Title IX lawsuit appealed and petitioned
The alleged CU athletic recruitment sexual assault case is being brought back under the microscope of the local justice system.
The case, which was originally filed in December of 2001, consisted of two female students reportedly being sexually assaulted at an off-campus party where CU football recruits were present.
CU’s lawyers are now asking for another look at the appeal, saying that having a policy to show recruits a “good time” does not necessarily put them at fault. And there is no evidence that shows the university had “actual knowledge” of the incident happening, according to a Oct. 10 Colorado Daily news article.
“There is abundant evidence of prior actual knowledge on the part of the university,” said Baine Kerr, a lawyer for one of the two plaintiffs.
After the incident, the two women filed charges against CU under the Title IX gender equality law. Initially, a lower court judge dismissed the case in 2005, and no one was ever arrested or charged in the case.
The appeals court brought the case back up after finding evidence “that CU had an official policy of showing recruits a good time on their visits to the CU campus,” and showed “deliberate indifference” to women’s safety.
Both prosecution and defense lawyers point to a part of the court’s decision that speaks to CU having inadequate training for those who host young recruits.
CU lawyers claim that the policy in place was lawful under Title IX.
“Even if you show that the university had a policy of showing recruits a “good time” — which we deny by the way — and the [alleged] policy itself doesn’t violate Title IX,” CU attorney Patrick O’Rourke said.
According to Michele McKinney of the CU system office, there have been 17 reforms to the CU athletic recruiting policy, and several other changes to other various university policies.
“There has been a whole slew of reforms [since the case began],” McKinney said.
On page three of the Recruitment Policy, expectations of the host and the prospect are outlined.
According to the policy, prohibitions include the use of drugs or sex as a recruiting device. Entertainment of the prospect in the presence of drug consumption is also prohibited, as is the use of strippers, gentleman’s clubs or equivalents, or escort services.
This is just one of many sections of the policy that has been changed due to the lawsuit.
The case now is not in the limelight as much as it once was. This is due to the legal proceedings that are not as controversial as the original filing of the case.
The petition was submitted to the 10th Circuit Court on Tuesday, Oct. 9th. There is no timeframe for when the petition might be accepted or rejected.
Contact Campus Press Staff Writer Daniel Carter at Daniel.carter@colorado.edu.
