In Pennsylvania, the hazing case against football players participating in No Gay Thursdays has been settled. Three seniors, accused of harassing/hazing a first-year player, plead guilty to summary harassment. There were discrepancies between what was originally reported (penetration with a broomstick handle) and what was presented during the hearings (pushing a broomstick handle against the victim's leg while they held him down). How the seniors were punished remains unknown. Summary harassment is a citation, not a criminal offense.
As a reminder, No Gay Thursday had been a team tradition for several years. The football coach was initially suspended and then resigned. The remaining football staff was fired; though they were told they could reapply for their jobs. While the actions initially reported seem to have been wrong, the day itself and the culture that created it was still present and threatening.
There is a Title IX complaint against Liberty University from a non-student who said she was sexually assaulted by a university employee in 2015. The university, which refused to fire the employee after their own investigation into the accusation, said it expects the complaint to be dismissed. But if I was OCR, I would take the opportunity to go to Liberty and find out what is happening with their brand new athletics director.
In November, Liberty hired Ian McGraw, the former Baylor AD who is facing a lawsuit from a Baylor student who accuses him of knowing that former football player Tevin Elliot had a history of sexually assault and displayed deliberate indifference, which led to Elliot assaulting her. Basically, McGraw was part of the Baylor house that got cleaned out when all these things--including additional assaults by athletes and non-athletes, and more deliberate indifference among various campus offices--came to light. Liberty president Jerry Falwell, Jr. is very enthusiastic about his choice: “You look at what Baylor was able to do during his tenure, it fits
perfectly with where we see our sports programs going. This is an
exciting time for us.” He also presented McGraw's exit from Baylor as a choice.
I have written frequently about how athletes who commit physical and sexual assaults are often passed around athletics programs by coaches and admins who willfully ignore the issues. I did not think McGraw would be hired so quickly and by another ultra conservative Christian institution. Liberty has set itself up for problems should anything happen under McGraw's tenure. And its moral failings are very much in display with this move. Some in the Liberty community are not happy. Though no students would speak to ESPNW on the record for fear of retaliation. the majority were displeased with the hire and the repentance narrative the school is employing in support of the hiring. Several alum have spoken out, including some who said they would stop donating to the school while McGraw is there.
More on the Baylor swept asides: former coach Art Briles is suing three Baylor regents and one university administrator for libel, slander, and conspiracy. In the lawsuit, Briles claims that the four have made false statements about him in the press. These comments have prevented him from getting another head coaching job, he claims. Not sure how this lawsuit affects the very large settlement Briles received. As part of that deal, Briles was told he could not discuss the cases nor criticize the regents. That was in June. Sometimes there are time limits on such terms; but less than a year seems to be a bit short. Meanwhile, Briles could hit up his old boss for a job. Neither McGraw nor Liberty seem to care all that much about accusations, about character, or the safety of their student body.
Showing posts with label hazing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hazing. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Friday, February 12, 2016
Sexual Harassment Roundup: K-12 Cases
Here are summaries of some recent judicial decisions involving Title IX claims against school districts for failing to adequately respond to reports of sexual harassment and abuse.
A federal court in Connecticut refused to grant summary judgment to a school district in a case stemming from a ninth-grader's repeated sexual abuse of the sixth-grade plaintiff. The abuse itself occurred outside of school, but the plaintiff alleges that the school district was deliberately indifferent to the fact that the abuse and her reporting of it subjected her to continued harm while at school. For one matter, the school did not take steps to expel the 9th grader, which created the opportunity for the plaintiff to encounter him in space that the middle school and high school shared. Additionally, the school did not respond to repeated requests from the plaintiff's parents to intervene in harassment that the plaintiff was enduring at the hands of some sixth-grade peers, including the perpetrator's sister. The court agreed that based on these claims it is possible for a jury to conclude that the school district was deliberately indifferent and liable under Title IX. Its ruling allows the case to continue on to trial. Doe v. New Fairfield Bd. of Educ. 2016 WL 310720 (D. Conn. Jan. 26, 2016)
A school district in Indiana must continue to litigate a former student's claims that school officials' tolerance of hazing on the boys' swimming team violated Title IX as well as his constitutional rights. In denying the school district's motion for summary judgment, the court determined that a jury could find based on the evidence in play that the school tolerated conduct among boys that it would not have tolerated among girls, a finding that would subject the school to liability under Title IX. Because the plaintiff alleged that the school officials' indifference to hazing was "because of sex" it was not fatal to his claim that his additional allegations that the hazing itself was "because of sex" was not supported by evidence. J.H. v. School Town of Munster, 2016 WL 427351 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 03, 2016).
An Oklahoma school district prevailed on summary judgment in a case filed by a female student who was targeted for an inappropriate relationship by her history teacher. The student argued that the school should have been on notice of the teacher's conduct as a result of an incident in which a custodian discovered the teacher and student together in a locked classroom with the lights off. While in fact that teacher had been kissing and touching the student behind the locked door, the teacher provided a plausible explanation for this situation when he was asked about it by school officials (the locked door he said was the result of on active shooter drill, the lights off because he was using a projector). In light of the teacher's response, the court determined that the custodian's discovery of the locked/dark classroom did not provide the school district of actual notice of the teacher's inappropriate conduct and that it was reasonable to take no further action against the teacher other than warn him not to be alone with students in the classroom. Later, when school officials received additional evidence of the teacher's conduct, they acted immediately to suspend the teacher and begin a disciplinary process that ultimately led to his resignation, thus fulfilling their obligation under Title IX to respond reasonably to actual notice of a threat of sexual harassment,. Roof v. New Castle Public School District No. 1, 2016 WL 502076 (Feb. 8, 2016).
A federal magistrate in Texas granted summary judgment to a school district after determining that the plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence that school district's response to peer harassment was tantamount to deliberate indifference. The plaintiff, an 11-year-old boy, was harassed by fellow students because he had "breasts like a girl" and other physical characteristics that allegedly made him appear less masculine and gay to his classmates. In light of uncontested evidence that the school district took some disciplinary action in response to reports of bullying, the magistrate determined that school officials could not have been indifferent, even though the response was (at least arguably) too weak to curtail the bullying in question. Nor did it matter that the school district (again, arguably) failed to comply fully with its own anti-bullying policy. Concluding that the school district "should have done more" does not determine whether the school was deliberately indifferent. Drawing this distinction, the magistrate determined that the school district could not be liable under Title IX. K.S. v. Northwest Indep. Sch. Dist., 2015 WL 9450853 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2015).
A federal court in Connecticut refused to grant summary judgment to a school district in a case stemming from a ninth-grader's repeated sexual abuse of the sixth-grade plaintiff. The abuse itself occurred outside of school, but the plaintiff alleges that the school district was deliberately indifferent to the fact that the abuse and her reporting of it subjected her to continued harm while at school. For one matter, the school did not take steps to expel the 9th grader, which created the opportunity for the plaintiff to encounter him in space that the middle school and high school shared. Additionally, the school did not respond to repeated requests from the plaintiff's parents to intervene in harassment that the plaintiff was enduring at the hands of some sixth-grade peers, including the perpetrator's sister. The court agreed that based on these claims it is possible for a jury to conclude that the school district was deliberately indifferent and liable under Title IX. Its ruling allows the case to continue on to trial. Doe v. New Fairfield Bd. of Educ. 2016 WL 310720 (D. Conn. Jan. 26, 2016)
A school district in Indiana must continue to litigate a former student's claims that school officials' tolerance of hazing on the boys' swimming team violated Title IX as well as his constitutional rights. In denying the school district's motion for summary judgment, the court determined that a jury could find based on the evidence in play that the school tolerated conduct among boys that it would not have tolerated among girls, a finding that would subject the school to liability under Title IX. Because the plaintiff alleged that the school officials' indifference to hazing was "because of sex" it was not fatal to his claim that his additional allegations that the hazing itself was "because of sex" was not supported by evidence. J.H. v. School Town of Munster, 2016 WL 427351 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 03, 2016).
An Oklahoma school district prevailed on summary judgment in a case filed by a female student who was targeted for an inappropriate relationship by her history teacher. The student argued that the school should have been on notice of the teacher's conduct as a result of an incident in which a custodian discovered the teacher and student together in a locked classroom with the lights off. While in fact that teacher had been kissing and touching the student behind the locked door, the teacher provided a plausible explanation for this situation when he was asked about it by school officials (the locked door he said was the result of on active shooter drill, the lights off because he was using a projector). In light of the teacher's response, the court determined that the custodian's discovery of the locked/dark classroom did not provide the school district of actual notice of the teacher's inappropriate conduct and that it was reasonable to take no further action against the teacher other than warn him not to be alone with students in the classroom. Later, when school officials received additional evidence of the teacher's conduct, they acted immediately to suspend the teacher and begin a disciplinary process that ultimately led to his resignation, thus fulfilling their obligation under Title IX to respond reasonably to actual notice of a threat of sexual harassment,. Roof v. New Castle Public School District No. 1, 2016 WL 502076 (Feb. 8, 2016).
A federal magistrate in Texas granted summary judgment to a school district after determining that the plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence that school district's response to peer harassment was tantamount to deliberate indifference. The plaintiff, an 11-year-old boy, was harassed by fellow students because he had "breasts like a girl" and other physical characteristics that allegedly made him appear less masculine and gay to his classmates. In light of uncontested evidence that the school district took some disciplinary action in response to reports of bullying, the magistrate determined that school officials could not have been indifferent, even though the response was (at least arguably) too weak to curtail the bullying in question. Nor did it matter that the school district (again, arguably) failed to comply fully with its own anti-bullying policy. Concluding that the school district "should have done more" does not determine whether the school was deliberately indifferent. Drawing this distinction, the magistrate determined that the school district could not be liable under Title IX. K.S. v. Northwest Indep. Sch. Dist., 2015 WL 9450853 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2015).
Friday, January 08, 2016
Assault at Tennessee High School Basketball Tourney
The season is over for a Tennessee high school basketball team that has been at the center of significant media attention after three upperclassmen sent a younger student to the hospital with injuries to his colon and bladder that required surgery.
The three perpetrators have been arrested and charged (as juveniles) with aggravated rape and assault and kicked off the Ooltewah High School basketball team. The team played four games since returning from the tournament. Then, on Wednesday, the district superintendent, Rick Smith, announced that the remainder of the season would be cancelled. This is what he said:
"This decision is not a reflection upon the coaching staff. Indeed, law enforcement officials have to date found no evidence any adult acted improperly. Likewise, this decision is not meant to punish the boys on the team who are innocent of any wrongdoing and simply want to play high school sports."
So why cancel the season if everything is just fine? Smith said something about the integrity of the investigation. But it looks like a PR move as more details are uncovered.
Many of us have read the horrid details of the injuries, caused by a pool cue, that happened in December during a high school basketball tournament. The Ooltewah team was staying in cabins near the tournament site. This is where the assault occurred. Though only one person ended up in the hospital, other first-year players were also assaulted in what was initially called a hazing incident.
First, any news source that continues to refer to this incident as hazing is doing harm and minimizing the severity not just of this incident but of the culture that continues to perpetuate the idea that male and team bonding via hazing is harmless ritual. This was assault. It was always assault. It did not start out as hazing and turn into rape. It was a planned sexual assault.
An attorney for the school district has said that part of the school's investigation will include a look at the anti-hazing policy and whether it is being effectively communicated to students. The problem is that hazing is so much more complicated than most of those involved know.
The reason the term hazing exists is because it applies to a specific situation--one in which people act against others with the intention of providing an initiation or bonding ritual. Hazing includes actions that are meant to create an in-group and out-group. One suffers through the ritual/tradition/assault to prove loyalty and thus gain entry. To prove the group itself is special, the "tradition" continues, though the entry requirements often have little to do with the group's goals or function.
The use of the term hazing does not mean that the actions are somehow more acceptable because they do not occur between strangers or seemingly have no higher purpose. Being force fed alcohol is not ok in any situation. Being sexually assaulted is never ok. The use of the term hazing in the popular discourse has had the effect of desensitizing us to the violence that all hazing entails. An incident like this makes people take notice, but many are quick to talk about how unique this incident is because of its extreme violence, thus making room for some acceptable versions of hazing/assault.
One, this is not so unique. A quick look at the literature on hazing will reveal many stories of so-called extreme hazing. Two, we have no idea how often rape, assault and other forms of violence that do not result in hospital visits occur. The culture of silence is strong. Once an individual has endured the assault and gained entry to the group, he is less likely to threaten that position by telling others what happened.
Hazing has been happening on the Ooltewah boys' basketball team for a while I would guess. The perpetrators did not just invent this. They were probably hazed themselves--which is not an excuse. This bring me back to anti-hazing education. Yes, it is important. It is important to send the message that team bonding and acceptance should not be achieved through physical assault. I wonder though if this will be the message. Because this situation will require more than a few (or more likely one based on what I know about training sessions implemented in the wake of a scandal) sessions in which administrators say "don't haze." Because most people--even teenage boys--know that sexually assaulting someone with a pool stick is not acceptable behavior. This was not bonding. This was about power, which is true of all hazing.
Saying "do not haze" will not stop hazing. Whatever culture exists that allowed this to continue needs to be addressed. Something is happening at that school. I am not sure what an investigation will uncover, but I am sure lawsuits and maybe even a Title IX complaint are forthcoming. I have some questions.
When the hazing tradition of being "beaten in" to the team was reported to the coach, an allegation made by the parent of another victim, was it really enough for him to say "stop bullying"? Who is training coaches and administrators about these issues? How were these boys not supervised in the basement of a cabin on a road trip--especially after the coaching staff knew "bullying" was occurring?
Also, I am wondering who thought it was acceptable to send the boy back after his initial hospital visit (he returned later in the night to receive surgery when his condition worsened), to the place where he had been raped. And why did no one there do anything about it at that moment? The discussion has been about the physical injuries this boy suffered, but the psychological damage caused by hazing is just as significant. Sending him back to the cabin where he had been assaulted is unthinkable.
The three perpetrators have been arrested and charged (as juveniles) with aggravated rape and assault and kicked off the Ooltewah High School basketball team. The team played four games since returning from the tournament. Then, on Wednesday, the district superintendent, Rick Smith, announced that the remainder of the season would be cancelled. This is what he said:
"This decision is not a reflection upon the coaching staff. Indeed, law enforcement officials have to date found no evidence any adult acted improperly. Likewise, this decision is not meant to punish the boys on the team who are innocent of any wrongdoing and simply want to play high school sports."
So why cancel the season if everything is just fine? Smith said something about the integrity of the investigation. But it looks like a PR move as more details are uncovered.
Many of us have read the horrid details of the injuries, caused by a pool cue, that happened in December during a high school basketball tournament. The Ooltewah team was staying in cabins near the tournament site. This is where the assault occurred. Though only one person ended up in the hospital, other first-year players were also assaulted in what was initially called a hazing incident.
First, any news source that continues to refer to this incident as hazing is doing harm and minimizing the severity not just of this incident but of the culture that continues to perpetuate the idea that male and team bonding via hazing is harmless ritual. This was assault. It was always assault. It did not start out as hazing and turn into rape. It was a planned sexual assault.
An attorney for the school district has said that part of the school's investigation will include a look at the anti-hazing policy and whether it is being effectively communicated to students. The problem is that hazing is so much more complicated than most of those involved know.
The reason the term hazing exists is because it applies to a specific situation--one in which people act against others with the intention of providing an initiation or bonding ritual. Hazing includes actions that are meant to create an in-group and out-group. One suffers through the ritual/tradition/assault to prove loyalty and thus gain entry. To prove the group itself is special, the "tradition" continues, though the entry requirements often have little to do with the group's goals or function.
The use of the term hazing does not mean that the actions are somehow more acceptable because they do not occur between strangers or seemingly have no higher purpose. Being force fed alcohol is not ok in any situation. Being sexually assaulted is never ok. The use of the term hazing in the popular discourse has had the effect of desensitizing us to the violence that all hazing entails. An incident like this makes people take notice, but many are quick to talk about how unique this incident is because of its extreme violence, thus making room for some acceptable versions of hazing/assault.
One, this is not so unique. A quick look at the literature on hazing will reveal many stories of so-called extreme hazing. Two, we have no idea how often rape, assault and other forms of violence that do not result in hospital visits occur. The culture of silence is strong. Once an individual has endured the assault and gained entry to the group, he is less likely to threaten that position by telling others what happened.
Hazing has been happening on the Ooltewah boys' basketball team for a while I would guess. The perpetrators did not just invent this. They were probably hazed themselves--which is not an excuse. This bring me back to anti-hazing education. Yes, it is important. It is important to send the message that team bonding and acceptance should not be achieved through physical assault. I wonder though if this will be the message. Because this situation will require more than a few (or more likely one based on what I know about training sessions implemented in the wake of a scandal) sessions in which administrators say "don't haze." Because most people--even teenage boys--know that sexually assaulting someone with a pool stick is not acceptable behavior. This was not bonding. This was about power, which is true of all hazing.
Saying "do not haze" will not stop hazing. Whatever culture exists that allowed this to continue needs to be addressed. Something is happening at that school. I am not sure what an investigation will uncover, but I am sure lawsuits and maybe even a Title IX complaint are forthcoming. I have some questions.
When the hazing tradition of being "beaten in" to the team was reported to the coach, an allegation made by the parent of another victim, was it really enough for him to say "stop bullying"? Who is training coaches and administrators about these issues? How were these boys not supervised in the basement of a cabin on a road trip--especially after the coaching staff knew "bullying" was occurring?
Also, I am wondering who thought it was acceptable to send the boy back after his initial hospital visit (he returned later in the night to receive surgery when his condition worsened), to the place where he had been raped. And why did no one there do anything about it at that moment? The discussion has been about the physical injuries this boy suffered, but the psychological damage caused by hazing is just as significant. Sending him back to the cabin where he had been assaulted is unthinkable.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Former Softball Player Sues St. Joseph's University Over Hazing
This month, St. Joseph's University suspended its softball team with three games left in the season in response to reports that the team engaged in hazing practices to initiate new players. Now the university faces a lawsuit filed by one of the players who claimed that she was the victim of sexual harassment as part of that hazing, that university officials knew about and failed to adequately respond.
The complaint describes a seven-day period during the plaintiff's freshman season that was kicked off by intimidating letters with weird sexual content. The plaintiff was required to engage in simulated sex and watch others do the same. Her teammates required new players to answer questions about her sexual experiences, drink alcohol, and answer to demeaning nicknames. However, the administration discovered and curtailed the hazing, though it did not initiate a formal investigation or disciplinary process. Subsequently, during the plaintiff's sophomore season, the hazing ritual resumed again, with upperclass players insisting that they were "picking up where it was left off," so the same rituals began again.
The plaintiff alleges that the university violated Title IX, among other legal obligations. The standard for institutional liability under Title IX first requires that the plaintiff endure serious harassment of a sexual nature. This excludes from the court's consideration allegations related to alcohol pressure and non-sexual nicknames -- including the allegation that coach called her one that was, while not sexual, pretty demeaning and gross. Next, the plaintiff must prove that the university had actual notice and responded with deliberate indifference. Here, the plaintiff must rely on the hazing she endured freshman year of providing notice to the university that the team would continue its behavior in subsequent seasons. The university responded to the freshman year hazing by shutting it down, so the plaintiff must convince the court that more was required to avoid committing deliberate indifference. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, many courts interpret deliberate indifference very narrowly to exclude just about anything north of nothing. So the plaintiff will have to convince the court that what little the administration did to the team in her freshman season was tantamount to nothing. The university would seemingly not be liable for the sophomore season hazing, since it has seemed to responded swiftly and strongly by suspending the team.
For other recent stories about universities getting tough about hazing, see here (Stanford band) and here (Western Kentucky swim team).
The complaint describes a seven-day period during the plaintiff's freshman season that was kicked off by intimidating letters with weird sexual content. The plaintiff was required to engage in simulated sex and watch others do the same. Her teammates required new players to answer questions about her sexual experiences, drink alcohol, and answer to demeaning nicknames. However, the administration discovered and curtailed the hazing, though it did not initiate a formal investigation or disciplinary process. Subsequently, during the plaintiff's sophomore season, the hazing ritual resumed again, with upperclass players insisting that they were "picking up where it was left off," so the same rituals began again.
The plaintiff alleges that the university violated Title IX, among other legal obligations. The standard for institutional liability under Title IX first requires that the plaintiff endure serious harassment of a sexual nature. This excludes from the court's consideration allegations related to alcohol pressure and non-sexual nicknames -- including the allegation that coach called her one that was, while not sexual, pretty demeaning and gross. Next, the plaintiff must prove that the university had actual notice and responded with deliberate indifference. Here, the plaintiff must rely on the hazing she endured freshman year of providing notice to the university that the team would continue its behavior in subsequent seasons. The university responded to the freshman year hazing by shutting it down, so the plaintiff must convince the court that more was required to avoid committing deliberate indifference. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, many courts interpret deliberate indifference very narrowly to exclude just about anything north of nothing. So the plaintiff will have to convince the court that what little the administration did to the team in her freshman season was tantamount to nothing. The university would seemingly not be liable for the sophomore season hazing, since it has seemed to responded swiftly and strongly by suspending the team.
For other recent stories about universities getting tough about hazing, see here (Stanford band) and here (Western Kentucky swim team).
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Punishment and reforms for Stanford band
This week Stanford University announced the results of its investigation into the university's marching band. At issue was a climate of sexual hostility marked by harassment of members, especially upon initiation. In addition there were violations of hazing and alcohol policies. This has all resulted in a ban on the band's travel to away events next year. They will perform at home events and other unnamed non-athletic events.
We had not heard of this situation; it certainly has not made headlines like the OSU band scandal. (Though apparently the band has a reputation and have a history of rude behavior at schools.) The descriptions--admittedly vague--of the incidents suggest common issues among bands (and probably other college groups): alcohol, initiation rituals based on public humiliation, and sexual harassment/assault. What is interesting is the way these problems are framed when the group in question is a college marching band. The Dean of Residential Education commented on the findings and punishment: "The university's objective is to ensure a safe and harassment-free environment while honoring the band's traditions and its unique, irreverent identity." So band hazing/harassment is because they are quirky? When sports teams do this it's about team camaraderie. When fraternities and sororities do it, it's about loyalty to the organization.
It's all a form of violence. The commonality is that students largely think these things are fine and they are "part of the culture."
The band has the option of appealing their partial suspension.
A few weeks ago we heard about another problematic culture within a university group: the swim team at Western Kentucky. Their investigation was more explicitly Title IX focused as it looked into numerous accounts of hazing. The punishment at WKU was far more extensive: three fired coaches, a 5-year suspension, and at least one athlete who will face criminal charges.
Again, the exact events that occurred within the Stanford marching band and the WKU swim team are unknown and comparing is impossible. However...there was no discussion of adult leadership in the Stanford case. I find this curious. Where were the university employees in all this? There are, of course, numerous cases of hazing within intercollegiate athletics where coaches claim they had no idea what was going on. But that excuse that the non-student adults are really oblivious as to what their charges are up to is not as readily accepted anymore as evidenced in the WKU case and of course in the OSU band case where the director was fired.
Hazing and harassment cases call for a greater questioning of the practices of any group culture and also inquiring into how that culture has been created and perpetuated. Did this really happen at Stanford?
We had not heard of this situation; it certainly has not made headlines like the OSU band scandal. (Though apparently the band has a reputation and have a history of rude behavior at schools.) The descriptions--admittedly vague--of the incidents suggest common issues among bands (and probably other college groups): alcohol, initiation rituals based on public humiliation, and sexual harassment/assault. What is interesting is the way these problems are framed when the group in question is a college marching band. The Dean of Residential Education commented on the findings and punishment: "The university's objective is to ensure a safe and harassment-free environment while honoring the band's traditions and its unique, irreverent identity." So band hazing/harassment is because they are quirky? When sports teams do this it's about team camaraderie. When fraternities and sororities do it, it's about loyalty to the organization.
It's all a form of violence. The commonality is that students largely think these things are fine and they are "part of the culture."
The band has the option of appealing their partial suspension.
A few weeks ago we heard about another problematic culture within a university group: the swim team at Western Kentucky. Their investigation was more explicitly Title IX focused as it looked into numerous accounts of hazing. The punishment at WKU was far more extensive: three fired coaches, a 5-year suspension, and at least one athlete who will face criminal charges.
Again, the exact events that occurred within the Stanford marching band and the WKU swim team are unknown and comparing is impossible. However...there was no discussion of adult leadership in the Stanford case. I find this curious. Where were the university employees in all this? There are, of course, numerous cases of hazing within intercollegiate athletics where coaches claim they had no idea what was going on. But that excuse that the non-student adults are really oblivious as to what their charges are up to is not as readily accepted anymore as evidenced in the WKU case and of course in the OSU band case where the director was fired.
Hazing and harassment cases call for a greater questioning of the practices of any group culture and also inquiring into how that culture has been created and perpetuated. Did this really happen at Stanford?
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Should Western Kentucky's Women's Swim Team Have Been Suspended?
Last week Western Kentucky University announced the suspension of its swimming and diving program for five year after a Title IX investigation revealed widespread incidents of hazing, harassment, and sexual assault. The investigation was reportedly prompted by a police report filed by one of the swim team members, alleging numerous examples of criminal and otherwise reprehensible conduct. For example, the complainant reported that another of his male teammates sexually assaulted a female teammate who was unconscious, while others watched. He also reported that one of his male teammates had once placed in a chokehold for as long as he could stand it, causing him injury. When the police searched the house where swim team members lived and held parties, they found photographs of teammates who had passed out from drinking, arranged in nude or semi-nude sexual positions and, in some cases, having been written on with racist and homophobic language.
As I told a columnist for the local paper in Louisville, I am glad to see universities taking seriously the problems of hazing and sexual assault. Suspension is a reasonable response to pervasive and intractable climate of hostility, aggression, and assault like the one revealed at WKU. However, one angle on this case that no one seems to be publicly discussing -- and that I myself was slow to realize -- is that all of the examples of misconduct appear to involve male swimmers, yet the university has suspended the entire program, men's and women's alike. This raises Title IX concerns under the principal of equal treatment that is codified in the regulations. Female athletes' participation is impaired -- by virtue of being held accountable for other athletes' misconduct -- in a way that no male athletes' participation is impaired.
It may have been the case that in the course of responding to a serious problem with necessarily promptness, university officials did not consider the discriminatory effect on female swimmers. Perhaps in retrospect they can reexamine the decision to suspend the female swimmers and, if warranted, reinstate their athletic opportunities.
As I told a columnist for the local paper in Louisville, I am glad to see universities taking seriously the problems of hazing and sexual assault. Suspension is a reasonable response to pervasive and intractable climate of hostility, aggression, and assault like the one revealed at WKU. However, one angle on this case that no one seems to be publicly discussing -- and that I myself was slow to realize -- is that all of the examples of misconduct appear to involve male swimmers, yet the university has suspended the entire program, men's and women's alike. This raises Title IX concerns under the principal of equal treatment that is codified in the regulations. Female athletes' participation is impaired -- by virtue of being held accountable for other athletes' misconduct -- in a way that no male athletes' participation is impaired.
It may have been the case that in the course of responding to a serious problem with necessarily promptness, university officials did not consider the discriminatory effect on female swimmers. Perhaps in retrospect they can reexamine the decision to suspend the female swimmers and, if warranted, reinstate their athletic opportunities.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Football season cancelled in NJ
There is no Friday night football game tonight in Sayreville, New Jersey. The school board cancelled the season earlier this month after systemic hazing of first-year football players came to light.
More details are sure to emerge as an investigation into the incidents, which took place in the team locker room, allegedly unbeknownst to coaches or any other school staff person. This is not a Title IX case yet (and it may never turn into one) but some parents have hired lawyers and because the hazing was sexual in nature, the incidents described surely fall under the category of sexual assault.
According to various reports, upperclass players would come into the locker room, turn off the lights, and grab a first-year player and then use a finger or some other object to anally penetrate the player (who was being held down). Sometimes the player was forced to suck on whatever had been put in him.
The outrage over the cancelled season among some members of the community, including students, is especially disappointing. One, it speaks to the idea that football is a right and not a privilege--even when you are a highly successful program (making the playoffs for the past 20 years). Two, it trivializes sexual assault in two ways: when it occurs amongst boys (something recently addressed by the federal government in its new sexual assault laws) and when it occurs under the guise of hazing--a ritual required for admission to a group. And finally, in regards to students, these are young people who may be heading off to college in a few years, where the issue of sexual assault is being taken (more) seriously. So in regards to the female student who said "things have been blown out of proportion.We know the players, and hazing, to them, they didn't mean it in that way. It was more like being friends"--well the idea that talking about and reporting and punishing sexual assault is blowing things out of proportion is a paradigm that is shifting. And non-consensual digital anal penetration is not something that happens between friends.
More details are sure to emerge as an investigation into the incidents, which took place in the team locker room, allegedly unbeknownst to coaches or any other school staff person. This is not a Title IX case yet (and it may never turn into one) but some parents have hired lawyers and because the hazing was sexual in nature, the incidents described surely fall under the category of sexual assault.
According to various reports, upperclass players would come into the locker room, turn off the lights, and grab a first-year player and then use a finger or some other object to anally penetrate the player (who was being held down). Sometimes the player was forced to suck on whatever had been put in him.
The outrage over the cancelled season among some members of the community, including students, is especially disappointing. One, it speaks to the idea that football is a right and not a privilege--even when you are a highly successful program (making the playoffs for the past 20 years). Two, it trivializes sexual assault in two ways: when it occurs amongst boys (something recently addressed by the federal government in its new sexual assault laws) and when it occurs under the guise of hazing--a ritual required for admission to a group. And finally, in regards to students, these are young people who may be heading off to college in a few years, where the issue of sexual assault is being taken (more) seriously. So in regards to the female student who said "things have been blown out of proportion.We know the players, and hazing, to them, they didn't mean it in that way. It was more like being friends"--well the idea that talking about and reporting and punishing sexual assault is blowing things out of proportion is a paradigm that is shifting. And non-consensual digital anal penetration is not something that happens between friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)