Just spoke with a Baylor friend who, like I, is a big fan of Art Briles and what he has accomplished in Texas high school football and at Texas Tech, Houston, and Baylor. Great man, fine Christian role model, and great mentor to young people. But now, it apparently has been uncovered that discipline of football players may have been held back from the Title IX people. We are in a new time and place nowadays regarding any kind of sexual misconduct or perceived sexual misconduct.
My friend sent me the following copy of a post on one of the Baylor blogs. This is a part of the preliminary report done by the outside law firm. Any discussion you want to have on this? If so, post below.
His post reads as follows:
I posted this in another thread. If you can read this and say "I don't see why Briles has to go," then I can't help you. The football section of the report. Underlines are mine.
Barriers to Implementation of Title IX within Baylor’s Football ProgramBaylor failed to maintain effective oversight and supervision of the Athletics
Department as it related to the effective implementation of Title IX. Leadership challenges and
communications issues hindered enforcement of rules and policies, and created a cultural
perception that football was above the rules. In addition to the issues related to student
misconduct, the University and Athletics Department failed to take effective action in response
to allegations involving misconduct by football staff. Further, despite the fact that other
departments repeatedly raised concerns that the Athletics Department’s response to student or
employee misconduct was inadequate, Baylor administrators took insufficient steps to address
the concerns.
Baylor failed to take appropriate action to respond to reports of sexual assault and
dating violence reportedly committed by football players. The choices made by football staff
and athletics leadership, in some instances, posed a risk to campus safety and the integrity of the
University. In certain instances, including reports of a sexual assault by multiple football
players, athletics and football personnel affirmatively chose not to report sexual violence and
dating violence to an appropriate administrator outside of athletics. In those instances, football
coaches or staff met directly with a complainant and/or a parent of a complainant and did not
report the misconduct. As a result, no action was taken to support complainants, fairly and
impartially evaluate the conduct under Title IX, address identified cultural concerns within the
football program, or protect campus safety once aware of a potential pattern of sexual violence
by multiple football players.
11
In addition, some football coaches and staff took improper steps in response to
disclosures of sexual assault or dating violence that precluded the University from fulfilling its
legal obligations. Football staff conducted their own untrained internal inquiries, outside of
policy, which improperly discredited complainants and denied them the right to a fair, impartial
and informed investigation, interim measures or processes promised under University policy. In
some cases, internal steps gave the illusion of responsiveness to complainants but failed to
provide a meaningful institutional response under Title IX. Further, because reports were not
shared outside of athletics, the University missed critical opportunities to impose appropriate
disciplinary action that would have removed offenders from campus and possibly precluded
future acts of sexual violence against Baylor students. In some instances, the football program
dismissed players for unspecified team violations and assisted them in transferring to other
schools. As a result, some football coaches and staff abdicated responsibilities under Title IX
and Clery; to student welfare; to the health and safety of complainants; and to Baylor’s
institutional values.
In addition to the failures related to sexual assault and dating violence, individuals
within the football program actively sought to maintain internal control over discipline for other
forms of misconduct. Athletics personnel failed to recognize the conflict of interest in roles and
risk to campus safety by insulating athletes from student conduct processes. Football coaches
and staff took affirmative steps to maintain internal control over discipline of players and to
actively divert cases from the student conduct or criminal processes. In some cases, football
coaches and staff had inappropriate involvement in disciplinary and criminal matters or engaged
in improper conduct that reinforced an overall perception that football was above the rules, and
that there was no culture of accountability for misconduct.
12
The football program also operates an internal system of discipline, separate from
University processes, which is fundamentally inconsistent with the mindset required for effective
Title IX implementation, and has resulted in a lack of parity vis-à-vis the broader student
population. This informal system of discipline involves multiple coaches and administrators,
relies heavily upon individual judgment in lieu of clear standards for discipline, and has resulted
in conduct being ignored or players being dismissed from the team based on an informal and
subjective process. The ad hoc internal system of discipline lacks protocols for consistency with
University policy and is wholly undocumented. The football program’s separate system of
internal discipline reinforces the perception that rules applicable to other students are not
applicable to football players, improperly insulates football players from appropriate disciplinary
consequences, and puts students, the program, and the institution at risk of future misconduct. It
is also inconsistent with institutional reporting obligations.
The football program failed to identify and maintain controls over known risks,
and unreasonably accepted known risks. Leadership in football and the athletics department did
not set the tone, establish a policy or practice for reporting and documenting significant
misconduct. The lack of reporting expectations resulted in a lack of accountability for player
misconduct and employee misconduct. Further, no attempt was made to understand the root
causes of behavior or steps necessary to prevent its recurrence. In addition, in one instance, in
response to concerns about misconduct by football players that could contribute to a hostile
environment, an academic program that required interaction with the football program
improperly restricted educational opportunities for students, rather than take steps to eliminate a
potential hostile environment.
My friend sent me the following copy of a post on one of the Baylor blogs. This is a part of the preliminary report done by the outside law firm. Any discussion you want to have on this? If so, post below.
His post reads as follows:
I posted this in another thread. If you can read this and say "I don't see why Briles has to go," then I can't help you. The football section of the report. Underlines are mine.
Barriers to Implementation of Title IX within Baylor’s Football ProgramBaylor failed to maintain effective oversight and supervision of the Athletics
Department as it related to the effective implementation of Title IX. Leadership challenges and
communications issues hindered enforcement of rules and policies, and created a cultural
perception that football was above the rules. In addition to the issues related to student
misconduct, the University and Athletics Department failed to take effective action in response
to allegations involving misconduct by football staff. Further, despite the fact that other
departments repeatedly raised concerns that the Athletics Department’s response to student or
employee misconduct was inadequate, Baylor administrators took insufficient steps to address
the concerns.
Baylor failed to take appropriate action to respond to reports of sexual assault and
dating violence reportedly committed by football players. The choices made by football staff
and athletics leadership, in some instances, posed a risk to campus safety and the integrity of the
University. In certain instances, including reports of a sexual assault by multiple football
players, athletics and football personnel affirmatively chose not to report sexual violence and
dating violence to an appropriate administrator outside of athletics. In those instances, football
coaches or staff met directly with a complainant and/or a parent of a complainant and did not
report the misconduct. As a result, no action was taken to support complainants, fairly and
impartially evaluate the conduct under Title IX, address identified cultural concerns within the
football program, or protect campus safety once aware of a potential pattern of sexual violence
by multiple football players.
11
In addition, some football coaches and staff took improper steps in response to
disclosures of sexual assault or dating violence that precluded the University from fulfilling its
legal obligations. Football staff conducted their own untrained internal inquiries, outside of
policy, which improperly discredited complainants and denied them the right to a fair, impartial
and informed investigation, interim measures or processes promised under University policy. In
some cases, internal steps gave the illusion of responsiveness to complainants but failed to
provide a meaningful institutional response under Title IX. Further, because reports were not
shared outside of athletics, the University missed critical opportunities to impose appropriate
disciplinary action that would have removed offenders from campus and possibly precluded
future acts of sexual violence against Baylor students. In some instances, the football program
dismissed players for unspecified team violations and assisted them in transferring to other
schools. As a result, some football coaches and staff abdicated responsibilities under Title IX
and Clery; to student welfare; to the health and safety of complainants; and to Baylor’s
institutional values.
In addition to the failures related to sexual assault and dating violence, individuals
within the football program actively sought to maintain internal control over discipline for other
forms of misconduct. Athletics personnel failed to recognize the conflict of interest in roles and
risk to campus safety by insulating athletes from student conduct processes. Football coaches
and staff took affirmative steps to maintain internal control over discipline of players and to
actively divert cases from the student conduct or criminal processes. In some cases, football
coaches and staff had inappropriate involvement in disciplinary and criminal matters or engaged
in improper conduct that reinforced an overall perception that football was above the rules, and
that there was no culture of accountability for misconduct.
12
The football program also operates an internal system of discipline, separate from
University processes, which is fundamentally inconsistent with the mindset required for effective
Title IX implementation, and has resulted in a lack of parity vis-à-vis the broader student
population. This informal system of discipline involves multiple coaches and administrators,
relies heavily upon individual judgment in lieu of clear standards for discipline, and has resulted
in conduct being ignored or players being dismissed from the team based on an informal and
subjective process. The ad hoc internal system of discipline lacks protocols for consistency with
University policy and is wholly undocumented. The football program’s separate system of
internal discipline reinforces the perception that rules applicable to other students are not
applicable to football players, improperly insulates football players from appropriate disciplinary
consequences, and puts students, the program, and the institution at risk of future misconduct. It
is also inconsistent with institutional reporting obligations.
The football program failed to identify and maintain controls over known risks,
and unreasonably accepted known risks. Leadership in football and the athletics department did
not set the tone, establish a policy or practice for reporting and documenting significant
misconduct. The lack of reporting expectations resulted in a lack of accountability for player
misconduct and employee misconduct. Further, no attempt was made to understand the root
causes of behavior or steps necessary to prevent its recurrence. In addition, in one instance, in
response to concerns about misconduct by football players that could contribute to a hostile
environment, an academic program that required interaction with the football program
improperly restricted educational opportunities for students, rather than take steps to eliminate a
potential hostile environment.
