Ex-Duke player Sulaimon was accused of sexual assault (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

I was not addressing you specifically - just a general statement that I don't think Duke should or will say anything more.

And, I do think this will go away. Just like it would have gone away at Penn State if Joe Paterno had fired Sandusky - and removed him from the program.

Right now, we have two "public" accusations of sexual assault, and not much else. The accusers, for better or worse, apparently did not pursue the allegations either through the school or law enforcement, nor have they done so now - when they seemingly would have the support of most people (assuming they were afraid to rock the Duke boat initially).

Now, if the accusers come out and say they spoke with Duke administrators, or members of the athletic department, and felt they were being treated unfairly, then maybe this story sticks around. But for now we have an allegation(s) with no formal finding of truth. Each party may have different versions of events, and there may be truth to one or both versions. Not our place to know/judge imo. (yes, I know this is the internet, and that is what we do here).

The problem is that we do have something else, and that it's already too late for something akin to Paterno and Penn State firing Sandusky and removing him from the program when they learned of the allegations. From the Chronicle article:

The allegations were brought to the attention of a team psychologist in March 2014, the anonymous affiliate said. That month, the allegations were brought to Krzyzewski and assistant coaches Jon Scheyer and Nate James and associate head coach Jeff Capel.“It should have been a long time ago. [Krzyzewski’s] never [dismissed a player] before,” the anonymous affiliate said. “I don’t think he knew where the line was. I think he really didn’t want to do it.

The anonymous affiliate said other athletic administrators were then made aware of the allegations. Among the administrators identified by the anonymous affiliate were Mike Cragg, deputy director of athletics and operations; Director of Basketball Operations David Bradley; and Kevin White, vice president and director of athletics. The allegations were also brought to the attention of Sue Wasiolek, assistant vice president of student affairs and dean of students, according to the anonymous affiliate.

“Nothing happened after months and months of talking about [the sexual assault allegations]," the anonymous affiliate said. "The University administration knew. Kevin White knew, Mike Cragg knew."

The problem doesn't go away until they refute or explain why "nothing happened" until recently, and then why something did happen when it did. Maybe something did happen and this source just didn't know about it. Maybe nothing happened because Coach K and/or the athletic department couldn't do anything for some legal or other reason. That sort of thing seems like a reasonable explanation to me. Something like that might let them off the hook in the court of public opinion. But they have to say it.

I am not sure I follow. What is "the problem"? Surely the problem is not that they did not suspend an athlete as soon as they heard 2nd or 3rd hand of two allegations of sexual assault.

Now, I think they had an obligation to investigate - and given that the ladies in question may not have been willing to be cooperative with the investigation, that is something that may have taken some time - and then to get corroborating evidence even more time. It could be that Duke did place conditions on Suliaman based on the unproven (or un-pursued) allegations, and that he failed to live up to those obligations). I don't know, and its none of my business.

As I said, I think the only way this gets legs is if the school did nothing, or in anyway discouraged the young women from pursuing further action. Other than that, its that same for me as any other student on campus. I don't feel the need to know anymore, or less, just because it is an athlete.

The problems IMO are (1) the claim that the coaches and athletic department "did nothing," which could be a Title IX violation, and (2) the 11 month gap between learning of the allegations and removing him from the team without an explanation for the gap. The former is a problem for the people in the program and the school. The latter is a problem in the court of public opinion, especially when the program and especially the coach hold themselves up (and are held up by their fans and the media) as paragons of virtue.

The first one is potentially the much bigger problem obviously, but I'm not qualified to speak on it. The second one I do know about, though, because I know how ACC basketball fans and media work. And I don't think Coach K even has to fully explain the reason for the gap, he just has to explain why he doesn't want to speak on it, citing an ongoing investigation or the player's privacy or whatever. I'm just saying that he can't "no comment" this stuff forever, because the questions won't stop coming.

Hope this makes sense. I'm ready to waste my time talking about something else.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

You jerks are gonna make me defend TF in here, aren't you?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

LOL

 

[Aerial Assault]

If the team were as defensive as their fans they might have a shot this year.

I laughed Sadly, the FFA is pretty mild compared to some other sites out there. It's a full on "protect K at all costs" #### show for the ages.

Awesome. But with quotes and perspectives like these, you're still out there keeping an open mind as you professed about 10 posts ago, right?

 

[Aerial Assault]

I was not addressing you specifically - just a general statement that I don't think Duke should or will say anything more.

And, I do think this will go away. Just like it would have gone away at Penn State if Joe Paterno had fired Sandusky - and removed him from the program.

Right now, we have two "public" accusations of sexual assault, and not much else. The accusers, for better or worse, apparently did not pursue the allegations either through the school or law enforcement, nor have they done so now - when they seemingly would have the support of most people (assuming they were afraid to rock the Duke boat initially).

Now, if the accusers come out and say they spoke with Duke administrators, or members of the athletic department, and felt they were being treated unfairly, then maybe this story sticks around. But for now we have an allegation(s) with no formal finding of truth. Each party may have different versions of events, and there may be truth to one or both versions. Not our place to know/judge imo. (yes, I know this is the internet, and that is what we do here).

The problem is that we do have something else, and that it's already too late for something akin to Paterno and Penn State firing Sandusky and removing him from the program when they learned of the allegations. From the Chronicle article:

The allegations were brought to the attention of a team psychologist in March 2014, the anonymous affiliate said. That month, the allegations were brought to Krzyzewski and assistant coaches Jon Scheyer and Nate James and associate head coach Jeff Capel.“It should have been a long time ago. [Krzyzewski’s] never [dismissed a player] before,” the anonymous affiliate said. “I don’t think he knew where the line was. I think he really didn’t want to do it.

The anonymous affiliate said other athletic administrators were then made aware of the allegations. Among the administrators identified by the anonymous affiliate were Mike Cragg, deputy director of athletics and operations; Director of Basketball Operations David Bradley; and Kevin White, vice president and director of athletics. The allegations were also brought to the attention of Sue Wasiolek, assistant vice president of student affairs and dean of students, according to the anonymous affiliate.

“Nothing happened after months and months of talking about [the sexual assault allegations]," the anonymous affiliate said. "The University administration knew. Kevin White knew, Mike Cragg knew."

The problem doesn't go away until they refute or explain why "nothing happened" until recently, and then why something did happen when it did. Maybe something did happen and this source just didn't know about it. Maybe nothing happened because Coach K and/or the athletic department couldn't do anything for some legal or other reason. That sort of thing seems like a reasonable explanation to me. Something like that might let them off the hook in the court of public opinion. But they have to say it.

I am not sure I follow. What is "the problem"? Surely the problem is not that they did not suspend an athlete as soon as they heard 2nd or 3rd hand of two allegations of sexual assault.

Now, I think they had an obligation to investigate - and given that the ladies in question may not have been willing to be cooperative with the investigation, that is something that may have taken some time - and then to get corroborating evidence even more time. It could be that Duke did place conditions on Suliaman based on the unproven (or un-pursued) allegations, and that he failed to live up to those obligations). I don't know, and its none of my business.

As I said, I think the only way this gets legs is if the school did nothing, or in anyway discouraged the young women from pursuing further action. Other than that, its that same for me as any other student on campus. I don't feel the need to know anymore, or less, just because it is an athlete.

The problems IMO are (1) the claim that the coaches and athletic department "did nothing," which could be a Title IX violation, and (2) the 11 month gap between learning of the allegations and removing him from the team without an explanation for the gap. The former is a problem for the people in the program and the school. The latter is a problem in the court of public opinion, especially when the program and especially the coach hold themselves up (and are held up by their fans and the media) as paragons of virtue.

The first one is potentially the much bigger problem obviously, but I'm not qualified to speak on it. The second one I do know about, though, because I know how ACC basketball fans and media work. And I don't think Coach K even has to fully explain the reason for the gap, he just has to explain why he doesn't want to speak on it, citing an ongoing investigation or the player's privacy or whatever. I'm just saying that he can't "no comment" this stuff forever, because the questions won't stop coming.

Hope this makes sense. I'm ready to waste my time talking about something else.

Yeah, I actually applaud you for realizing that you don't have a tenable argument and wanting to move on. (We'll see if that's what you actually do.) By the way, FERPA does apply here despite your amusing observation above that it doesn't pertain to basketball roster decisions. No one at a university is supposed to comment on anything in a student's educational records, and if you can find a way for Krzyzewski to give you the soothing relief you need on this topic and not violate FERPA, feel free to let us know. However, there are people (like me**) who have actually handled and litigated FERPA issues who are addressing this on Duke's behalf, and they understand this even if you don't seem to yet. Hence the "no comments." If they decide to let Krzyzewski speak on the roster decision, they will. I wouldn't, but they might reach a different conclusion.

And I am really impressed with Sinn Fein's take here. I know how (or I like to think I know how) I would react if this happened at Kentucky, and it's the way he reacted here. Classy.

**I don't mean to imply that I'm working on this for Duke. I'm not and in fact have never represented Duke in any capacity. I meant that I've handled and litigated FERPA (and Title IX) issues before, including some involving student-athletes.

 

[The Commish]

If the team were as defensive as their fans they might have a shot this year.

I laughed Sadly, the FFA is pretty mild compared to some other sites out there. It's a full on "protect K at all costs" #### show for the ages.

Awesome. But with quotes and perspectives like these, you're still out there keeping an open mind as you professed about 10 posts ago, right?

About the situation? Yes. I'm not sure why it has to be continually pointed out, but neither of these posts have anything to do with school or the facts yet to be discovered which is what was being talked about 10 posts ago .

 

[Good Posting Judge]

FERPA, I didn't even know her!

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, I actually applaud you for realizing that you don't have a tenable argument and wanting to move on. (We'll see if that's what you actually do.) By the way, FERPA does apply here despite your amusing observation above that it doesn't pertain to basketball roster decisions. No one at a university is supposed to comment on anything in a student's educational records, and if you can find a way for Krzyzewski to give you the soothing relief you need on this topic and not violate FERPA, feel free to let us know. However, there are people (like me**) who have actually handled and litigated FERPA issues who are addressing this on Duke's behalf, and they understand this even if you don't seem to yet. Hence the "no comments." If they decide to let Krzyzewski speak on the roster decision, they will. I wouldn't, but they might reach a different conclusion.

And I am really impressed with Sinn Fein's take here. I know how (or I like to think I know how) I would react if this happened at Kentucky, and it's the way he reacted here. Classy.

**I don't mean to imply that I'm working on this for Duke. I'm not and in fact have never represented Duke in any capacity. I meant that I've handled and litigated FERPA (and Title IX) issues before, including some involving student-athletes.

No reason to get snippy. You seem to know far more than I do about the statute, and I'd be happy to hear an explanation as to how it might prohibit a coach from explaining a roster decision and limit him to "no comment" in response to questions. Or not, if you'd rather move on. I promise you I don't need any "soothing relief" on this topic.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Yeah, I actually applaud you for realizing that you don't have a tenable argument and wanting to move on. (We'll see if that's what you actually do.) By the way, FERPA does apply here despite your amusing observation above that it doesn't pertain to basketball roster decisions. No one at a university is supposed to comment on anything in a student's educational records, and if you can find a way for Krzyzewski to give you the soothing relief you need on this topic and not violate FERPA, feel free to let us know. However, there are people (like me**) who have actually handled and litigated FERPA issues who are addressing this on Duke's behalf, and they understand this even if you don't seem to yet. Hence the "no comments." If they decide to let Krzyzewski speak on the roster decision, they will. I wouldn't, but they might reach a different conclusion.

And I am really impressed with Sinn Fein's take here. I know how (or I like to think I know how) I would react if this happened at Kentucky, and it's the way he reacted here. Classy.

**I don't mean to imply that I'm working on this for Duke. I'm not and in fact have never represented Duke in any capacity. I meant that I've handled and litigated FERPA (and Title IX) issues before, including some involving student-athletes.

No reason to get snippy. You seem to know far more than I do about the statute, and I'd be happy to hear an explanation as to how it might prohibit a coach from explaining a roster decision and limit him to "no comment" in response to questions. Or not, if you'd rather move on. I promise you I don't need any "soothing relief" on this topic.

Sure. Because the roster decision was inextricably intertwined with the kid's educational records. It's that simple.

(But I'll elaborate a bit anyway - ) There's no way for Krzyzewski to give anything but an absurd press conference saying something like, "Well, I would have kicked him off in December of 2013 BECAUSE OF SOMETHING OR OTHER, but then SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED, and then we decided to wait until we had more facts and not just rumors, but then it all came to a head in December of 2014 FOR REASONS THAT I CAN'T GO INTO, and then there was THAT COMMUNICATION WE RECEIVED the night of the game in South Bend . . . . "

See? And even that would violate FERPA.

Don't take my word for it; you could also see the comments that White, the AD, made today, which indicate that K and the other coaches are prohibited from discussing any specific individual because of federal privacy laws. In short, unless Sulaimon authorizes it, Duke haters aren't really very likely to find anything here. I'm frankly pretty satisfied that the kid was kicked off the team; at many institutions he'd still be playing. Note that (last I heard) he is still enrolled as a student and has apparently not been charged with even a student disciplinary complaint, let alone criminal charges.

There's an interesting debate hiding in all this about the tension between criminal allegations against a high-profile student and actual charges against a student, not to mention some lingering overtones from the lacrosse saga, but it's far easier to point a goofily trembling finger at Duke and sneer that one "always knew they were dirty."

 

[Good Posting Judge]

So what, if anything, happens now?

 

[Aerial Assault]

So what, if anything, happens now?

Most likely IMO? It may be - although obviously involving more serious issues and I am only drawing this comparison in terms of the FFA's reaction to both situations - a bit like the Manti Te'o chain of events. I remember there were a bunch of posters in that thread waiting for Notre Dame to do something, for the NFL to do something . . . and then nothing happened. Maybe a better analogy is the Lance Thomas "scandal," although I don't remember that getting too much run here in the FFA. People kept waiting for some huge investigation of Duke, and for Thomas to be indicted and sent to federal prison forthwith and take K with him. Other people said nothing would ever come of it . . . and nothing ever did.

This could be the same. I'm not sure. What's sort of sad is that the people who decided to put that article in The Chronicle almost certainly deeply affected the women involved. They may now feel that they have to come forward if they're being truthful. But unless they do, in which case I want due process and punishment meted out if appropriate, not very much else is likely to happen.

 

[Sammy3469]

AD Kevin White put out this statement:

I want to clarify the role of Duke Athletics staff and coaches in the student conduct process at Duke. Any allegation of student misconduct that is brought to the attention of our staff and coaches is immediately referred to the Office of Student Conduct in Student Affairs, which has responsibility for upholding the Duke code of conduct. The athletics department does not investigate or adjudicate matters of student conduct, and cooperates completely in the process. The investigations are conducted thoroughly, in a timely manner, and with great care to respect the privacy and confidentiality of all students involved. Those procedures have been, and continue to be, followed by Coach Mike Krzyzewski and all members of the men's basketball program. Coach Krzyzewski and his staff understand and have fulfilled their responsibilities to the university, its students and the community. As specified by federal law and university policy, all Duke officials, including Coach Krzyzewski, are prohibited from commenting publicly on any specific individual or situation.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yeah, I actually applaud you for realizing that you don't have a tenable argument and wanting to move on. (We'll see if that's what you actually do.) By the way, FERPA does apply here despite your amusing observation above that it doesn't pertain to basketball roster decisions. No one at a university is supposed to comment on anything in a student's educational records, and if you can find a way for Krzyzewski to give you the soothing relief you need on this topic and not violate FERPA, feel free to let us know. However, there are people (like me**) who have actually handled and litigated FERPA issues who are addressing this on Duke's behalf, and they understand this even if you don't seem to yet. Hence the "no comments." If they decide to let Krzyzewski speak on the roster decision, they will. I wouldn't, but they might reach a different conclusion.

And I am really impressed with Sinn Fein's take here. I know how (or I like to think I know how) I would react if this happened at Kentucky, and it's the way he reacted here. Classy.

**I don't mean to imply that I'm working on this for Duke. I'm not and in fact have never represented Duke in any capacity. I meant that I've handled and litigated FERPA (and Title IX) issues before, including some involving student-athletes.

No reason to get snippy. You seem to know far more than I do about the statute, and I'd be happy to hear an explanation as to how it might prohibit a coach from explaining a roster decision and limit him to "no comment" in response to questions. Or not, if you'd rather move on. I promise you I don't need any "soothing relief" on this topic.

Sure. Because the roster decision was inextricably intertwined with the kid's educational records. It's that simple.

(But I'll elaborate a bit anyway - ) There's no way for Krzyzewski to give anything but an absurd press conference saying something like, "Well, I would have kicked him off in December of 2013 BECAUSE OF SOMETHING OR OTHER, but then SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED, and then we decided to wait until we had more facts and not just rumors, but then it all came to a head in December of 2014 FOR REASONS THAT I CAN'T GO INTO, and then there was THAT COMMUNICATION WE RECEIVED the night of the game in South Bend . . . . "

See? And even that would violate FERPA.

Don't take my word for it; you could also see the comments that White, the AD, made today, which indicate that K and the other coaches are prohibited from discussing any specific individual because of federal privacy laws. In short, unless Sulaimon authorizes it, Duke haters aren't really very likely to find anything here. I'm frankly pretty satisfied that the kid was kicked off the team; at many institutions he'd still be playing. Note that (last I heard) he is still enrolled as a student and has apparently not been charged with even a student disciplinary complaint, let alone criminal charges.

There's an interesting debate hiding in all this about the tension between criminal allegations against a high-profile student and actual charges against a student, not to mention some lingering overtones from the lacrosse saga, but it's far easier to point a goofily trembling finger at Duke and sneer that one "always knew they were dirty."

Thanks.

I gather that anything related to student behavior is considered "educational records"? I would have thought based on plain meaning that would only mean stuff related to classes and tests and grades and whatnot, but apparently that's not the case?

 

[Aerial Assault]

Thanks.

I gather that anything related to student behavior is considered "educational records"? I would have thought based on plain meaning that would only mean stuff related to classes and tests and grades and whatnot, but apparently that's not the case?

Sure.

You're correct in your last sentence; that is not the case.

The statute is set forth at 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. Section 1232g(a)(4) very broadly defines "educational records" as follows:

(4)

(A) For the purposes of this section, the term “education records” means, except as may be provided otherwise in subparagraph (B), those records, files, documents, and other materials which— (i) contain information directly related to a student; and
(ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.
(emphasis added in italics and boldface)

Subparagraph (B) (so that's Section 1232g(a)(4)(B)) contains four exceptions to the general definition,* none of which applies here. Then Section 1232g(b) is the section of the statute that prevents release of the educational records except under certain circumstances, again, none of which applies here. Effectively, what's covered is the student's "personnel file" is his or her capacity as a student, and yeah, any athletic activities in which the student participates are covered.

*Distilling down for brevity, they are (i) records kept by administrators that are in their sole possession, so basically private notes; (ii) records created by the institution's law enforcement apparatus for use in law enforcement; (iii) records of students who work for the school, in their capacities as employees; and (iv) medical and psychiatric records from institutional providers. If there was a Duke Police report on Sulaimon, that would likely not be an "educational record," but apparently there is no such report.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Thanks, AA. That's the nerdy legal breakdown I was looking for. Makes more sense now.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Thanks, AA. That's the nerdy legal breakdown I was looking for. Makes more sense now.

YW, TF. I'll try not to take offense at the bolded.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Thanks, AA. That's the nerdy legal breakdown I was looking for. Makes more sense now.

YW, TF. I'll try not to take offense at the bolded.

Hey, I was the nerd who was asking for it. You see where I was coming from, right? Plain language of "educational record" probably wouldn't include non-academic disciplinary stuff in most people's eyes.

We'll leave the PR ramifications alone since we won't see eye to eye on that. Hopefully the UNC crowd on Saturday night will be on their best behavior and leave this one alone.

 

[chauncey]

I'll hold my judgment until Rolling Stone completes their investigation.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Thanks, AA. That's the nerdy legal breakdown I was looking for. Makes more sense now.

YW, TF. I'll try not to take offense at the bolded.

Hey, I was the nerd who was asking for it. You see where I was coming from, right? Plain language of "educational record" probably wouldn't include non-academic disciplinary stuff in most people's eyes.

We'll leave the PR ramifications alone since we won't see eye to eye on that. Hopefully the UNC crowd on Saturday night will be on their best behavior and leave this one alone.

Good sentiment, and I would hope for the same if the situations were reversed.

I do see where you were coming from. FERPA actually started out (and still exists, arguably even in primary form) as a way for parents and students to get their kids' records from schools that might otherwise conceal them; I've litigated/counseled on a few such cases. However, with high-profile students and media access demands, the other part of the statute - which was not originally envisioned as the main focus as I understand the legislative history - has come into the public eye, and that's the part that keeps educational records out of the hands of anyone but the school, the student and often the parents/guardians. The broad definition of what's covered has always made sense to me for either purpose.

 

[Archer]

Aerial Assault you are a gem. You actually managed to shut up the haters here. I tip my hat to you sir. I'd buy you a beer anytime

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Is the Chronicle student-run? That's always a lot of responsibility to handle, where you have 22 year olds in charge of 20 and 21 year olds. I only worked on our paper for a year as a copy editor, and I'd want no part of being one of the higher-ups.

Is Wasiolek part of the Office of Student Conduct?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post (former Nats beat writer, one of the best in the biz) does a much better job of articulating what I was trying to say about how Coach K will eventually have to answer questions about how this was handled. It's possible we'll eventually be praising his actions rather than condemning him, and it's way too early to demand that he reveal everything, but eventually there is stuff he'll have to address.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post (former Nats beat writer, one of the best in the biz) does a much better job of articulating what I was trying to say about how Coach K will eventually have to answer questions about how this was handled. It's possible we'll eventually be praising his actions rather than condemning him, and it's way too early to demand that he reveal everything, but eventually there is stuff he'll have to address.

Other than a prurient interest in knowing the salacious details, why is it anyone's business, other than the individuals involved?

 

[Good Posting Judge]

AD Kevin White put out this statement:

I want to clarify the role of Duke Athletics staff and coaches in the student conduct process at Duke. Any allegation of student misconduct that is brought to the attention of our staff and coaches is immediately referred to the Office of Student Conduct in Student Affairs, which has responsibility for upholding the Duke code of conduct. The athletics department does not investigate or adjudicate matters of student conduct, and cooperates completely in the process. The investigations are conducted thoroughly, in a timely manner, and with great care to respect the privacy and confidentiality of all students involved. Those procedures have been, and continue to be, followed by Coach Mike Krzyzewski and all members of the men's basketball program. Coach Krzyzewski and his staff understand and have fulfilled their responsibilities to the university, its students and the community. As specified by federal law and university policy, all Duke officials, including Coach Krzyzewski, are prohibited from commenting publicly on any specific individual or situation.

So when K and Co. learned of the Sulaimon allegations, the correct thing to do is to refer the matter to the Office of Student Conduct, right? Obviously it's not their place to play Columbo and get to the bottom of everything, just refer it to the proper body and you're done. And if that was done, they're in compliance with Title IX, if they didn't, they weren't.

And Wasiolek knew, but is she part of the OSC? And when the kid quit and had the exit interview (for lack of a better term) with Cragg, Cragg told Wensley that "if he wanted to pursue further action on this matter, he'd have to go to through Student Conduct." But if it'd already been sent to them, wouldn't Cragg have just said "We already elevated it to OSC and did our part", something to that effect?

 

[Sammy3469]

AD Kevin White put out this statement:

I want to clarify the role of Duke Athletics staff and coaches in the student conduct process at Duke. Any allegation of student misconduct that is brought to the attention of our staff and coaches is immediately referred to the Office of Student Conduct in Student Affairs, which has responsibility for upholding the Duke code of conduct. The athletics department does not investigate or adjudicate matters of student conduct, and cooperates completely in the process. The investigations are conducted thoroughly, in a timely manner, and with great care to respect the privacy and confidentiality of all students involved. Those procedures have been, and continue to be, followed by Coach Mike Krzyzewski and all members of the men's basketball program. Coach Krzyzewski and his staff understand and have fulfilled their responsibilities to the university, its students and the community. As specified by federal law and university policy, all Duke officials, including Coach Krzyzewski, are prohibited from commenting publicly on any specific individual or situation.

So when K and Co. learned of the Sulaimon allegations, the correct thing to do is to refer the matter to the Office of Student Conduct, right? Obviously it's not their place to play Columbo and get to the bottom of everything, just refer it to the proper body and you're done. And if that was done, they're in compliance with Title IX, if they didn't, they weren't.

And Wasiolek knew, but is she part of the OSC? And when the kid quit and had the exit interview (for lack of a better term) with Cragg, Cragg told Wensley that "if he wanted to pursue further action on this matter, he'd have to go to through Student Conduct." But if it'd already been sent to them, wouldn't Cragg have just said "We already elevated it to OSC and did our part", something to that effect?

Correct, OSC conducts the investigation and is the proper place to report the alleged incidents.

Dean Sue is the Dean for all student affairs (don't know what her actual title is anymore) and the OSC Dean reports to her. So technically they probably went a level too high in reporting it initially, but with Duke's culture it would be natural for them to go to her. She's an institution in her own right at Duke (and has been since the 80s). Everyone knows her, and her doors always open. If Coach K had the most power, she's a close second and has much more day to day conduct with the student body.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Is the Chronicle student-run? That's always a lot of responsibility to handle, where you have 22 year olds in charge of 20 and 21 year olds. I only worked on our paper for a year as a copy editor, and I'd want no part of being one of the higher-ups.

Is Wasiolek part of the Office of Student Conduct?

I'm answering about the Chronicle from direct knowledge from 20+ years ago and some indirect knowledge that is more recent, but I believe it's still accurate. The Chronicle is student-run with a faculty "advisor" or two who have very, very little involvement in what goes on. Seth Davis was the sports editor of the Chronicle when he was a senior (and possibly a junior as well; I am not sure), and he operated virtually autonomously. Duke, rightly or wrongly, views The Chronicle as the school's version of a journalism major.

No, Wasiolek is the Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students. She is a level over the Office of Student Conduct, whose head is one of her several reports. Wasiolek has been at Duke for nearly 40 years and is not only a terrific person, but she takes no crap from anyone. She would never - as in never - participate in any coverup of anything, or let's put it this way: if she did, I'd be shocked to the absolute core of my being. She has an excellent track record on sexual assault matters, too.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post (former Nats beat writer, one of the best in the biz) does a much better job of articulating what I was trying to say about how Coach K will eventually have to answer questions about how this was handled. It's possible we'll eventually be praising his actions rather than condemning him, and it's way too early to demand that he reveal everything, but eventually there is stuff he'll have to address.

Interestingly, there are four comments to the story that you posted, and two of them get the actual state of affairs far more correct than Kilgore did. Commenter "Mark Logan" (not me, BTW: I didn't see the story until you posted it) sums everything up nicely:

Most, if not all, of the questions you say K must answer, he cannot legally answer. FERPA prevents him or any Duke employee from commenting on a specific incident. I realize that K is a tempting target, but he can't legally answer any of these questions. Saying that he must creates an impossible expectation.

The Duke AD says proper procedures were followed, and the Chronicle article says Dean Sue Wasiolek was informed, which supports that claim. She is the Dean of Students and its her department that conducts those investigations.

As to what investigations were conducted and what the results were, those also are protected by law, so K can't answer those questions either. Neither can anyone else at Duke. But isn't it a reasonable bet that if the women involved weren't willing to press charges, file a complaint or comment for the article, they probably also declined to participate in an investigation? And if that's the case, it's hard to imagine an investigation resulting in anything concrete for K to act on.

The commenter is exactly right. I like Adam Kilgore, but it appears that he should stick to baseball.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'll hold my judgment until Rolling Stone completes their investigation.

I'm holding my breath until Dan Kane gets on the case. I'm sure it will be soon.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Is the Chronicle student-run? That's always a lot of responsibility to handle, where you have 22 year olds in charge of 20 and 21 year olds. I only worked on our paper for a year as a copy editor, and I'd want no part of being one of the higher-ups.

Is Wasiolek part of the Office of Student Conduct?

I'm answering about the Chronicle from direct knowledge from 20+ years ago and some indirect knowledge that is more recent, but I believe it's still accurate. The Chronicle is student-run with a faculty "advisor" or two who have very, very little involvement in what goes on. Seth Davis was the sports editor of the Chronicle when he was a senior (and possibly a junior as well; I am not sure), and he operated virtually autonomously. Duke, rightly or wrongly, views The Chronicle as the school's version of a journalism major.

No, Wasiolek is the Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students. She is a level over the Office of Student Conduct, whose head is one of her several reports. Wasiolek has been at Duke for nearly 40 years and is not only a terrific person, but she takes no crap from anyone. She would never - as in never - participate in any coverup of anything, or let's put it this way: if she did, I'd be shocked to the absolute core of my being. She has an excellent track record on sexual assault matters, too.

Makes sense. So why didn't Cragg just tell the kid who quit that it was appropriately handled? That whole bit is a little strange. And the timing of Sulaimon's dismissal coming shortly thereafter. If it had nothing to do with the assault allegations, it was a pretty weird coincidence.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Is the Chronicle student-run? That's always a lot of responsibility to handle, where you have 22 year olds in charge of 20 and 21 year olds. I only worked on our paper for a year as a copy editor, and I'd want no part of being one of the higher-ups.

Is Wasiolek part of the Office of Student Conduct?

I'm answering about the Chronicle from direct knowledge from 20+ years ago and some indirect knowledge that is more recent, but I believe it's still accurate. The Chronicle is student-run with a faculty "advisor" or two who have very, very little involvement in what goes on. Seth Davis was the sports editor of the Chronicle when he was a senior (and possibly a junior as well; I am not sure), and he operated virtually autonomously. Duke, rightly or wrongly, views The Chronicle as the school's version of a journalism major.

No, Wasiolek is the Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students. She is a level over the Office of Student Conduct, whose head is one of her several reports. Wasiolek has been at Duke for nearly 40 years and is not only a terrific person, but she takes no crap from anyone. She would never - as in never - participate in any coverup of anything, or let's put it this way: if she did, I'd be shocked to the absolute core of my being. She has an excellent track record on sexual assault matters, too.

Makes sense. So why didn't Cragg just tell the kid who quit that it was appropriately handled? That whole bit is a little strange. And the timing of Sulaimon's dismissal coming shortly thereafter. If it had nothing to do with the assault allegations, it was a pretty weird coincidence.

I can see that point. But weird coincidences happen in life all the time and no one outside of those involved really knows what Cragg actually said. I know Cragg personally (lightly - it would be unfair to him for me to describe us as huge friends or anything: he's a busy guy with loads of acquaintances), even better than I know Dean Wasiolek. He isn't very likely to participate in a coverup of wrongdoing either. Is it possible? I guess anything's possible, although it certainly would be very, very strange behavior for everyone involved. The most likely explanation is that Duke was handcuffed by privacy laws and other legal considerations (like due process) plus the lack of any actual evidence against Sulaimon* from taking action, but things came to a head when something unrelated to this happened that served as the last straw. I absolutely don't know and am only speculating, but I tend to believe that the basketball secretary quit because of something else that Sulaimon did, perhaps to him personally. It could be as simple as Sulaimon verbally abusing him. The Chronicle then irresponsibly connected dots that were and are not there, and THAT, sadly, is all too easy to imagine.

*I'm not commenting on the truthfulness of his accusers' allegations (because I know nothing about that), only noting that they never came forward to anyone in an official capacity. That put Duke in a fairly difficult position.

 

[Archer]

lots of smoke about a verbal (if not physical) confrontation with another player after the ND game. I tend to agree with you AA, K couldn't dismiss Sheed for the allegations, but he clearly was on his last chance. The minute he did something stupid, broke a team standard, K cut him. And again, I applaud him for it. No one knows what really happened, but if Sheed assaulted those girls, he deserves the boot (and depending on what happened, potentially a LOT more punishment)