College athletics has had more than the usual number of scandals lately. Penn State now joins the illustrious ranks of Georgia, Rhode Island, Fresno State, and Florida State for putting a bowl game ahead of justice. Last December, a Penn State football player "accepted responsibility" for raping a fellow student. Cornerback Anwar Phillips was suspended for two semesters (spring and summer)--but that didn't stop him from travelling to Florida with his team to compete in the Capital One Bowl on January 1. Penn State lost to Auburn, although Phillips did block a pass at one point during the game.

Phillips is spending his suspension fighting legal battles. Last Friday, he was charged with sexual assault and aggravated indecent assault, both second-degree felonies. Yesterday, Phillips waived his right to a preliminary hearing and his lawyer entered a not guilty plea.

Penn State officials say that since the game occurred between semesters, and since Phillips' suspension formally commenced with the start of the spring term, he was eligible to compete. Concerned students, parents, alums, and taxpayers might legitimately wish to know how that explanation is not merely a pathetic attempt to excuse the fact that winning a game mattered more to Penn State officials and coaches than fairness, decency, and its own code of conduct. They may also wonder why an athlete in a big money sport gets a lighter punishment for a sex offense than regular campus mortals. But Joe Paterno, Penn State's head football coach, isn't talking and neither is Penn State president Graham Spanier.

Erin, I wish you would take some time to investigate these stories in greater detail.

Kangaroo courts for men are common in the university setting. And, under pressure from Women's Studies departments, the definition of such terms as "sexual assault" and "rape" has expanded dramatically to include behavior that the criminal justice system will not even address. This young man evidently was tried in one of those strange extra-judicial student disciplinary organizations. Often those organizations do not observe the most basic niceties of legal procedure, such as allowing the accused to face and question his accuser.

While I do not know much about this case in particular, I think you are jumping the gun. Athletic departments are not exempted from scrutiny. They are under the fiercest scrutiny from feminists who see athletic training of men as a form of indoctrination into machismo. Enter into this equation the reality that scholarship athletes are disproportionately black men who would not qualify as students in a selective university, and you've got the makings of a nightmare. I'll have to throw in my support of Joe Paterno for refusing to give up on one of his young men based solely on allegations in a court with questionable political motivations and questionable procedural protections.

And, I'll throw one more log in the fire. Given the fetish that many young white women have for black athletes, the truth of encounters between white women and black athletes can become very difficult to discern. The very machismo that black athletes demonstrate can easily lead to their undoing in an atmosphere in which women are encouraged by feminists to view any unpleasant sexual encounter as assault or rape. Standards of sexual behavior and an understanding of what constitutes consent can be very different for a young black man from an urban setting and a young white women raised in suburbia.

The jocks versus the nerds issue may be one you need to rethink.

The article says the police report states the accused admitted having sex with the woman "even though he did not think she wanted to." Could it be he forced her? Could this be why she reported a rape? Could it be he again admitted as much before the "Office of Judicial Affairs" (imperfect procedures or not), and this is why he was expelled? Could it be this has nothing to do with any imagined differences in what "constitutes consent", or any other pseudo-sociological claptrap? Like 'discerning truth' about sexual encounters, or any supposed "fetish" white women have for black athletes (or is it the other way around?). Could it be this was just an ugly rape? I was not there, I do not know what happened, but I think Yes, it could just be that.

Steven writes "Standards of sexual behavior and an understanding of what constitutes consent can be very different for a young black man from an urban setting and a young white women raised in suburbia."

Sorry to pile on Steven, but are you serious? Are we going to hold every individual to a different standard, have each of us define what is and is not a crime based on our life experience? Gimme a break. Besides, this blurb isn't about the guilt or innosence of Mr. Phillips, it's about the Penn State action of allowing this guy to participate in an event after they had "suspended" him. It's not about the character of Mr. Phillips, it's about the character of the leadership at Penn State.

Also, rather than some paternalistic good will toward a troubled youth in his athletic program, could Coach Paterno's reluctance to comment be due to the idea that he may be embarrassed and has no excuse for what was done?

Finally, addressing the other comments about sexual prowess, proclivities and the like. What the hell difference does any of that make?

Stephen,

Yes, Penn State has a judicial system that resembles a kangaroo court. And yes, the description of the disciplinary process at Penn State looks as though it absolutely favors the accuser and pays very little respect indeed to the rights of the accused. And yes, charges of acquaintance rape are some of the most insidious charges that can be made on a campus, precisely because schools tend to have a hugely overbroad definition of sexual assault and harassment and because they tend, in their judiciary hearings procedures, to deny due process to the accused.

Had Phillips contested the charges that were brought against him, I would have had much to say about those very issues. The fact is, though, that he did not. At Penn State, when disciplinary charges are brought against a student, he or she first attends an "informal, non-adversarial" meeting known as a Disciplinary Conference with a member of the Judicial Affairs office (I quote from the PSU guidelines on disciplinary procedure). There the complaint is discussed and the student has the opportunity to raise any concerns about it that he or she may have. At that meeting, the student decides whether to "accept responsibility" for the charges and any subsequent sanctions, or to appeal the charges. Phillips voluntarily "accepted responsbility" for the charges at that meeting. The Penn State judicial process stopped there. No hearing, no trial, no kangaroo court. Phillips agreed to be sanctioned and acknowledged that he did have sex with the complainant and that he knew she did not want to.

My reasoning about the Bowl game stems from that fact. Students who have been temporarily expelled for disciplinary reasons are not allowed to participate in extracurricular campus activities of any kind or represent the university in any way without written permission from university officials.

We cannot know whether Phillips "accepted responsibility" in order to avoid the joys of kangaroo court, and as much as I dislike the idea of even the initial "informal, non-adversarial" disciplinary conference, I think it would be a stretch to argue that Phillips' rights were violated by it. What Phillips plans to do in court, and how he expects to maneuver around his acknowledgement of responsibility, is anybody's guess.

Penn State's disciplinary procedure manual is available here.

Slightly off-topic, but there's a similar incident in Tom Wolfe's book "A Man in Full," which is really great reading.

The really salient point here is this: You never give your friends political power you wouldn't want your opponent to have. When campus administrators make a habit of politicizing and selectively enforcing their judicial procedures and codes of conduct, it's only a matter of time before the very leftists who fought for that travesty will be stung by it. If the administration is willing to burn someone at the stake to pacify rowdy radicals on campus, devoid of any accountability or due process, then when the time comes they'll be willing to sacrifice a legitimate victim for the sake of their athletic program.

That may not be what happened here--I don't have any idea. But it's a little rich for campus activists to start screaming for fair, open, and honest proceedings when it's one of their favored victims who looks to be getting shafted.

The fact that the state is prosecuting Phillips for sexual assault suggests that this is not a phony "date rape" case but actual rape (penetration by force or threat of violence).

Thank you, Erin, for your response. It did clarify the issues to a great extent. I will reiterate that I have to admire Joe Paterno for standing by a young man who he recruited to Penn State. Mr. Paterno is widely respected throughout the athletic and academic communities for his commitment to his players and to Penn State. (This is a hard thing for an Illinois alum to say.) While the academic community may think that a man's right to be called human ends once a woman makes an accusation against him, I do not.

As to the differences in sexual attitudes and practices, I am not speaking from idle observation when I say that a young black man from an urban setting will see things very differently than a white suburban woman. And in saying this, I am not saying that the law should be applied differently on the basis of race.

I have lived in black communities in SF, NYC and Chicago, and my sexual experience with black people is real, not imagined and not academic. The differences in attitudes and practices is real, and in my opinion, the defining difference between the black and white communities. Black male friends are outspoken in their belief that (1) white women do have a fetish for black men, and (2) they are likely to cry "rape" when their dalliance with black men is discovered. There is a stock phrase among black men to account for this phenomenon: "Never trust a white woman." I have observed these phenomena in practice. I am a professional musician, and I've watched in amazement the steady procession of white women who are determined to bed musicians for no other reason than that they are black. If you want further confirmation of this syndrome, I suggest that you talk with black woman.

Thanks again, Erin, for your reply. As much as your other readers want to villify this young man, I think that I will pray for him.

It's bad form, but I must post an addendum.

Check out the story of Ibrihim Halsey, who was recruited by the U of Illinois football team. Mr. Halsey was indicted for sexual assault in New Jersey prior to his enrollment. The press had him convicted and locked up. Most speculated that he would never step foot on campus at Champaign.

All charges were subsequently dropped against Mr. Halsey, and he is slated to start for the football team this fall.

Stephen: "Black male friends are outspoken in their belief that (1) white women do have a fetish for black men...."

Erin: "Phillips agreed to be sanctioned and acknowledged that he did have sex with the complainant and that he knew she did not want to."

I seem to see a disconnect here.

Floida State was unfairly lumped in with other teams accused of "putting a bowl game ahead of justice."
The quarterback accused of gambling was dismissed from the team before the end of the regular season that included a game against arch rival Florida.
The other quarterback, who shared starting duties with the dismissed player, was not allowed to participate in the Sugar Bowl because he missed a final exam in a single course.
The rule he violated was strictly a school rule and not one imposed by the NCAA or the conference.
A third player, one of FSU's best defensive lineman, also was not allowed by the school to play in the Sugar Bowl because he was accused of getting an illegal "deep discount" on some jerseys from a Tallahassee retailer.
National commentators joked that FSU would not even be able to field a team in the Sugar Bowl.
The Seminoles ended up losing to a team that it had a good shot of beating if they had not dismissed or suspended the above players.
That's hardly "putting a bowl game ahead of justice."

Jim,

We have wires crossed. My syntax has led you to conclude I am making a claim I am not making. A more clear wording for the sentence in question would be this: "Penn State now joins the illustrious ranks of Georgia, Rhode Island, Fresno State, and Florida State; Penn State's particular form of corruption involves putting a bowl game ahead of justice." Or something along those lines. No specific claim about FSU and bowl games was being attempted.

Hello Laura:

I see absolutly no "disconnect" between those two statements.

Mr. Phillips has not been convicted by a court of law. Even Erin conceded that the quasi-judicial proceedings of Penn State are little more than a kangagoo court.

The fact that Mr. Phillips signed anything before a body practicing such peculiar (and possibly unconstitutional) procedures means absolutely nothing. I sense a man who did not have adequate legal representation. In fact, I suspect that this quasi-legal judicial group specifically deprives the accused of the right to legal representation.

I'll reserve my judgement until Mr. Phillips has his day in a real court. Erin, I think you are on the wrong side here. A better approach here would be to contact FIRE, and ask them to help determine whether Mr. Phillips is receiving adequate representation.

There is no proof here that any crime has been committed. It's still at the stage of an unproven accusation. Mr. Phillips' future is at stake here. The woman who made this accusation is not the only human in the picture.

Usually I am not a bait-taker. Who here have you seen "villify" the accused? I read the story. (Did you?) After doing so, a reasonable conclusion from the facts presented is that he has now twice admitted that he forced the woman to have sex with him. Added to this is the fact that the woman reported a rape. And what do you offer? Half-baked anecdotal observations about a sexual "fetish" you believe some white women have, and the outcome of some other completely unrelated case (by the way, in no way does dropping charges or the prosecution deciding not to proceed always mean innocence). And how, exactly, do these have anything to do with this case? Lastly, a question: Do you plan to pray for the woman who says she was raped?

As for different standards of black sex vs. white--remember Mike Tyson. He raped a black girl and he did time for it. The "cultural differences" arguement is a canard--the guy was at Penn State, not Bed-Sty. While the inner city community might let this guy get away with forced sex (only because authorities are relucantant ot arrest and prosecute), a university should not.
If black men say "Don't trust a white woman", how come so many prominent black me have white partners?

The hysteria about rape at college campuses is a strange phenomenon that twists and turns through time.

I am extremely skeptical about any allegations of rape, sexual abuse, etc. that emanate from a college campus. This is the result of 30 years of hysterical political posturing over this issue.

And, I'll demonstrate to you just how crazy this posturing always was. It is now fashionable within the left to prattle incessantly about the horrors of rape and sexual abuse. It was not always so.

When I enrolled at the U of Ill in 1968, my first writing teacher was a young white woman. Her choice of reading material for that class was Eldridge Cleaver's Soul on Ice. She was passionately committed to the cause of the Black Panthers, Cleaver's political home base. The argument of Soul on Ice was quite brutal: Cleaver argued that the most revolutionary act a black man could commit was the rape of a white women. It was a article of leftist faith at that time that this was literally true, and in the great tradition of the left, anybody who disagreed was racist.

Charges of rape and sexual abuse are being used on every campus for political reasons. This has always been the case.

Just to illuminate this a bit more for you. My daughter attended Antioch College at the height of the PC hysteria. Coeds dorms were constructed so that men and women were literally shitting, pissing and showering in view of one another. At the same time, the campus was in thrall to yet another rape hysteria. I often thought that the sexual provocation had an intent: the idea seemed to be to give the men an erection so that the women could have them arrested.

So, what I'm saying is that this rape hysteria infecting the campus is a sickness. God alone knows why young people become so obsessed by this sickness. After decades of observing that sickness, I no longer believe much of anything I hear from a campus on these subjects. I assume that everybody is lying.

Stephen, here's the disconnect. The excuse you offer is that all black men think that all white women want to have sex with them. But the accused here admits that he knew the woman didn't want to have sex with him. So this excuse cannot apply.

When your black friends told you their belief that all white women lusted after them, I certainly hope you set them straight.

Finally, I am appalled at your description of Antioch College. I would never, never let my daughter, who will be 16 next week, attend such a school. Not that it would ever cross her mind to want to go. You're right, it's a perfect setting for sex crimes and for sex crime mind-games. There are thousands of colleges and universities out there, and if we couldn't find a suitable one then I'd prefer she live at home and go to trade school.

Hello Laura:

Thanks for your comments.

I'll have to say one more time. Whatever that young man said or did before a kangaroo court minus the legal protections of due process is of no interest to me. Confessions extracted in such circumstances were long ago excluded by the Supreme Court. (It's called the Miranda decision.) Here's something for you to consider. The actions of that pseudo-court could be the ground for dismissal of charges against Mr. Phillips in a real court of law. Such prejudicing of public opinion has often been the grounds for dismissal of criminal charges. So, there is a real possibility that, if Mr. Phillips is guilty, the actions of that pseudo-court could set him free.

I did not say that all white women fall into the category you've described. There are enough that do. Here's something to ponder. The advent of affirmative action, which brought young black men in large numbers to campuses coincides with the advent of the feminist rape hysteria.

My daughter is doing very well. I allowed her to make her own choices. She just got her M.A. from San Francisco State. In retrospect, she, too, is very disappointed in the academic side of Antioch. PC and the quota system conspire to create an inferior education system.

We all make mistakes. We recover. My daughter is a very good woman.

The bottom line in this case is that Joe Paterno is so desparate to win, that he will - as Doug put it - "stand by" his man. In other words overlook anything one of his players does off the field as long as he can contribute on the field. I wonder if Mr. Phillips had been some poor kid from the projects who got to college because of his brains and grades rather than his ability to play on the gridiron, if he would have received the same preferential treatment. No way in hell! He'd have been booted off campus and his scholarship and grants would have been revoked.

Interesting reading. I'm some what late on this issue, but I have a little insight I'd like to share. My son was a student at Penn State and after one of the basketball playoffs he was on Beaver Ave in State College. This was the year after the riot (following a basketball playoff game) and to say that the local police department had a hair trigger (no pun intended) is an understatement. My son was arrested along with 85 others for failure to disperse. No looting, car burning or taking over campus buildings, FAILURE TO DISPERSE. For that heinous off campus crime he was suspended for one year, given 100 hours of community service and given numerous hoops to jump through before they would consider letting him re enroll in Penn State. At the time he had less than 15 hours to graduate. But it didn't end there. Centre county has more than one judge, one happened to be up for re election and apparently wanted to display his tough stand on hardened criminals. The students that went before the "hanging " judge got 25 DAYS TO ONE YEAR IN JAIL and the others got probation. My son spent 26 days in the Centre County jail for failure to disperse.

Penn State is an institution of learning, thats what I paid tuition for and that's not what I got. As any parent knows the only way to administer discipline is to be consistent and Grahm Spanier is failing miserably in that respect. No matter how many deggees or titles the president of a university has tacked to his name, as soon as he lets the bottom line (Football revenues) dictate his decisions he ceases to be an educator and becomes merely a business manager. This is not the first football player to be in trouble and permitted to play, nor I'm afraid will it be the last.

Personally I feel that because of their calous disregard for the proper education of our sons and daughters, Spanier and Paterno should step down. As long as college football generates millions of dollars in revenue and alumni /booster associations have almost as much to throw under the table that will never happen. I just wonder what hoops Phillips will have to jump through to get back in and how many hours of community service he'll have to do.