I hope the deal just looks reasonable. It would be the best for everyone (players, school, alleged victim, team).
The U should bow out of the investigation and adjudication of these punishments. They could both agree to a neutral, third party arbiter. They could agree to the "rules" (preponderance, cross examination, sharing/testing of physical evidence, compelling witnesses, etc.). I think the U would be leery of this because it implies that they are bias. I hope the U has the foresight to see that this would be in their own good.
It seems to me that there is an avenue open toward something that allows the University to defend its procedures overall, which I am guessing that they will feel they have to do as long as Hutton is claiming that he’s going to sue everyone, and still recognize that the system has broken down here and needs to be examined
What if the University:
*Took a position reaffirming that the EOAA serves a vital and required purpose as the University strives to fulfil its mission to all of its students and comply with federal laws related to privacy, confidentiality and Title IX.
*Recognized that, to accomplish its mandate, the EOAA must be allowed to conduct its investigations without interference from other departments within the University.
*Recognized at the same time, that those systems are imperfect and require constant review and refinement.
*Agreed that, as with any other event that calls into question whether the current process is the best process, it should review its procedures to determine whether modification is appropriate to ensure that the system is most appropriately geared toward its overarching goal of justice for all involved. Of particular significance in this matter is the fact that whenever the individual being investigated is in the public eye, his or her privacy cannot be protected in the same way that the privacy of other students or employees might be.
*Stated that even though the University did not disclose or comment on the subject matter of the investigation here, the mere fact that the investigated persons are otherwise identified changes the nature of the process in ways that adversely impact the rights of the individuals involved, both the accuser and the accused, and can be detrimental to those individuals and the process as a whole.
Based on the above, the University could commit to participation in, and funding of, an independent investigation of these matters and a review of the way that it investigates claims of this nature. In an effort to resolve the current disputes, the University could also agree to some type of a conciliation process with the involved parties to try to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. That won’t likely satisfy anyone involved who feels entitled to a big pay day, but it would offer assurance that the matter will be adequately investigated and that the overall due process arguments raised by the boycott get reviewed. Some students might still be expelled or suspended, but those determinations will come only after the independent investigation is completed.
