My question was a serious one , based on privacy issues.
The university has a system in which it investigates allegations of violations of student conduct. No one has a 'right" to attend OSU, it's a privilege, but one that comes with a contract between both the university and the students. As part of that contract, the university can decide after a process that you are no longer eligible to attend OSU due to their determination that you have violated the contract based on what limited investigation they can do and dismiss you. They appear to be obligated to keep the facts behind that dismissal private. I would assume( and who knows if I am right) that that privacy is enforced because they DO NOT have all the facts, cannot investigate allegations to the extent that law enforcement can and are not bound by miranda rights, legal due process, etc. What they find that violates the terms of the contract, may be far less than a criminal finding of wrongdoing under our statutory laws. Our legal system was established to provide protections to the innocent.
So this is kept private, Snead leaves, goes to another school and then the Lantern, in what appears to be a separate lawsuit for FOIA, comes across a redacted version of this report and asks a court to unredact it. Court obliges and this info is now published to public media outlets including this one.
I"m not in any way defending Snead. What I am defending is that he now has this allegation published publicly, the only finding is that the university system decided there was probable cause based on ???info that Snead perpetrated unwanted sexual intercourse on a female student and dismissed him.
The circumstances and the evidence of this activity is unknown. His dismissal is based on opinion of a group of university disciplinary committee members who only had what little evidence was presented, and a victim who had refused to report said event even to them. While the original reporter of this potential violation may have had credible evidence, we don't even know who that person is, or what they were aware of. The university most likely found they had more evidence than not that Snead had violated student conduct which is why they dismissed him, but they certainly didn't have more than statements and recall from any witnesses.
This gets to the heart of the argument over prosecutors releasing opinions of guilt in statements even though there are no charges being filed and therefore, no ability of the accused to defend themselves with evidence legally. But human nature being what it is, the accused is assumed to be guilty. And now he'll have to carry that with him no matter where he goes. Possibly he deserves it, but in truth, I don't have an opinion since I don't have any actual facts.
I just do not understand why this info was made public and was asking for clarification.