The official word is that they found out about these allegations earlier this week. I tend to believe them. As others have noted, no reason to protect an end-of-the-bench QB.
1 Like
I do too for the reasons you stated. I guess my point should be better stated there will be plenty of people, including the media, who will try to find out if they knew earlier.
The title 9 office as well as the student privacy laws will prevent disclosure of a lot of this stuff, at least for now.
You can bet a few were filed yesterday and more today but I don’t think this blows up unless it includes more players than just renfro
More news on this that I have heard this morning:
Apparently it was like 13 women at ole miss and at least that many here. Kendal Briles brother in law was at ole miss and apparently Kendal is going to have some sort of involvement in this because he brought him here after he knew about the issues at ole miss. Apparently there may be some sort of protest today on Razorback road.
The U of A has to get out in front of this quickly to ensure it doesn’t get any worse. Getting rid of the player was the first step.
I think it depends on who ‘they’ is. Unless the girl is lying about contacting UA coaches.
Allegedly
1 Like
Yes - allegedly for now.
If Renfro raped 13 girls at OM and his parents reportedly silenced the victims through financial settlements, is OM under investigation? OM must have known about some of these 13 incidents.
Did Kendall Briles perform due diligence such that he knew of Renfro’s history at OM before bringing him to Arkansas? If so, is TCU needing to decide whether to retain Briles? TCU already had concerns about Briles & his ethics per the Baylor scandal when they hired him.
Not unreasonable if CSP learned of this within the past week, athletic dept & HY investigated, & upon recognizing these incidents by Renfro while at Arkansas as being valid & therefore dismissed him from the team. Sounds like we acted timely & in fairness to all parties.
CSP has been in football long enough to understand that you don’t stick your neck out for any player after such allegations surface, including a 4th stringer. History shows that CSP tends to respond quickly & assertively to player allegations.
I’m not sure that FERPA would allow Ole Miss to give UA a heads-up about him even if they knew and were investigating
Title IX liability is premised on whether an “appropriate person” at the school (receiving federal funds) has pretty much actual knowledge of different kinds of severe student on student sexual misconduct, and has the disciplinary authority to stop it but was “deliberately indifferent” to it and did not stop it. An “appropriate person” is someone with authority to take corrective action to stop the misconduct. HY, SP and KB and likely many if not all staff members are probably “appropriate persons.” The question then, as many have pointed out, is (in Watergate terms) “what did you know and when did you know it?”
I also don’t know if “actual knowledge” of sexual misconduct at another school, A, and then deliberate indifference about that misconduct at a later school B (resulting in harm to a student at B) satisfies the Title IX liability standard. It well could. I’ll look at that later if I have time. I’m sure that’s a pretty fact intensive, case by case thing.
2 Likes
This appears to be the rule re: prior knowledge of the alleged Ole Miss misconduct. Look at the “made students vulnerable” part. This is from an 8th Circuit opinion. Also see the “not clearly unreasonable” response standard.
“To be actionable an institution’s deliberate indifference must either have caused the harassment or made students vulnerable to it. Id. at 644–45, 119 S.Ct. 1661. A plaintiff must show that the institution had “substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs.” Id. at 645, 119 S.Ct. 1661. In order to avoid deliberate indifference liability an institution “must merely respond to known peer harassment in a manner that is not clearly unreasonable.” Id. at 648–49, 119 S.Ct. 1661. The “not clearly unreasonable” standard is intended to afford flexibility to school administrators. Id. at 648, 119 S.Ct. 1661.”
What is the source of current disclosures that Renfro had 13 incidents at OM & his parent’s financial settlements with his victims? Did this just now surface after Renfro was dismissed at Arkansas?
That is a lot of incidents & buried issues at OM to suddenly be disclosed.
For what it’s worth, both Fayetteville PD and UAPD said there have been no complaints filed against Renfro since he arrived on campus in 2020.
anyone check with Wahington County Sheriff?
I didn’t really closely read the stuff on Instagram and won’t. Is there an alleged victim that is a UA student? If so, I agree that the seeming lack of report to law enforcement is an issue. Kind of odd. But alleged victims sometimes don’t call police. They should but don’t.
From what I read it’s not clear.
If there is and Briles brought the kid here knowing about his alleged past, that could be an issue.
Surprised there is no statement from Hunter or Pittman yet. Maybe they learned from Oats. Best not to open your mouth and not leave it to public interpretation of what you said.
Yeah, I’m not sure the UA is out of the woods on this deal. We will see. HY seems very competent so I guess we will see what shakes out. The Briles connection does concern me the more I think about it. Hopefully that’s just coincidence. And more hopefully no young women at either OM or the UA were sexually assaulted at all.
1 Like
I agree with this, especially when the facts and story are not clear.