know until 12/22.

How can DP abandon his teammates and coaches that have supported him over past 3 years??

[FlyingArrow]

I don't understand why DP wouldn't come back on 12/22. Going into a new situation for one year or return for his senior year where he's been his whole career? At a time where he could help a deep run into the tournament? It's better if he comes back right away, but if not I don't see where he gets a better situation anywhere else. He's also pushed back a year if he goes anywhere else.

[TerryK_67]

As long as no bridges are set on fire in the court hearings, I see no reason for him to not come back on the 22nd..... unless he wants a whole year, and opts to red shirt and come back next year. With the comment above about playing professionally next summer, the latter sounds doubtful.

[UDDoug]

Pierre can play pro ball next year regardless of whether or not he plays for UD this year. He is stating that to show harm, which likely does not exist. The odds of winning the injunction are extremely low. No idea what he chooses to do when/if denied

[Ready Action]

I would take that Pierre's people have already or soon will have feelers out to see what his pro ball options are. I would already take that Pierre knew going into this season where he stood at possibly playing professionally as far as his current standing and what he needed to work on in order to become an even more attractive player. As I said before he has already shown "potential" and "growth" so regardless what happens in the next few months he will get invited to pro workouts and from there who knows. Now granted its best he plays his senior year of ball to increase his chances of having a better starting point for a pro career, but he's already shown enough.

[NJFlyr71]

Originally Posted by rollo I'm glad that in my time at UD I was never in a position to have to estimate how many beverages I had in a week! 'Excuse me Mr. Investigator, but could you pass me the calculator!'

Have no fear Rollo
Now-a-days there's an APP for that!

[rollo]

He can play 'pro' tomorrow if he heads to Europe. No strings attached. If you think he instantly becomes an NBA free-agent after the judge decides against him and UD says 'see ya', you don't understand the purpose of their draft.

[Sea Bass]

IMO this case has some parallels to Deflategate. The judge didn't rule that Brady was innocent or that the NFL didn't have the authority to do what they did. He basically ruled that they did not follow their own policies for handing out discipline and thus Brady was not treated in a fair manner. Certainly UD has the authority to discipline students. The question is did they follow their procedures to ensure a fair process to all parties? My guess is that is what the judge is attempting to determine. Will be interested to see if he makes a quick ruling or attempts to get the parties together to attempt to negotiate a settlement. Although, IMO, this case is also similar to Deflategate in that I don't see a potential middle ground for a settlement.

[UDDoug]

That is absolutely what the US District case is about. Very little of that was the subject if the hearing on Thursday. There has to be some discussed as probability if prevailing at trial is one of four factors that had to be met for the injunction. It is the one if the four mist likely to cause a negotiated settlement.

That said from those who had ears in the court, the assessment if likelihood if obtaining the injunction is exceptionally low.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by UDDoug An hour or two after closing time. Peak intoxication, at least in BAC, is 60 to 90 minutes after drinking. Clearly others in the first apartment were concerned about getting her to bed, and have contemporaneous texts to that and express concern when they can't find her in that apartment. Posted via Mobile Device

OK, so a college student who has 1 drink at the apartment around 9:00, and 2 drinks over the course of a couple hours at Tim's from 10 - 2 AM. Returns to the apartment around 3. Pretty difficult for me to believe she was intoxicated to the point of not having control of her decisions if true, but, there's a lot of facts I don't know there.

[Phi Psi Flyer '09]

Originally Posted by Gazoo OK, so a college student who has 1 drink at the apartment around 9:00, and 2 drinks over the course of a couple hours at Tim's from 10 - 2 AM. Returns to the apartment around 3. Pretty difficult for me to believe she was intoxicated to the point of not having control of her decisions if true, but, there's a lot of facts I don't know there.

Ok. I can't tell if everyone is joking in this thread in regards to the Walls from Tim's. 1 single wall comes in an 8 oz cup. It is probably 4-6 oz. of liquor in that glass. While I was at UD 2 of these would normally be plenty to get a 22 year old male intoxicated. If this girl truly was not much of a drinker then 2 Walls would definitely be enough. As far as I know it is called a Wall because it includes "everything on the wall."

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Phi Psi Flyer '09 Ok. I can't tell if everyone is joking in this thread in regards to the Walls from Tim's. 1 single wall comes in an 8 oz cup. It is probably 4-6 oz. of liquor in that glass. While I was at UD 2 of these would normally be plenty to get a 22 year old male intoxicated. If this girl truly was not much of a drinker then 2 Walls would definitely be enough. As far as I know it is called a Wall because it includes "everything on the wall."

As I said, many facts I don't know. If it's really 6 oz. each, and she had 2, that's about 8 shots of rot gut. If that was over the course of ~4 hours that's enough to get her plenty drunk and maybe even stupid drunk. If the bartenders cheat toward the 4 oz. size and she had 2, that's 5 shots over the course of ~4 hours, and doubtfully enough to get her stupid drunk.

Again, many facts I don't know, but am interested to learn more.

[Phi Psi Flyer '09]

Originally Posted by Gazoo As I said, many facts I don't know. If it's really 6 oz. each, and she had 2, that's about 8 shots of rot gut. If that was over the course of ~4 hours that's enough to get her plenty drunk and maybe even stupid drunk. If the bartenders cheat toward the 4 oz. size and she had 2, that's 5 shots over the course of ~4 hours, and doubtfully enough to get her stupid drunk. Again, many facts I don't know, but am interested to learn more.

Regarding the case, obviously I don't have many facts. Regarding Walls from Tim's, they are all pre mixed before hand and put into huge pourers. If she had 2 walls she was probably pretty drunk depending on her tolerance level. However the water and the little drinking beforehand would have helped.

[UDDoug]

And of course her friends say she had 4 Walls. She remembers 2. My experience has been that people who are intoxicated seldom remember how many they had.

Also relevant is when consumed.

More likely than not - she was trashed.
Posted via Mobile Device

[shocka43]

Originally Posted by Gazoo OK, so a college student who has 1 drink at the apartment around 9:00, and 2 drinks over the course of a couple hours at Tim's from 10 - 2 AM. Returns to the apartment around 3. Pretty difficult for me to believe she was intoxicated to the point of not having control of her decisions if true, but, there's a lot of facts I don't know there.

Here is why....

She wants to maintain that alcohol was involved, but that she had the senses to understand what was going on and asserts that consent wasn't given...

If she says she was drinking heavily, her side of the story is even more invalid as she would have trouble remembering the details of the event.

Trashed? Weak he said she said as if she were trashed, she wouldn't remember much...

Drinking but not trashed? Alcohol involvement and she remembers what happened...

Give me a break....we all know what goes on pregaming and at Tims...they were both intoxicated to the point that most college kids are who pregame and go to Tims...don't give me that BS....College students don't go to tims to not party.

[T-Bone 84]

Originally Posted by UDDoug And of course her friends say she had 4 Walls. She remembers 2. My experience has been that people who are intoxicated seldom remember how many they had. Also relevant is when consumed. More likely than not - she was trashed. Posted via Mobile Device

Haven't followed every post in this thread (many/most, but not every), but I have a feeling you're spot-on, Doug. When I was a student, I had a few of those "I had a good time, from what people tell me" nights. And that doesn't include the nights when I was drunk, but not "stupid" drunk.

If the drink is truly the equivalent of what we used to call a Hairy Buffalo (a $hi+ pot of liquor in a glass), then 2 glasses of that would have gotten most coeds of my generation just a bit drunk, and 4 would have put most of them past the point of cognition.

In summary, I agree - she was trashed. If so, then what "spin" does this put on the incident?

[224]

Originally Posted by UDDoug And of course her friends say she had 4 Walls. She remembers 2. My experience has been that people who are intoxicated seldom remember how many they had. Also relevant is when consumed. More likely than not - she was trashed. Posted via Mobile Device

She can't remember how many walls she had but she does remember how many glasses of water she had at the apartment

[UDDoug]

Does it matter? If she was intoxicated past the point of not being able to remember correctly then it's a slam dunk case closed violation of the student code. Her stating she wasn't that drunk does nothing but help Pierre, not harm him. If anything inability to remember, inconsistencies due to intoxication do nothing but make it more likely than not she was too intoxicated to consent.

Her story is a little different on details each time. But it's consistent on getting up on more than one occasion for water, removing herself, etc. all I have is what's in each of the reports - but the totality certainly appears to me it is more likely than not she was drunk, her friends were aware she was drunk, she was uncomfortable and Pierre misread the situation. Perhaps because he may have also been somewhat intoxicated. I can certainly see how he was held responsible for not obtaining effective consent on a more likely than not standard.

What can't be answered from the reports is whether they were investigated and prepared in accordance with policy, including the level of fairness required.

We can say all we want that's not what the policy should be, and she should be responsible for her actions even if intoxicated, but that us not what the policy is. And what it is will determine what happens in District Court, not what it should be.
Posted via Mobile Device

[San Diego Flyer]

Originally Posted by UDDoug Indications are they never felt that, but I don't predict what judges will or won't do. If the TRO or whatever it would technically be is not granted, this likely goes to trial in a year or so. Posted via Mobile Device

Ok, let's assume that for a minute. It still makes sense for Dyshawn to return to Dayton for the second semester and play basketball. Who's going to pay the tab for a bevy of lawyers for another year and more. He is still a hot commodity in the b-ball world (no joke there). He has the whole A10 season, A10 tourney, NCAA's to show what he needs to show for the NBA.
Protracted time-outs from the public eye do nothing for his expressed end-game.

Other teams he could transfer to for a year after sitting out have their issues. He would have to learn a new team chemistry, not to mention their offense and defense schemes.

Arizona is the only transfer target that makes any sense at all to me. Shawn would make sure he didn't get lost in the shuffle. Still in all, UD is the best option.

Swallow hard and stick to the plan Dyshawn.

The attitude that "he's gone" is a loser option. Successful business people know when to fire and fall back-- & live to fight another day.

[CE80]

Would he be allowed to join another team for all of next season without an NCAA waiver? Does someone have to be enrolled in another school when they are sitting out their year? This is not exactly like the Dez Wells situation. Pierre was not kicked out of school completely. Only suspended for 1 semester. He is being reprimanded for violation of school rules. It would be harder for the NCAA to grant a waiver in such a situation. Would he really be eligible to play Dec. 22? Wouldn't he have to have been a student?

[FlyerNation23]

Originally Posted by CE80 Would he be allowed to join another team for all of next season without an NCAA waiver? Does someone have to be enrolled in another school when they are sitting out their year? This is not exactly like the Dez Wells situation. Pierre was not kicked out of school completely. Only suspended for 1 semester. He is being reprimanded for violation of school rules. It would be harder for the NCAA to grant a waiver in such a situation. Would he really be eligible to play Dec. 22? Wouldn't he have to have been a student?

If DP wants to play for another school, it would be for next season. In order to be able to play for another school this year, he would need a special NCAA waiver and would not be able to enroll until 2nd semester starts which means he would not have any time to adjust to a new school, team, and play book. Chances of all of that happening prior to 12/22 is very slim and a huge risk for Pierre (What teams have available scholarships for mid year transfers?) So if he wants to play this NCAA tourney year, his only option is UD.

Peirre options at this point

1) TRO is granted and he is back on the team ASAP
2) He joins UD on 12/22 and plays the rest of his Senior Year
3) He transfers to a new school and gets a waiver to play with them next year
4) He plays pro ball overseas or new Vegas league that is trying to recruit former headline players (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-bas...white-semi-pro)

I was hoping the judge would make his decision today..

[BRob2Perryman3]

What is a Wall again? Were there ripped panties? How many cups of water did she have?

[UDDoug]

Not arguing he won't return on December 22. I don't know what he'll do.

Without a waiver he doesn't have a lot of options. And I doubt a 10 game suspension is going to get you an immediate transfer waiver from the NCAA.

Without a waiver, he'd be eligible to play at another school next year after the first semester ends or when the second semester begins. I never recall correctly how that works and when it is which flavor of that. He'd be ineligible under transfer rules until then, including this year. He will only get a half year if he transfers as the second half of the year uses his last of 4 years of eligibility, and the end of next season is the last year for 4 years in 5.

He also has the option to play a half year at UD starting Dec 22. Or, if he wants a last full year, he can re-enroll for second semester, red shirt (practice but not play), and have a full year at UD next year.

Or he can go to Europe to play now.

If the injunction is granted, of course he'll be eligible now. But here's a twist. Let's say Judge Rose says he's granting the injunction because UD did not follow it's policies. Let's say UD then opens a new investigation and hearing correcting those issues, and again finds him responsible. At that point he's back to being suspended. I don't find that to be a far fetched outcome.

[UDDoug]

Originally Posted by BRob2Perryman3 What is a Wall again? Were there ripped panties? How many cups of water did she have?

easy answer don't read the thread. when there is a court decision there will either be a new thread or a ton of posts on this one

[San Diego Flyer]

Originally Posted by UDDoug If the injunction is granted, of course he'll be eligible now. But here's a twist. Let's say Judge Rose says he's granting the injunction because UD did not follow it's policies. Let's say UD then opens a new investigation and hearing correcting those issues, and again finds him responsible. At that point he's back to being suspended. I don't find that to be a far fetched outcome.

After all we know now about the mutual encounter between the two, if UD did that I would consider it stalking. They are hearing enough from their supporters already. That avenue would take some real nads on their part.

[TheSixthMan]

Source tells me Dyshawn is headed back to Canada this weekend. His return to UD is unlikely. Multiple college teams trying to bring him on board for next season.
Posted via Mobile Device

[rollo]

I would ask my source but I'm so sick of the situation and lawsuit - that Pierre also could have avoided - that I no longer care whether or not he plays. And I know I'm not alone thinking that way.

[CE80]

Originally Posted by TheSixthMan Source tells me Dyshawn is headed back to Canada this weekend. His return to UD is unlikely. Multiple college teams trying to bring him on board for next season. Posted via Mobile Device

I too think he is gone but As pointed out by UDDoug above, Without an NCAA waiver I don't think he can play a full season somewhere else next season. He would not be eligible until 2nd semester. I don't think he gets a waiver. It would be a dangerous precedent for the NCAA to set.

[Avid Flyer]

Originally Posted by rollo I would ask my source but I'm so sick of the situation and lawsuit - that Pierre also could have avoided - that I no longer care whether or not he plays. And I know I'm not alone thinking that way.

A situation they both could have avoided, where is her punishment for breaking the student code of conduct. She not only had drinks, had sex but was in another students room. She had multiple chances to leave, and DP roommate was in next room. All she had to do was make some form of noise in fending off DP if he was infact ripping her pants and panties off. No unusual noise. leaves his room multiple times and returns, lays on bed pretending to be asleep so he would leave her alone, when all she had to do was get a drink of water and walk out the dorm door and go down the hall to her apt.

Don't pass the smell test. Only panty sniffers would see it otherwise.

[1903 Flyer]

Originally Posted by TheSixthMan Source tells me Dyshawn is headed back to Canada this weekend. His return to UD is unlikely. Multiple college teams trying to bring him on board for next season. Posted via Mobile Device

Would UD have to grant his release, or did that become unnecessary once he was suspended/disenrolled?

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer A situation they both could have avoided, where is her punishment for breaking the student code of conduct.

Since she's not a UD student, she can't be disciplined.

I wish Scott and Robinson had taken her path, too.

[Atlantic 10]

Originally Posted by rollo Since she's not a UD student, she can't be disciplined. I wish Scott and Robinson had taken her path, too.

She is a UD student, she is supposed to graduate this Dec

[jack72]

Does anyone have proof that she is or is not a student?

[UDDoug]

The code involves effective consent. Pierre did not allege he did not consent or was unable to consent and did not receive unwelcome attention, hence she was never charged with violating the code.

Her actions may have contributed but those are not violations that tend to result in suspension.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Atlantic 10]

Originally Posted by jack72 Does anyone have proof that she is or is not a student?

She is a student, as I say she graduates in Dec. That is from my source, who would know if someone is in school. That is why DP was coming back Dec 22. Plus Matt from FlyerHoops on twitter said that DP attorney requested that they would find a place off campus.if he comes back to school now. This was from Thursday hearing .

[TX Flyer]

Originally Posted by Atlantic 10 She is a student, as I say she graduates in Dec. That is from my source, who would know if someone is in school. That is why DP was coming back Dec 22. Plus Matt from FlyerHoops on twitter said that DP attorney requested that they would find a place off campus.if he comes back to school now. This was from Thursday hearing .

Heard same thing

[GoFlyer]

Originally Posted by UDDoug The code involves effective consent. Pierre did not allege he did not consent or was unable to consent and did not receive unwelcome attention, hence she was never charged with violating the code. Her actions may have contributed but those are not violations that tend to result in suspension. Posted via Mobile Device

This whole situation gets sicker by the minute. This post coupled with the post later that indicates the woman involved is still a student just absolutely makes me ill. Pierre is a total victim. The university absolutely threw him under the bus with a prejudicial code that structurally unjustly protects only the female student. My faith in the university is completely blown. I can't even get excited about this season and wish I had not shelled out the money to go to Orlando, and it has nothing to do with our basketball win-loss probability. A young man was railroaded and rumor has it our coach is very upset. I think this prejudicial code has cost us far more than one basketball player, but Pierre has lost far more than any of us at the hands of the university I don't buy blaming Title IX .. .it did not write the UD policies. And again, let me remind everyone I am very much a feminist and have been a woman advocate all my life, but this result has nothing that will benefit women . Thank you University of Dayton. Think I will keep my donation to the I Love UD campaign in my pocket this year. I urge others to consider the same.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by GoFlyer A young man was railroaded and rumor has it our coach is very upset. I think this prejudicial code has cost us far more than one basketball player, but Pierre has lost far more than any of us at the hands of the university I don't buy blaming Title IX .. .it did not write the UD policies.

This is what upsets me the most. While basketball is not the most important priority at a university, let's be honest and realize it's important enough that UD has struggled for the past 40 years trying to get it to the point it is today. A careless code put in place to cover the school's butt is now threatening to crumble it all. They start by maybe losing their best player in his senior season for an action that has been taking place since beginning of time and has never been deemed even a misdemeanor crime. They have an upset coach that has moved them very close to the goal of this 40 year project and even if the coach stays, possible recruits will be looking at how easy their college careers and their reputations can be flushed right down the toilet for something so insignificant.

I can see in no way that this debacle has been in UD's best interest. And I see no reason why this debacle couldn't have been prevented by the university after the event took place. Yes, when a decision has been made at the earliest step in a process that causes this kind of damage, it's ridiculous that they didn't stop the process dead in it's tracks and take a more in depth review of the event, level of punishment and the damage it would cause.

[Jack D]

what the hell does Title IX have to do with this? please enlighten me.

[Avid Flyer]

Originally Posted by Jack D what the hell does Title IX have to do with this? please enlighten me.

In actuality title IX does not have anything directly to do with this, however by an anti-male feminist in a position of power in the Federal Department of Education wrote a Dear Colleague letter outlining how this sort of event dealing with females involved with on campus activities where a female has a drink and has sex is to be viewed by the Universities and put in their student code of conduct and procedures. Failure to do so could prevent the schools from receiving federal $$$$.

This letter was sent to all title IX coordinators at each school who then instituted these directives into their student code of conduct as if it were law. Title IX itself has only to do with equality of women playing sports equal to the number of males receiving scholarships. But somehow this letter/directive has taken on legs of its own and has been put in place as if it was in fact law.....which it isn't. Senate/Congress are the law makers who can enact laws, not some anti-male feminist.

But most schools adopted this Dear Colleague letter as if it were in fact law with threats of holding back any federal $$$$ if not instituted as directed.

An obvious overreach of the author, and the title IX coordinators at each respective school, where they dictate to the schools how such incidents shall be viewed and disposed of.

In its totality, it is unlawful, has no legal standing, is unconstitutional etc but did what the letter was intended to do and that was to get the schools to commit to their directives in writing the schools student code of conduct and proceed as such.

This is where the animosity for most come from, the school, fully aware of the inequality of the student code of conduct and enforcement of it has turned a blind eye and deaf ear to what is considered equal rights.

Rollo seems to think this makes those against such a ruling by a kangaroo court as jock sniffers whereas it would be the same response if it were a regular student that got the media attention as the DP case has. Most of us no longer in college had no idea of the travesty of injustice this student code of conduct had become. Sad for DP but possibly good going forward that the present student code of conduct and enforcement thereof can and will be challenged, not only at UD but other schools of higher learning.

The court docks are becoming weighted with many lawsuits challenging the Dear Colleague letter and directive and how it is unfairly applied.

[Avid Flyer]

Originally Posted by rollo Since she's not a UD student, she can't be disciplined. I wish Scott and Robinson had taken her path, too.

Wow, this is totally mind boggling. For someone who claims to be well connected at UD and to not know she is enrolled is baffling.

Its been confirmed by several sources and also at the TRO hearing.

This BTW is why he was suspended for one semester as the Title IX attorney stated that he was a threat to her and others. And that after she graduates in December she would no longer be on campus.

Now the question begs, "threat to her and others...." While she may not be on campus after first semester "Others" will be, so what will happen on the eve of December 21, 2015 that will miraculously change that DP will no longer be a "threat to Others" after midnight of the 22nd.

[UDDoug]

The sexual harassment provisions discussed in the Dear Colleague letter have been around a lot longer than that letter. It was just reinforcement. There's provisions in a 2001 OCR that cover much the same topic.

Directives issued by regulatory and governmental agencies implementing a law absolutely have the effect of law. Suggesting those implementation provisions and guidance are not law is not correct - they carry the same force.

Congress can over ride regulations, but if they don't they are law. Many EPA regulations for example are never in a law passed by Congress. The EPA is empowered to enact the laws, and they write the regulations. Same for the IRS regulations - they have the force of tax law.

[UDDoug]

The sexual harassment provisions discussed in the Dear Colleague letter have been around a lot longer than that letter. It was just reinforcement. There's provisions in a 2001 OCR that cover much the same topic.

Title IX addresses more than just sports, although that's where it started. It's law is equal access in education and programs. By regulation that's been extended to harassment and the like as it supposedly creates an atmosphere unconducive to equal access.

Those directives issued by regulatory and governmental agencies implementing a law absolutely have the effect of law. Suggesting those implementation provisions and guidance are not law is not correct - they carry the same force.

Congress can over ride regulations, but if they don't they are law. Many EPA regulations for example are never in a law passed by Congress. The EPA is empowered to enact the laws, and they write the regulations. Same for the IRS regulations - they have the force of tax law.

[Jay O'Leary]

I too am a UD grad (1969), a retired veterinarian, and not an attorney or priest. At the risk of offending the PC contributors to this site, allow me to make a simple observation and add a few comments. While I am not a Roman Catholic and don't know intimately (no pun intended) your religious standards, I am shocked that after reading all 844 posts there is not a single mention of the unacceptable behavior on the part of each of these young adults. Is this what you would want for your son or daughter? I am not standing in judgment because sin is sin and we all, certainly myself included, sin in many ways daily. But there is accountability for our behavior. Isn't UD just holding a standard of behavior for the student in their C of C? Certainly there is an argument that the rule is being applied arbitrarily because many students are involved in the same behavior, so why punish DP? Just because the behavior is widespread, does not minimize the guilt. Perhaps DP should accept his penalty, return in December to finish his career and graduate. Legally he is not charged with a crime so how is the university out of order in applying their C of C? Surely there are others out there who feel the same.

[Flyer 86]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Leary I too am a UD grad (1969), a retired veterinarian, and not an attorney or priest. At the risk of offending the PC contributors to this site, allow me to make a simple observation and add a few comments. While I am not a Roman Catholic and don't know intimately (no pun intended) your religious standards, I am shocked that after reading all 844 posts there is not a single mention of the unacceptable behavior on the part of each of these young adults. Is this what you would want for your son or daughter? I am not standing in judgment because sin is sin and we all, certainly myself included, sin in many ways daily. But there is accountability for our behavior. Isn't UD just holding a standard of behavior for the student in their C of C? Certainly there is an argument that the rule is being applied arbitrarily because many students are involved in the same behavior, so why punish DP? Just because the behavior is widespread, does not minimize the guilt. Perhaps DP should accept his penalty, return in December to finish his career and graduate. Legally he is not charged with a crime so how is the university out of order in applying their C of C? Surely there are others out there who feel the same.

Jay you're a little late to the conversation. In early posts, many have said that both tangoed,and both deserve some responsibility
and ran over the rules of fraternizing, drinking and having relations (all three) with another athlete - without obvious verbal consent. Rollo and others have mentioned (as i have no way or knowing that) that D1 athletes are constantly
coached and brought up to speed on the D1 and Title IX Rules about drinking and sexing together - that there are very obvious dangers and penalties to it.

Many of us have moved beyond that, to what appears to be woefully unbalanced penalty part on DP's part. He's simply exploring his options, which he has the right and my and many fans's support to do so. Many have us have read some of the case paperwork and filings to hear the inconsistencies in the women's testimony AND how the investigative and procedural process culminated.

If life were fair, she'd be penalized too (but i guess DP brought nothing against her). Many of us think it's just been very one-sided, heavy-handed beat down by the college/Title IX system. He's challenging the system and process, more than the content. We'll see what happens in the end.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Leary I too am a UD grad (1969), a retired veterinarian, and not an attorney or priest. At the risk of offending the PC contributors to this site, allow me to make a simple observation and add a few comments. While I am not a Roman Catholic and don't know intimately (no pun intended) your religious standards, I am shocked that after reading all 844 posts there is not a single mention of the unacceptable behavior on the part of each of these young adults. Is this what you would want for your son or daughter? I am not standing in judgment because sin is sin and we all, certainly myself included, sin in many ways daily. But there is accountability for our behavior. Isn't UD just holding a standard of behavior for the student in their C of C? Certainly there is an argument that the rule is being applied arbitrarily because many students are involved in the same behavior, so why punish DP? Just because the behavior is widespread, does not minimize the guilt. Perhaps DP should accept his penalty, return in December to finish his career and graduate. Legally he is not charged with a crime so how is the university out of order in applying their C of C? Surely there are others out there who feel the same.

I think that the fact he's being punished is not the issue. The extent of the punishment is. There is no way that a semester suspension should be applied for something that if applied across the board for any violation, would have at least half the school serve a semester suspension at one time or another. So, in theory, if UD could catch 100 percent of the violators, they would be forcing at least half the school to delay their graduation by one semester. That's of course is assuming that each violator is only caught once.

It's something they know goes on, they know they can't prevent, and the only time it's ever going to be punished is based on the emotions of another. A semester suspension is just too much because one student drew a wildcard out of a deck of 53. What is the University really accomplishing here? And if you come back with the U is accomplishing the safety of not losing federal funding then this no longer is a moral issue which is what I think you were implying.

[shocka43]

Also heard she is still on campus...if that is the case....then the timeline of events for a potential return on 12/22 make perfect sense....

Keep DP off campus until the "victim" is long gone...UD states they protected the "victim" by keeping the "suspect" off campus until she left...

This also goes back to the comments that Rollo made regarding other students being removed from school for less. If this is the case, then maybe he should have been removed for good...but highly unlikely...as the suspension appears to have been simply to cover ones @ss and not punitive based on the actual facts of the incident...

UD basically sits back and says they can't do anything, but know they don't have the footing to remove him for the entire year, or for good....

Numbers are adding up....precisely why 12/22 seemed like an arbitrary date...it isn't...they are trying to cover themselves...

[Atlantic 10]

Originally Posted by shocka43 Also heard she is still on campus...if that is the case....then the timeline of events for a potential return on 12/22 make perfect sense.... Keep DP off campus until the "victim" is long gone...UD states they protected the "victim" by keeping the "suspect" off campus until she left... This also goes back to the comments that Rollo made regarding other students being removed from school for less. If this is the case, then maybe he should have been removed for good...but highly unlikely...as the suspension appears to have been simply to cover ones @ss and not punitive based on the actual facts of the incident... UD basically sits back and says they can't do anything, but know they don't have the footing to remove him for the entire year, or for good.... Numbers are adding up....precisely why 12/22 seemed like an arbitrary date...it isn't...they are trying to cover themselves...

I hope she graduates in Dec and we all move on, if she doesn't graduate in Dec. The university has a big problem

[CE80]

Originally Posted by shocka43 Also heard she is still on campus...if that is the case....then the timeline of events for a potential return on 12/22 make perfect sense.... Keep DP off campus until the "victim" is long gone...UD states they protected the "victim" by keeping the "suspect" off campus until she left... This also goes back to the comments that Rollo made regarding other students being removed from school for less. If this is the case, then maybe he should have been removed for good...but highly unlikely...as the suspension appears to have been simply to cover ones @ss and not punitive based on the actual facts of the incident... UD basically sits back and says they can't do anything, but know they don't have the footing to remove him for the entire year, or for good.... Numbers are adding up....precisely why 12/22 seemed like an arbitrary date...it isn't...they are trying to cover themselves...

I still don't see how he can come back and play 12/22 when he wasn't enrolled in fall semester. Could he play the games over winter break and never go back for spring semester?
Posted via Mobile Device

[UDDoug]

First semester ends and being enrolled for second semester makes him eligible I guess.
Posted via Mobile Device

[UDTradition]

Originally Posted by shocka43 Also heard she is still on campus...if that is the case....then the timeline of events for a potential return on 12/22 make perfect sense.... Keep DP off campus until the "victim" is long gone...UD states they protected the "victim" by keeping the "suspect" off campus until she left... This also goes back to the comments that Rollo made regarding other students being removed from school for less. If this is the case, then maybe he should have been removed for good...but highly unlikely...as the suspension appears to have been simply to cover ones @ss and not punitive based on the actual facts of the incident... UD basically sits back and says they can't do anything, but know they don't have the footing to remove him for the entire year, or for good.... Numbers are adding up....precisely why 12/22 seemed like an arbitrary date...it isn't...they are trying to cover themselves...

I strongly urge you to stop criticizing the girl. She is also a victim in this incident. She feels that she has been wronged (which she very well might have been). Women who are actually raped/violated don't deserve the pressure of public resentment.

The system appears to be a valid discussion topic...not both parties. If DP has made grave mistakes, the legal process will hopefully prevail. Until then, shouldn't we give the victim the benefit of the doubt and leave her out of this message board? Again, she might be a true victim.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by UDDoug First semester ends and being enrolled for second semester makes him eligible I guess. Posted via Mobile Device

To be eligible for Spring semester he has to have completed and passed 6 credit hours of classes in the Fall. If UD considers itself a Top 100 University, there's no way they can look the other way regarding his missed work. Regardless, he dropped/withdrew from classes after the established date so if he doesn't return to school he will have all W's and by NCAA rules, can't play.

Unless he was suspended, in which case he can still play.

But we still don't know definitively if he withdrew or was suspended...or both...but what order?!

[UDTradition]

Does anyone really know what they are talking about or are we having theoretical discussions? If someone has facts and data can they state/restate the situation. I'm so confused?

[College B-Ball Fan]

Originally Posted by UDDoug First semester ends and being enrolled for second semester makes him eligible I guess. Posted via Mobile Device

Wouldn't he be actually choosing his classes and "enrolling" during the month of November for the next semester (which would arguable begin when the fall semester "ends" during the month of December with the close of exams)? There has to be a technical "end" to the first semester------my guess it would be 12-21-2015?

[College B-Ball Fan]

Originally Posted by shocka43 Also heard she is still on campus...if that is the case....then the timeline of events for a potential return on 12/22 make perfect sense.... Keep DP off campus until the "victim" is long gone...UD states they protected the "victim" by keeping the "suspect" off campus until she left... This also goes back to the comments that Rollo made regarding other students being removed from school for less. If this is the case, then maybe he should have been removed for good...but highly unlikely...as the suspension appears to have been simply to cover ones @ss and not punitive based on the actual facts of the incident... UD basically sits back and says they can't do anything, but know they don't have the footing to remove him for the entire year, or for good.... Numbers are adding up....precisely why 12/22 seemed like an arbitrary date...it isn't...they are trying to cover themselves...

UD is trying to "cover" themselves says who? From what? Come on already guys?

[TX Flyer]

Originally Posted by UDTradition I strongly urge you to stop criticizing the girl. She is also a victim in this incident. She feels that she has been wronged (which she very well might have been). Women who are actually raped/violated don't deserve the pressure of public resentment. The system appears to be a valid discussion topic...not both parties. If DP has made grave mistakes, the legal process will hopefully prevail. Until then, shouldn't we give the victim the benefit of the doubt and leave her out of this message board? Again, she might be a true victim.

I strongly urge women to stick to one story but that ain't happening.

[Flyer2]

Originally Posted by UDTradition I strongly urge you to stop criticizing the girl. She is also a victim in this incident. She feels that she has been wronged (which she very well might have been). Women who are actually raped/violated don't deserve the pressure of public resentment. The system appears to be a valid discussion topic...not both parties. If DP has made grave mistakes, the legal process will hopefully prevail. Until then, shouldn't we give the victim the benefit of the doubt and leave her out of this message board? Again, she might be a true victim.

My problem is her inconsistent stories. I feel that she was bullied by her "friends" to do this to cover her mistake. I agree that "Women who are actually raped/violated don't deserve the pressure of public resentment. "

The system sucks and it amazes me that with a Law School, UD can't come up with something better. I had the misfortune of having a clerk act as judge in a NC realty hearing and it sucked.

[Flyer2]

Originally Posted by UDTradition Does anyone really know what they are talking about or are we having theoretical discussions? If someone has facts and data can they state/restate the situation. I'm so confused?

OF COURSE NOT!! This is a sports forum and no knowledge is required to post!
Do you read the Enquirer and Star rags and believe them?

[CE80]

I don't know about anyone else but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Posted via Mobile Device

[UDTradition]

Which one? Maybe we can have a drink an comisserate?

[shocka43]

Originally Posted by College B-Ball Fan UD is trying to "cover" themselves says who? From what? Come on already guys?

Not stating a cover up of anything, but rather to see that they protected a student who allegedly was a victim on an assault.

From a liability standpoint...yes...had they doled out punishment that allowed DP on campus at the same time as her, then I would think they would open themselves up for liability....right or wrong...criminal case or not...anyone can sue for anything and from a victim advocate standpoint I could see her filing if UD didn't protect her claimed interests.

[shocka43]

Originally Posted by UDTradition I strongly urge you to stop criticizing the girl. She is also a victim in this incident. She feels that she has been wronged (which she very well might have been). Women who are actually raped/violated don't deserve the pressure of public resentment. The system appears to be a valid discussion topic...not both parties. If DP has made grave mistakes, the legal process will hopefully prevail. Until then, shouldn't we give the victim the benefit of the doubt and leave her out of this message board? Again, she might be a true victim.

She may be, but the courts have determined otherwise. In that case, the courts have an interest of protecting protected classes based on facts and probable cause. Had there been even a inkling of evidence, the case should have been sent to the grand jury. The prosecutor, most likely a 3 panel, decided that there wasn't probable cause to take the case to the GJ for a possible indictment. When the statement "you can prosecute a ham sandwich" comes up, it does in this case as well. A prosecutors office would much rather have a case of high liability decided by a judge/jury versus on their backs of potentially not taking a felony with media implications.

If DP is labeled as a "suspect", she is labeled as a "victim". If the PC police want to get into a play on words, would you rather use complainant/respondent? Petitioner/respondent? Complainant/suspect? Complainant/defendant? She is an alleged "victim" just as he is an alleged "suspect".

Unless the police report lists both as "victims", then there is one of each.

Sure, victims of sexual assault don't deserve "public resentment" just as suspects of sexual assault don't deserve an unnecessary label of a perpetrator of sexual assault. You can't have it both ways. I place my opinions on the same facts that the prosecutor did. Not based on some mickey mouse civil investigation where due process isn't afforded.

[Smitty10]

Originally Posted by shocka43 Not stating a cover up of anything, but rather to see that they protected a student who allegedly was a victim on an assault. From a liability standpoint...yes...had they doled out punishment that allowed DP on campus at the same time as her, then I would think they would open themselves up for liability....right or wrong...criminal case or not...anyone can sue for anything and from a victim advocate standpoint I could see her filing if UD didn't protect her claimed interests.

See, this is where thing have gotten too far-fetched. Montgomery County and/or the city of Dayton refused to arrest and prosecute. That means he's free to roam the streets of Dayton. If he should attack her within city or county limits, shouldn't the City and/or county have to worry about the same liability that the University seems to be covering their asses from? Of course that's not how it is. But why? Why should a school be expected to dish out justice and protection more than the justice system? Why should the justice system which is put in place to protect and has the resources to get to the absolute bottom of the situation be liability free while the school has to take action with no evidence to protect themselves from a lawsuit?

Seems to me that when the justice system deems a case non-prosecutable due to lack of evidence, the school should easily be able to fall back on that in a civil case and be protected while the government would have to be the ones to defend themselves in court.

What should happen once justice system refused to prosecute: Alleged victim either feels safe attending the same school as alleged perpetrator and by doing so frees the school of liability or she doesn't feel safe, takes the precaution of withdrawing from the school for her safety and files a lawsuit against the city,county or state. The school should not be forced to handle this situation for fear of liability once the city, county or state deems it not prosecutable.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by UDTradition I strongly urge you to stop criticizing the girl. She is also a victim in this incident. She feels that she has been wronged (which she very well might have been). Women who are actually raped/violated don't deserve the pressure of public resentment. The system appears to be a valid discussion topic...not both parties. If DP has made grave mistakes, the legal process will hopefully prevail. Until then, shouldn't we give the victim the benefit of the doubt and leave her out of this message board? Again, she might be a true victim.

Sure, let's ALSO give DP the benefit of the doubt, eh?

[CE80]

Originally Posted by UDTradition Which one? Maybe we can have a drink an comisserate?

Or maybe a waffle.

[sw368407]

Originally Posted by rollo To be eligible for Spring semester he has to have completed and passed 6 credit hours of classes in the Fall. If UD considers itself a Top 100 University, there's no way they can look the other way regarding his missed work. Regardless, he dropped/withdrew from classes after the established date so if he doesn't return to school he will have all W's and by NCAA rules, can't play. Unless he was suspended, in which case he can still play. But we still don't know definitively if he withdrew or was suspended...or both...but what order?!

I believe in the TRO hearing/their legal response to DP's lawsuit the university finally acknowledged that they did SUSPEND DP. So he would be eligible for games on 12/22.

[swish61]

What are the odds Judge Rose makes a decision today?

[Avid Flyer]

If the decision comes today, I'd expect it to be just before close of business. However the longer this plays out is not good for DP.

Big questions will be:

Trying to appease the feds and their $$$$ how much will this cost UD in Alum and fan support.

How much damage will this do to recruiting, not only mens bball but other mens sports.

How will this affect AM and his plans for taking UD to the next step.

Flyerhoops.net is already calling for donations to be lowered or not given at all.

This could have more long lasting consequences and repercussions for the U than just DP's case and possible trial. Time for the U to do what is right and not just appease a feminist cause.

I have always been an advocate for equal rights for all. Having been raised in the 40's and 50's by a single mother who was not paid what her male coworkers were I know how the females were treated unfairly. Having said that, with the womens movement and all they were not really looking for total equality, like they didn't want women to be drafted like men into the armed services. And now it looks like the feminist want the upper hand and dish out injustices of their own. Gotta find a common ground where total "equality matters".

Personally, until the U addresses the inequality of the c of c and the handling of such instances I will not be giving a cent to the school. I will however continue to support all sports programs as I have all along. The student/athletes should not be punished for the failures of the U.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer Personally, until the U addresses the inequality of the c of c and the handling of such instances I will not be giving a cent to the school.

I see this as the greatest flaw that DP's case has exposed. And apparently this isn't the first case. In yesterday's DDN feature story, Dayton attorney Marty Malloy accompanied a client to a C of C hearing. It too lasted 20 mins, he (Malloy) was not allowed to participate and he felt as if the outcome was pre-determined with or without such a hearing.

[FlyerNation23]

A10 media day tomorrow. I feel bad that Archie is the only Dayton rep who is forced to face the media on the DP issue. Does UD realize that they are hanging their superstar coach high and dry and letting him face the media alone?

If/When Archie leaves (I could see it being next yr), we all know who to blame -->THANKS UD administration!

[THirt]

Originally Posted by Avid Flyer Flyerhoops.net is already calling for donations to be lowered or not given at all.

Let's be cautious with phrasing here. A poster on FlyerHoops has called for donations to be withheld. Not the site, not Matt S, not 100% of the posters there. A guy started a thread.

I'm still hopeful we hear good news today, and I think if we don't, we'll see Dyshawn back for the Miami game, to get some minutes as he works himself back into game shape for the A-10 season.

[Buster Goode]

If there's no good news, I don't expect Dyshawn back at all.

[FlyerNation23]

Originally Posted by Buster Goode If there's no good news, I don't expect Dyshawn back at all.

Checked out DP twitter today. He has not tweeted anything recently but he did favorite 2 UD tweets today. Maybe he is just supporting the guys or maybe he still has intent on coming back...

[Avid Flyer]

Originally Posted by THirt Let's be cautious with phrasing here. A poster on FlyerHoops has called for donations to be withheld. Not the site, not Matt S, not 100% of the posters there. A guy started a thread. I'm still hopeful we hear good news today, and I think if we don't, we'll see Dyshawn back for the Miami game, to get some minutes as he works himself back into game shape for the A-10 season.

Yes you are correct in that it was a thread not started or supported by Matt. However since you want to be totally correct then let it be known that others liked the post and agreed. Not just one mind as others have echoed the same sentiments on this site and others in various threads.

[FSUFlyer]

Originally Posted by TX Flyer I strongly urge women to stick to one story but that ain't happening.

Originally Posted by Flyer2 My problem is her inconsistent stories. I feel that she was bullied by her "friends" to do this to cover her mistake. I agree that "Women who are actually raped/violated don't deserve the pressure of public resentment. " The system sucks and it amazes me that with a Law School, UD can't come up with something better. I had the misfortune of having a clerk act as judge in a NC realty hearing and it sucked.

What are the inconsistencies in her story? I haven't been keeping up on this topic.

[shocka43]

Originally Posted by FSUFlyer What are the inconsistencies in her story? I haven't been keeping up on this topic.

The reports are out there and there are 9 pages worth of comments regarding those...no need to rehash. The best way to formulate an opinion is to take a few minutes to read and then decide for yourself.

[shocka43]

Originally Posted by Smitty10 See, this is where thing have gotten too far-fetched. Montgomery County and/or the city of Dayton refused to arrest and prosecute. That means he's free to roam the streets of Dayton. If he should attack her within city or county limits, shouldn't the City and/or county have to worry about the same liability that the University seems to be covering their asses from? Of course that's not how it is. But why? Why should a school be expected to dish out justice and protection more than the justice system? Why should the justice system which is put in place to protect and has the resources to get to the absolute bottom of the situation be liability free while the school has to take action with no evidence to protect themselves from a lawsuit? Seems to me that when the justice system deems a case non-prosecutable due to lack of evidence, the school should easily be able to fall back on that in a civil case and be protected while the government would have to be the ones to defend themselves in court. What should happen once justice system refused to prosecute: Alleged victim either feels safe attending the same school as alleged perpetrator and by doing so frees the school of liability or she doesn't feel safe, takes the precaution of withdrawing from the school for her safety and files a lawsuit against the city,county or state. The school should not be forced to handle this situation for fear of liability once the city, county or state deems it not prosecutable.

I am not saying that I agree, but the civil liability for a private institution is much greater than with the government. The government has things in place to protect victims. Protection orders, civil restraining orders, enforcement of law, victim/witness, etc..

UD's avenue to protect alleged victims of assault is to simply see that both parties aren't on campus at the same time. From what I understand from others, there can be a pretty liberal interpretation of the policies. The only recourse for an improper removal from school would be a lawsuit. How many students that have been removed from school actually ponied up and did that? I would bet not many. UD deemed there to be a violation of the code of conduct, right or wrong. If UD found there to be violations and they didn't take action in protecting a victim, then there could be problems should another alleged incident occur and UD didn't act on the previous opportunity to protect a student.

I am not stating that I agree with the conclusion they came to, but given that conclusion, they are within their right to make those decisions.

[UDDoug]

Put me in the camp of having higher expectations than don't be charged with a felony to determine whether or not UD should or should not discipline an athlete.

That's not a comment on whether this issue was handled appropriately or fairly. But I definitely have higher standards than avoid indictment. There us plenty if behavior that would fall short of criminal indictment but should result in suspension.
Posted via Mobile Device

[rollo]

Has BYU ever been sued for expelling students and/or athletes who have admitted having sex?

[CE80]

TRO denied.

[lhsgolf19]

Bummer, let's hope Dyshawn sticks around is ready to roll on 12/22

[DGO67]

Originally Posted by lhsgolf19 Bummer, let's hope Dyshawn sticks around is ready to roll on 12/22

What's a TRO?

[FlyerNation23]

Question is has DP already made up his mind on returning or not? Also, will UD/Archie let us know of his intentions or keep us in the dark and not know until warm ups on 12/22?

Sounds like another case similar to Detwon Rogers where nobody knows what will happen on a game by game basis

[dnutz77]

Originally Posted by lhsgolf19 Bummer, let's hope Dyshawn sticks around is ready to roll on 12/22

I would not blame him for getting as far away from UD as possible and for never setting foot on the campus again. This case is a complete joke IMO. Great job, UD. SMH.

[Angry John]

Time to get to my lawyer to cut the University of Dayton out of my Will. Let the corrupt Federal Government take care of them.

[Angry John]

Also no beer or Milano's sub purchases at the games either. Hit the douche bags in the pocket book for their actions.

[Avid Flyer]

Originally Posted by DGO67 What's a TRO?

Someone who hasn't posted enough annoying posts to be labeled a TROLL.

TRO = Temporary Restraining Order.

This is what DP is trying to get the judge to order so as he can resume classes and practices.

[UDFlyer23]

I highly doubt Pierre ever plays for UD again. I could be wrong, but I'd be shocked if he was back on the team in December. It's a shame.

[swish61]

TRO denied. I've waited over 40 years for us to be this relevant on a national level, and this is what happens. The whole situation is so damaging in so many ways.

[FSUFlyer]

Originally Posted by shocka43 The reports are out there and there are 9 pages worth of comments regarding those...no need to rehash. The best way to formulate an opinion is to take a few minutes to read and then decide for yourself.

I've read the police report. I'm not going to read all 9 pages of this thread.

Thanks for your response...

[shocka43]

Originally Posted by FSUFlyer I've read the police report. I'm not going to read all 9 pages of this thread. Thanks for your response...

Just stating the obvious...if you read the reports, to include the Title report...then you should have seen it....

[UDGutter2]

It is not just Dayton with this problem.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/l...d-rape/319413/

[rollo]

Whatever happened to getting to 2nd base and stopping...and hoping for 'more' a little later?

[Bucketnight]

Originally Posted by UDGutter2 It is not just Dayton with this problem. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/l...d-rape/319413/

There seems to be enough movement on the overall issue that some form of change will likely come in the not too distant future. However, I don't think it will be nearly as far back of a pendulum swing as many would hope.

Anyone with an expectation that this will lead to anything remotely close to criminal burden of proof will likely be very disappointed.

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by rollo Whatever happened to getting to 2nd base and stopping...and hoping for 'more' a little later?

We are not talking about 15 year olds here.

Some of us have game, and some of us pretend to be a king.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by ClaytonFlyerFan We are not talking about 15 year olds here.

True, but we are talking about 20 year olds with the mentality and maturity of 15 year olds...so is there really a difference??!


FWIW, here's my take:

Dating 101 - King Rollo's 2 Royal Rules to follow:

1) Always let the girl make the first move.

2) Always let the girl make the last move.

I knew this when I was a young Knight and now, as King, nothing has changed.

Cuz when you truly have 'game', there's nothing to worry about. The action comes to you.

[moville]

I long for the old days . . . when we'd worry about a kid twisting his ankle in practice, or having jock itch.

[San Diego Flyer]

Originally Posted by moville I long for the old days . . . when we'd worry about a kid twisting his ankle in practice, or having jock itch.

Absolutely. When aids came along, that's the last you ever heard about herpes.

PS- Angry John, It's ok for Arch and Dyshawn both to be angry. But smart money says drop the suit and work with Coach to determine whether to play one semester this season, or two semesters next season. Leaving UD is not a smart option for a dozen reasons already articulated.

[Avid Flyer]

I do not believe Ginsburg is in this solely for the $$$. Truly believe he is after IX and found what he believes is the perfect defendant to take it all the way.

If one takes note on the national level there are many similar situations out there with a judge recently okaying a student to sue the university.

For those who think DP should roll over and play dead and accept it, I have to ask, did they roll over and accept it back in the 60's or did they fight for equal rights. Look how this Dear Colleague letter took on legs of its own and determined how the U's address the issues. Remain unchallenged and watch those legs get stronger and student c of c hearings become more absurd.