The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

SLU needs to give second chances

I’ve heard a lot of complaining and anger about the sexual assault case, but nobody seems to have their facts straight.

It seems obvious to me that Saint Louis University did not find the two athletes guilty of sexual assault or else they would have been permanently suspended and with good reason.

Also the girl’s lawyer decided to drop charges of sexual assault. It seems to me like they were suspended for sexual activity on campus.

While I do agree that this warrants a suspension, I question whether or not SLU has given out the same punishment for every single sexual activity that has occurred on campus.

I hope that SLU didn’t give a more severe punishment because they didn’t want to act like they were showing favoritism to athletes. Also, if you read the police report that was recently published, you’ll find that Willie Reed’s name wasn’t mentioned.

Story continues below advertisement

What was he suspended for? Student Conduct Board didn’t even give them a separate trial despite the fact that even the girl’s story didn’t mention Willie’s name.

Also, I’ve heard that the players were kicked out of school and off campus because “they were a danger to the SLU community.” Well if this is true, why did SLU wait until October to hand down a penalty for something that happened in May?

SLU must let these players back in when they choose to reapply in January. To tell them that they have to do community service and other things to reapply and then not readmit them would be unfair and unjust.

All parties were wrong that night, and SLU hasn’t treated anyone fairly since that point.

They’ve done their community service and they regret what they did.

I think SLU needs to give them a second chance.


View Comments (6)
Donate to The University News
$1410
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists of Saint Louis University. Your contribution will help us cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The University News
$1410
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Comments (6)

All The University News Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • H

    HRbillikenFeb 1, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    First of all, I have every right to get defensive. You have commented defensively as well. That’s the entire point of an argument – defending it.

    I never once said she should have fought back. I never said that not fighting back doesn’t make the act rape. I never said it wasn’t consensual. I said if she didn’t say “no”, “stop”, etc. then Willie Reed could not have known it was NOT consensual. Not agreeing to penetration is not the same as saying “no” to it. Now, not agreeing to penetration and penetration occurring IS rape. That’s not an argument, it’s a fact. If she didn’t want it to happen, it was rape. No one is arguing that. I’m arguing that Willie Reed is not a mind reader. If the victim said “no” or “stop”, then both Kwamain and WIllie are sick and disgusting. But if she never said anything against it, Willie couldn’t have known. Not agreeing can occur in someone’s mind, it isn’t necessarily vocal. That’s all I’m saying about that.

    It is extremely creepy that Willie was in the room. I’ve heard about situations like that and I’ve always thought it’s beyond weird to watch your friend have sex with someone. No argument there.

    This incident isn’t the same as what happened at Notre Dame because something was done. The incident was reported and the students were punished. And clearly, the victim here is not without support, which is great.

    Everyone who defends the players is not a rape-lover by the way. I’ve been a victim of sexual assault myself. That doesn’t mean I liked it and want it to happen to everyone. I forgave my attacker the minute I outed him. And I love him as God calls us to love. I’m not trying to preach here. I understand this is a circumstance that is unbelievably difficult to let go of, but their punishment, should they need any more, will come from God. God would never want someone to want bad things for another person. I want the players to be at SLU because that is what’s best for them. I want the victim to live with peace and closure, and I hope she can find both.

    Reply
  • S

    SassyGayBillikenFeb 1, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    There is a fine line between innocent until proven guilty and attacking the victim. The whole plethera of negative comments towards the victim I find absolutely disgusting. It is the whole issue behind rape in the larger scenario. When a rape occurs the blame always seems to be shifted to as if it was the female’s fault. I am not saying that the offenders or violators should be called guilty, but at the same time I find it deplorable the negativity that floats around victims of these cases. Why would anyone ever put their self, family, and friends through the circus of the legal and media system if nothing ever happened?

    The whole problem with Wille is that he did nothing. First why in the first place would you ever be in a room while your friend is having sex…it’s a moot point, but that’s just weird to me. Secondly it has been reported as non-consenual in the police report by the victim hence why we are this stage in the game. Read it closely it clearly states that the victim did not agree to penetration. Also if you think that she should have defend herself look up and read on the psychology of rape itself. I am not going to even waste my breath if you aren’t going to research the larger aspect as a whole. So getting back to the point Willie did not interfere with stopping the situation and that was the problem as the whole as well as what was his purpose in being in the room, as the university seems to suggest by its report is intimidation by the sense of his stature. I agree that he did not commit an actual sexual act, but his presence and not doing anything deserved a punishment.

    As for community service I wasn’t ciriticizing I was merely suggesting what I believe the university should have done for their service. So no need to get all defensive.

    The whole problem that so many have accentuated is that SLU did exactly that…tried to keep it a secret. Yes certain aspects deserve to be hush, but the bare bones need to be released so this can change things on camps so it never happens again.

    Also ignorance is not bliss. SLU in the immediate days should have released a statement denouncing in general any acts of assault. Instead they kept quite and let the media portray their feelings on the issue.

    Also the fact that universities in general have kept quite is A REAL ISSUE. Note Dame is the case in point. The university didn’t do or say anything…the outcome she killed herself. Look up any topic, and/or speak with the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes. They will enlighten you on the issue of your ignorance in your commentary here.

    Finally yes forgiveness is called, but guess what. In the Christian tradition while we are called to forgiveness nowhere are we required to reconcile with the offenders. I have forgiven, but I will not forget, and while I may work towards reconciliation I do not think it will come any time soon.

    Also while forgiveness may be part of letting them back in…let’s face it any other person in this situation who wasn’t the star basketball players would be out. Athletics has a lot to do why they were let back in, and to ignore that fact is blatant ignorance.

    Reply
  • H

    HRbillikenJan 24, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    I think you made great points, Marty.

    The D.A. not having enough evidence to go through with the case says so much on it’s own. How can you assume guilt without evidence? Why would you ever assume guilt in the first place? “Innocent until proven guilty” still needs to apply.

    As to Willie Reed being present in the room when the event occurred, as true as that may be, how could he have known it was non-consensual? As far as I can tell from the police report, no one ever SAID that it wasn’t consensual. I believe that the victim very well may have hated every second of it. But Willie Reed isn’t a mind reader. It’s my belief that he didn’t know he was watching rape. He deserves punishment for having been there. Period.

    As far as what the two young men did for community service, I don’t know how a person could criticize their community service locations without knowing what they were. That criticism was based purely on assumption. Let’s stick to what we know.

    And to be honest, we know very little. SLU has done well to keep the whole story hushed up. I can’t blame anyone for that, any university would do so. That doesn’t mean this school is okay with what happened.

    Finally, Jesuit principles don’t exclude forgiveness. That’s why the two young men are back at SLU. They’ve done what was required of them and they’ve been forgiven. Anyone who praises Jesuit ideals must follow suit and forgive them, too.

    Reply
  • S

    SassyGayBillikenJan 20, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    It’s interesting that you say “nobody seems to have their facts straight.:” I hate to break it to you but your article has multiple errors in your “so called facts,” so let me shine some light on where you’re facts are wrong according to the reports and etc.

    You say: “Also the girl?s lawyer decided to drop charges of sexual assault.”
    Truth: The lawyer never dropped the charges of sexual assault it was the DA that decided there wasn’t enough evidence to press charges in her opinion…and to great dismay if you read her statement.

    You say: “Also, if you read the police report that was recently published, you?ll find that Willie Reed?s name wasn?t mentioned.
    Truth: Willie Reed’s name is mentioned in the police report as being there that night, coming into the room, and doing nothing. There in lies the problem he did not stop anything. Therefore he is part of the case and they are both tried in the same hearing due to the relationship they both had to the victim in the case.

    You say: Also, I?ve heard that the players were kicked out of school and off campus because ?they were a danger to the SLU community.? Well if this is true, why did SLU wait until October to hand down a penalty for something that happened in May?
    Truth: The university is bureaucratic system, and had to wait for the police investigation to be completed before any action could be taken. The two players after the allegations were removed from campus housing, but allowed to finish their semesters. To be honest I have no idea why SLU waited so long…but my guess is they were trying to hush the negative publicity.

    SLU must let these players back in when they choose to reapply in January. To tell them that they have to do community service and other things to reapply and then not readmit them would be unfair and unjust.

    You say: They?ve done their community service and they regret what they did.
    Truth: The reports were never released as to what and where they did their service. I trust that they did it, but I don’t know if they worked at sites that maybe were the best. How about a women’s shelter or a rape victims shelter? Also is community service really a good punishment? Should community service be a punishment? If so then SLU is really going to have defend their Jesuit stance since service in the Jesuit eyes are viewed as voluntary and a privilege.

    Finally Keep It Real. The other articles that had been published suggest a great amount of thought too. I think you are bias as to what you want to hear, so you yourself are not void of emotion either. So before accusing others check yourself.

    Reply
  • K

    Keep It RealJan 7, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    Great article! Finally someone gets real on the subject. Everyone judged this case based on their emotions and not with their heads.

    Reply