First off, it's clear OSU has an incredibly bad PR problem that could result in Meyer being fired for condoning and ignoring repeated instances of DV. Regardless, pretty hard thing to stomach if your affiliated with the University, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of a legal violation.
The question is whether Courtney Smith was a University employee. I've read conflicting things which could just be bad writing and conflating her being Urban's assistant with her being Urban's assistant's wife.
Nonetheless, if she didn't work at the University, and I'll defer to other attorneys who are better versed, I fail to see how this is a Title IX issue. Applying Title IX to this case for Meyer's knowledge of his assistant's domestic violence against his assistant's wife when she's not affiliated with the University other than being a spouse, would be a significant expansion of that law that would run counter to intent of the law. I could also see many judges refusing to do so because it would drastically expand liability if actual and potentially constructive knowledge could be proven.
It appears here that you only have evidence (strong evidence) of constructive knowledge based on the texts to Urban's wife and reported discussions of the incident with Urban. However and important for the legal side of this, those discussions arguably wouldn't be actual knowledge significant enough to trigger vicarious liability under even an expansive reading of Title IX. Urban was told but "technically" wouldn't have been provided evidence of DV, and at any rate, would have had to draw a legal conclusion to even classify the wife's account of the DV as, in fact, DV. He's not a lawyer, etc. yad-di-yah-yah.
But the question actually gets important for when a coach in his situation would have a duty to act? Clearly, he should have here, but if merely being given one side of a story faced with a denial could trigger a duty to act under Title IX, that would drastically change employment across the country for a lot of people, football programs notwithstanding.
The reason I'm making a big deal about actual vs. constructive knowledge is that typically you need a "duty" to act when you have constructive knowledge of something; a duty to investigate, inspect, protect, etc. It's hard to say Urban had a duty to Smith's wife here in the legal sense.
In the moral sense, he's a scumbag, no doubt. How are you gonna have your wife texting one of your assistants (who you're a mentor to) knowing all about your assistant beating on her and not fire the guy just because he recruits well and coaches well? That's a lot.
At any rate, I think the Title IX stuff (absent her working at the University or contracting with the University in a significant capacity) is reflexive just because of the nature of conduct and won't stick. If she worked at OSU, that's a different analysis. Still OSU HAS to do something about blatant condoning of this type of behavior. Unacceptable.
The question is whether Courtney Smith was a University employee. I've read conflicting things which could just be bad writing and conflating her being Urban's assistant with her being Urban's assistant's wife.
Nonetheless, if she didn't work at the University, and I'll defer to other attorneys who are better versed, I fail to see how this is a Title IX issue. Applying Title IX to this case for Meyer's knowledge of his assistant's domestic violence against his assistant's wife when she's not affiliated with the University other than being a spouse, would be a significant expansion of that law that would run counter to intent of the law. I could also see many judges refusing to do so because it would drastically expand liability if actual and potentially constructive knowledge could be proven.
It appears here that you only have evidence (strong evidence) of constructive knowledge based on the texts to Urban's wife and reported discussions of the incident with Urban. However and important for the legal side of this, those discussions arguably wouldn't be actual knowledge significant enough to trigger vicarious liability under even an expansive reading of Title IX. Urban was told but "technically" wouldn't have been provided evidence of DV, and at any rate, would have had to draw a legal conclusion to even classify the wife's account of the DV as, in fact, DV. He's not a lawyer, etc. yad-di-yah-yah.
But the question actually gets important for when a coach in his situation would have a duty to act? Clearly, he should have here, but if merely being given one side of a story faced with a denial could trigger a duty to act under Title IX, that would drastically change employment across the country for a lot of people, football programs notwithstanding.
The reason I'm making a big deal about actual vs. constructive knowledge is that typically you need a "duty" to act when you have constructive knowledge of something; a duty to investigate, inspect, protect, etc. It's hard to say Urban had a duty to Smith's wife here in the legal sense.
In the moral sense, he's a scumbag, no doubt. How are you gonna have your wife texting one of your assistants (who you're a mentor to) knowing all about your assistant beating on her and not fire the guy just because he recruits well and coaches well? That's a lot.
At any rate, I think the Title IX stuff (absent her working at the University or contracting with the University in a significant capacity) is reflexive just because of the nature of conduct and won't stick. If she worked at OSU, that's a different analysis. Still OSU HAS to do something about blatant condoning of this type of behavior. Unacceptable.
