To be clear, the case has received a great deal of media attention because they love scandals involving the elite.
I would have said it would have been hard to increase the public damage from a nationally televised rape trial. I underestimated the school. Any time you find yourself pushing to remove the anonymity of a victim of sexual assault–especially a former student who is still in high school–it’s time to rethink your strategy.
Did no one consider that such a filing would reinforce the argument that the school is in the habit of blaming the victim?
The thinking seems to be to intimidate the family into settling. It seems the defendants were upset about the suit being filed in such a way as to open the school to a barrage of media requests overnight, before the school received a copy of the lawsuit. There’s a link to the school’s response in one of the comments to the Boston Globe story. The person who posted it claims to be a parent of a current student. https://bbk12e1-cdn.myschoolcdn.com/ftpimages/36/misc/misc_131058.pdf
^ I would agree under normal circumstances…however, the the case has already been heard and its been established that the boy did rape the girl. Geez…the girl is likely still a minor.
It has not been established that he raped her if we are going by legal precedent:“Labrie was acquitted last August of felony rape charges but was found guilty of misdemeanor sexual assault, illegal use of computer services, and endangering the welfare of a child. He is free on bail as he appeals his conviction.”
Either way something happened to her right?? If I recall correctly she asked him to stop and maybe on more than one occasion. This follow-on civil suit didn’t simply magically appear. There’s no “cloak of anonymity” as this was already St. Paul’s professes to educate minors correct? It makes me uneasy that they are employing tactics like this against the very population clearly identified in their mission.
At this point, every St. Paul’s student, teacher and alum knows her name. If alums don’t know the name, they can easily find out. Boarding schools form close networks, which last a lifetime. The victim has already been through a trial, at which multiple teachers and students were called to testify. Oh, and a media outfit transmitted her voice during a report on court proceedings.
I personally feel the victim and her family should not have tried to continue her career at St. Paul’s after the attack. I don’t think any school could have made the other students behave in a caring, reasonable manner. Nevertheless, the treatment she allegedly received from peers and teachers at the school cannot have made the parents feel grateful to the school. See this report: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lawsuit-st-pauls-school-sexual-assault_us_574f524ae4b0c3752dcc6aac
At this point, “playing hardball” with the family will only make the proceedings more damaging to the school. I’m certain that such tactics might work on families who have not already gone through a rape trial.
You may want to consider the following clarification provided by SPS to the school community: “It appears the media has not read, or is not accurately reporting about our filing. We did not oppose the family’s use of pseudonyms, and certainly did not request that the young woman’s name be made public. Rather, we agreed to the family’s use of pseudonyms during pretrial phases of the litigation, provided they agreed to stop improperly attacking the School’s character in statements to the press. The point of the pleading was to suggest that the family’s request to proceed anonymously should incorporate the School’s desire for the matter to be handled responsibly in court and not through coordinated media attacks. No one at the School has any desire or intention to reveal the identity of the young woman or her family. However, we have taken steps to ensure the case is fairly considered in court proceedings and not through media attacks.”
I am sending a daughter to SPS. Obviously I’m concerned about what I read in the papers. So I just sat down and read the court documents of the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff (the family), the answers provided by the defendant (the school), and the school’s partial objection and conditional assent to plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed under pseudonyms. All I’ve got to say is the state of our media reporting is far more objectionable than St. Paul’s school culture.
@GoatMama Thanks for your illuminating post: We live in an extraordinarily political correct culture where no longer is anyone innocent until proven otherwise unless you are of the appropriate gender or color or special group. Further, the witch hunters have created a climate where the alleged perpetrators must be found guilty of something to appease the witch hunters. i.e Duke, Uva, Ferguson etc etc. Are there bad cops, rapacious boys, homophobes, racists etc?? Of course! But just look at all the issues with police and policing crime committed by blacks: in many cases the police officers behaved criminally, but in other instances they were just trying to do their jobs in an awful stressful situations. Was/Is Owen Labrie behaving responsibly or decently? No. But did he snatch her out of a dark alley and assault her? No. She went, she participated – in heavy mutual flirtation – BEFORE AND AFTER the event in question. Even if believe her story about changing her mind and saying no she went, she kissed and engaged and then decided she wasn’t happy about it. That is the essence of the issue. She wanted to be with him for all the wrong reasons. She then decided she didnt like what had happened and she bears NO personal responsibility for her actions. She went. She flirted etc. His life is destroyed not hers. Is this St Paul’s fault? This happens EVERYWHERE! So why is St Pauls culture under attack? Because it is a school for the rich and privileged. Now imagine this same story at an inner city school …
@Center With all due respect, that’s not what I meant to say.
I have followed the case in the media. Now I’ve read the court documents. What’s appalling to me is the degree to which the media has sensationalized this case. For example, they have reported in graphic detail on every accusation made by the family (even the hearsay), but have ignored all answers provided by the school that refute/invalidate the accusations. The goal has not been to inform, but to overhype in a tabloid manner.
I am emphatically against victim blaming. No matter what a girl wore, where she was, or how she acted, I’m a firm believer that she should not be forced to do anything she is uncomfortable with. A No is a No. What I find objectionable is the family’s choice to try this case in the media instead of in the court of law.
Consider this: The family filed the lawsuit at 4:12 pm on June 1. The school, in the middle of preparations for graduation weekend, was not notified about the filing. Beginning at 4:30 pm on June 1, the school was inundated with contacts from multiple media channels, who were provided a copy of the lawsuit by the family in a coordinated media campaign. The complaint was not a matter of public record until June 2, 2016, when it was docketed on the Court’s electronic case filing system. While the school attempted to locate a copy of the filing in order to inform themselves of the allegations, the media barrage accelerated. Before the filing was even a public record, family’s attorneys appeared on multiple TV programs, radio, and in the press with statements that attacked the credibility and reputation of the School and the character of its administrators while praising the character, credibility, and reputation of the girl and her family.
As a result of the media campaign organized by the family, last week the school filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Partial Objection and Conditional Assent to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms. Here is an excerpt that explains why the school chose this course of action:
In a nutshell, I have no issue with what you describe as “political correctness.” I believe that measures taken to ensure that policies or practices do not disadvantage certain subgroups are not only fair but beneficial to all. What I see here is not political correctness but a manipulation of public opinion, which severely disadvantages the school, its administrators and teachers, and the entire school community.
Center, you could not be more wrong. There are multiple protections within the laws to protect the identities of victims of sexual abuse even if it is only “alleged.” 34 of 50 jurisdictions allow prosecution of private claims under “Jane/John Doe” anonymity provisions and that is just for ADULTS. Then add on the protections within the laws to protect minors in sex abuse cases which extend even further. Prosecutors and legislatures have realized the necessity of these rules and it is a mystery as to why you don’t also understand the need.
However, the mistake made here was by the school’s attorneys. They could, and should, have immediately sought a gag order that applied to all parties. If the family of the alleged victim wanted to elect anonymity, they can’t have it both ways, I.e. Speaking to media about the defendants while the defendants can’t speak about the plaintiff. Bad lawyering.
No kidding, the school would like to force the family to settle out of court. There is the issue of publicity during the trial and the unknown size of the award that might be made following a court trial.
There are some public elements of the story that go against St. Paul’s School by inference. Labrie’s lawyer, Carney, tried out the argument that St. Paul’s was effectively “throwing Labrie under the bus,” because he was neither rich nor connected. To me, this suggests that someone (Labrie? Carney? both?) thought that rich and or/connected students would not experience serious repercussions for similar behavior. Why? It also seems to me that Labrie thought that he could get away with what he did. Why?
This says nothing of the statements in the plaintiff’s filing.
I also think that if one is going to say, as Center did of the young woman, “She went, she participated . . . ,” it is important to note that the young woman initially turned Labrie down. She accepted Labrie’s invitation only after another young man, who was in one (or more) of the young woman’s classes, persuaded her that Labrie’s intentions were honorable.
I don’t know what the other young man thought or knew.
This is a complex matter and nothing is black and white. As a father of only daughter, I feel deeply about the girl. I don’t like the way how @Center is sometimes blaming the girl and her family.
But after reading everything available, I mostly agree with @GoatMama.
Also, at this point, I don’t think the school’s demand to reveal the plaintiff is unreasonable either, not at this point. This is money game now. The family is using questionable tactics to maximize the winning. The school has responsibility to own treasury and shouldn’t just hand over disproportionally large sum of cash.
What we dont know is if there were any negotiations that went on before the filing. Perhaps the family’s attorney approach SPS to work out a deal and they said take a hike. The family’s attorney then attempt to play hardball with SPS responded in kind. The problem that I see is that SPS school makes them look even worse. They should have folded before the filing and been discrete about. A bad PR move for sure.
The list of what we don’t know is long. At this point, it’s quite possible the school is not in charge of the lawyers. It’s possible the insurance company is in charge, whoever insures the school against claims like this.
However, the dispute is not at this point about the facts decided during the criminal trial. The dispute is as to whether the school discharged its duty to safeguard the children in its care. No matter what the verdict on that point, the school can only lose through a public trial.