It is interesting that this attack comes from the woman, using much of the language generally employed to defend the policies in place by many here and elsewhere. Will be interesting to see how it is received.
Many of these Title IX offices really have no idea what they are doing…
Oh I think they know exactly what they are doing.
What do you mean, @zoosermom – what do you think they are doing?
On the face of it, this is the extreme logical extension of a particular mindset that views everyone as simply a place marker in a political struggle.
It will be interesting to see what further information emerges.
Harassing men and infantilizing women.
Agreed, @zoosermom. They’re also letting vindictive women use it as a club to punish young men, and allowing women who have been unfaithful hide their cheating by using it to retroactively withdraw consent.
So let’s see if they waive their confidentiality rights, then we can have a more balanced discussion. If there is nothing more to story then they should be more than willing to do so.
From the OP article:
Are the accounts by “multiple witnesses” all related to the incident Zoe Katz described?
In an effort to understand the context, I started reading about this team:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-usc-hill-masina-assault-20170307-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-usc-langley-arrest-20160719-snap-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-usc-josh-shaw-20141118-story.html
Do they just all have the very bad luck to be falsely accused? I am willing to believe that could be the case.
I don’t follow football at all. I think this is all the same team. The last article is from 2014
… and people wonder why there are so many administrators on college campuses. [shrug]
If this is a case of “harassing men” then it is men harassing men. We know it was the men’s tennis coach who reported something to the Title IX office and he is male. He supposedly acted on information that he received from his son.
Same in Grant Neal case. Dr. Clark who reported and Roosevelt Washington whose investigative report found him responsible are male.
I can’t imagine that is unusual. And I can say from experience that men also infantilize women sometimes.
I found this interesting 1) because it is a criticism of the Title IX system from a female perspective, which seems to be considered the more important perspective by defenders of the system here and elsewhere and 2) because my sister runs a couple battered women’s shelters and I am aware of the struggle that people who work in that world have with getting women who are clearly being abused to admit it and make changes. It is not hard for me to believe that there are people within the USC Title IX world who believe that it is likely that the woman here is a “denier” and that she won’t or can’t admit to abuse, so they are trying to “help” her. The consequence though is, among other things and as @zoosermom says, the infantilization of a woman obviously to no good effect. Personally, I am interested in the board’s perspective on this situation given that point of view.
@HarvestMoon1, true they could sign a release, but why would they? It is likely that USC did not retain any interview notes/witness statements/deliberations, so all they would release is the conclusions of a decision maker with a quite obvious point of view. Not sure how that would move the ball forward or lead to a “balanced discussion”.
@alh, a couple things. One, you are talking about three accusations made over four different years. In each of those years, USC likely rostered about 110 football players, all of whom will have a high degree of visibility/noteriety in and around the school. What’s more, in one of the articles you managed to dig up the kid was charged with misdeameanor trespassing because he wouldn’t leave a frat party. In another, police showed up at the player’s apartment because neighbors reported a “loud argument.” Like the present case, the woman involved denied she had been assaulted. Unlike the present case, the police are not primarily advocates and therefore did not pursue charges to make a point, empower women, or whatever. The third may be something because one of the players is facing rape charges stemming from further relations with the same woman. Still, not sure how one incident of potential rape out of a population of 200 some kids over four years makes the point you are driving towards here. Second, and only slightly tongue in cheek, the current situation is dealing with a kicker. Regardless of the overall behavioral patterns of a given program (and absolutely, some are truly horrible) kickers are not usually part of that particular ethos. They are usually off to the side.
Who is very likely a mandatory reporter under the SC system. Let’s not make this something it isn’t.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-bryce-dixon-sentence-20160422-story.html
I am through googling about football at USC.
Possibly previous bad press impacted the university’s decision and they over-reacted.
I wonder, too, why Boermeester isn’t defending himself publicly. Maybe there is a suit underway?
Just generally, we are recommending bystander reporting and intervention. I think that is a good thing. Sometimes there will be false reports. I don’t see how we can know what happened in this case.
Sometimes women who end up in the hospital refuse to admit they have been abused, even when there is compelling evidence. I think most of us would argue society has a responsibility to protect those women. Zoe argues that is not what happened with her. We just can’t know, based on what has been reported so far.
I am very interested if there are further developments. Right now there are very few facts as far as I can tell, just speculation.
addding a question; As I said, I don’t follow football. Does this sort of press look out of the norm to those of you who do?
I haven’t a clue what happened in this case.
However, the mere fact that an alleged victim of domestic abuse states that she wasn’t abused doesn’t mean she wasn’t. This is especially true when the conduct might prevent the alleged perpetrator from obtaining a big pay off.
Again, I am not saying that’s what happened here. I’m only saying that sometimes the victim denies there was abuse.
^^
yes, sometimes that happens
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/09/us/ray-rice-nfl-janay-rice/index.html
I don’t think USC has the right to tell them to have no contact. Even if she was abused, she has the right to decide who to have contact with. If it were a court restraining order, the woman could have it dismissed but here she seems to have no recourse as she wasn’t a party to the matter, just a witness.
I think this is another case where the facts are unclear. The claim is that there are multiple witnesses. Of course, actions can be misunderstood, even by a large group of observers.
But it is also an known phenomenon that some women defend men who abuse them. If the abuse charge were true, would posters still say that it was “infantilizing” the woman to proceed against the man, without her wishes? If you think so, is there a severity of abuse such that you would no longer think so? For example, how about knocking someone unconscious, when the action is on video, as in the story linked by alh?
From the LA Times article, linked by Ohiodad51: “USC stands by its investigation and the accounts provided by multiple witnesses. As previously stated, student disciplinary records are confidential. If the students involved waive their confidentiality rights, the university will offer a detailed response.”
Perhaps the students involved will waive their confidentiality rights, and more information will follow. The university refers to “multiple witnesses.” The girlfriend’s account refers only to one. In this context, I would think that “witness” meant observer, rather than someone reporting something second-hand. But perhaps not. I am not sure why the students would not waive confidentiality in this case, if they believe there has been a miscarriage of justice. The woman appears ready to waive confidentiality. What about the football player?