Blog

When The Respondent Is a Student Athlete

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Aug 27, 2018 | 0 Comments

The guidelines for adjudicating sexual misconduct in colleges and universities are relatively clear due to the enforcement of Title IX. The federal law, enforced in 1972, was initially implemented as a mechanism to establish equal opportunities for women in collegiate sports. But in recent years, conversations about Title IX unfailingly concern sexual misconduct, a very pervasive and prominent form of gender discrimination on college campuses.

The law's evolution is credited to an amendment made by the Department of Education in 2011 to ensure that institutions internally mitigate sexual misconduct complaints. The new guidance also fared as a warning, stating that federal funding would be stripped from schools who failed to comply. With this looming threat over the heads of administrators, institutions scrambled to hire key players in the resolution process, solidify detailed policy, and educate staff about their duty as mandatory reporters. And in the swing of a pendulum, schools that once had a lethargic reaction to sexual misconduct complaints transformed into aggressive seekers of justice.

But what hasn't changed is the mystery behind the investigation of respondents who happen to be student-athletes. Despite government and school efforts to maintain a cohesive process, the waters are muddied when an athlete navigates it. The fate of a student-athlete in these matters is left to be dictated by an athletic director whose motivations may or may not be incentivized by the drive to build successful programs.

In colleges and universities across the country, there's an apparent trend: institutions bring down the hammer on athletes who have been charged with a crime. We see this phenomenon in the popular case of the three UCLA players who were suspended pending the outcome of a shoplifting scandal in China. Yet, when it comes to Title IX investigations, the reaction to alleged violations are unpredictable. In the absence of specified guidelines, coaches have wide discretion in the decision to allow a student-athlete to play while under investigation. And it's at no surprise that onlookers inside and outside the world of higher education have noticed the obvious conflict of interest.

In order to provide some clarity for student-athletes and to create a more objective process, some schools are making efforts to minimize (or completely eradicate) the role of coaches in the Title IX process. Texas A&M, for example, announced that the university's dean of students - rather than a team or organization - will determine the interim penalties while an athlete is under investigation. Other schools have imposed similar guidelines to clear up confusion and prevent controversy, especially at a time where sexual misconduct is vehemently publicized.

Only time will tell if these policies will reap the intended results. But If more schools follow suit, one thing is for sure, the world of collegiate sports will not be the same.

Nationwide Title IX Advisor

The only way to make sure your voice is heard and your rights are upheld is to retain a student defense attorney. For respondents, especially, the assistance of an attorney advisor is invaluable in the Title IX process. National Title IX attorney Joseph D. Lento has the skill, experience, and expertise to help you preserve your entitled rights under Title IX and your school's policy. For a case evaluation or more information about his representation, contact him online or give him a call at 888-535-3686 today.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients nationwide. Mr. Lento represents students and others in disciplinary cases and other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Mr. Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand colleges and universities across the United States, and when necessary, he has sought justice on behalf of clients in courts across the nation. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide, and he can help you or your student address school-related issues and concerns anywhere in the United States.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!

footer-2.jpg

If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact our offices today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.

Menu