Originally posted by SteveVA2:
Top:
The reality is that the information never came fourth hand. It comes from the dean of students office or roommates or friends or the university or city police or the newspapers or advisors or professors or the individuals themselves. I wanted to add that the Duke may have already conducted an investigation and found insufficient evidence to justify any action against the basketball player, we don't. It is also possible that the two students refused to cooperate with the University. We don't know. It's also possible he was dismissed from the team because the coach was not pleased with the player's behavior even though the preponderance of evidence did not indicate he violated any law.
This post was edited on 3/2 8:22 PM by SteveVA2
I'm not saying that it was, but by the same token, so far I don't see that anyone knows where it came from. Here's what I mean. According to the article, it was the team psychologist who alerted the coaches and administration. Well, this is my question. How did the team psychologist find out about this? It doesn't really seam plausible that the victims would have access to the team psychologist. Presumably, that doctor works for the team, and not with the general student population. It also doesn't seem plausible that a victim would specifically seek out the team psychologist either. It's doubtful that a regular student would even know who this doctor was, or where to find him.
So my point is this. If the team psychologist heard from a friend-of a friend-of a friend that a person was assaulted, I just feel like that's a little too far removed as a basis for a law. I'm not arguing about you being correct on the law itself. I'm saying I disagree with the law if it functions in the way you are saying. I think someone should only be held legally accountable if the information comes from a source more directly involved in the situation.
