Sally Mason releases statement on Gray allegations

[Golfer]

In the original thread, there was a link. The Daily Iowan, or the IC Press Citizen released the report, and blocked out students names. All names IIRC.

It was a good thread before politics overtook it, and then Veteran's on Veteran's Day were called baby killers, so now here we are.

 

[Golfer]

Document is at bottom of story:

http://www.press-citizen.com/articl...10026/UI-officials-mum-harassment-allegations

 

[Golfer]

Read it, and explain to me why no criminal investigation.

Inappropriate touching by someone in a position of authority over a student is a crime in Iowa.

 

[twinlaker]

I don't have a good feeling about this.

I don't either. Especially since Murph and Andy troll here for their stories on TV13 News... because they don't have the budget to drive over to Iowa City to do any real news digging.

 

[jimmyjohnAZ]

Read it, and explain to me why no criminal investigation.

Inappropriate touching by someone in a position of authority over a student is a crime in Iowa.

Legal Definition of Assault and Battery:

Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.
The main distinction between the two offenses is the existence or nonexistence of a touching or contact. While contact is an essential element of battery, there must be an absence of contact for assault. Sometimes assault is defined loosely to include battery.
Assault and battery are offenses in both criminal and Tort Law; therefore, they can give rise to criminal or civil liability. In Criminal Law, an assault may additionally be defined as any attempt to commit a battery.
At Common Law, both offenses were misdemeanors. As of the early 2000s, under virtually all criminal codes, they are either misdemeanors or felonies. They are characterized as felonious when accompanied by a criminal intent, such as an intent to kill, rob, or rape, or when they are committed with a dangerous weapon.

 

[GhostofBTT]

Read it, and explain to me why no criminal investigation.

Inappropriate touching by someone in a position of authority over a student is a crime in Iowa.

Ask the cops. Why are you asking us?

 

[dmackindm]

the information was leaked. it is not even supposed to be public record.

Some are more concerned about the leaks on the Good Ship Iowa than the acts alone.

 

[coralville]

good democrats know how to "cover up".

 

[Golfer]

Ask the cops. Why are you asking us?

Because I'm outraged, and it's beyond my belief how little it appears that others care.

If this happened in the private sector, this would be handled differently. Some will argue otherwise, but I'm almost positive a majority of those making the argument have never been in a position to know how it really works.

 

[tubahawk]

This is a public institution. screw you Sally. The Sandusky deal was just allegations and needed to be treated confidentially..There needs to be transparency. It seems these folks are more concerned about the perps rights than anyone elses.

There's a process that needs to be followed. Not every allegation is accurate and it is slander to release an accusation without any supporting documentation. I'm not sure where the University is in that process, but just becasue it's a public institution does not mean full transparancy in every situation at all times.

 

[Golfer]

Part of the process should be, based on the allegations, a criminal investigation. Part of the process would also be to have never hired this guy back.

The document shouldn't have been leaked, and he is entitled (a fitting word in this case) to the presumption of innocence, and this does need to be treated in accordance with their personnel and human resource guidelines. But the document was leaked, and it alleges criminal misconduct, and it also seems to draw a clear picture of gross negligence and malfeasance.

Their process, especially after Penn State, is flawed. And IMO, typical of an institution where they think they are "smarter" than everyone else. Also typical of government think. They are enlightened I guess.

This guy is entitles to due diligence, and privacy. We are entitled to a criminal investigation. He inappropriately touched those who he was given a position of authority over. His right to privacy is somewhat reduced in a case like this.

 

[tubahawk]

Agreed.

Why the Univisterty rehired him knowing these allegations exsisted was negligence.

Sexual harrassment doesn't mean sexual abuse and isn't necissarily something the University can prsecute in court. The students and affected parties, however, can take legal action. But they do have to show some kind of "damage". A prolonged, akward, back rub isn't something that would pass legal scrutiny.

Touching in private area can be. I think the University has done an appropriate investigation and made the right choice to terminate. I see their risk being the rehiring of an employee who previously exhibited these behaviors.

 

[FalseMirage]

good democrats know how to "cover up".

One needs look no further than Watergate or Iran Contra for proof of that.

 

[doclee]

This is a public institution. screw you Sally. The Sandusky deal was just allegations and needed to be treated confidentially..There needs to be transparency. It seems these folks are more concerned about the perps rights than anyone elses.

You are an idiot. You do, as the administrator, exactly what your attorney tells you to do...you may discuss the matter and argue, but in the end, the attorney knows the law and the consequences you will endure if you screw up. Been there, done that. Have you?

 

[Golfer]

I've been there and done that also.

In any event, where is the criminal investigation please?

 

[doclee]

good democrats know how to "cover up".

This had damn well better be deleted. Politics. Show some guts.

 

[rockstar]

murph and andy are not even real men.

 

[Golfer]

It will be deleted. He might even be booted off. The Mod's on here, outside of the board owner, tend to moderate with a political slant. But you're right, notwithstanding one's personal world view on the politics of a university, it has no place in a discussion where someone in a position of authority inappropriately touched a student.

 

[doclee]

I've been there and done that also.

In any event, where is the criminal investigation please?

At this point, none of your business. And, I doubt that you have been there, done that, given your response.

 

[Golfer]

You can doubt all you want. In my case I was the employer. The guy that owned the company. Not some mid-level manager that worked for someone else. And yes, if it had risen the level of this leaked document, I, we, would have turned this over to law enforcement.

Our attorney told us the victim could do that, but we would be obligated to report a possible crime if we thought that was what it was.