A Neighborly Request

October 14, 2009, 6:45 a.m.
How About Them Hawks!
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Current Hot Topics:

Hancher-Voxman-Clapp Relocation. Five-part series on relocation and rebuilding. Part V, with its links to the prior four, and its "update" analysis of the October 12 forum's "third option" and proposal to raise Hancher, plus a link to the UI Facilities Management Website with streaming video and Power Point slides from the July 9 and October 12 public forums at McBride Auditorium, and "Hancher Relocation Process and Site; University Offers Useful Model for Major Decisions," July 10, 2009 (commentary about the relocation decision making process).

University of Iowa Budget Issues. See "A University's Strategic Communication; A Modest Proposal to the Regents' University Presidents," October 7, 2009; and "Iowa's Budget Cuts and the University; Economic Collapse Tests Moral Values," October 9, 2009.
_______________
A few more porta-potties and trash cans would be nice. Everyone's pleased with the dramatic on-field record of the Hawkeye Football team this season. At least I am.

Even off the field -- unless the police aren't arresting and the papers aren't reporting -- there seem to be a whole lot fewer crime reports about the players this year.

But it's no secret that the program does impose some costs on those whose tiny residential locations are turned into staging areas for the 70,000 troops before and after those games. These photos give some idea of the number of cars and individuals we host on those occasions.

In dealing with this, unfortunately we haven't always had the cooperation we would have liked from the University, City, and Athletic Department in our efforts to make this as pleasant an experience as possible for fans and neighbors alike.

Individual neighbors' experiences, and responses, differ. Some have the misfortune to live next to party houses that generate excessive noise, excessive alcohol consumption (much of it illegal), boisterous behavior, property damage, obnoxious taunts, and lots of public urination. Personally I rather enjoy watching students and fans having a good time. And we're blessed with some very responsible student and other neighbors across the street (which has not always been the case). Putting more than our neighborhood's share of the 70,000 into a residential area designed for a couple hundred at most does create some congestion on the streets that could be a problem if there were a need for fire trucks or ambulances.

But aside from that, the adverse impact on me is primarily limited to the very public urination on our lawn and the trash that is thrown under bushes (rather than merely dropped, where I could pick it up). This picture shows a sampling from the game last Saturday. (Note the empty half gallon of vodka, the toilet paper, the Bud cans in the Hawkeye colors, and in the center the broken beer bottle -- apparently, next to watching football, there's nothing quite as exciting as throwing a beer bottle into the air and watching it crash into shards on the sidewalk.)

So far as I'm concerned a few additional porta-johns and trash containers would solve the primary problems I have with the football crowds this season -- though many of my neighbors are not so lucky.

In any event, for all of these reasons it was a very pleasant surprise to see Athletic Director Gary Barta's op ed in the Press-Citizen recently [Photo credit: Iowa City Press-Citizen]:

[T]here is something that has bothered me and that I've wanted to address for some time. . . . I am discouraged, and sometimes downright disgusted, by a small minority of alcohol abusers who ruin the gameday experience and give Hawkeye tailgating a bad name.

Each week, we deal with hundreds of fans who abuse alcohol to the point of embarrassment -- and in many cases endanger themselves and others around them . . . dozens of people who drink so much they can't stand on their own, pass-out, are under age, throw up on the fans around them, urinate in public, etc. . . .

I am not comfortable with allowing those who abuse this privilege to ruin the experience for the rest of us.

In advance of Saturday's homecoming game, I want to thank the overwhelming majority of Hawkeye fans who tailgate responsibly, . . . and respect the private property of our friends in the neighborhoods that are adjacent to our wonderful football stadium. . . .

I want to ask that very small number of fans who choose not to behave in a responsible, positive way on game days to consider raising their personal standards.

Gary Barta, "Help with 'Kinnick magic,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 8, 2009.

I thought this was a nice thing to do. Best case, it might actually have an impact on some fans and help with our neighborhood problems (although I suspect that few of those fans ever read it). Worst case, it was a thoughtful and appreciated gesture.

Unfortunately, the good will from that op ed column was offset a bit by Barta's emailed suggestion to one of my neighbors that they brought the neighborhood problems on themselves by choosing to live where they do, and that, by implication, the only effective remedy would be for them to move out of the neighborhood. (E.g., "many of your concerns and complaints will never be able to be eliminated. By choosing to live next to campus . . . you endure the inconveniences associated with a football game that attracts more than 70,000 people. . . . [T]here are no assurances we will be able to do what you suggest. [T]he challenges you experience . . . come with the choice of living next to the stadium.")

This was not, I should note, an email to me, nor was it a rejection of a request for more porta-johns and trash containers (since that had not been requested by that neighbor in that email exchange).

One would hope that a University could work toward a neighborly compromise, offering residents a little more creative and compassionate option than (1) shifting the full brunt and cost of the unpleasant aspects of hosting 70,000 uninvited guests onto the neighborhood's home owners, for what is a revenue-generating activity for the University, or (2) suggesting local residents simply abandon their homes and move elsewhere.

For its own sake, I would think the University would want to make the Myrtle Street Parking Lot (on the east end of the neighborhood) -- university property -- into an alcohol-free tailgating area, as I believe it has with other University-owned lots. This would not necessarily help the neighborhood, because it might well just shift the binge drinking onto more of the party house properties closer to the neighbors. But, without checking sources, it's my belief that what is now going on is a violation not only of Iowa law but of the University's own regulations, and could conceivably impose legal liability on the University for the property damage, personal injury (and worse) that might result from that alcohol consumption (especially by those who are under age and violating the law for that reason as well). Just a thought.

I would hope that at least my rather modest request for more porta-johns and trash containers in the neighborhood might be met. It would involve a rather insignificant expense for a multi-million-dollar-generating football program, and might actually reduce some of the cost of the post-game cleanup that either the City or Athletic Departmet is providing -- for which I thank whoever is resposible.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Can You Spell "University of Iowa"?

January 13, 2008, 8:30 p.m.

The Eyes of Pennsylvania Are Upon U-I

Stonewalling Hawkgate
Remember those T-shirts we used to have that read: "University of Iowa, Idaho City, Ohio"?

The only problem with them was that those of us who live here soon found them boring, and those who were visiting from out of town didn't get the joke.

If you think keeping the rest of America clear about the difference between Idaho, Iowa and Ohio was a challenge, let me tell you, that's nothing. When I was a kid the two largest Regents' universities in Iowa were called the "State University of Iowa" and "Iowa State University." (Now you see how WSUI got its call letters; "SUI," get it?) Even alums of both schools had a little difficulty keeping those names straight, and we finally simply gave up on continually correcting the national media.

Now that we're the "University of Iowa" we're back to just worrying about Idaho and Ohio.

As the celebrities say, "I don't care what you write about me, just so long as you spell my name right." And for the most part the media's spell checkers are in working order.

At the University of Texas we used to sing, "The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You." Here, it's usually "the eyes of Iowa" that are watching us -- or at least the eyes of the Register, Gazette, Press-Citizen, and Daily Iowan (among others) that see what we're up to and report it to those Iowans who care.

Over the years the University has done a better and better job of discovering and disseminating its good news stories -- thanks to some very able UI news and public relations people.

But they neither make the news nor, seemingly, have the authority to use their best media relations judgment when the news isn't all that good -- as with the current flap over the deafening silence regarding how university administrators handled the latest allegations of a sexual assault by athletes.

Because most publicists counsel administrators that stonewalling is not a very effective way for an institution to deal with bad news, I can only assume our publicists' silence has been ordered by others rather than having been self-imposed.

Although I'd never heard of the Pennsylvania-based national organization "Security on Campus" before seeing the story on page one of the Press-Citizen yesterday [Jan. 12], it was fully predictable that the longer we tried to keep the lid on Hawkgate the further it would go once the steam built up and it blew. Brian Morelli, "National Watchdog Group Keeping Eye on UI," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 12, 2008, p. A1.

So now, it seems, "the eyes of Pennsylvania -- and the rest of the nation -- are upon you," University of Iowa.

As Morelli reports, "Fed-up parents created Security on Campus to push reluctant universities to release campus crime information." When the universities failed to respond to their pleas, the group "helped establish six federal laws, including . . . the Cleary Act" -- which is the federal law the UI may be violating.

"Are they covering something up? That really is the qustion," Morelli quotes the group's senior vice president, S. Daniel Carter, as asking.

There's more to the story, and I won't repeat it all here. Use the link, above, to read it.

Tomorrow, January 14, will mark the three-month anniversary of the alleged assault. Unlike wine and cheese, the University's attempt to deal with the matter with silence (that is, what UI administrators did or did not do, not facts of the case affecting the alleged victim's privacy interests or the Johnson County Attorney's investigation) is not improving with age.

And unfortunately they're spelling our name right.

# # #

UI, Sexual Assaults and Secrecy

January 5, 2008, 11:00 a.m.; January 6, 2008, 4:00 p.m.; January 7, 7:00 p.m./January 8, 2008, 7:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m./January 9, 2008, 4:45 p.m.

[Jan. 6] Update: Tom Witosky, "Iowa Football: Attorney Orders Secrecy in U of I Assault Case," Des Moines Register, January 6, 2008.

[Jan. 7/8] Update -- this is big: Brian Morelli, "Lyness: UI Responsible for Open Records Denials," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 7, 2008, 5:34 p.m.; Brian Morelli, "Lyness: UI responsible for denials; Says she did not advise officials to withhold records," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 8, 2008, p. A1 -- and see State29, "The Next Scandal," January 7, 2008.

And this is bigger: "Ferentz to Emphasize Off-the-Field Conduct," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 8, 2008, 1:17 p.m., especially the video of the interview on which the story is based, Andrea Quann, "Ferentz Talks About Player Conduct, Discipline," Iowa City Press-Citizen Video, January 8, 2008 (he reveals there are lots of other incidents that are not known outside of Athletic Department; he usually knows of incident almost immediately, and tells Barta; his sense of proper procedure involves keeping it within football program; makes no mention of need to do better job of recruiting -- watch the video);

[Jan. 9] and see Andy Hamilton, "Ferentz 'not proud' of rocky '07; Iowa coach disappointed by on field, off field problems," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 9, 2007, p. B1.

Public Records and Secrecy in the Academy
[Jan. 5] The Iowa City Press-Citizen reports this morning that it has brought legal action against the University of Iowa under the Iowa public records law. Brian Morelli, "Press-Citizen Sues UI in Assault Case," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 5, 2008, p. A1 [there are now 27 comments from readers associated with this story; Jan. 6, 4:30 p.m.].

Off hand, it looks like the UI is not yet practicing the sage advice that, "When you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is to stop digging." Having rejected the paper's repeated polite requests for public records, it now finds itself being sued once again for what at least looks like yet another example of stonewalling and secrecy.

That's not to say there may not be some arguments that can be made on the University's behalf. It's only to say that if a persuasive case can be made it has not yet been made public. Perhaps getting a court to resolve the issues will turn out to be the best resolution of the conflict. But it's not immediately obvious why it had to come to this.

There have been allegations that a sexual assault occurred on the University of Iowa campus last October 14, 2007 -- now going on some three months ago. (A chronology of what's happened since has been created by the Press-Citizen and is reproduced at the end of this blog entry.)

These events have created two stories.

(1) What occurred? Who was involved? These, and related questions, could involve matters of personal privacy and possible compromise of a criminal investigation and what could potentially become a criminal trial (thus raising some of the so-called "free press-fair trial" issues). Many individuals -- lawyers and lay persons alike -- would agree that there may be good reasons for maintaining secrecy regarding much of this information, at least until the Johnson County Attorney has come to a decision to, or not to, begin criminal proceedings.

(2) But there is a second story -- to which Erin Jordan has added a third. The second story involves information, not about students, but about UI administrators. Not what students told them, but what the officials told each other (with students' names or other matters of personal privacy redacted): which UI officials were involved, and when, and which other officials they communicated with, and what was communicated (that does not need to be redacted). These facts and documents become relevant in evaluating whether the University followed its own procedures.

I wrote about this "two story" distinction a couple of months ago, and will simply incorporate that blog entry by reference and link rather than repeat its analysis here. Nicholas Johnson, "The Greatest 'Story Two' Never Told" in "Not Getting Answers," November 21, 2007. And see, Nicholas Johnson, "The Greatest 'Story Two' Never Told/Maybe It's Only Human" in "To Err is Human, To Keep it Secret Even More So," December 14, 2007.

Those who've commented on this morning's story on the Press-Citizen's site -- both this morning and the 10 who put up comments when the story was uploaded there yesterday -- often fail to note this rather fundamental distinction, savaging the paper for going after story one notwithstanding the fact that it is (almost exclusively) only going after story two.

(3) A third story, brought to light by the Des Moines Register's Erin Jordan, involves the extent to which the UI standards may violate federal law. Erin Jordan, "At U of I, Review Shows Little Push to Report Assaults," Des Moines Register, November 26, 2007.

The law in question is the "Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act," 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092 (f), "Disclosure of campus security policy and campus crime statistics."

The supporting federal regulations provide, among other things, that the UI's policies must include:

(b) Annual security report.

. . .

(4) A statement of current policies concerning campus law
enforcement that--

. . .

(ii) Encourages accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes to the campus police and the appropriate police agencies; . . ..

34 C.F.R. Sec. 668.46 (b)(4)(ii)(2007). This is the legal requirement, followed by most Big 10 universities, that it is suggested is not complied with by the University of Iowa -- and was not followed in this case.

The Press-Citizen, unlike the UI, has kindly provided the full text of its relevant documents as links from Brian Morelli's story this morning:

• Text of the Press-Citizen's lawsuit against the University of Iowa (PDF format)

• Letter from Press-Citizen attorney Paul Burns to UI General Counsel Marc Mills from Dec. 11 (PDF format)

• Letter from Mills to Burns from Dec. 27 (PDF format)

I've done no legal research on this one (aside from providing the links to the relevant law, above), but I must say I think Paul Burns has done an impressive job (in the documents linked above) on behalf of the Press-Citizen.

On the other hand, while I have great respect for Marc Mills and his legal ability, it seems to me his response is a little sketchy:

[B]ecause of the significantly different facts and circumstances involved in this matter - student privacy concerns, the integrity of ongoing University and criminal investigations, and the possibility of criminal charges being filed - I am unwilling to do that [i.e., prepare the kind of "document log" identifying the documents that are not being made available, as was done with a request last March] at this time.

That is not to say that the University won't provide more information in the future. In fact, once a decision is made regarding possible criminal charges, it is my hope that the University will be able to share more information regarding the process it has used in looking into this matter. But at this point in time, I'll have to ask for your patience . . ..

(Excerpt from "Letter from Mills to Burns, December 27, 2007," linked above.) That is to say, "sketchy" because -- at least from a public relations, if not legal perspective -- the response does not indicate specifically why the content of any of the documents requested (once redacted) would create any of the general concerns listed.


The Press-Citizen's Alleged UI sexual assault timeline
•Oct. 14: Between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. a female University of Iowa student is allegedly sexually assaulted at Hillcrest Residence Hall. Three Iowa football players are later questioned during the investigation. UI police later acknowledge they received a “rape kit” from University Hospitals on this night.

• Oct. 19: The Press-Citizen initially begins probing the university about the alleged incident. Athletics director Gary Barta would not acknowledge the alleged incident. UI police director Chuck Green said his department was not investigating any such allegation, and he was unaware of the alleged incident.

•Nov. 5: The alleged victim first contacts UI police about the alleged incident. Green said this is the first time police had any knowledge of the incident.

•Nov. 7: The alleged victim files an official police report.

• Nov. 12: The Press-Citizen e-mails Green asking again if police had any information about the alleged sexual assault. He does not respond. Iowa Code chapter 22.4.5 requires UI to disclose this information.

• Nov. 13: The Press-Citizen files an open records request seeking correspondence involving top UI officials, Barta, Associate Athletics Director Fred Mims, Football Coach Kirk Ferentz, Associate Provost Marcella David, Vice President for Student Services Philip Jones and Associate Dean of Student Thomas Baker.

• Nov. 13: The Press-Citizen presents UI with Chapter 22.4.5, and again requests reports of sexual assaults dating back to the beginning of October.

•Nov. 13: Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness said she has no knowledge of an alleged sexual assault at UI.

• Nov. 14: The Press-Citizen attempts to contact Green about whether there was an alleged sexual assault.

• Nov. 14: UI issues a news release that for the first time acknowledges a sexual assault allegedly occurred, and it is under investigation.

•Nov. 14: UI police and the Department of Criminal Investigation investigate Hillcrest.

•Nov. 16: Iowa state Board of Regents President Michael Gartner sends UI President Sally Mason a letter that indicates regents officials would be investigating whether UI followed proper procedures in handling the incident.

• Nov. 16: District Court Judge Amanda Potterfield signs the order to seal five search warrants in the investigation for 60 days.

• The Iowa Hawkeyes football team play their final game of the season, a 28-19 lose.

•Nov. 19: Gov. Chet Culver issues a statement that raises questions about UI’s handling of the investigation.

•Nov. 20: Mason in an editorial board meeting with the Press-Citizen says UI officials have handled the situation properly and says UI has let the victim dictate how the investigation has proceeded.

•Dec. 3: Twenty days elapses, and UI has not complied with the Press-Citizen’s record request. This violates Chapter 22.8.4.d of the Iowa Open Records statute.

•Dec. 7: UI releases 18 pages of documents sought in the records request. UI withholds an unknown number of other documents, and it refuses to reveal how many more documents there are and to redact confidential information in order to unseal it. UI will not provide a reason for declining these requests.

• Jan. 4: The Press-Citizen sues UI for violating open meeting laws.

# # #

Not Getting Answers

November 21, 2007, 8:00 a.m.

Prior Entries:

Nicholas Johnson, "Culling the Flock; How About Them Hawks?" November 15, 2007.

Nicholas Johnson, "Trouble in River City; Locker Room Update: What Can We Know, and When Can We Know It?," November 16, 2007.

Nicholas Johnson, "Football Story Has Muscular Legs; If UI Won't Talk, Regents Will," November 18, 2007.

Nicholas Johnson, "Stonewall's Mortar Crumbles; Now the Governor; UI, This is Not Good," November 20, 2007.

The Greatest "Story Two" Never Told
"Story One" regarding an alleged October 14 sexual assault on the UI campus involves such questions as what happened during those early morning hours, who was involved, what witnesses saw, what evidence was gathered by investigators, why the search warrants have been sealed, what the University has done for the accuser and her family, whether the Register should have named the names it did, and so forth.

"Story Two" has nothing to do with those things. It is very simple. It involves UI officials only. It concerns contact among and between them only. It doesn't involve the facts of what happened. It doesn't involve the names of the parties. It doesn't even involve what those officials discussed with each other. It only involves a handful of officials -- those responsible for cases like this. The question they need to answer is: "Who and when did someone on the UI payroll contact you about this matter, and who and when did you inform thereafter?" That "investigation" shouldn't take more than a couple hours maximum. And there is no reason I can imagine why they should not have to answer.

So far as I know, no journalist has yet put that question to any of those officials in precisely those terms. What they have asked are questions that relate to "story one," or questions that so conflate "story one" and "story two" that the official can properly respond that they can't answer because the matter is under investigation.

"It's not easy being green," sang Kermit the Frog.

Well, it's not easy being "Black and white and red all over" either -- to borrow from the children's riddle about newspapers.

You've got to hand it to the Press-Citizen for trying.

As Brian Morelli reported on November 16:

Following a tip, the Press-Citizen initially contacted UI officials about the alleged incident Oct. 19 and has followed up with more questions and formal document requests. During that time, several UI officials either wouldn't respond to questions about an alleged assault involving football players or said they didn't know about such an incident.

. . .

UI officials including athletics director Gary Barta, associate athletics director for student services Fred Mims, Equal Opportunity and Diversity director Marcella David and vice president for student services Phillip Jones are continuing to decline comment on many key questions in the case, citing the ongoing investigation.

Among the questions:

• Did the victim or the football players report the alleged assault to other UI officials before it was reported to police?

. . .

UI Police Director Charles Green also is declining comments on specifics, but he clarified that his officers "absolutely were not aware of the incident until the victim reported it to our department on Nov. 7."

. . .

Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness said she was notified of the incident last week.

. . .

The new sexual harassment and assault reporting policy for student-athletes includes a chain of command reporting system and steps such as seeking resolutions, investigating and reporting findings. Various officials such as Mims, David, Jones and sexual harassment and compliance officer Mary Curtis are among those the policy states should be notified.

Every academic or administrative employee of UI is obligated to promptly notify David in most cases, or Jones in the case of residence hall incidents, regardless of the victim's wishes, according to the UI operations manual.

Brian Morelli, "Mason backs officials' response; Officials not saying if protocols were followed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 16, 2007.

So I may have been driving a bit beyond my poetic license when, on Sunday, November 18, I blogged under a sub-head that read, "Why are local papers avoiding this story?":

Another mystery is why the local papers -- The Daily Iowan, The Gazette, and the Iowa City Press-Citizen -- have been so reluctant to ask these process questions of the University.

If they have asked these questions, and received answers, why have they not been reported? If they have asked these questions and couldn't get answers why have they not reported that story? And if they haven't even pursued this aspect of the story, why not?

Why do we have to rely on a newspaper, and Regents, in Des Moines to find out what's going on in Iowa City?

Nicholas Johnson, "Football Story Has Muscular Legs," November 18, 2007.

To clarify, from the context of that entire blog entry it is clear that by "This Story," and "what's going on in Iowa City," I was referring to what I've called "the second story." As I wrote there:

Let's make clear what I, and I believe Gartner, are -- and are not -- talking about.

We're not talking about revealing precisely what happened during the early morning hours of October 14. We're not talking about identifying the accuser or those accused.

What we are talking about is revealing to the media and public what the responsible adult, UI administrators did between October 14 and November 18 (today). That is something the public does have a right to know. Those revelations need not invade any privacy rights of the individuals involved. They need not affect the integrity of any trial that may or may not take place in the future.

This is, I believe, an absolutely crucial distinction. So long as officials are asked general questions, for which the answers need not, but could, compromise the integrity of the investigation and possible trial as well as the privacy interests of the accuser and the accused, they can properly refuse to answer.

It is only when it is made abundantly and unambiguously clear from the questions that they only deal with the "second story" that their refusal to respond does, indeed, constitute stonewalling.

The Press-Citizen continued its inquiry yesterday, as UI President Sally Mason traveled from downtown Iowa City out North Dodge Street to the paper's offices and met with its editorial board. The story of that exchange was given page-one headline play by the paper this morning. Brian Morelli, "Mason: Victim is leading process; Asks media to be patient during sex assault investigation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 21, 2007, p. A1.


What do we learn from that interview, as reported, about "story two"? Virtually nothing. Were the precise questions I've just described asked of her? It's not clear from the story. What is clear is that there are no reports of answers.

What we also observe, from the story and especially the video of the interview accessible from the Press-Citizen Web site, is something we've known since the first time we caught a presentation by President Mason. She's good; very good. She comes across in the video, as we've seen her before, as calm, assured, soft spoken, informed, reassuring -- and as capable as any presidential candidate of either party who's come through Iowa City during the past year of making you believe that a lump of coal is a bouquet of roses.

She didn't focus on what she and the other administrators did or did not do -- which is the only legitimate story at this point. She focused on the accuser -- with feeling and sensitivity and compassion. Indeed, she even persisted in referring to the accuser as "the victim" -- which raises problems of its own, especially since the Press-Citizen picked up and repeated that characterization. But it was a truly brilliant performance in conception and execution on her part, and bodes well for the University's ability to deal with the other crises that are bound to arise in the future.

[President Mason noted the Duke case in the video excerpt from her interview. It's a reminder I have raised as well -- as have many others. But it should be noted in that context that describing an accuser as a "victim" is precisely what got Duke's administrators in trouble. As I've written earlier, both the accuser and the accused are entitled to presumptions at this point: the accuser is entitled to a presumption that she is telling the truth, and the accused are entitled to be characterized as "innocent until proven guilty."]

The story notes that, "UI is facing increased pressure to be forthright in explaining how it has handled the situation, including recent public comments from Gov. Chet Culver and Iowa state Board of Regents President Michael Gartner." It continues,

The Press-Citizen, following a tip, initially contacted UI officials about the alleged incident Oct. 19, and has followed up with more questions and formal document requests. During that time, several UI officials -- including athletics director Gary Barta, associate athletics director for student services Fred Mims, Equal Opportunity and Diversity director Marcella David and vice president for student services Phillip Jones -- declined to comment on many key questions in the case.

They have declined to answer questions about whether the victim [note the use by the Press-Citizen (not President Mason) of the characterization of "victim"] or the football players reported the alleged assault to other UI officials before it was reported to police, . . .."

But that was about it for "story two."

The lead for this morning's story in the paper is, "University of Iowa President Sally Mason urged the media to be 'patient' and 'sensitive' in pursuing a story about a sexual assault investigation involving three Iowa football players that remains largely clouded."

Everything she apparently said on that subject is, at a minimum, superficially credible and sound. The University should be sensitive to the needs and wishes of the accuser. The media can fairly be asked to be "patient" as that process works its way.

And equally obviously, none of this relates to "story two" in any way whatsoever.

Although, it is not unfair to note that in this situation, with the vast resources of the University of Iowa arrayed on one side, and those of the woman accuser on the other side, the UI does have a bit of a conflict of interest here when it endeavors to "help her" while she's "fragile" during this "sensitive" time. Clearly the UI Foundation, football program, the coach, the AD -- and not incidentally the University's president -- would suffer a much greater blow from a full-blown criminal trial than if the accuser were to opt for an alternative to that route.

President Mason said that she wanted answers to the same questions being asked by Regents President Gartner and Governor Culver -- and that it was appropriate for them to be asking those questions. (They are the same questions that I was asking last week.)

But "story two" is not that complicated. It doesn't require an "investigation." It doesn't require "patience." Especially not from President Mason. All it requires is about a half-dozen phone calls to people who supposedly report to her. Some of those people's names have been identified by the Press-Citizen and repeated here by me -- not that President Mason needs to be reminded who they are. Those phone calls do not involve questions regarding the identity of accuser or accused, what those individuals have said, or what evidence is possessed and reveals. They do not involve questions regarding what is being done for the accuser and her family.

The question is, simply, "Who and when did someone on the UI payroll contact you about this matter, and who and when did you inform thereafter?" That "investigation" shouldn't take more than a couple hours maximum.

Has she obtained that information? Did anyone with the Press-Citizen ask her? If so, what were the answers she, and the paper, received? That's "story two," and it has yet to be told.

# # #

Stonewall's Mortar Crumbles

November 20, 2007, 7:45 a.m.

Now the Governor; UI, this is Not Good
Who failed to notice the oncoming locomotive when they circled the wagons around the Pentacrest on the railroad track?

To recap: Last Wednesday state and local law enforcement were seen searching dorm rooms at the University of Iowa's Hillcrest dormitory. The story was that allegations of a sexual assault on October 14 had led to investigations of two or more Hawkeye football players.

On Thursday, November 15 I blogged, Nicholas Johnson, "Culling the Flock; How About Them Hawks?" November 15, 2007 -- proposing that one thing the athletic program might try (beyond its characterization of 10% of the team being in trouble with the law as merely "cyclical") would be a more thorough vetting of recruits' high school records before bringing them onto the UI campus.

Two Stories -- Not One.

On Friday I noted that there are really two stories here, with very different needs for confidentiality. Nicholas Johnson, "Trouble in River City; Locker Room Update: What Can We Know, and When Can We Know It?," November 16, 2007.

Those who argue -- as do a couple of comments on these blog entries -- that the mainstream and blogging media should leave the university alone at this time conflate those two stories. The distinctions are crucial here.

One story involves those being investigated, and the woman who is alleged to be their accuser. Until there have been formal fact findings, either as a result of a trial or otherwise, she is entitled to a presumption that her complaint is factually based, presented honestly and in good faith. Similarly, those being investigated are entitled to a presumption of "innocent until proven guilty." Both presumptions require a measure of confidentiality -- as to the identity of the parties, and any early results of whatever investigation is underway, not to mention the whirlwind of gossip.

The other story involves the silence of UI administrators -- what the Press-Citizen characterizes in its editorial this morning as a "massive public relations train wreck that is unfolding in Iowa City." The second story does not enjoy a presumption of a need for confidentiality. That story has almost no connection whatsoever to the other. It is the story of, as I put it earlier, among those UI administrators with responsibility for handling such things, "what did they know? When did they know it? And what did they do about it?"

Apparently all who could speak to these questions have taken a group blood oath of silence. Now, I hasten to add, it could be that they have a good reason for their silence. I can't imagine what it would be, but it's possible. Obviously, if any of them have violated state laws, or UI regulations, and are themselves under investigation then concerns of confidentiality would arise for them as they do for the players. Regardless of what the reasons may be, until the questions regarding their behavior are answered, or explanations are offered for their silence, the hole they have dug for themselves just gets deeper by the hour. (As the paper puts it, "The longer those questions go unanswered, the worse it becomes for the university.")

The next thing we knew, Board of Regents President Michael Gartner was asking UI President Sally Mason for precisely this kind of explanation, as I blogged on the 16th. Nicholas Johnson, "Football Story Has Muscular Legs; If UI Won't Talk, Regents Will," November 18, 2007.

In that blog entry there were many sub-headings, one of which read, "Why are local papers avoiding this story?" -- and by "this story" meaning the second, the story about UI administrators' action, inaction, and silence.

Now this morning, we read that the Governor is similarly curious, and the Press-Citizen devotes nearly a half of its editorial page to calls for information from the University about this second story. Rob Daniel, "Culver Wants 'Thorough Investigation'; Expects UI to Assess Procedures Followed in Alleged Assault," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2007, p. A1 ("I . . . expect the University to quickly assess whether the right internal procedures were followed and to be forthcoming with the public about the results of that assessment . . ."), and Editorial, "Time for UI to Provide Some Answers," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 20, 2007, p. A11.

Not incidentally, so far as a quick scan of the papers revealed, the Press-Citizen was the only paper to mention the Governor's involvement -- and certainly to give it page one play.

See generally the chronology of events (in both these stories) under the November 18 blog entry's sub-heading, "The Register's chronology" -- items that I pulled from Register stories and then organized chronologically.

Speaking of which, there is one possible error in the Press-Citizen's news story this morning. The paper says the October 14 incident was reported to the UI police on November 7. (a) Apparently Campus Police received a "rape kit" from the UIHC on October 14. (b) The chief says it received the report on November 5, and November 7 is simply the date it became public.

The editorial notes that the press was on the first story as early as October 14. It also discusses the propriety of continuing to keep the search warrants sealed after they have been executed, since the statute provides the general rule is that after the search is completed the warrant becomes a public document -- although they can remain sealed for an additional 60 days, which is apparently what was done here.

I'm a little less upset about this than the Press-Citizen. Opening the search warrants gets a little closer to the integrity of any possible trial, as well as the legitimate privacy interests of the parties -- even if, as the paper suggests, their names have been redacted.

Moreover, the legitimacy of this judgment call by the county attorney and judge is reinforced by what must be their realization that if their decision to seal is subsequently revealed to have been a move more motivated by a desire to serve the athletic program's public relations interests than to serve the interests of justice and transparency, they will pay a price at that time for their decision.

# # #

Football Story Has Muscular Legs

November 18, 2007, 7:00 a.m.

If UI Won't Talk, Regents Will
With three football players questioned in an alleged sexual assault case, questions swirl around UI and athletic program administrators: What did they know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it?

The story is turning out to, as they say in the news biz, "have legs." And the UI's efforts at amputation are proving to be even less successful than the few remaining football players' (10% of the team has had dealings with the law this season) efforts to achieve a come-from-behind victory against Western Michigan yesterday, having started off the afternoon spotting the visitors 19 points.

Now is the time. The UI's spokesperson is quoted in this morning's Register as saying,

"We know the time will come when we need to have the public understand what happened, but now is not the time."

Tom Witosky and Erin Jordan, "Gartner demands answers at U of I; At issue is the university's response to an alleged sexual assault. Three football players have been questioned in the case," Des Moines Register, November 18, 2007, p. A1.

Because I know this guy to be bright, accomplished and professional I'd be surprised if he makes this stuff up on the fly. I simply assume that he was either told what to say, or was smart enough to figure out what he would have been told had anyone bothered to tell him.

Obviously, I disagree. I think now is the time; indeed, it is past time.

Regents to the rescue. And, as the Register reports this morning, there is also disagreement regarding the UI's reluctance from at least two members of the UI governing body, the Board of Regents -- including its president, Michael Gartner, who emailed UI President Sally Mason,

The alleged crime itself is outrageous, if true, and is damaging to the reputation of the University and its athletic department. But if the policies are inadequate or the processes weren't followed, the damage is multiplied.

His concern is similar to that which I expressed in a lengthy blog entry Friday, Nicholas Johnson, "Trouble in River City; Locker Room Update: What Can We Know, and When Can We Know It?," November 16, 2007. (This was a follow-up to the entry from the day before, Nicholas Johnson, "Culling the Flock; How About Them Hawks?" November 15, 2007.)

There are two sets of questions and stories here:
What happened the morning of October 14 allegedly involving football players?
What happened thereafter, clearly involving UI administrators?

Let's make clear what I, and I believe Gartner, are -- and are not -- talking about.

We're not talking about revealing precisely what happened during the early morning hours of October 14. We're not talking about identifying the accuser or those accused.

What we are talking about is revealing to the media and public what the responsible adult, UI administrators did between October 14 and November 18 (today). That is something the public does have a right to know. Those revelations need not invade any privacy rights of the individuals involved. They need not affect the integrity of any trial that may or may not take place in the future.

If such revelations would cause harm, then the UI ought to explain why and how that would be the case. It is possible there are good reasons for not revealing what the responsible adults did. But in the absence of such explanations, stonewalling is neither a responsible way to exercise a public institution's obligations to provide transparency for the public -- nor, it usually turns out, a very effective public relations strategy either.

Why are local papers avoiding this story? Another mystery is why the local papers -- The Daily Iowan, The Gazette, and the Iowa City Press-Citizen -- have been so reluctant to ask these process questions of the University.

If they have asked these questions, and received answers, why have they not been reported? If they have asked these questions and couldn't get answers why have they not reported that story? And if they haven't even pursued this aspect of the story, why not?

Why do we have to rely on a newspaper, and Regents, in Des Moines to find out what's going on in Iowa City?

The Register's Chronology.

So how much has the Register dug up so far on the chronology?

Whatever is alleged to have happened occurred between 2:00 and 6:00 a.m. the morning of October 14.

Later that day, October 14, the UI Department of Public Safety received a "rape kit" from the UI Hospitals.

On October 23 two Hawkeye football players, whom Register sources say may have been with the complainant during the time in question, were removed from active participation on the team. The athletic program refused to provide any explanation at that time (or since, so far as I know) for their removal.

At 4:13 p.m. on November 5 a woman who wanted to report an assault "about three weeks ago" to the Iowa City Police was referred to the Campus Police.

By 4:50 p.m. that day, November 5, a report was received by the UI Department of Public Safety.

On November 7 that report became public. Department Director Chuck Green has been quoted as saying, "I assure you, before Nov. 7, we didn't know about this . . .."

On Wednesday, November 14, Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation agents joined Campus Police in searches of some Hillcrest dormitory rooms.

On Friday, November 16, five search warrants were sealed by Johnson County Judge Amanda Potterfield.

On Saturday, November 17, two of the Hawkeye football players whose room was searched (one of whom was earlier suspended from the team for drunken driving and later reinstated) both suited up for the Western Michigan game.

The Register provides names for most of its sources, and the players -- though not the name of their accuser -- along with specific dorm room numbers. For reasons explained in my prior blog entries I have chosen not to do that.

Will Gartner get an answer to his email? Will he share that answer with us? Will the Iowa City papers finally get on the story of administration action or inaction? When will the UI's spokesperson be permitted to announce that it is finally "the time when we need to have the public understand what happened," given that "now is not the time"?

Watch this space and see.

# # #

Trouble in River City

November 16, 2007, 8:00 a.m., 12:05 p.m.

Locker Room Update
What Can We Know, and When Can We Know It?

I discuss in the next section, below, issues surrounding the identity of the accuser and the accused. I respect, and support, the University's decision to make an effort to keep those names confidential at this point. I say "make an effort" because the names of the players are out there on the Internet for anyone who wants them, and I can't believe the name of the accuser is not well known among the hundreds of students residing in Hillcrest, and therefore by at least some enterprising reporters (though I may be wrong).

What I don't fully grasp are the reasons for refusing to respond to questions regarding the behavior, not of the athletes or their accuser, but of the University's and athletic program's administrators.

What did they know and when did they know it? What did they do about it? Did they comply with the procedures they themselves created for dealing with a situation like this? There are reports that the football coach told a sports reporter a couple of weeks ago that two of the players, now under investigation, had been dropped from the team (for reasons he did not disclose).

I'm not talking about revealing who by name came to them, or the content of any statements that were taken, or evidence obtained. I'm only suggesting that questions involving the integrity of the University's process need to be addressed, answered, and reported -- wholly independently of whatever does, or does not, come from the allegations now suspended in limbo regarding whatever did, or did not, occur on the evening of October 14.

If I'm wrong, if real harm would come to the players, or their accuser, or the integrity of a forthcoming trial would be compromised, by revealing what the administrators did and did not do that would be a persuasive reason for maintaining confidentiality regarding the details of administrative action or inaction.

If I'm right, I think the public deserves to know the answers and I can, offhand, see no reason why it can't know now. Indeed, if the responsible University officials went about whatever they did in a responsible, efficient and sensitive way, if they have nothing to be ashamed of, I would think they -- individually and as representatives of an institution -- would be substantially more advantaged by full disclosure rather than their current stonewalling strategy.

For the Press-Citizen's contribution to these issues in this morning's paper, see the discussion and quotations in the sub-head below, "Allocation of Administrative Responsibility."

Sean Keeler writes:

[T]he Hillcrest story has the kind of holes you could drive a truck through. No one's been arrested, let alone charged, but questions abound. If an incident allegedly occurred back on Oct. 14, why did it take three weeks for a report to be filed? How soon did Ferentz and his staff know about what might've transpired? How much did they know? What role did the upper levels of the Iowa administration play, if any?

Rumors linking certain Hawkeye players to a serious rhubarb of some kind had been floating for weeks, only to lay dormant while Iowa posted a three-game winning streak. . . .

"I think that if you ask any person representing a university, or corporation, or whatever entity it is," says Lapchick, director of the sports business management program at Central Florida. "If they had 10 percent of their employees, student-athletes or staff implicated in some form of activity that is designated as criminal, I would say, 'We've got to do something here.' "

Sean Keeler, "Ten (percent) sad number for Hawkeyes," Des Moines Register, November 16, 2007

Randy Peterson reports that Athletic Director Gary Barta characterizes these problems as "cyclical." Sounds kind of like the cicadas coming out of the ground every 17 years; not much you can do about it but wait for them to dig in again.

Anything more? Well, yes, he says "We'll double back and make sure we're educating." But as I noted yesterday ("Culling the Flock"), when a college freshman comes to campus with a record of anti-social and criminal behavior in high school, believing that "educating" him will eliminate the risk of continued problems in college is a real triumph of hope over experience -- as the recidivism rates in our prison system would seem to confirm.

As if that was not enough, consider the irony of Randy Peterson's noting,

Coincidentally, the alleged sexual assault against a female student is being investigated at the same time members of the Mentors In Violence Prevention group were on campus to speak to Iowa student-athletes about rape and sexual harassment.

"They were here this week," said Fred Mims, Iowa associate athletic director for student services and compliance. "Every year, we talk to our student-athletes about hazing and sexual harassment."

Randy Peterson, "Iowa football: Are Hawkeyes guilty of being out of control?," Des Moines Register, November 16, 2007.

Wouldn't you like for some enterprising reporter to find out, and report, just how much the University is paying "Mentors in Violence Prevention" for this annual service? What and where (other than from the firm's own promotional material) is the data regarding its effectiveness?

Privacy and the Press

The Register's decision to reveal names in its story yesterday raises some oft-debated issues of journalistic best practices, ethics -- and even defamation and privacy law.

On the one hand, the media may argue that it is the best check for the public -- investigating and providing information about both who is being investigated for what crimes in the community, as well as possible abuses of citizens' rights by law enforcement, or as in this instance, whether those with administrative responsibilities in the University and its athletic program handled the matter appropriately.

On the other hand, to name a potential accused (in this case someone being "investigated") -- before they've even been charged, let alone convicted -- clearly risks a significant adverse impact on their reputation in the event, as with the Duke Lacrosse players, they are subsequently not found guilty. At a minimum, it may taint a jury pool if a trial is ever held.

To report that someone is being investigated, if true, may not be sufficiently "false" to sustain an action for defamation. But given the popular inclination to assume that "where there's smoke there's fire" the impact on reputation may be almost indistinguishable from an assertion that "they did it."

For both similar and additional reasons, many publications (including the Register in this case) have a practice of not revealing the alleged victim's name. ((a)Publicizing a rape victim's name creates publicity and emotional stress sufficiently severe that it is sometimes characterized as "the second rape." (b) It clearly discourages reporting by others in the future. (c) It may create a real danger of future physical harm to the alleged victim. (d) And there is at least grounds for debate as to how essential it is to the story anyway.)

But even that rule is not always adhered to. Following the 1991 William Kennedy Smith case, the woman involved -- whose identity had been revealed by the press -- pleaded with NBC to change its policy of revealing rape victims' names. The network refused. Then NBC News President (now President of our Board of Regents) Michael Gartner was reported as responding, by way of defense of the policy, "the more we tell our viewers, the better informed they'll be in making up their own minds about the issues involved." USA Today, April 29, 1992, p. D3.

The Gazette explained this morning its policy regarding the failure to reveal the names of the players:

No arrests have been made, but rumors swirled about the alleged perpetrators’ and victim’s identities. Some media reported names connected to the assault. The Gazette has chosen not to reveal them until more about their possible involvement is clear.

“We’ve been asked not to comment as long as the investigation is active,” UI spokesman Steve Parrott added.

Thursday, UI students reacted with the most tempered emotion — caution.

“I don’t really know how much evidence they have against (the players). Their names are out there for a sexual assault. That seems kind of harsh,” said Meg Konzelman, a freshman from Joliet, Ill., who knows one of the players who was questioned.

Scott Dochterman and Jennifer Hemmingsen, "Warrant sealed in UI sex assault; Rumors about roles of players consume campus community," The Gazette, November 17, 2007, p. A1.

Allocation of Administrative Responsibility:
"You have to respect the athletics director's opinion . . . and trust that person"

Ashton Shurson wrote last June 26,

When UI President Sally Mason accepted her new position last week, she made sure to demonstrate her support for Iowa sports by shouting "Go Hawks."

But just cheering on the team isn't enough for the president -- both the president and the athletics department work together to make sure the department runs smoothly.

"It's the front porch to the university," said UI interim President Gary Fethke. "Many people view the university through the eyes of athletics."

Although the athletics department functions primarily on its own, the university president and Athletics Director Gary Barta meet regularly and make decisions about sports together.

But before partnerships begin, a president must hire the director -- which Fethke considers "the most important thing a president can do."

. . .

"My job is to make sure there are no surprises for the president," Barta said.

. . .

"You have to respect the athletics director's opinion and point of view and trust that person," Fethke said.

Ashton Shurson, "Mason, Barta Set to Work Together," The Daily Iowan, June 26, 2007.

This morning's Press-Citizen quotes the UI President as saying, "Yes, I'm confident that [Barta] has the right values and that the integrity of our athletics department is uppermost in his mind." Brian Morelli, "Mason Backs Officials' Response; Officials Not Saying if Protocols Were Followed," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 16, 2007, p. A1.

Is this an example of what is meant by "respect the athletics director's opinion . . . and trust that person"?

Morelli's lead is: "[T]he University of Iowa is not saying whether officials have followed the proper internal procedures . . .." He notes that no UI officlal has been willing to answer the paper's questions, including: "Did the victim or the football players report the alleged assault to other UI officials before it was reported to police?"

Clearly, confidence in Barta's "values" and his concern for his department's "integrity" is far from a response to that question.

At least UI Police Director Charles Green and Johnson County Attorney Janet Lyness have had the candor to acknowledge that they "absolutely were not aware of the incident until the victim reported it to our department on Nov. 7" (Green), and were "notified of the incident last week" (Lyness).

The Press-Citizen also provides links to the relevant University documents:

Initial Notification Procedures for Student Athlete Incidents

Resouce and Referral Options for Victims of Sexual Assault

Sexual Harassment or Assault Action Steps

Not incidentally, given that we are told "the president and the athletics department work together," though I may have missed something I don't see that any of these three documents include the UI president anywhere in the chain of reporting.

Aside from that, the procedures do seem to be pretty clear. Were they followed? And why are all of those who are in a position to know the answer to that question not talking?

# # #

Culling the Flock

November 15, 2007, 6:30, 8:45 a.m., 12:20 p.m.

How About Them Hawks?!
There's lots to be said about the latest news from the locker room: Three Hawkeye football players are being investigated for sexual assault. See, e.g., Lee Hermiston, "UI football players under investigation; 3 Hawks questioned in alleged sexual assault," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 15, 2007, p. A1. For more detail see, Tom Witosky and Mason Kerns, "UI Football: Players Questioned in Case," Des Moines Register, November 15, 2007.

But the bottom line most significant -- and most constructive and helpful -- comment is contained in the commentary of Press-Citizen sports reporter Ryan Suchomel, "Hawks Face More Woes," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 15, 2007, p. B1.

The answer is to be found in a single sentence toward the end of his column: "He [Hawkeye football coach Kirk Ferentz] may have to reevaluate the young men he's inviting to campus."

Isn't that what it's all about?

Remember the 1970s computer observation that you can't get any better out of a computer than what you put into it ("GIGO," or "garbage in, garbage out")?

Well, the same thing applies to the ingredients you use when cooking -- or the athletes you bring to Iowa City to play football. It's true in terms of their on-field performance. And it's true of their off-field performance.

Athletes are coddled by our educational systems, and broader society, from the time they're in junior high. Adults respond to these young athletes' abusive and criminal behavior with something between excuses and encouragement, and the wink-and-a-nod of a blind eye. So there's a need to look at ourselves, as well as our athletes, when -- as UI's Athletic Director Gary Barta puts it -- they make "bad decisions" once in college.

But even if they have been spared formal criminal records when high school athletes as a result of coaches' and administrators' interventions, it is still possible to find out what their informal records may have been. Many people in their community will know, and some references, and a goodly number of others, will be willing to talk. A skillful and sensitive recruiter should be able to do this while casting a big enough net to get a full range of views, respecting recruits' privacy and reputations, and separating facts from fantasies and gossip.

Of course, the recruiter needs to know about the recruit's athletic performance. But he or she also needs to find out, even focus on, their academic performance -- and their anti-social and criminal performance.

When you bring on the campus an athlete who has a high school record of theft, gang membership, sexual assault, drunken behavior, bullying and general violence, you can't legitimately later express mere surprise and disappointment when that pattern of behavior continues. Clearly, given the 12 football players convicted, charged or under investigation during the past six months, the AD's and coaches' belief that the answer is to be found in providing more and better "education" once they get here has not worked in the past and is unlikely to work any better in the future.

[An Anonymous comment, below, takes issue with a couple of points in the preceding paragraph.
(1) Referring to "12 . . . convicted, charged or under investigation" "sounds a lot worse" than it is, says Anonymous. However, this morning The Gazette reports "In all, 11 Hawkeyes have been arrested since April." Marc Morehouse, "Iowa Football: Barta Says He's Taking Investigation Seriously," The Gazette, November 15, 2007. The Register agrees: "11 players are known to have had interaction with police for alleged law-breaking." "Barta Vows to Revisit How Football Players are Educated," Des Moines Register, November 15, 2007. Does that make it sound any better? If "11" includes the current 3 then my "12" is one over. If it doesn't, then the number is 14 instead of 12.
(2) He or she asks, "Who are the players you are referring to as having history of gang affiliation . . . ?" I thought the point was clear from the context, but if not it's important enough to remove any possible ambiguity. I am not referring in the paragraph to any player now on the Iowa team. The paragraph is in a context of, and relates to, the need to do a better job of vetting recruits in the future, because if any of them have any of the itemized items in their high school record that should raise a concern that their past behavior might be continued in college.
(3) He or she continues, "I am also of the belief of innocent until proven guilty." Me, too. Indeed, as I had already noted three paragraphs below: "But let us also not forget the lessons of the Duke Lacrosse case. An accusation, an allegation, an investigation, is not a conviction."]

It is not enough that our recruits are outstanding athletes among the flock of high school football players in any given year. That flock needs to be culled ahead of time of those who will bring as much by way of trouble as touchdowns to the UI campus.

# # #
The Press-Citizen editorializes this morning, "Unfortunately, UI has been down this road before. And the specter of how the university mishandled the 2002 Pierce Pierce case will cast a large shadow over how the university reacts to this allegation. Hopefully, the university has learned from its mistakes in that case . . .." Editorial, "UI Needs to Show It's Learned from Past Mistakes," November 15, 2007, p. A7.

But let us also not forget the lessons of the Duke Lacrosse case. An accusation, an allegation, an investigation, is not a conviction.

# # #
For reasons that may or may not be as obvious to you as they are to me, the following two stories also seem relevant to today's blog entry:

1. Is partying by "the less motivated" -- whether by football players or others -- how we want to be known as a university? It goes with the territory when we offer only rhetoric on the issue of binge drinking. An excerpt:

The University of Iowa has cracked the top 25.

No, not in football or men's or women's basketball. UI is among the nation's elite when it comes to partying. UI came in at No. 24 in the second annual collegehumor.com Power Rankings, which "gives best marks to schools with the least class."

"A top 25 ranking says to me, if I am a student going to college and maybe not interested in working too hard, the University of Iowa would be a pretty solid place for me to go," said Streeter Seidell, front page editor of collegehumor.com. "A respectable rank indeed."

"The list is dedicated solely to a less motivated type of students who just want a place to go enjoy the fruits of his parents' labor for the next four to six years," promotional materials for the ratings declare.

Brian Morelli, "Iowa Makes the Grade in Partying; Site Ranks UI No. 24," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 15, 2007, p. A1.

2. It doesn't stop at high school and college. An excerpt from today's news about OJ's latest caper:

LAS VEGAS -- O.J. Simpson will stand trial on kidnapping, armed robbery and other felony charges stemming from a purported attempt to recover his sports memorabilia, a justice of the peace ruled Wednesday.

The former NFL running back, who has been a tabloid mainstay since being acquitted of murder more than a decade ago, and two codefendants each face 12 charges. If convicted on all counts, they could be sentenced to life in prison.

Ashley Powers, "Simpson Will Stand Trial Again," Los Angeles Times, November 15, 2007.

# # #