Create a New Forum Owner Login Contribute & Create Your Member account VoyUser Login (see contribute) VoyForums Directory/Categories No-ads: Completely remove ads from your forum VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News Help Desk VoyForums Exchange FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions Search VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

• As I see it (and lawyers out there please chime in on this), playing scholarship college sports is a privilege (not a right), and students in general don't have "rights" in the way that citizens do (except as Student Handbooks outline). A private college doesn't need to wait for the police and courts to make its own determinations as to whether behavior violated the school's and/or AD's code of conduct. Even if the incident wasn't legally a crime, or a serious crime, or charges are dropped for whatever reason, a private college can and should still act to uphold its own standards (which hopefully are higher than just the minimal ones that the law imposes). SBU may already have enough information to determine that one or more school/AD rules were violated, and that suspension is warranted for those reasons alone. In any case, I'm sure more info on this will come out soon and we'll know whether it was or wasn't the right decision. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 12:52:59
  • of course, it could very well be that the suspension is unrelated to the DWI charge but the way the story is written it seems to tie them together. (NT) -- '85, Thu April 21, 2005 13:30:54
    • I think that it is somewhat tied to the accusation, but in this case guilt of the crime is not necessary for the suspension. I think it is safe to say that those at SBU asked Relph if he had been drinking. If he said yes then that right there alone is enough to suspend him, if they choose to, b/c he is not 21 yet. Couple that with the fact that he was driving and the suspension, until the matter is settled, seems justified to me. I think the only debate here is whether he was beyond the legal limit, the fact that he drank some and drove are most likely well established. It is hard to argue with the suspension if you ask me. (NT) -- ace93, Thu April 21, 2005 16:04:43
      • I'm biased! As senior in 1985 I was arrested for DWI. Name in paper the whole nine yards . Long and short of it is, I went to a trial and I was found not guilty. I had a heck of a time getting a job with this hanging over me, not to mention the many thousands of dollars in legal fees that I had to borrow to pay. In the end, nobody cared that I won and of course, the newspaper didn't print a follow-up so half the neghbordhood had me labele as a felon. . Its just so damaging to these young guys lives that I would hope schools and any of us would not jump to conclusions until there is an adjudication of the issue. These are young guys so I always am biased with the other end of the spectrum!. (NT) -- '85, Thu April 21, 2005 16:50:00
        • It's a good bias to have 85. Especially in this day of Patriot Act/Big Brother, politicized electorally-driven prosecutors, and sensationalistic yellow-journalism. What I didn't say in my post but I do believe (and your post re-affirms) is that administrative determinations aren't always precise or perfect; innocent people do get hurt, especially when students protest, parents threaten to sue, media is hounding at your office door. In the case of Relph a suspension can be rescinded or waited out. Expulsion is much more difficult to reverse. Whatever happens I hope it works out for him and SBU. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 17:10:10
      • Isn't Relph 21 years old? (NT) -- Rambacker, Thu April 21, 2005 16:57:35
        • How is LA? (NT) -- NOT, Thu April 21, 2005 19:47:24
        • Tyler is 20. In all time zones. (NT) -- Upstate Ram, Thu April 21, 2005 22:51:56