Not USC news, but this is an issue that really bothered me and I wanted to see what other's thought.

Three football players were accused of raping a girl at Villanova, and were subsequently kicked off the team, and expelled from the school (they were incoming freshmen who's admission was rescinded).

Under most circumstances, I completely and totally behind this decision.  However, that is based upon the alleged act actually occurring.  If those three guys are guilty, I have absolutely no hesitation to throw them in jail.

However, the alleged victim is not pursuing charges.

The way I read this, is that a girl made an accusation which may, or may not be true (I do not know the details, so I'll withhold judgment).  Regardless of whether it is, or not, the three men are expelled.

By not pressing charges, and taking the case to trial, the men are put in the position of having to prove their innocense.

Frankly, that's bullshit.  What happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty.  As much it we are enjoying watching BN squirm over the Eric Scott issue, I think we all know and understand that all that exists now are accusations.  Being put on paid leave is fine.  Additionally, his punishment will come not necessarily from this event, but from his prior 4 arrests, and his refusal to disclose them to UCLA.  His issues are not merely his most recent transgressions, but his entire history.

This case, on the other hand, has no such middle ground, or (to the best of my knowledge) prior history or lack of disclosure.  She said they raped her.  The university expelled them.  She chooses not to press charges.  Case closed.

Is Villanova justified in thier actions?  I guess so.  They have the option of admitting or refusing to admit any students based upon their subjective standards as they see fit.

Do I agree with their actions?  Not by a longshot.  This sets a very dangerous precedent.  We often hear the phrase, "tried by the media."  In this case, that is all that will happen, unless the players file suit against the alleged victim and university.

Either way, damage has already been done, as their reputations are irreperably repaired, and even if it does go to trial, it will be damn near impossible to find an impartial jury.  So if they did it, I hope they get what's coming to them, and they didn't I hope they prove their innocense.  The thought that they must do that makes me shiver.

Thoughts?