Krakauer NYT article

[TomCat88]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/ma ... =1&t=73114

Always interesting when one story uncovers another story. This is written in the style I'm used to from Krakauer.

[77matcat]

Thought it was a good review. Will be waiting for the decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gtapp]

I was under the impression that several sexual misconduct acquisitions were made against griz football players that same year. If that is true were those cases ever resolved and was any information made public?

[SonomaCat]

At the end of the day they couldn't determine that he had broken the law after a full trial (and no, I'm no saying that he was found to be "innocent," but rather that they didn't have the evidence to prove that he was guilty). I'm not sure what good it does to keep digging into this after that. Honestly, I'd hate to see somebody's reputation and life ruined based on a "more likely than not" standard as advocated in this article (so I'm not sure the University tribunal approach is really a great approach to begin with). I don't want to see people getting away with bad things, but I also do think that you better be more than 51% sure of something before you apply severe punishment to somebody.

These he said/she said cases are horrible for everybody involved, and I see no good way for things to be done differently that won't have a good chance of being grossly unfair to one party or another. I just hope that everybody involved in this episode is able to move on with their lives and not be too horribly scarred by it. My fear is that the scars on this one (especially with all of the horrific public shaming of the accuser that was done) will run pretty deep.

[77matcat]

Been a while since I read, but Isn't the issue the universities right to keep information private.

As I understand nothing will change the outcome that the trial determined. But should a similar situation evolve in any of the state run institutions isn't it appropriate to determine who has what rights??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grizgirl]

Been a while since I read, but Isn't the issue the universities right to keep information private.

As I understand nothing will change the outcome that the trial determined. But should a similar situation evolve in any of the state run institutions isn't it appropriate to determine who has what rights??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and that's what this story is about. It isn't so much about Johnson now as it is about the BOR. It sure looks like something fishy is going on.

[77matcat]

That's my feel as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlphaOAlum]

Did you see that the MT Supreme Court will hear Krakauer's case in Bozeman on April 27?
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ne ... b3d5b.html

[catatac]

Did you see that the MT Supreme Court will hear Krakauer's case in Bozeman on April 27?
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ne ... b3d5b.html

Interesting. So am I completely in the dark here or was it general knowledge that JJ had been accused of rape more than once? At least that's how I'm reading this but the article was worded a bit strange. Maybe that was all in the book, I didn't read it.

[Jobu]

Did you see that the MT Supreme Court will hear Krakauer's case in Bozeman on April 27?
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ne ... b3d5b.html

Interesting. So am I completely in the dark here or was it general knowledge that JJ had been accused of rape more than once? At least that's how I'm reading this but the article was worded a bit strange. Maybe that was all in the book, I didn't read it.

Yeah, very poorly written. By "raped another student", they mean he allegedly raped a fellow student, not another individual other than the one he was found not guilty of raping.

My feeling on this is that sales of the book have been disappointing, and Krakauer is looking to revive them. Like UM or not, that was a terrible book. And I love Krakauer as an author.

[grizgirl]

Did you see that the MT Supreme Court will hear Krakauer's case in Bozeman on April 27?
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ne ... b3d5b.html

Interesting. So am I completely in the dark here or was it general knowledge that JJ had been accused of rape more than once? At least that's how I'm reading this but the article was worded a bit strange. Maybe that was all in the book, I didn't read it.

Yeah, very poorly written. By "raped another student", they mean he allegedly raped a fellow student, not another individual other than the one he was found not guilty of raping.

My feeling on this is that sales of the book have been disappointing, and Krakauer is looking to revive them. Like UM or not, that was a terrible book. And I love Krakauer as an author.

I don't think sales are a concern at all for Krakauer because I don't think he needs the money. Not sure about your terrible book comment. I love UM and I thought Krakauer did the country a great service in peeling back the cover on how rape cases are handled on college campuses. The book was extremely informative. The side story about a possible cover up is riveting. Most people had no idea that JJ was found guilty (twice) in university court and expelled only to have that overturned on what may be an underhanded deal. An astonishing turn of events to go from being found guilty and then found guilty again on appeal, but then be found not guilty after a change in the rules is made. That's dramatic.

[Jobu]

Obviously enjoyment of a book is a very personal thing. I love JK and was looking forward to this read. I was very, very disappointed. I thought after about 35 pages, he simply either repeated himself countless times, or copied documents from hearings into the book. I think it could have been a great read at about 50 pages.

If you read the critiques of the book, both professional and not, many agree. That said, if you liked the book, great.

[grizatwork]

Did you see that the MT Supreme Court will hear Krakauer's case in Bozeman on April 27?
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ne ... b3d5b.html

Interesting. So am I completely in the dark here or was it general knowledge that JJ had been accused of rape more than once? At least that's how I'm reading this but the article was worded a bit strange. Maybe that was all in the book, I didn't read it.

Yeah, very poorly written. By "raped another student", they mean he allegedly raped a fellow student, not another individual other than the one he was found not guilty of raping.

My feeling on this is that sales of the book have been disappointing, and Krakauer is looking to revive them. Like UM or not, that was a terrible book. And I love Krakauer as an author.

I don't think sales are a concern at all for Krakauer because I don't think he needs the money. Not sure about your terrible book comment. I love UM and I thought Krakauer did the country a great service in peeling back the cover on how rape cases are handled on college campuses. The book was extremely informative. The side story about a possible cover up is riveting. Most people had no idea that JJ was found guilty (twice) in university court and expelled only to have that overturned on what may be an underhanded deal. An astonishing turn of events to go from being found guilty and then found guilty again on appeal, but then be found not guilty after a change in the rules is made. That's dramatic.

Only if you were living under a rock did you not know the results of the university hearing.

My understanding it that this is a question of the public right to know -vs- the students right to privacy. University is a state agency, so they are saying open meeting clause. State is saying Ferpa. Sounds like there is other things about potential litigation if records are released. I find that part fascinating, but the rest of it I am frankly tired of hearing. Don't think I have ever read one of his books, so I can't comment on his writing.

[grizgirl]

Did you see that the MT Supreme Court will hear Krakauer's case in Bozeman on April 27?
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ne ... b3d5b.html

Interesting. So am I completely in the dark here or was it general knowledge that JJ had been accused of rape more than once? At least that's how I'm reading this but the article was worded a bit strange. Maybe that was all in the book, I didn't read it.

Yeah, very poorly written. By "raped another student", they mean he allegedly raped a fellow student, not another individual other than the one he was found not guilty of raping.

My feeling on this is that sales of the book have been disappointing, and Krakauer is looking to revive them. Like UM or not, that was a terrible book. And I love Krakauer as an author.

I don't think sales are a concern at all for Krakauer because I don't think he needs the money. Not sure about your terrible book comment. I love UM and I thought Krakauer did the country a great service in peeling back the cover on how rape cases are handled on college campuses. The book was extremely informative. The side story about a possible cover up is riveting. Most people had no idea that JJ was found guilty (twice) in university court and expelled only to have that overturned on what may be an underhanded deal. An astonishing turn of events to go from being found guilty and then found guilty again on appeal, but then be found not guilty after a change in the rules is made. That's dramatic.

Only if you were living under a rock did you not know the results of the university hearing.

My understanding it that this is a question of the public right to know -vs- the students right to privacy. University is a state agency, so they are saying open meeting clause. State is saying Ferpa. Sounds like there is other things about potential litigation if records are released. I find that part fascinating, but the rest of it I am frankly tired of hearing. Don't think I have ever read one of his books, so I can't comment on his writing.

This book was written to a national audience, not just UM/MSU football fans. Therefore, most people had no idea JJ was found guilty twice and expelled. UM/MSU fans that read this book probably make up less than 5% of sales. All the average reader knew was a small college QB was accused of rape and acquitted in criminal court. I doubt any of the average readers knew he had gone through a university court let alone been found guilty twice along with all the other details surrounding that part of this story.

I agree, that part is fascinating. I can't wait to hear how it all went down. Very dramatic story.

[Bobcatsinmso]

Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn.....

[TomCat88]

Been a while since I read, but Isn't the issue the universities right to keep information private.

As I understand nothing will change the outcome that the trial determined. But should a similar situation evolve in any of the state run institutions isn't it appropriate to determine who has what rights??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good post. That's how the legal system evolves and fine tunes itself. It isn't perfect, but leaving stones unturned doesn't enable it to progress. Very hard to wrap your head around it at times.

[grizgirl]

Obviously enjoyment of a book is a very personal thing. I love JK and was looking forward to this read. I was very, very disappointed. I thought after about 35 pages, he simply either repeated himself countless times, or copied documents from hearings into the book. I think it could have been a great read at about 50 pages.

If you read the critiques of the book, both professional and not, many agree. That said, if you liked the book, great.

Many? Some would be a better word for that. Most give it good reviews. It's 4.1 out of 5 on Amazon. I agree that it isn't written in the same style as some of his other books, but the subject matter may have something to do with that. It's also not a cut-n-dried case, so those people who adamantly disagree with the accuser are prone to not like a book that supports her version of the events no matter how well written it is. Had he sided with JJ there would still be bad reviews.

One thing he could've done better was compare this case with other similar cases and describe how the defendant was found guilty or not guilty in those cases to give this case some scale. That would be more in style with his other books. This isn't necessarily a good book due to writing style, but it's good in an informative way. Missoulians are mad because they feel it makes Missoula look bad, but their are other towns all over the country that have this kind of thing going on and Krakauer has done the country a service by shining a light on it. Krakauer explains that it isn't just Missoula. Date rape on campus is rampant across the country. The only way to stem that is to talk about it and put it under a microscope to figure out how to stop it.

[Grizlaw]

I don't think sales are a concern at all for Krakauer because I don't think he needs the money. Not sure about your terrible book comment. I love UM and I thought Krakauer did the country a great service in peeling back the cover on how rape cases are handled on college campuses. The book was extremely informative. The side story about a possible cover up is riveting. Most people had no idea that JJ was found guilty (twice) in university court and expelled only to have that overturned on what may be an underhanded deal. An astonishing turn of events to go from being found guilty and then found guilty again on appeal, but then be found not guilty after a change in the rules is made. That's dramatic.

There was a little more to it than that, though.

The NYT article makes passing reference to JJ's federal lawsuit against the university, referring to it as a "sideshow." That wasn't really true, though -- the lawsuit ended up being moot because of the way the criminal case turned out (and because JJ's expulsion was reversed - more on that in a minute), but if you go back and review the actual allegations that were the basis of JJ's lawsuit, you'll recall that there were some pretty serious allegations that the University's process for conducting the investigation and the "University Court" proceeding resulted in violations of JJ's due process and Title IX rights. (Among the allegations were that the University denied JJ's counsel access to documents that it was preparing as evidence against him, took steps to prevent his attorneys from interviewing the accuser's roommates and other witnesses, and that the University's procedural rules prevented JJ's attorney from participating during the hearing.)

Granted, these are all just allegations. They were written from JJ's point of view, and they were never resolved (and never will be). But if true, it's not that surprising that JJ was found guilty at the University's hearing, and if the University had concerns about JJ moving forward with his lawsuit, it would also explain the decision to reverse the expulsion.

Below is an article that links the District Court's decision unsealing the records of JJ's lawsuit, if anyone's interested. I haven't read all 293 pages of it (and to the extent that I have read it, it was a few years ago, so the details are a little fuzzy), but it outlines what I'm referring to.

http://missoulian.com/unsealed-document ... f887a.html

[grizgirl]

I don't think sales are a concern at all for Krakauer because I don't think he needs the money. Not sure about your terrible book comment. I love UM and I thought Krakauer did the country a great service in peeling back the cover on how rape cases are handled on college campuses. The book was extremely informative. The side story about a possible cover up is riveting. Most people had no idea that JJ was found guilty (twice) in university court and expelled only to have that overturned on what may be an underhanded deal. An astonishing turn of events to go from being found guilty and then found guilty again on appeal, but then be found not guilty after a change in the rules is made. That's dramatic.

There was a little more to it than that, though.

The NYT article makes passing reference to JJ's federal lawsuit against the university, referring to it as a "sideshow." That wasn't really true, though -- the lawsuit ended up being moot because of the way the criminal case turned out (and because JJ's expulsion was reversed - more on that in a minute), but if you go back and review the actual allegations that were the basis of JJ's lawsuit, you'll recall that there were some pretty serious allegations that the University's process for conducting the investigation and the "University Court" proceeding resulted in violations of JJ's due process and Title IX rights. (Among the allegations were that the University denied JJ's counsel access to documents that it was preparing as evidence against him, took steps to prevent his attorneys from interviewing the accuser's roommates and other witnesses, and that the University's procedural rules prevented JJ's attorney from participating during the hearing.)

Granted, these are all just allegations. They were written from JJ's point of view, and they were never resolved (and never will be). But if true, it's not that surprising that JJ was found guilty at the University's hearing, and if the University had concerns about JJ moving forward with his lawsuit, it would also explain the decision to reverse the expulsion.

Below is an article that links the District Court's decision unsealing the records of JJ's lawsuit, if anyone's interested. I haven't read all 293 pages of it (and to the extent that I have read it, it was a few years ago, so the details are a little fuzzy), but it outlines what I'm referring to.

http://missoulian.com/unsealed-document ... f887a.html

There's probably even more to it than that.

Yes, it would be interesting to find out if JJ's lawyers were able to spook the university into reversing the expulsion and that's what you'd have to assume that Krakauer and everyone is after. Did the University deny access to documents, prevent attorneys from interviewing, etc.? I can see the school caving at the threat of a lawsuit even if it was sure JJ's team couldn't prove any of that. Obviously, if that's what the school did, then they would have to cave. Obviously Pt. 2, Krakauer must have some reason to think the school didn't do that.

[Grizlaw]

There's probably even more to it than that.

Yes, it would be interesting to find out if JJ's lawyers were able to spook the university into reversing the expulsion and that's what you'd have to assume that Krakauer and everyone is after. Did the University deny access to documents, prevent attorneys from interviewing, etc.? I can see the school caving at the threat of a lawsuit even if it was sure JJ's team couldn't prove any of that. Obviously, if that's what the school did, then they would have to cave. Obviously Pt. 2, Krakauer must have some reason to think the school didn't do that.

I'm not following your reasoning on Pt. 2. It's not "obvious" to me that Krakauer knows anything one way or the other about what the University did or didn't do wrong with respect to JJ's hearing, or that he's even thought this aspect of the case through all that carefully. His focus seems to be more on how the system goes wrong with respect to its treatment of alleged victims, not on how it sometimes also fails with respect to its treatment of the accused.

Unfortunately, the issues raised by JJ's lawsuit will probably never be resolved (unless the same issues arise in a subsequent case, I suppose). The only documents that are likely to exist that would shed light on the University's thinking on the issue would be any written advice that was provided to the University by UM's legal counsel, and if any such documents do exist, they would most likely be protected by attorney-client privilege, and not subject to any disclosure request. So I don't think Krakauer is likely to uncover anything (either "good" or "bad," depending on how you define those terms in this context) on that issue. Which is kind of unfortunate, because if you strip away all of the emotional aspects of this case and look at it purely from the perspective of "how should a University handle these issues?", I think the issues raised by JJ's lawsuit are also important, and everyone seems to have forgotten about those aspects of the case.