FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[tf37]

The character assassination of the victim is distasteful... It's bad enough to do so privately but I can't stop that. However, I can stop it from happening in public on this forum and I will.

Pat,

Are you going to hold the same standards for those

Welcome to the board.

I didn't read anything else you said. When you started a long diatribe with "are you going to do this, too" then I tuned it out. Sorry. Agreed that this isn't the way to make your first post.

Thanks Pat.

The first paragraph was the only item specifically direct to you (live and learn) and I would hope if you actually read my post you would see that it was not a diatribe  - at least that was not my intention.

I was actually happy to see your statement.  Just wanted to see it expanded to include all parties.

[AO]

https://youtu.be/ntc2bOiglpg?t=12423

a rough transcription:

His injuries were from the past, he was putting off surgery on both shoulders.

They put dirt down his pants, only one kid touched him - slapped his stomach.

The other "kidnapped" kid thought it was hilarious and is still on the team.

One of the female Wheaton students who drove him home said he was really mad but had no physical injuries.

[miac952]

https://youtu.be/ntc2bOiglpg?t=12423

The radio host you posted seems like a really calm, nice fellow. 

That aside, the arguments made by the host, from his email source, present the other side. It's interesting to hear.

What doesn't jive here is that DA and police completed a lengthy 16 month investigation. That investigation, if thorough, should include witness testimony, medical history and medical records from that night, statements from physicians and nurses, camera feeds potentially from the public areas in the dorm, and cell phone info and data from parties involved. I'm not saying all of this was gathered by police and the DA, but this is likely what was pursued. Much of this would not be available to an independent investigator or the College. Felony charges generally aren't filed lightly by a prosecutor, especially after 16 months. If they did it on a whim they will be hung out to dry. But this does not "feel" like Duke Lacrosse, nor does it follow the timeline or public grandstanding in any way.

If this is a money grab, as the radio host's source notes, than why not publicly pursue the matter in civil proceedings? I also don't like the public reference to the kid being an ABC school transfer by the radio host. Some resourceful internet folks might do some roster x-referencing now and identify the victim's name. 

[wm4]

https://youtu.be/ntc2bOiglpg?t=12423

a rough transcription:

His injuries were from the past, he was putting off surgery on both shoulders.

They put dirt down his pants, only one kid touched him - slapped his stomach.

The other "kidnapped" kid thought it was hilarious and is still on the team.

One of the female Wheaton students who drove him home said he was really mad but had no physical injuries.

Thank you for summarizing AO.  By the way that radio host was painful to listen to.  And I'd always wondered where Amy Jacobson wound up.  Must be a slice to go to work with that guy every day.

So if that's all that happened, why would the kids be suddenly suspended from both practices and games? 

[wm4]

https://youtu.be/ntc2bOiglpg?t=12423

a rough transcription:

His injuries were from the past, he was putting off surgery on both shoulders.

They put dirt down his pants, only one kid touched him - slapped his stomach.

The other "kidnapped" kid thought it was hilarious and is still on the team.

One of the female Wheaton students who drove him home said he was really mad but had no physical injuries.

A real bonding program they have going on over there in Wheaton.  No wonder they're a top 5 this year. 

[smedindy]

That host is why I stopped listening to talk radio - sports or otherwise - except for NPR - a long time ago. They local guys all seem like they want to race to the bottom.

[blue_jays]

It feels like the time for everyone to tone down their rhetoric and take a breath.
This is just the beginning of a lengthy legal process, which could have plenty of twists and turns along the way. Let's save the vitriol and not fall into a stereotypical online shouting match, which reflects poorly on all.
Pray for everyone involved. This is a very serious life-altering matter, whatever the facts may be, and will directly affect the future of all these young men. Scorn is easy, empathy is hard. It is possible to feel empathy for both sides – for the victim who was subjected to this ordeal, and for the accused for making terrible mistakes that I'm sure that they deeply regret and wish they could take back.
This is now a local and national story, and the internet has already scooped this up and ran with it, which makes Wheaton supporters and alumni feel persecuted by association. Everyone wants to defend their alma mater. No one wants to see their school get dragged on a national scale. No one wants to be painted with a broad brush. Unfortunately, the actions of the few end up hurting the many.
People will always come out of the woodwork to add their snarky comments and pile onto the situation. Those who want to jump in and say, "Nice Christian values" and get in their digs.  It's the internet, it's unavoidable. Their character is made plain for all to see.
But I'd wholeheartedly encourage Wheaton alumni/supporters to not take the bait. Lashing back in anger, defensiveness or bitterness won't change people's opinions. This is a sad situation, and one that should weigh heavily on our hearts and minds. As Christians, it's more important to pray for justice and a just resolution, regardless of whether the outcome is exoneration or conviction.

[gordonmann]

Well said. +k

[Gregory Sager]

... and, having just read two pages' worth of back-and-forth about the reputation of Wheaton College, I now see that the PR aspect of the discussion seems to have superseded the criminal-case aspect of it for a lot of people. Oh, well.

I'm just going to say this flat-out: USee is wrong about Wheaton having an "impeccable record". Just within the past seven years, Wheaton College has been rocked by two very, very serious and very public scandals involving criminal activity that have nothing to do with KKK skits, football player hazing, or theological disputes involving faculty. I am not going to go into detail about those two scandals, because I'm not looking to censure Wheaton here. I'm simply saying that Wheaton College doesn't have a spotless public record as far as the behavior of the people closely associated with the institution are concerned. But, then again, what school does?

On the other hand, Wheaton is genuinely successful at doing what it claims to do, which is helping to shape young people into adults of character and high morals while institutionally upholding a strong and measured sense of Christian ethics. While I share the core beliefs of Wheaton people, I certainly don't agree with all of the stances that the school takes. At the heart of the rivalry that North Parkers feel towards Wheaton is a distinct difference in the perception of how evangelicals ought to operate a school, and there's probably some general differences as well in viewpoints of how evangelicals ought to function in the larger society. But that doesn't mean that the people from my school therefore cannot respect Wheaton and its followers for who and what they are. I take a back seat to no one in my antipathy towards Wheaton as an athletics foe, but I have a huge amount of admiration for Wheaton folks as people. Aside from North Parkers, I count more Wheaton alumni as friends than I do from any other school.

Amidst all of the heat of those last two pages came a little light. Smeds is totally right that:

Your reputation isn't what insiders or kool-aid drinkers says it is, it's what the public at large thinks of the institution.

... and Izzy is totally right that:

The greatest crime in America today is offending someone.  Wheaton has core beliefs that are offensive to people.

Because Wheaton is one of the two highest-profile evangelical schools in America, it's always going to be on the hot seat. Any scandal or PR faux pas is going to end up in the public eye, for the reasons Izzy stated. But, rather than complaining about that, Wheaton folks should simply embrace it as the price that they have to be willing to pay for having such a comparatively high-profile school in the first place. You can't just reap the rewards for that high profile without being willing to take on the burden that goes with it. Wheaton doesn't get any mulligans just for having so many nice people, and its supporters need to learn how to live with that.

There is a difference, mind you, between embarrassments caused by administration, faculty, or big-name supporters, and embarrassments caused by students. As full-fledged adults, there is an expectation that administrators and faculty members and donors ought to behave in a civil and respectable manner. College kids, on the other hand, are somewhat handicapped by their immaturity. As I was just saying in the MIAC football room yesterday, the prefrontal cortex of the human brain -- the part of the brain that controls reason and judgment -- isn't fully developed until age 25 or thereabouts. That, plus the lack of life experience and the susceptibility to peer pressure in an environment in which they're surrounded by people their own age, means that college-aged people are on average much more prone to do stupid things than are the rest of us. That doesn't excuse criminal behavior, but it does help explain how young men like the five Wheaton football players, none of whom have past criminal records, could do something like this. As USee said, Mike Swider has had to kick lots of players off of the Wheaton team over the years. I doubt that there is any long-term college football coach in America who hasn't had to kick lots of players off of his team over the years. It comes with the territory, and I would hope that most people would be reasonable enough to take the human development of 21-year-olds into consideration when looking at stuff like this. Of course, an institution's response to such behavior is another matter entirely, and in my view it's more fair game for criticism of a college than what a 21-year-old does on his own time while unsupervised.

[Li'l Giant]

The injury thing is another stumper to me. Shoulder surgery on both shoulders due to the incident?
I'm no attorney but I do play in the world of insurance. When is the last time you visited a doctor for an injury without your insurance company asking if another party was at fault? If an insurance carrier had to pay the bill, they would look to subrogate. Certainly the victim wouldn't have picked up the deductible and coinsurance- someone had to pay the bill.

Or maybe the family found a friendly D.A. that wants another notch in his belt and could help them get a settlement to pay some bills?

That's a bold claim. I'm not an attorney in Illinois, but I've practiced law for a decade and a half in Texas. I've been a prosecutor, defense attorney, and am a plaintiff's attorney.

The notion of the DA colluding with a plaintiff lawyer is far-fetched. Maybe that stuff happens in Illinois, I don't know. But in my experience where I've represented people in their civil claims arising from criminal conduct the DAs have never been cooperative, remaining neutral at best, and in some cases downright antagonistic.

[emma17]

tf37,
Thanks for posting. Perhaps I'm the odd man out here, but I appreciated your post, learned from it and hope you post again.
You seem like an objective guy with a rooting interest for Wheaton, perfectly reasonable in my book.

Perhaps if Pat had gone on to read your post, he might have formed a slightly different opinion. Especially since you clearly made an effort to show objectivity, example: "With more information, I could be persuaded to change my stance." That's rock solid.
You raise a valid point that is at the basis of my question and that is: The players were punished to some degree last year, and now, 18 months later, are receiving additional punishment. I have no horse in this race and like all others, want justice. Why? What has changed over time?
I admit to being skeptical that it took investigators this much time to find enough evidence to merit charges.
It seems that accusations so serious should have resulted in the police looking for ways to keep these 5 men off the street/away from other students- immediately.

[gryfalia]

You raise a valid point that is at the basis of my question and that is: The players were punished to some degree last year, and now, 18 months later, are receiving additional punishment. I have no horse in this race and like all others, want justice. Why? What has changed over time?
I admit to being skeptical that it took investigators this much time to find enough evidence to merit charges.
It seems that accusations so serious should have resulted in the police looking for ways to keep these 5 men off the street/away from other students- immediately.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that almost every institution has 2 levels of response to an allegation.

Level 1 - incident is reported and some sort of 'looking into it' is done.  Both by the school and (like in this case) the authorities.  It seems that, until recently, the authorities weren't done with their part yet (no charges) and the school, through some third party, came to the conclusion that 'X' offense did take place and that steps needed to be taken for corrective action and were.

Level 2 - official charges are now delivered.  It doesn't matter if the school thinks they were 100% right or perhaps new information came to light or whatever...further actions are expected, being that the authorities feel they have a case to make that something 'more severe' took place.  I can only hope that if Wheaton came to the conclusion that what was described by the transferred student in the official charges are NOT what took place, because if what is being reported as their response to THOSE allegations were community service, a paper and a short suspension, I'm going to have to have a long thought about my alma mater.  For now I have to hope that they were wise enough to think the 'version 2' as listed above is what occurred.  Still stupid, but certainly not a felony.

Now, of course, we head to phase 3 (eventually).  The trial and all the fun that comes with that.  But at least we'll learn some facts.

The problem with pranks and/or hazing is that one person's prank is another person's hazing.  Pranks were common back when I was in school and I assume they are now too.  But there's a reason that most people look back at what they did and thought when younger and ponder how stupid they were (goodness knows I do).

Just so everyone's clear, I'm not saying that 'football players' do stupid things.  I'm saying 'college aged kids' do stupid things.  Of course, older folks do too, but we tend to be more dramatic about it, with far longer reaching consequences.

And to think, my yearly post here was going to be about the wife and I heading up for homecoming to see her school IWU get destroyed by Wheaton.  Sadly a more serious topic intrudes.

[AndOne]

tf37,
Thanks for posting. Perhaps I'm the odd man out here, but I appreciated your post, learned from it and hope you post again.
You seem like an objective guy with a rooting interest for Wheaton, perfectly reasonable in my book.

Perhaps if Pat had gone on to read your post, he might have formed a slightly different opinion. Especially since you clearly made an effort to show objectivity, example: "With more information, I could be persuaded to change my stance." That's rock solid.
You raise a valid point that is at the basis of my question and that is: The players were punished to some degree last year, and now, 18 months later, are receiving additional punishment. I have no horse in this race and like all others, want justice. Why? What has changed over time?
I admit to being skeptical that it took investigators this much time to find enough evidence to merit charges.
It seems that accusations so serious should have resulted in the police looking for ways to keep these 5 men off the street/away from other students- immediately.

Emma,

I think a good number of people would agree with your idea (highlighted above). But remember, under our legal system, the police are, and probably should be, powerless to do much, if anything, until a person has been convicted of charges. Then, the person is sentenced under the judicial system to whatever punishment our lawmakers have determined is appropriate for the crime of which they've been convicted. All the police can do initially is lock someone up for a specified length of time until he can be arraigned and given the opportunity to post bail bond money if the offense is bondable.
The police are restrained by laws that, at least supposedly, are designed to uphold the theory of innocent until proven guilty.
I do think many people would agree that in many instances the law seems tilted in favor of the alleged perpetrator over the victim.

[robertgoulet]

tf37,
Thanks for posting. Perhaps I'm the odd man out here, but I appreciated your post, learned from it and hope you post again.
You seem like an objective guy with a rooting interest for Wheaton, perfectly reasonable in my book.

Perhaps if Pat had gone on to read your post, he might have formed a slightly different opinion. Especially since you clearly made an effort to show objectivity, example: "With more information, I could be persuaded to change my stance." That's rock solid.
You raise a valid point that is at the basis of my question and that is: The players were punished to some degree last year, and now, 18 months later, are receiving additional punishment. I have no horse in this race and like all others, want justice. Why? What has changed over time?
I admit to being skeptical that it took investigators this much time to find enough evidence to merit charges.
It seems that accusations so serious should have resulted in the police looking for ways to keep these 5 men off the street/away from other students- immediately.

Emma,

I think a good number of people would agree with your idea (highlighted above). But remember, under our legal system, the police are, and probably should be, powerless to do much, if anything, until a person has been convicted of charges. Then, the person is sentenced under the judicial system to whatever punishment our lawmakers have determined is appropriate for the crime of which they've been convicted. All the police can do initially is lock someone up for a specified length of time until he can be arraigned and given the opportunity to post bail bond money if the offense is bondable.
The police are restrained by laws that, at least supposedly, are designed to uphold the theory of innocent until proven guilty.
I do think many people would agree that in many instances the law seems tilted in favor of the alleged perpetrator over the victim.

Agreed.

[Ryan Stoppable]

tf37,
Thanks for posting. Perhaps I'm the odd man out here, but I appreciated your post, learned from it and hope you post again.
You seem like an objective guy with a rooting interest for Wheaton, perfectly reasonable in my book.

Perhaps if Pat had gone on to read your post, he might have formed a slightly different opinion. Especially since you clearly made an effort to show objectivity, example: "With more information, I could be persuaded to change my stance." That's rock solid.
You raise a valid point that is at the basis of my question and that is: The players were punished to some degree last year, and now, 18 months later, are receiving additional punishment. I have no horse in this race and like all others, want justice. Why? What has changed over time?
I admit to being skeptical that it took investigators this much time to find enough evidence to merit charges.
It seems that accusations so serious should have resulted in the police looking for ways to keep these 5 men off the street/away from other students- immediately.

Emma,

I think a good number of people would agree with your idea (highlighted above). But remember, under our legal system, the police are, and probably should be, powerless to do much, if anything, until a person has been convicted of charges. Then, the person is sentenced under the judicial system to whatever punishment our lawmakers have determined is appropriate for the crime of which they've been convicted. All the police can do initially is lock someone up for a specified length of time until he can be arraigned and given the opportunity to post bail bond money if the offense is bondable.
The police are restrained by laws that, at least supposedly, are designed to uphold the theory of innocent until proven guilty.
I do think many people would agree that in many instances the law seems tilted in favor of the alleged perpetrator over the victim.

Agreed.

But the problem is that it's a double edged sword - both sides have rights, and both sides are entitled to justice. The law may seem tilted in favor of the alleged perpetrator, but that is an effect of maintaining the status quo while people are trying to suss out the truth.

By locking someone up, you take away their most valuable commodity - their time. And while you can give someone monetary or other compensation, you can never give them back their time, even if they are ultimately exonerated.

But that can lead to issues in a situation like this, where two separate investigations have drawn two very different conclusions about what transpired.