I pose the question because it probably needs to be asked.You keep acting like "this site is the only one making it a topic" is an argument for dropping it, instead of realizing that this is precisely why it cannot be dropped.
Read Nuu's post. The have said they vetted him, but Nuu made no guarantees on what they reviewed in the vetting. Why? Because we know the information available to be considered, and it's not even enough for joke about vetting, much less to count as a credible read of Horny's role at Baylor over that period. We don't have to live in the Texas echo chamber, we can study the case on our own and learn that the information required to vet Horny has not been released. THEREFORE, WE CAN KNOW, WITH CONFIDENCE, THAT DESPITE THE CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY THAT TEXAS COULD NOT HAVE CREDIBLY VETTED HORNY PRIOR TO THE HIRE. Texas' comments one way or the other are not important to knowing, and having confidence in, that fact.
Sorry people are fatigued. Just think how the victims feel. When Herman brought Horny in, he tied us to him and that situation. It will get much, much more fatiguing before it is over. That is, if the victims have any chance at anything close to justice. I guess if it just disappears than no one has to be bothered by it again.
If in the very small chance it turns out that Horny was involved, even to a slight degree, what become the consequences of hiring him?