Osler's Razor

I wonder if Sam Ukwuachu was some random guy in Waco who raped a Baylor student... would he still get just a slap on the wrist 6 months in jail? And in all seriousness, what kind of obscene way of meting out justice is a 6 months sentence for raping someone? As to your solution of outside counsel for future investigations, it sounds reasonable but to me the problem is way more insidious because it appears that Christian values apply selectively at holier-than-thou Baylor University. And it's not just for rape…remember the gay discrimination controversy?
 

I suppose this column was written before the University announced that outside counsel had been authorized and appointed. Why it was published without correction is both a surprise and a disappointment. C'est la vie !

I cannot let Marta's comment lie. Baylor may be many things, but it is not in this instance, if it ever were,"holier than thou." It makes mistakes, and takes ownership of them, as it is doing in this case. And it takes stands on issues which may not be popular, and sometimes seem quirky and peculiar, not only to the secular world, but within the Christian sphere. That is not evidence of a "holier than thou" spirit.

The question of the status of homosexuality and the Christian church is fraught with contradiction and dissonance. That Baylor is perceived as reactionary on this issue by those who have evolved more quickly may be cause for criticism, but hardly on "holier than thou " grounds. Indeed, I suggest that the dogmatic positions of those who disagree with the views of a large segment of the Christian church give the appearance, at times, of being rather "holier than thou."

As for your comments on the verdict and its significance, the verdict was that the defendant was guilty of a lesser included offense, not rape. The jury heard the evidence and evaluated the witnesses presented by a very aggressive prosecution team, including the contradictory accounts given by the defendant and the girl. It's verdict appears to me, at least, a rather garden variety compromise verdict. It suggests that the jury was divided and not quite sure what happened. The girl, no doubt, was the more sympathetic figure. It often happens in both civil and criminal cases that when juries can't agree, rather than remaining at impasse and causing a mistrial, they agree to disagree about the extremes and come to agreement on some less extreme verdict, as often as not closer to one extreme than the other. Our system of justice is not without its faults, but that sympathy and emotion often trump the letter of the law is not one of them.

In this case, it appears, the jury could not agree on a verdict of rape. Its recommendation of probation, to which the judge added some jail time, suggests to me that those who may have been inclined to vote with the prosecution were not very strong in their convictions. It also seems to me that everyone on the jury could agree that something went wrong on this occasion when the couple went to bed together naked early in the morning at the male's apartment, and that the male was the more culpable participant.

What bothers me most about your post, however, is the implication that somehow Baylor contributed to the jury's decision, and worse, that Baylor as an institution condones sexual or any other kind of violence. I do not know whether you do or do not have an animus against Baylor, but your comment may be taken that way, and is out of line.

ELOB
B.A. Baylor, '55
LLB, Tulane, '60
 

Dear Ernest L. O’Bannon, what is the purpose of a precise mention of academic credentials at the end of your opinion?
 

To expose my potential for bias, my experience with the legal issues you raise, and my relationship with the religiously oriented school you attacked and to a strictly secular institution with its own checkered athletics history. I "covered up" reference to a semester at UT law school deliberately. It is, after all, football season. I come clean now and confess it-sheepishly. Mea culpa.

Hope this helps.

30

ELO'B
 

One fact that gets omitted often is that, while the defendant in this matter was indicted in June 2014, that indictment was sealed for approximately a year, during which Baylor did not have notice that there was an indictment.

It is also important to recognize that federal law severely restricts what a college or university can be release or say about a student. For example, what the defendant's prior college could say about him was limited to his discipline with the team and it is probable that his coach actually violated the law in what was shared with Briles, the Baylor coach. And the woman who testified about his dating violence at the previous college had not made a police report about it.

Further, the person at the university who heard the case there between the students was new to this responsibility, did not have an investigatory background, and did not have subpoena power to get evidence that the prosecution was able to present at trial.

In the time between the university hearing on this matter and the criminal court trial, Baylor had established an office, with investigators and a person trained to handle disciplinary cases, so it is possible that a different outcome would have occurred had the university hearing occurred in the last year, rather than the year before.

Many people have complained about the coach, the athletic director, and the university not saying more. Legally, they cannot. And some believe that they have said more than the law allows. The press and the public need to understand that constraint. If they want more information or getting information sooner, they need to go to Congress and get a change in the law!

I am not an alumnus nor an employee of Baylor. I am an attorney and once was a professor.
 

ELO'B thank you and yes it does help. Your point helped too, every angle opens up a new perspective and in my book, a perspective other than my own is always a good thing whether it agrees with me (just from a different angle) or totally disagrees with me (even better) for in each case I end up learning something new.