The details coming out from the independent review of the Baylor football program are beginning to shed light on a number of concerns floating around the football program, which ultimately led to the decision to remove Art Briles as the head coach of the Bears. Among the damning allegations made by an external review from Pepper Hamilton is the information showing members of the Baylor coaching staff choosing not to report incidents of sexual violence involving football players, meeting directly with those filing complaints of sexual abuse and handled their own investigations outside of university policy to discredit the complainants and denied them the right to a fair investigation by the university.
These two paragraphs from the report put it all together in what is clearly not a good look for the Baylor program;
Baylor failed to take appropriate action to respond to reports of sexual assault and dating violence reportedly committed by football players. The choices made by football staff and athletics leadership, in some instances, posed a risk to campus safety and the integrity of the University. In certain instances, including reports of a sexual assault by multiple football players, athletics and football personnel affirmatively chose not to report sexual violence and dating violence to an appropriate administrator outside of athletics. In those instances, football coaches or staff met directly with a complainant and/or a parent of a complainant and did not report the misconduct. As a result, no action was taken to support complainants, fairly and impartially evaluate the conduct under Title IX, address identified cultural concerns within the football program, or protect campus safety once aware of a potential pattern of sexual violence by multiple football players.
In addition, some football coaches and staff took improper steps in response to disclosures of sexual assault or dating violence that precluded the University from fulfilling its legal obligations. Football staff conducted their own untrained internal inquiries, outside of policy, which improperly discredited complainants and denied them the right to a fair, impartial and informed investigation, interim measures or processes promised under University policy. In some cases, internal steps gave the illusion of responsiveness to complainants but failed to provide a meaningful institutional response under Title IX. Further, because reports were not shared outside of athletics, the University missed critical opportunities to impose appropriate disciplinary action that would have removed offenders from campus and possibly precluded future acts of sexual violence against Baylor students. In some instances, the football program dismissed players for unspecified team violations and assisted them in transferring to other schools. As a result, some football coaches and staff abdicated responsibilities under Title IX and Clery; to student welfare; to the health and safety of complainants; and to Baylor’s institutional values.
The report goes on to say the Baylor football staff took it upon themselves to handle discipline internally rather than let the university take control.
“Football coaches and staff took affirmative steps to maintain internal control over discipline of players and to actively divert cases from the student conduct or criminal processes,” the report says.
The internal discipline process of the Baylor football program is not unique to Baylor, as many programs have their own internal disciplinary system within a football program, but a lengthy list of recommendations made to the university include educating coaches and staff members with reporting Title IX violations and more according to university policy, which itself will surely be revamped as a result of this report. It was also recommended the university and athletics department establish a clear disciplinary consequences for personnel who fail to follow reporting and documentation protocols.
