A spectacular—and sad—failure of SASH leadership

Preface- I don’t have an opinion about the guilt or innocence of the accused midshipman in the incident I am writing about. This column is about the undeniably poor judgement of the Superintendent in adjudicating the incident. 

Should a U.S. Merchant Marine Academy midshipman who the Academy Superintendent personally found guilty of committing a serious sexual assault be permitted to (a) return to the Academy, where he might prey on someone else; (b) ultimately graduate from the Academy and obtain a US Coast Guard license, which might enable to him to prey on a shipmate; and (c) receive a commission in the US Navy?

Superintendent James A. Helis has preached that there is “zero tolerance” for sexual assault/sexual harassment (“SASH”) at the Academy and has repeatedly stated that even a single sexual assault is one too many. And, with Helis already under the microscope for, amongst other leadership failures, poor performance on SASH issues during his tenure as superintendent, I would have thought that the answer to the above question would be a resounding, “No.”

Inexplicably, it turns out that Helis thinks the answer is a resounding, “Yes.”

Last month, Helis found a midshipman guilty of sexual assault. It was a case of alleged date rape. According to my sources, prior to the alleged rape, at least two people, including another midshipmen, told the accused midshipman that the woman was too drunk to have sex and received his assurances that he was not going to try to have sex with her. Despite giving those assurances, the accused midshipman had sex with the woman; but, when accused of sexual assault by the woman, the midshipman said that the woman consented, that the woman was the aggressor, and that she was not too drunk to consent.

After presiding over a hearing at the Academy, with testimony from eleven people, Helis concluded that the midshipman was guilty.

And then Helis did the inexplicable.  Instead of expelling the midshipman—someone Helis determined had committed date rape and thus was guilty of sexual assault—Helis simply delayed the midshipman’s graduation with a one year set-back.  The individual Helis found guilty of sexual assault was essentially invited by Helis to return to the Academy next year to complete his studies and graduate.

To judge from the reaction I have been receiving privately, the Regiment is outraged and understandably confused. There are two overwhelming sentiments I keep hearing from the midshipmen: (1) “How could Helis let someone that he determined committed date rape back on campus?” and (2) “We have tried so hard to take ownership of the SASH issue and now the Superintendent does this?” With this one single action, Helis has completely undermined all of the hard work that has been done at the Academy, particularly the work by the midshipmen, to make solving SASH their issue.

It is important to note that the midshipman in question maintains that he is innocent and is challenging Helis’ decision in court. I read the court documents submitted by the accused and Helis, but I did not hear all of the evidence so I would not venture to opine one way or another on the question of guilt or innocence. But, that’s not the point. Helis heard the evidence and—rightly or wrongly—he concluded that the midshipman committed date rape. Once Helis reached that conclusion, it is unfathomable that he would allow the midshipman to return to campus.

Helis has been talking about SASH from almost his first day as Superintendent.  But, under his watch, three successive Inspector General reports have come out over the last four years (2014, 2016 and 2018) criticizing this superintendent for the same thing each time:  Failing to implement critical initiatives/milestones for dealing with SASH.  As another example, Under Helis’ watch, critical positions such as the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator position have gone unfilled for more than a year.

When Helis puts on his uniform and testifies before Congress, he talks a good talk, such as he did in Senate testimony on March 8, 2016, calling sexual assault and harassment unacceptable behaviors and claiming he will take “appropriate action in each reported case.”  That is clearly NOT what happened in this case.

Apparently what comes from Helis’ mouth when he testifies to Congress, just like his invocation of “zero tolerance” and “one sexual assault is one too many,”  is just words that he spouts for public consumption. Helis talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. The Academy’s motto is “acta non verba” (“deeds, not words”). Helis’ motto is the opposite: Verba non acta.

The midshipmen and the Academy need a leader who lives Kings Point’s motto.


  1. Will The midshipman who is accused of date rape be charged with rape in a criminal court of law and have the case handed over to the authorities to deal with properly instead of just having the case handled at a school level.

  2. What about the other elephant in the room that the administration is not commenting on? The USMMA soccer team seniors were accused of SASH and their graduation was held up by many months. The team forfeited the 2017 season. The only thing official is that the Soccer team is reinstated and I have personnally heard that the seniors graduated. Where is the official announcement and the official apology for being so wrong? John Acomb 73 pissed soccer alumini

    • John, I’ve been gathering information for a post on the soccer seven for some time. The seniors all graduated. There were seven e-boards and not a single sexual assault finding in any of them. Some, possibly all, were found guilty of “passive hazing” which, as far as I can determine, is not even a legitimate charge.

  3. He is changing the motto to “Be KP”. Acta non Verba has worked for 75 years but apparently he thinks it needs changing.

    • They use nouns like “cow ” to define things at West Point. Thousands of graduates will personally keelhaul Hellis if he even hints at changing the motto. Does he understand the motto. We should put him on a merchant vessel in winter crewed mostly by KP grads heading to Northern Europe and let him see the motto in action…..no he would rather have folks think of grads fromThe USMMA as kitchen police.

  4. There was great hope that the Maritime Administrator would put us all out of our misery and send Helis on his merry way but unfortunately that hasn’t happened. Our Maritme Administrator has become more of a politician than someone who takes action.

    • Unfortunately, it is not that simple. It is extraordinarily difficult to get rid of a federal employee, even at the SES level such as the superintendent position. To begin with, an incoming political appointee is prohibited from taking any action against career employees for a period of time (I think it is 90 days). Even then, a career employee cannot simply be fired. He has to be given a review, measurable objectives have to be set, and he has to be given a period of time (usually a year, but I think it can be shorter) to meet those objectives. I believe there also has to be a mid-period review to let him know how his management views his progress toward meeting the objectives. The one good bit of news is that if he doesn’t meet the objectives, management does not need to give him a performance improvement plan to give him one last chance if he fails to meet his objectives.

        • Rear Admiral Greene had to agree to a transfer, which he did. As I understand it (based upon statements Helis has reportedly made to staff), he will not agree to a transfer.

  5. Andy.
    1. I take it that the victiom was NOT another Mid and that the incident did not take place on Academy grounds. If that is the case, then did the Academy rather than the local authorities have jurisdiction here.

    2. Can you post a link to the accused mid’s law suit and the Academy’s respoonse.

    3. I do not disagree with your basic point, just trying to understand more fully.

    • Alex, you are correct that the victim was not another mid and that the incident did not take place on Academy grounds. The rules governing midshipman behavior would allow the Academy to exercise jurisdiction. (Think of “conduct unbecoming” violations. If a midshipman does something off Academy grounds that is unbecoming of a midshipman, I think most would agree that the Academy could give the midshipman demerits for conduct unbecoming. If the conduct is serious enough, i.e., sexual assault, the Academy’s regulations that prohibit sexual assault by a midshipman in any location would likewise apply.)

      The lawsuit is behind the court’s PACER paywall. I will try to post the documents to my Important Documents page later, but haven’t had time so far. The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the civil number is 2:18-cv-1870. The judge is Joseph F. Bianco. The court directed that the Academy file the transcript of the hearing and the entire administrative record no later than Thursday, April 12, 2018 and indicated that it would rule on the motion for preliminary injunction on or before April 19, 2018. The docket sheet on PACER does not indicate that the government complied with the April 12 deadline; however, due to the sensitive nature of the proceeding, it is possible that it was delivered to the judge’s chambers rather than filing it publicly.

  6. If this convicted rapist is allowed back on campus, doesn’t that put the victim and the rest of the mids in danger?!? That was the whole point of the standdown, per Helis. How can he continue to be allowed to be in the position of superintendent? Despicable!

    • I would just emphasize that the accused midshipman maintains that he is innocent. My next post is going to be about the procedure that was followed to “convict” him and explain how that procedure is likely to be found unconstitutional. At that point, the Academy will have to allow him back on campus as there will be no valid finding of guilt. The district court entered a temporary restraining order allowing the midshipman to remain on campus until it rules on the constitutionality of the proceedings. The fact that it granted a TRO indicates that the judge believes that the midshipman has a “substantial likelihood” of success on the merits of his challenge to the constitutionality of the proceedings.

      Thus, a foreseeable result is that a person who is possibly guilty will be allowed back on campus. And, the reason that possibility exists is that Helis is responsible for adopting the procedures that I believe are likely to be found to be unconstitutional.

  7. Mr. Simpson,

    Speaking as a midshipman who was negatively impacted by the sea year stand down I applaud much of your work that you have done here, however, I do have an issue with this post. The facts of this case are for the most part non-existent to the general public (for a variety of reasons). While I will agree the few facts you posted are accurate to the best of my knowledge I caution any individual reading this to not pass judgement either way due to the momentous consequences for all involved, and I question whether it is appropriate to speak of it in such a public forum. As far as how the school and specifically The Supe handled the case, I will say in my own opinion it is a frustrating failure. If a midshipman is guilty of SASH I do not want them at my institution – and I hope any midshipman will agree. However if the accused is found innocent the repercussions should be appropriate to whatever other offenses were committed. The middle ground of set-back is frustrating for all involved whether they see the accused innocence or guilt. This situation more so highlights the failures of communication that exist across every facet of academy life. Another example of where we as midshipmen are left in the dark during times where precedent and future expectations are being set.

    • Mid: Thank you for your input. I agree that no one should pass judgment on the merits of the SASH claim due to the lack of an ability to review all of the facts. I stated as much (or at least that I wouldn’t pass judgment) twice in the post and this is the second time I have raised that caution in the comments.

      I can tell you that a portion of the facts are publicly available (behind the Court’s PACER paywall) and that it is my understanding that both the Long Island Daily News and the Washington Post are working on stories on this but are awaiting the Court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction motion (due on or before April 19). I think it is important to start getting actual analysis out before the sensational stories in the media start appearing. I fear that they will focus on the allegations (which sell newspapers) rather than what I consider to be the true scandal here, as discussed in my post.

      It is encouraging to me to see responses such as yours (and many private emails I have received) where it is clear that midshipmen have really tried to take ownership of the SASH issue — As Maritime Administrator Buzby urged you to do in his first address to the Regiment after becoming the Administrator. That’s the only way SASH is ever going to be ended at the Academy. And that is one of the main reasons I share the outrage of the Regiment about Helis finding a midshipman guilty of date rape and tolerating it by only setting him back.

  8. This appears to be a continuing saga of the disastrous leadership, or lack thereof, by the Superintendent. The actions of Helis in this case are illogical on the surface and mostly likely worse if all the facts are known. Long past the time for him to be replaced.

  9. A note about some of the comments I am receiving. I have received comments from people detailing “facts” that they know about the incident. They have come from supporters of the accused midshipman and from supporters of the alleged victim. As the moderator of this blog, I am not going to post any comment that gets into the facts. The only facts that I mentioned in the post were ones that I considered to be uncontested based upon my review of the court documents. Ultimately, there are only two people who know what happened the night of the incident, after the two left a social event attended by several others. Only someone who has heard all of the evidence, after a fair and impartial hearing, and had a chance to judge the credibility of the people testifying could fairly reach a conclusion as to guilt or innocence. I certainly cannot reach such a conclusion and have been careful not to. The point of the post is to focus on the punishment that Helis imposed after concluding that the accused was guilty. If Helis believed that the midshipman was guilty of date rape, then he had no business imposing a punishment less than expulsion.

    My next post, hopefully tonight, will explain why I believe that the procedure established by Helis does not, and did not, allow a fair and impartial hearing. Again, I’m not going to be delving into whether the evidence was sufficient or not because (a) I don’t have the evidence; and, (b) the hearing was not fair and impartial. I’m not even convinced that the accused had an opportunity to fairly present all evidence. Thus, the record created may not be sufficient to allow anyone to reach a fair conclusion about what happened that night. It may be that had the accused been given a fair and impartial hearing, a reasonable judge would have found the charges not proven. And, it may be that the evidence would have been such that a reasonable judge would have found the charges proven. But, we do know that the accused had constitutional rights and that it was incumbent upon the Academy to protect those rights. After you read my post tonight, you can reach your own conclusions whether his constitutional rights were protected.

    All of my posts on this topic, like my posts on the “soccer seven,” will be limited to examining how Helis has responded to SASH issues at the Academy. Other than the accused and the alleged victim, that’s where I suggest everyone should be focused. We can have an opinion about whether Helis is handling these types of cases appropriately without knowing the facts relating to the actual incident.

  10. As a parent I am deeply disturbed and disgusted. This isn’t so cut and dry and about taking sides; a he said she said nonsense. As we can surmise, this case was investigated by a KP investigator first who after interviewing witness after witness found the case worthy of an administrative hearing and found the accused deceptive. The fact that Helis found the accused guilty should speak for itself. Understandably the punishment does not fit the crime and that is a disgrace.

    • (I changed your name to “Anon” in case you did not intend for it to appear in your comment.)

      From what I have read (including an affidavit from Helis), he did not find the accused “deceptive.” He did find the accused guilty of sexual assault, but that does not mean deception. As far as I know, there is no allegation that the accused did not testify truthfully. For example, the accused admitted that he had sex with the alleged victim and admitted that he had been told before they left the social event that he had been told by another midshipman that the woman was too drunk and not to have sex with her. So he was certainly forthcoming about those allegations. As far as I can tell, it seems that the major issue is the capacity of the woman to consent at the time of the sexual act. I don’t have any information that allows me to comment on that capacity; but, let me give you one hypothetical. And I emphasize that this is entirely a hypothetical. Suppose twelve hours had passed between the time they left the event and the time of the sexual act with no alcohol consumed in the interim. At some point, the woman could have sobered up enough to consent even if she wasn’t sober enough to consent at the time they left the event. There could be a factual dispute as to the woman’s capacity to consent without either party being “deceptive.”

      Again, that is strictly a hypothetical, but I am posing it to show that people are making assumptions based upon things that they don’t know and cannot know. In the infamous words of Donald Rumsfeld:

      as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

      As to the fact that there was an investigation and a hearing, that doesn’t really address the issue, either. The Star Chamber was a form of investigation with a hearing, too. The hearing needed to be fair and impartial with the rights of accused protected. If that happened, you would be right; but, I don’t think the procedures met the requirements of constitutional due process. The government does not get to run roughshod over someone’s rights and then say, “Ignore the fact that we violated the accused’s right because there was an investigation and a hearing.”

      • The hearing was adjourned three times before it was finally held and USMAA was very careful not to infringe upon his rights. You may only be forming your opinion on the Federal Court Documents. You need to hear both sides. I don’t think Helis would haphazardly find someone guilty who is not. The only real issue here is the fact that the punishment did NOT fit the crime.

        • Actually, the first thing I read in the court documents was Helis’ affidavit. I had no idea at the time what was being alleged. As I read it, I kept shaking my head thinking, “What is he thinking of? This is blatantly unconstitutional.” I then turned to the accused’s lawyers’ submission and saw that they had reached similar conclusions. So, you may believe that USMMA was “very careful not to infringe upon his rights” but I can tell you as an attorney who has dealt with due process issues and the right to a fair hearing in representing clients in the past that the Academy procedures are woefully insufficient. And, apparently the judge hearing the case has similar concerns. It takes a lot to get a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order against the federal government. He could not have done so without first finding that the accused midshipman had a “substantial likelihood” of succeeding on the merits. And he did not do so until after he first heard from both sides — both on the papers submitted and in a telephonic hearing.

          • I’d like to know in what why you feel it was unconstitutional. The Academy conducted an investigation, held a hearing, and then an appeal. Allowed the accused to adjourn the hearing 3 times. He was given due process and from what my research reveals, the Academy followed their procedures to the letter. Just because the outcome makes the Academy look horrible and the outcome was unfavorable to the accused, does not mean the accused was not afforded due process. And let’s not forget, these matters on a school level are not held to a criminal court level; the burden of proof, as I am sure you know, is not the same. Rather the Academy was following preponderance of evidence as they should. And lastly, the one truly scarred and effected by this crime is the victim, who bravely stood up and would not be silenced. We need to protect all of our girls, here and now.

          • I’ll have my post up later tonight as to why I think it was unconstitutional. Suffice it to say for now that the process that Helis adopted in 2014 is unconstitutional. Following that process does no good because it is unconstitutional.

            As far as the rights of the victim, I am in full accord. I’ve preached before that giving due process to the accused is an important part of protecting the victim. Here’s what I said ten months ago (at this link):

            Few people realize that providing due process to the accused is an important safeguard for the victim: Imagine the additional trauma inflicted upon a sexual assault victim who is brave enough to come forward to confront his/her attacker – only to have the case dismissed on a technicality because the Academy failed to follow procedures that protect the accused.

            That’s another reason why it’s so important to have good procedures in place. Everyone loses when the procedures are unconstitutional. And that doesn’t even begin to address the harm done to the effort to address SASH issues at the Academy generally.

    • IF the mid was told (as he admits) that the woman was too drunk to consent, he should have observed decorum worthy of an officer worthy and not have slept with her, even after she somewhat sobered up. I have no problem with the Academy taking appropriate administrative action as to that aspect of it–namely that having sex with her in her acknowledged compromised state may be conduct unbecoming of a mid EVEN IF SHE HAD SOBERED UP SOMEWHAT.” The finding of conduct unbecoming, without a finding of “assault” may even be worthy of discipline (perhaps even disenrollment or suspension) and certainly something the academy has the right and obligation to address, so long as such penalty possibilities are well known ahead of time. That’s not my issue.
      My problem is that they basically found someone guilty of sexual assault, a “crime”, not an administrative “rule” to which only certain people are subject. Once you start making the equivalent of criminal liability determinations, a very strict set of rules, rights and responsibilities should be applied to administrative hearings.
      For instance, if your company has a policy against sexual fraternization between employees, that is a rule, not a crime, and as such may form the basis for justifying a more informal disciplinary proceeding. The company may have a right to discipline you accordingly pursuant to its own guidelines for employee behavior.
      Once, however, the allegation involves a potential crime, the procedural rules have to be a little more coherent and more protective of the rights of the accused.

  11. Here is a comment/ what entitles Major Helis to remain the head of a federal service academy longer then those who have lead West Point Annapolis, Air Force and Coast Guard ?

    Those Superintedents who did a far better job leading those fine institutions needed their tenure sooner then Mr. Helis has been able to stay at Kings Point.

    Something is wrong and how can all the officials who appoints mids to the Academy just let this continue to happen ?

  12. You are correct as to the “logic’ of Helis’ decision on punishment as related to the charge of “date rape:. If it happened, it’s rape and the mid should be removed.

    My problem is that I have always questioned if this type of serious charge should ever be determined in any way, shape or form at an administrative hearing in the first place. So many questions are in play with so few answers. The finding by Helis, regardless of his imposed punishment, may very well be career suicide for the mid in question (and it should be if he or she is in fact guilty), but let’s not forget about the Duke Lacrosse team when thinking about this type of situation.

    On a personal level, I just think these things should be handled by local law enforcement and not by the Academy.(other than perhaps suspending the mid subject to the conclusion of the criminal investigation in order to assure the safety of the other students). If, however, the Academy insists on handling in house a charge of this nature, we should ask the following questions:
    1. Was the mid informed of the charges against him in advance of the hearing?
    2. Was he given the opportunity to retain an attorney or was one provided for him?
    3. Was he permitted to confront his accuser and cross examine her?
    4. Was he permitted to cross examine witnesses against him and to present his own witnesses?
    I know this sounds a little like a full blown criminal trial, but when you are talking about someone’s career, administrative hearings can be the equivalent of kangaroo courts and certain protections and solid procedures should be in place. Perhaps non criminal type violations can be handled in a more informal manner (cheating on a test, drinking, insubordination, curfews violations , academics etc.) but when someone’s very livelihood and potentially their own freedom is at issue, the handling of the matter must be beyond reproach.
    As much as I’ve had my disagreements with Helis, I don’t think the procedural problem is on him. That’s just the lax manner in which many administrative hearings are conducted in all walks of life.

    So, in a nutshell, if you insist on not waiting for the results of a true criminal investigation conducted by professional law enforcement, at least have a well defined hearing program with strict rules and guidelines in cases where you are potentially destroying someone’s career and reputation in an almost irreversible manner.

    • Yes to numbers 1 through 4. Our criminal courts are flooded with sexual assault/rape cases and often times unless it’s a slam dunk the DAs do NOT want to prosecute. This obviously doesn’t mean the accused is innocent. Please read Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town by John Krakauer and watch “The Hunting Grounds” a CNN Documentary and you will see what the system does to victims. You will see all this in a new light and see what an epidemic this is. Unless our criminal justice system starts prosecuting more of these cases and our colleges start coming down hard on the students found guilty, this problem will remain a dirty secret.

      • And then read The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities.

        This book uses hard facts to set the record straight. It explores, among other things, about two dozen of the many cases since 2010 in which innocent or probably innocent students have been branded as sex criminals and expelled or otherwise punished by their colleges. And it shows why all students—and, eventually, society as a whole—are harmed when our nation’s universities abandon pursuit of truth and seek instead to accommodate the passions of the mob.

      • I spent many years as a crime victim advocate when I was younger. Very few people can honestly say that crime victim advocacy was a major part of their career path. Trust me.. it’s a mission of love because there is no money in it. So here’s what my years of experience in the area come down to:
        1. If you rape someone, you should go to jail because you are ruining the rape victim’s life.
        2. If you falsely accuse someone of rape, you should go to jail because you are ruining someone’s life and destroying faith in the system that is supposed to protect the rape victim referred to in 1 above.

        For the system to work, society in general has to be confident that both the accuser and the accused will be treated fairly. As such, administrative hearings in the area of SASH have to be conducted with the utmost integrity. Lives are at stake. The victims of sexual assaults are often left with a life of mental and emotional distress, but so are those who are falsely accused.

  13. Unfortunately, set back seems to be the default for many infractions. Set-backs have been used as a punishment for cheating, stuffing a rack, lending an id badge to another midshipman, not meeting physical fitness standards and date rape. These offenses are not equal, why met out the same punishment regardless? Also, where is the learning opportunity for the midshipmen? For many of the setbacks in the last year, honor remediation and being assigned to “teach by example” at the next indoc rotation would certainly help build strong leaders of our graduates and show an effort to have a fair discipline system in place. Setting back for everything serves little purpose, does not improve the reigment, and is simply lazy. It seems that setbacks should be reaerved for physical injuries, academic issues, and rare disciplinary issues. Either a midshipman is morally fit to be there or not. If the issue is egregious, SASH, imminent potential harm to others, criminal, or moral unfitness to serve, then disenroll. Otherwise a disciplinary sentence should teach a lesson to both the guilty and the regiment that teaches leadership, growth, and remediation. Oh, and of course only after a fair and transparent investigation and hearing that is constituionally sound. Sadly, that is lacking at USMMA and it seems as if graduating hinges not on your skills and effort, but also on luck on avoiding false charges, getting caught by the wrong person, and, mist critically, whether the superintendent decides to let the honor board doe its job or hold a second hearing and met out his brand of punishment despite recommendations to the contrary. There have been so many missed opportunities to teach and strengthen the regiment the last two years.

    • I too am concerned at the recent rash of incidents that are resulting in draconian punishments; what should be handled by marching tours are now resulting in setbacks. What a waste of government funds, waste, fraud, and abuse anyone?

  14. Andy

    I come back to this blog periodically and have been impressed by the significant improvements with transparency and openness with MARAD.

    I started to read this posting and I must say I was shocked. As you know I am not a parent nor Alumnus. I am a supporter of Kings Point and the see it as a vital national resource for qualified mariners.

    My shock is really based in the lack of EQ ( emotional Intelligence) displayed by the superintendent. Of all the issues that could be a lightening rod for controversy this would be the worst. Most other Universities have learned its better to get the professionals involved to protect everyone’s rights.

    Having a administrative procedure lead to a finding of guilt, and then to not act accordingly is reprehensible. It’s like a Master finding a crew member guilty but letting them finish up a few more runs because it hard to get him off the ship.

    What has happened to his moral compass? What has happened to common sense?

    Its really shameful that USMMA will take another shot due to poor decisions, possible poor behavior by a Mid, and plain poor leadership.

    Sadly you see this all too often in US Universities. It always saddens me, but to see it play out at KP, a campus dedicated to Honor and self sacrifice makes me ill.

    Hope all is well and the Caribbean is getting back to normal from Hurricanes.



  15. Andy, I really appreciate your efforts with this blog. My previous post about the administration’s gross mishandling of the soccer team incident points out another case where the constitution was violated for a supposed SASH incident. Helis acted as judge and jury by not allowing the 7 seniors to graduate for many months and unilaterally canceling the 2017 soccer team season as punishment. There was zero due process in this case. I was at homecoming last year and sat at a table during the Athletic Hall of Dinner with a 2018 mid who would have been one of the team captains. The team tried to join an adult league in lieu of the season and the administration denied this. I also met with 2 of the 2017 seniors who had still not graduated. I also met with the coaches. [Edited by moderator to remove personal opinion expressed about the complainant.] Helis acted entirely inappropriately on supposition, innuendo, and rumor. He has to go. John Acomb 73 pissed off soccer alumni

Comments are closed.