TSJ Thread

[danielb927]

Infer what you like. You are proving his point about an inability to discuss this case in isolation.

Virtue signaling is the constant bringing up of other victims and the broader problem of sexual violence - which is understood by all to be a bad thing, or at least should be. And if any here feel otherwise I doubt more posting on it will change their minds.

Let's discuss this case in this thread.

I do agree that we do not have all the facts here. Of those we have, I do not see the merit in charging him and seeing 95% of the country think TSJ raped this woman (notwithstanding Kansas's strict definition).

I appreciate your post, but I disagree with most of it.

Inferences are going to be made whether we like it or not. People are going to consider this case as part of the broader issue whether we like it or not. Dismissing those facts as a case of "infer what you like" is just burying your head in the sand. If I know my words will be interpreted in a certain way, I'm just as responsible for that meaning as I am for the meaning I primarily intended. This board is read by far more folks than write here, and we're largely responsible for what outsiders may think of Illini fandom if they drop by and read our posts.

Moreover, we all "infer what we like" about everything - if we didn't, communication would be easy. It's not a duality where some people take words literally and others don't - it's just that some people infer what you expect, and others don't. In fact, you're probably reading this and inferring that I'm incredibly biased and have an agenda (which I do, like everyone, although it's probably not the one you think).

So "discussing the case" in a levelheaded manner like your post - great. Discussing it in a careless way that will lead to avoidable misinterpretations (e.g. calling it "a joke") - why is that defense-worthy?

Lastly, what you call "virtue signaling" I would just call "contextualizing". In my view, "let's stick to this case" is no less a virtue (the one that you prefer) than "let's consider this in context".

Obviously we all think sexual violence is horrible, so it hurts when it feels like that's being questioned. But instead of going on the defensive with a loaded phrase like "virtue signaling", it's worth asking: is this person really saying I don't care, or is that just what I'm inferring? And if it is their actual meaning, what about my words might have given them that impression? Could I communicate more clearly next time?

The presumption of good faith is a two-way street — it's really hard to get it if we're not willing to give it. That means taking some ownership of miscommunications and inferences about our words.

 

[Old Farm Illini]

There's a reason why these cases are treated differently even when there isn't concrete evidence that 100% indicates a crime took place. Replace the victim in this case with a child that wasn't able to produce any other evidence besides his or her word and I'd bet that people on here wouldn't make so many ugly comments about the victim. For the most part the posts on here have been pretty well thought out but a few of them highlight why it's difficult for anyone to come out after they have been sexually abused.

 

[lillini22]

I think what he and other posters are referencing are…

1. Josh said the charges TRIGGERED the suspension (i.e., that’s the “auto setting” for TSJ), but the DIA has a 3-person panel to potentially override that suspension in some situations (i.e., the panel is the “manual user” who can decide a blanket suspension just because charges are filed isn’t fair or whatever).

2. Josh SPECIFICALLY touted the panel as being created because he/the DIA was well aware that the legal process is incredibly slow.

I don’t know how I’d vote on that panel today, honestly … but if “being charged” is a situation where an ironclad suspension must remain in effect, then yes - the panel is indeed incredibly useless and pointless.

It's not ironclad, but there is literally nothing for the panel to consider right now.

Think about what the actual two sides to this are.

The prosecution saying we have gathered enough evidence that we believe a crime has been committed, but are not yet sharing that evidence (nor are they required to). And Terrence Shannon simply saying he did not commit what he's been accused of.

Yes, the panel can read all the court docs that are available as we have, but they know that that is not the full evidence. So you'd be asking them to in the absence of the evidence that has gone into filing charges, make a decision that Shannon is most likely to have not committed a crime and thus will not harm the reputation of the University.

That's literally an impossible decision for them to make right now. When discovery or some other mechanism requires the evidence to be made available, then the panel could consider making a decision like that. Right now it's not something they can do.

 

[Krombopulos_Michael]

My main disagreement re: “virtue signaling” in this case is that this is an anonymous message board. Me saying something doesn’t put me in an advantageous light bc my name isn’t actually “KrombopulosMichael” (I know, a huge shocker). Additionally, virtue signaling is nothing but talking and saying what you think people want to hear without actually taking action or contributing to a cause in a meaningful way. Example being a corporation talking out their behind saying “we care about the environment” and in most cases doing absolutely nothing to actually contribute to the cause. Advocating for SA survivors is truly something meaningful for me personally at this point due to how it’s impacted individuals close to me and I’ll admit previous posts of mine showed a nerve was struck.

 

[Illinidude]

It's not ironclad, but there is literally nothing for the panel to consider right now.

Think about what the actual two sides to this are.

The prosecution saying we have gathered enough evidence that we believe a crime has been committed, but are not yet sharing that evidence (nor are they required to). And Terrence Shannon simply saying he did not commit what he's been accused of.

Yes, the panel can read all the court docs that are available as we have, but they know that that is not the full evidence. So you'd be asking them to in the absence of the evidence that has gone into filing charges, make a decision that Shannon is most likely to have not committed a crime and thus will not harm the reputation of the University.

That's literally an impossible decision for them to make right now. When discovery or some other mechanism requires the evidence to be made available, then the panel could consider making a decision like that. Right now it's not something they can do.

I think it's important to look at the three sides of a coin. TSJ's side, the accuser's side, and then the edge of the coin. The University profited off TSJ staying in college and this was critical to assemble an unbelievable basketball roster for the 2023-2024 season. When I examine the University's position, it can only be one of complete negligence or cowardice. The cowardice position can basically be summed up as the University protecting its image, keeping the funding rolling in, and generally trying to stay above the fray. If the University leans towards the accuser's story, why did the University act the way it did and does? Why did the University take over 100+ days to suspend TSJ from play if it was trying to uphold the values and integrity of the University? Why does the University not sever all ties with TSJ? Why is TSJ allowed to interact with employees, students, and athletes at the University? Why is TSJ still receiving a scholarship and able to make NIL money off his position as an Illinois athlete? Has TSJ been denied entry into campus bars and campus housing? Is campus security tailing TSJ when he goes to shoot baskets at 0445? Is he funneling his money into bank accounts in the Caymans? Does he still have his passport? If the University gave any real credibility to TSJ being some vile monster, why would it behave in this manner? Is safety not of the upmost importance? The University needs to make a decision immediately as it is in everyone's best interests. At this point, I feel like I am watching the Netflix adapted version of "To Kill a Mockingbird", and it is a disgrace.

 

[DJM]

The answer to this question is that they exist to do exactly what they are purported to do. To make an assessment and a determination. What I think is being left out here is that this policy isn't just invoked in matters of criminal cases.

For example, if the woman making the allegations had gone public with a social media post detailing the same things she told the detective, but did not go to police at that point, my guess is that Josh Whitman may have even then initiated this policy. And at that point I could very well see the panel decide not to suspend Shannon, provided he proclaimed his innocence and gave them reason to believe that.

But a criminal charge bears another level of credibility. It means that in the judgement of the elected professional prosecutor whose job is to make these decisions, the allegation is supported by evidence. That's a pretty heavy thing, and it makes sense to weigh it that way. I'm not sure the panel is particularly inclined to make a judgement on a criminal case themselves anyways, but even if they are, they don't have access to the evidence right now. And in the absence of the evidence, it is completely understandable that they're erring on the side of the criminal charge.

But again, that's not to say they would never reinstate a player. Because the policy doesn't only apply to situations where there are criminal charges. It's in the situations without charges where they're probably most likely to reinstate.

I agree with your comments but I keep wondering why there is no procedure to allow a TSJ (when I refer to TSJ I mean any student facing suspension) to appear before the panel or at the very least submit information concerning these charges. Again, I understand they look at the charges. The charges are filed at the discretion of the prosecutor, after reviewing whatever evidence they have in their possession. But at this point the crux of these charges are the victim's statement, we really don't know much more than that. I don't see the harm in allowing TSJ to present at least something to the panel. They might not change a thing. But at the very least they would have the same minimal information from the charges and from TSJ.
My belief is they are waiting for the PH because that is the first opportunity for someone else to weigh in on this; the judge finding or not finding probable cause to proceed. To me, that is far more reliable information than simply the charging document. Also, after the PH, what's the damage in at least allowing TSJ the opportunity to present something to them. His attorneys may very well advise against that or supply very minimal information which would result in the upholding the suspension.
I would feel more comfortable if the university's procedure at least gave the student the choice to decide if they wish to present anything to the panel.

 

[Moe Bias]

Based on the incomplete information available, different people will draw different conclusions related to TSJ's criminal charges. When I try to empathize with the University, I assume their primary objective is to maintain the University's pristine image, which I am sure the three-panel team and most of the university administration assumes it is doing well. I mean, why would they not take the path of least resistance and throw this young man under the bus to protect the image of the University? Why would someone who hands down edicts from an ivory tower lower themself to the alleged events at a college bar in another state? Why is some young man's ability to throw a ball in the basket more important than the institution that gives these administration types their power and meaning in life?

These individuals have a public and private persona. In public, they preach their love and support for the students and the betterment of humankind; however, in private, it is all about defending the institution and power structure. This three person panel, that has been outsourced from the athletic department is set up in a clever way. BU defers to his boss JW, JW and the Athletic Department defer to the three person panel, and now the three person panel will defer to the legal system. Now no one has to make any tough decisions or damage the institution, and the money keeps flowing (everyone keeps their prestigious job title). Before this nightmare began, TSJ and University's interests aligned since TSJ was helping the money flow. Now the University perceives TSJ to be a costly liability and is implementing a wait and see strategy (on the legal system) while hiding behind University policies and procedures. If fans and supporters of the University do not make their voices heard, this will not end well for TSJ or the University.

The thing you learn when you deal with a University is that their first and primary goal is to "Protect the Academy", it has little to do with what is just, right, or in the best interest of the individual. As the process unfolds, they adjust accordingly with the proper coverages of the posterior for the ultimate stakeholders. The question is how many individuals will be thrown under the bus as new information comes to light. Eventually, it stops, and the carnage is accessed and it is back to business as usual. MSU survived Nasser, and PSU survived Sandusky. The primary goal for these university administrators is to not get "fit for the jacket"(an old-school Chicago political reference) and get fired

 

[Illiniam1984]

 

[Battle89]

I appreciate your post, but I disagree with most of it.

Inferences are going to be made whether we like it or not. People are going to consider this case as part of the broader issue whether we like it or not. Dismissing those facts as a case of "infer what you like" is just burying your head in the sand. If I know my words will be interpreted in a certain way, I'm just as responsible for that meaning as I am for the meaning I primarily intended. This board is read by far more folks than write here, and we're largely responsible for what outsiders may think of Illini fandom if they drop by and read our posts.

Moreover, we all "infer what we like" about everything - if we didn't, communication would be easy. It's not a duality where some people take words literally and others don't - it's just that some people infer what you expect, and others don't. In fact, you're probably reading this and inferring that I'm incredibly biased and have an agenda (which I do, like everyone, although it's probably not the one you think).

So "discussing the case" in a levelheaded manner like your post - great. Discussing it in a careless way that will lead to avoidable misinterpretations (e.g. calling it "a joke") - why is that defense-worthy?

Lastly, what you call "virtue signaling" I would just call "contextualizing". In my view, "let's stick to this case" is no less a virtue (the one that you prefer) than "let's consider this in context".

Obviously we all think sexual violence is horrible, so it hurts when it feels like that's being questioned. But instead of going on the defensive with a loaded phrase like "virtue signaling", it's worth asking: is this person really saying I don't care, or is that just what I'm inferring? And if it is their actual meaning, what about my words might have given them that impression? Could I communicate more clearly next time?

The presumption of good faith is a two-way street — it's really hard to get it if we're not willing to give it. That means taking some ownership of miscommunications and inferences about our words.

Appreciate the reasoned discourse.

I infer nothing about any agenda. I think our difference is more one of distance.

Measuring what I say, worrying about inference, etc...I agree much more in a one-on-one conversation with a spouse, or a colleague, or a friend. I will have meaningful interactions with them going forward and you bet words matter. What they hear not what you say and all that.

But you are ascribing those qualities to anonymous posts on a message board, which is a higher bar than I am setting. Anyone can say anything here, we don't know what's true or false or exaggerated, on any topic. For better or worse, some here think the case is a joke given current information. As long as their views are not vulgar (open to interpretation, I know), I don't think they should censor them for fear of what some anonymous reader might infer.

TL; DR - I don't think you and I are so far apart, but we are setting a bar at different levels.

 

[SuperintendentChalmers]

The thing you learn when you deal with a University is that their first and primary goal is to "Protect the Academy", it has little to do with what is just, right, or in the best interest of the individual. As the process unfolds, they adjust accordingly with the proper coverages of the posterior for the ultimate stakeholders. The question is how many individuals will be thrown under the bus as new information comes to light. Eventually, it stops, and the carnage is accessed and it is back to business as usual. MSU survived Nasser, and PSU survived Sandusky. The primary goal for these university administrators is to not get "fit for the jacket"(an old-school Chicago political reference) and get fired

I doubt “Make the wrong decision and we’ll get through it like Penn State did with Sandusky and Michigan State did with Nassar” would be a very persuasive argument to the powers that be.

 

[TheGMan]

I agree with your comments but I keep wondering why there is no procedure to allow a TSJ (when I refer to TSJ I mean any student facing suspension) to appear before the panel or at the very least submit information concerning these charges. Again, I understand they look at the charges. The charges are filed at the discretion of the prosecutor, after reviewing whatever evidence they have in their possession. But at this point the crux of these charges are the victim's statement, we really don't know much more than that. I don't see the harm in allowing TSJ to present at least something to the panel. They might not change a thing. But at the very least they would have the same minimal information from the charges and from TSJ.
My belief is they are waiting for the PH because that is the first opportunity for someone else to weigh in on this; the judge finding or not finding probable cause to proceed. To me, that is far more reliable information than simply the charging document. Also, after the PH, what's the damage in at least allowing TSJ the opportunity to present something to them. His attorneys may very well advise against that or supply very minimal information which would result in the upholding the suspension.
I would feel more comfortable if the university's procedure at least gave the student the choice to decide if they wish to present anything to the panel.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read in one of the TRO documents that TSJ was able to provide a written statement to the panel, and submit other documentation if he wanted.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

It's not ironclad, but there is literally nothing for the panel to consider right now.

Think about what the actual two sides to this are.

The prosecution saying we have gathered enough evidence that we believe a crime has been committed, but are not yet sharing that evidence (nor are they required to). And Terrence Shannon simply saying he did not commit what he's been accused of.

Yes, the panel can read all the court docs that are available as we have, but they know that that is not the full evidence. So you'd be asking them to in the absence of the evidence that has gone into filing charges, make a decision that Shannon is most likely to have not committed a crime and thus will not harm the reputation of the University.

That's literally an impossible decision for them to make right now. When discovery or some other mechanism requires the evidence to be made available, then the panel could consider making a decision like that. Right now it's not something they can do.

I don't necessarily disagree (though I wish that in general our cultural attitude assumed people were innocent until there is good reason to believe they are not ... and being charged with something should NOT meet that standard by itself), I am just trying to articulate why some people might feel the panel is pointless, at least in TJ's situation. Let's say the DA makes its evidence public at some point (IANAL and honestly am not overly interested in the ins and outs of the court room, lol) and it is not compelling in the eyes of the panel members. If they STILL chose to keep him suspended simply because the charges hadn't been dropped, then how is it not pointless? Again, Whitman specifically mentioned that part of the point of the panel was to account for the fact that the legal process is extremely slow and often WAY longer than an athlete's season ... and that concern quite literally only applies to people who have been charged with a crime.

 

[Battle89]

I doubt “Make the wrong decision and we’ll get through it like Penn State did with Sandusky and Michigan State did with Nassar” would be a very persuasive argument to the powers that be.

I guess I just don't get all the shock and outrage (by others, not calling you out Super). Of course the University's response will be to protect the University. Of course people employed by the University have a responsibility to limit liability to the legal extent possible. Suspending TSJ, while I hate it, is a reasonable response - unless the judge grants the TRO and deems some aspect of that illegal.

To anyone in the corporate world, please don't expect HR to take your side in a dispute with the company. Talk about "that's not how any of this works".

 

[socalini]

Is there any chance a motion to dismiss this case has been filed and would be considered at the pretrial hearing?

Any chance a judge would dismiss such a case if they felt the evidence was not sufficient to move forward?

 

[mrh vet]

I doubt “Make the wrong decision and we’ll get through it like Penn State did with Sandusky and Michigan State did with Nassar” would be a very persuasive argument to the powers that be.

No but this is so far from a Nassar and Sandusky it is not really relevant. Both were in important positions. Jobs that brought them into regular contact with university students where the university has a vested interest in protecting those students. Instead they chose to protect two sleaze bags even when they had credible information of wrongdoing. There is a persuasive argument those institutions of higher learning should not have gotten through it without greater repercussions

 

[skyIdub]

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

Appreciate the reasoned discourse.

I infer nothing about any agenda. I think our difference is more one of distance.

Measuring what I say, worrying about inference, etc...I agree much more in a one-on-one conversation with a spouse, or a colleague, or a friend. I will have meaningful interactions with them going forward and you bet words matter. What they hear not what you say and all that.

But you are ascribing those qualities to anonymous posts on a message board, which is a higher bar than I am setting. Anyone can say anything here, we don't know what's true or false or exaggerated, on any topic. For better or worse, some here think the case is a joke given current information. As long as their views are not vulgar (open to interpretation, I know), I don't think they should censor them for fear of what some anonymous reader might infer.

TL; DR - I don't think you and I are so far apart, but we are setting a bar at different levels.

Which again goes back to my original point that is being way overcomplicated, IMHO: Saying that "the case is a joke" is rather obviously saying that the evidence we have available so far is incredibly weak and not worth changing my opinion of TSJ over. It says nothing about sexual assault as a systemic issue, and the ENTIRE exercise if inferring too much about someone else's simple statements starts there.

I think danielb's response was very reasonable, but I will not budge on this basic point - there have been multiple posters in these threads that have opined on this case specifically only to be lectured about other sexual assault victims. If you cannot see that is ridiculous, we are just speaking different languages. People need to be able to make determinations about individual things like this based on the information available to them without being scooped up into some broader cultural discourse and sorted into ideological camps.

EDIT: Saying this CASE is a joke also quite obviously only refers to TSJ being accused as the person who committed sexual assault. It says absolutely nothing about the possibility that this woman was assaulted by somebody that night (or at least genuinely thinks she was?) and therefore in no way calls her a liar or frames this as some sort of setup. I am merely stating that I have seen no good reason to think that TSJ did what was alleged ... and the mere possibility that there MIGHT be evidence more damning that has yet to be made public is hardly a good reason to preemptively be suspicious of his innocence, IMO.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

I doubt “Make the wrong decision and we’ll get through it like Penn State did with Sandusky and Michigan State did with Nassar” would be a very persuasive argument to the powers that be.

I really don't think that is the argument he is making, and I believe you are representing what he said quite unfairly. His point (IMO) is that the reputation of the university - whether it ends up being as overly cautious or reckless like Penn State/Michigan State - should perhaps be a secondary concern to what is fair and right for TSJ. It's fine to disagree with that, I suppose, but he was hardly arguing that we should in any way act like PSU and MSU did and that this would be okay because they survived as institutions.

 

[Point-Illinois]

I’d like to simply post that I thoroughly enjoyed the recent discourse between @danielb927 and @Battle89.

One of the most (among several during this whole thing, TBH) articulate and respectful dialogues I’ve seen on this forum…and maybe even the entire internet.

Bravo!

 

[Illinidude]

I guess I just don't get all the shock and outrage (by others, not calling you out Super). Of course the University's response will be to protect the University. Of course people employed by the University have a responsibility to limit liability to the legal extent possible. Suspending TSJ, while I hate it, is a reasonable response - unless the judge grants the TRO and deems some aspect of that illegal.

To anyone in the corporate world, please don't expect HR to take your side in a dispute with the company. Talk about "that's not how any of this works".

I understand what you are saying about the corporate world; however, if this situation was taking place in the corporate world, TSJ could just resign and go to work for another company. Imagine if the policy of a company could prevent you working anywhere for an entire year, destroying your career and long-term earnings potential. Clearly if TSJ had any inkling that the University would behave this way, he could have opted out of playing for Illinois this year, and entered the transfer portal, taken his shot at the NBA Draft, tried out for the G League, or played abroad. These are real options he could have pursued (don't think others won't in the future) that would have preserved his long-term earnings potential while continuing to improve his game and help support his mother and family.

 

[Illini in Indiana]

The thing you learn when you deal with a University is that their first and primary goal is to "Protect the Academy", it has little to do with what is just, right, or in the best interest of the individual. As the process unfolds, they adjust accordingly with the proper coverages of the posterior for the ultimate stakeholders. The question is how many individuals will be thrown under the bus as new information comes to light. Eventually, it stops, and the carnage is accessed and it is back to business as usual. MSU survived Nasser, and PSU survived Sandusky. The primary goal for these university administrators is to not get "fit for the jacket"(an old-school Chicago political reference) and get fired

I agree, it is all about protect the University of Illinois. I also 100% agree with that stance. Seasons come and go, the program is too valuable to be on the wrong side. I personally love TSJ from what I've seen on and off the court prior to this charge, and still want him to be found innocent and it be broadcast in the press like his charges were.

But I wonder if the court rules in favor of TSJ, will the U of I team rules kick in and keep him off the court? I don't know this all suck

BTW, we should not even be mentioned on the same page as Mich St or Penn St.

 

[TheGMan]

I don't necessarily disagree (though I wish that in general our cultural attitude assumed people were innocent until there is good reason to believe they are not ... and being charged with something should NOT meet that standard by itself), I am just trying to articulate why some people might feel the panel is pointless, at least in TJ's situation. Let's say the DA makes its evidence public at some point (IANAL and honestly am not overly interested in the ins and outs of the court room, lol) and it is not compelling in the eyes of the panel members. If they STILL chose to keep him suspended simply because the charges hadn't been dropped, then how is it not pointless? Again, Whitman specifically mentioned that part of the point of the panel was to account for the fact that the legal process is extremely slow and often WAY longer than an athlete's season ... and that concern quite literally only applies to people who have been charged with a crime.

But that hasn't happened yet, which is what I think OP was getting at.

Quickness is relative in the legal field. So a different process may be "quicker" than the legal process, but that doesn't mean it is "quick," which in a lot of ways is unfortunate, but it is what it is.

 

[Battle89]

I understand what you are saying about the corporate world; however, if this situation was taking place in the corporate world, TSJ could just resign and go to work for another company. Imagine if the policy of a company could prevent you working anywhere for an entire year, destroying your career and long-term earnings potential. Clearly if TSJ had any inkling that the University would behave this way, he could have opted out of playing for Illinois this year, and entered the transfer portal, taken his shot at the NBA Draft, tried out for the G League, or played abroad. These are real options he could have pursued (don't think others won't in the future) that would have preserved his long-term earnings potential while continuing to improve his game and help support his mother and family.

I disagree. Having a open rape charge hanging over your head would 100% preclude TSJ from employment anywhere in a corporate setting. His image has been ruined and the most basic of background checks would find this.

And any of the entities you mention (another school, a G League team, or an NBA team) would also have suspended him once charges were filed. Perhaps a foreign team would not, depends on the laws and the culture where he was playing I suppose.

But all in all I do not find much unique, for good or for bad, about UI's actions.

 

[SuperintendentChalmers]

No but this is so far from a Nassar and Sandusky it is not really relevant. Both were in important positions. Jobs that brought them into regular contact with university students where the university has a vested interest in protecting those students. Instead they chose to protect two sleaze bags even when they had credible information of wrongdoing. There is a persuasive argument those institutions of higher learning should not have gotten through it without greater repercussions

In a roundabout way, I think you nailed it. The Nassar and Sandusky scandals devastated their respective universities and leaped off of the sports pages because university officials, through willful blindness or otherwise, contributed to the horrifying acts that occurred. If Illinois steps in to lift the suspension despite the pending rape charge, then the school owns it if the facts turn out badly. We’d be in Sandusky/Nassar territory, and it would become the first thing people, including non-sports fans, associate with the school for years to come. Given what we know, there might only be a slight chance of that, but the fact that the potential downside is so huge surely weighs on the decision-making process.

 

[WhiteHorseWings]

I’d like to simply post that I thoroughly enjoyed the recent discourse between @danielb927 and @Battle89.

One of the most (among several during this whole thing, TBH) articulate and respectful dialogues I’ve seen on this forum…and maybe even the entire internet.

Bravo!

Agree. Almost like the world went back to 2015. The Before Time