Cal8285 said:

---

The inconsistency in the Claremont story is pretty stark.

Facebook: "Every night before a Cal home game, the team stays in the Claremont, luxury hotel nearby. I was staying there with my mom that night, as she was visiting me for the weekend. I get a text from the coach. 'Meet me in my room'. I couldn't let my mom down, if I got fired she wouldn't be able to support me, so I said I was leaving for the night. When I got to his room, I was scared, so I just laid on the bed and tried to make small talk. He started taking his clothes off. I started crying uncontrollably. He yelled at me to get out of him room, and that he could **** any girl he wanted. From that point on I was still working for the team."

Today Show: AFTER she quit, and therefore no longer afraid to be fired, she was invited to his room at the Claremont and went, hoping to smooth things over.

This really isn't an "oops, I got this minor detail wrong." In at least one instance, she's either delusional or lying. And under the Today Show story, how did the volunteer coach even know she was staying at the Claremont? Maybe there's an explanation for that, but both stories on their own lead to some head scratching, and comparing the two leads to thinking ***?

Doesn't mean she wasn't harassed. Doesn't mean the coach didn't tell her he would get her fired if she didn't have sex. Doesn't mean a player didn't text what she claims. Doesn't mean she didn't get snuck into the volunteer coach's office when she was drunk and had some encounter that she doesn't really remember (the Today Show and Facebook stories were reasonably consistent with respect to this encounter). Doesn't mean her claims about being treated differently than other woman in terms of dress are untrue.

It does mean it is undisputed she has credibility issues. It does mean that to the extent that she doesn't have backup for any specific claims, she is not likely to be believed -- lie about one thing, no reason to believe you aren't lying about another. While nobody can be 100% consistent in telling a story multiple times (being inconsistent on minor details happens all the time), when it comes to major parts of the story, when it comes to details that there is no excuse for getting wrong, you'd better not be wildly inconsistent if you want credibility. Oddly, if she has serious mental health issues, it makes it more likely that she has some credibility in spite of wildly inconsistent stories.

More concerning is the NBC News reporter talking to other women who indicate sexual harassment. within Cal athletics, although as pointed out, the nature of those claims is unclear.

Regardless of the truth of any of this, I am quite confident that the culture of college athletics has come a long way, just as society in general has come a long way. I am also confident that the culture of college athletics has a long way to go, just as society in general has a long way to go.

---

If I get it right, she left her volunteer assistant job last year. Now, she comes forward with these accusations. Yeah, yeah, I know that it is legitimate that victims are often too shaken and feeling threatened to come forward right away, but that doesn't pertain to all of them.

Has anyone considered that she might have been fired from that job last year and that these accusations are in response to that? As her story(ies) continues to unravel, this possibility needs to be considered more seriously.

I am sure that the investigation will address this as a real possibility. Let's hope that they don't lean in either direction in their public findings. (Jussie Smollett keeps intruding in my thoughts about this more and more).

pingpong2 said:

---

Full video here:

I guess I'll eat crow about the segment being made up.

---

"...head coach Jussie Wilcox..." That's how I heard it. See what you think.

Yes, by FAR the worst part of this Today Show story for Cal, vis-a-vis what we already know, is the reporters claim that she has talked to multiple women associated with Cal Athletics who verify a culture (or examples) of sexual harassment.

This is either shoddy reporting, multiple people who want to make anonymous false claims, or we have something of a systemic problem. (Some supposedly happened under a "previous coach", did I hear that right? Thanks again, Mr. Pigskins-and-Pearls.)

Big C said:

---

Yes, by FAR the worst part of this Today Show story for Cal, vis-a-vis what we already know, is the reporters claim that she has talked to multiple women associated with Cal Athletics who verify a culture (or examples) of sexual harassment.

This is either shoddy reporting, multiple people who want to make anonymous false claims, or we have something of a systemic problem. (Some supposedly happened under a "previous coach", did I hear that right? Thanks again, Mr. Pigskins-and-Pearls.)

---

I'm on the record: shoddy reporting, boy that was easy and I can tell my grandkids!

https://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/paige-cornelius-today-cal-football-team-harassment-13724168.php

bearister said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

bearister said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

So if one just listens to the reporter and to Paige's version as reported, Cal has a horrific culture of sexual harassment. I wonder if this reflects the standard of reporting these days (Kavanaugh, Smollet, collusion, etc) and fully expect it does. But if what is reported rings true it does not speak well for Cal. I think we need to remain open minded and a bit fearful for the time. As Goo sez, let the truth will out.

ps. It is so patently unfair to see such one sided reporting whatever the result including the inference that Cal is remiss by not disclosing which they can't with an ongoing investigation. Stones are being thrown. Will they strike us down?

---

That's the way the media works and operates these days. Outrage gets views, clicks, shares, etc. Balanced reporting does not. Trump may have a point after all...

---

Since there is such a concern here about shoddy reporting (and I admit my team is guilty of it as pointed out by Matt Taibbi), and a concern about balanced reporting, I thought you might be interested in shoddy reporting from a source that panders to your preferred political narrative:

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/false/


...and the POTUS chooses this man as the server of his word salad:

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/sean-hannity/

---

Whoa now, jumping to conclusions here aren't we? Who said I was a conservative?

---

Well, we know OB66's politics which he confirmed singling out Kavanaugh coverage, then you seemed to be giving him a little love in your post which was capped off with "...tRump may have a point..." The point of the Kavanaugh confirmation and the Russia gate tRump matters is that they both dodged bullets (and they both know it) not that they were flogged by false coverage.

There is so much political posting here I can't remember which side you are coming from so I apologize if I misunderstood you

---

bearister, you are better than that. "we know OB66's politics". I think you do not. You have an inclination, but "know"? Nah.

tequila4kapp said:

---

oskioski said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

flounder said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

I'm sorry but I didn't read any further after she said she met a man at midnight who she felt was a sicko and stocking her. Its nonsensical. No woman would do that. I'm not saying she's lying but I had to reread it three times before simply moving on.
I did read a snippet somewhere else where she said she's dealing with mental illness, now that might explain why she went there for her mental illness would not allow her to think clearly and she was processing information wrong, either way don't they do background checks and wouldn't it not say somewhere that she's dealing with mental issues thus a high profile employer would probably not hire her.

If she's definitely got mental issues then I definitely side with her for it makes everything worst for she had the same ability to make major decisions as a child thus why she kept making wrong ones. Her mental illness actually makes this quite worst than simple Sexual Harassment.

Who hired her without talking to her fellow players I bet they knew based on her openness to admit it now.

based on the info she gave I'm betting its a former WR coach.

---

i agree, she sounds like an absolute nut job based on her decision to go to the hotel room and to the party. she is an adult and chose to start drinking the tequila. what kind of sane and rational adult would go to a party filled with people she feels uncomfortable around and starts binge drinking.

that being said, hopefully wilcox and knowlton did what they are legally and morally required to do.

---

If you look at her profile on social media and the multitude of scantily clad and suggestive pictures she is still posting you will see she is seeking attention. Amazing to see her also using social media to troll for her coming lawsuit, is that what what plaintiff sexual harassment lawyers really encourage now?

---

There is absolutely nothing inappropriate or attention-seeking in her Instagram. Unless it's being judged by an extreme religious conservative. A young SoCal woman in a bikini? Oh, the humanity!

---

you're kidding, right?

---

I know it was just 'my gut' and all but there you go...more to the story, and a much more nuanced story at that. Just as I predicted.

---

I've been out of service areas since this post and have been regretting it all the time. I haven't caught up to what anyone else said about it - or if it turned out to be real - but I'm going to say I'd like a do over. I didn't know anything about the veracity of the social media post and should have used better judgment. Lesson learned.

tequila4kapp said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

oskioski said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

flounder said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

I'm sorry but I didn't read any further after she said she met a man at midnight who she felt was a sicko and stocking her. Its nonsensical. No woman would do that. I'm not saying she's lying but I had to reread it three times before simply moving on.
I did read a snippet somewhere else where she said she's dealing with mental illness, now that might explain why she went there for her mental illness would not allow her to think clearly and she was processing information wrong, either way don't they do background checks and wouldn't it not say somewhere that she's dealing with mental issues thus a high profile employer would probably not hire her.

If she's definitely got mental issues then I definitely side with her for it makes everything worst for she had the same ability to make major decisions as a child thus why she kept making wrong ones. Her mental illness actually makes this quite worst than simple Sexual Harassment.

Who hired her without talking to her fellow players I bet they knew based on her openness to admit it now.

based on the info she gave I'm betting its a former WR coach.

---

i agree, she sounds like an absolute nut job based on her decision to go to the hotel room and to the party. she is an adult and chose to start drinking the tequila. what kind of sane and rational adult would go to a party filled with people she feels uncomfortable around and starts binge drinking.

that being said, hopefully wilcox and knowlton did what they are legally and morally required to do.

---

If you look at her profile on social media and the multitude of scantily clad and suggestive pictures she is still posting you will see she is seeking attention. Amazing to see her also using social media to troll for her coming lawsuit, is that what what plaintiff sexual harassment lawyers really encourage now?

---

There is absolutely nothing inappropriate or attention-seeking in her Instagram. Unless it's being judged by an extreme religious conservative. A young SoCal woman in a bikini? Oh, the humanity!

---

you're kidding, right?

---

I know it was just 'my gut' and all but there you go...more to the story, and a much more nuanced story at that. Just as I predicted.

---

I've been out of service areas since this post and have been regretting it all the time. I haven't caught up to what anyone else said about it - or if it turned out to be real - but I'm going to say I'd like a do over. I didn't know anything about the veracity of the social media post and should have used better judgment. Lesson learned.

---

you missed the preface: Dear Father for I have sinned... ( father cackles)

tequila4kapp said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

oskioski said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

flounder said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

I'm sorry but I didn't read any further after she said she met a man at midnight who she felt was a sicko and stocking her. Its nonsensical. No woman would do that. I'm not saying she's lying but I had to reread it three times before simply moving on.
I did read a snippet somewhere else where she said she's dealing with mental illness, now that might explain why she went there for her mental illness would not allow her to think clearly and she was processing information wrong, either way don't they do background checks and wouldn't it not say somewhere that she's dealing with mental issues thus a high profile employer would probably not hire her.

If she's definitely got mental issues then I definitely side with her for it makes everything worst for she had the same ability to make major decisions as a child thus why she kept making wrong ones. Her mental illness actually makes this quite worst than simple Sexual Harassment.

Who hired her without talking to her fellow players I bet they knew based on her openness to admit it now.

based on the info she gave I'm betting its a former WR coach.

---

i agree, she sounds like an absolute nut job based on her decision to go to the hotel room and to the party. she is an adult and chose to start drinking the tequila. what kind of sane and rational adult would go to a party filled with people she feels uncomfortable around and starts binge drinking.

that being said, hopefully wilcox and knowlton did what they are legally and morally required to do.

---

If you look at her profile on social media and the multitude of scantily clad and suggestive pictures she is still posting you will see she is seeking attention. Amazing to see her also using social media to troll for her coming lawsuit, is that what what plaintiff sexual harassment lawyers really encourage now?

---

There is absolutely nothing inappropriate or attention-seeking in her Instagram. Unless it's being judged by an extreme religious conservative. A young SoCal woman in a bikini? Oh, the humanity!

---

you're kidding, right?

---

I know it was just 'my gut' and all but there you go...more to the story, and a much more nuanced story at that. Just as I predicted.

---

I've been out of service areas since this post and have been regretting it all the time. I haven't caught up to what anyone else said about it - or if it turned out to be real - but I'm going to say I'd like a do over. I didn't know anything about the veracity of the social media post and should have used better judgment. Lesson learned.

---

It turned out to be (probably?) real. Or at least fiatlux vouches for it.

Maybe it's too early for conjecture but as these inconsistencies come out, I can't help but piece it all together.

My guess is that something like the following happened:

* She intentionally got involved with that volunteer "coach" that's no longer with the program. She did so under her own will but regrets some of the decisions she made (eg being drunk and choosing to meet up with him late at night in the office, going over to his room at the Claremont). There was some sexual involvement between the two that she willingly took part in but later regretted.

* Parts of her story are either exaggerated, embellished or entirely fabricated including the use of power and threat over her job, the glares/looks by coaches and players, a coach following her home and other toxic atmosphere accusations.

* It's possible that during the time period over which this took place, she was going through some challenging times mentally, causing her to make decisions she now regrets. Now that she's in a more stable place mentally, she's looking back on her experiences (and what's going on in media) and telling herself this narrative of a toxic culture (eg I was singled out and embarassed, I was leered at), how she was used by these volunteer coaches and justifies her past decisions In a way that shifts the blame away from her (eg I needed the job because I was a struggling financial student, I went to the room to smooth things over, I met with the coach late at night drunk for help with school).

This is now her chance for payback as she believes her own narrative of being totally innocent and Cal being completely at fault.

Again, total conjecture based on nothing more than what's been put out there. It would make sense of the seeming inconsistent behavior. It's also traits I've seen elsewhere in people.

SonomanA1 said:

---

Does anyone know when the Today Show interview was done? I am sort of surprised if the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination has not reached out to her by now.

---

Best guess, the interview was prior to last Tuesday. Reading between the lines of what the accuser was saying about the Today Show, NBC News had the story ready air Tuesday morning on the Today Show, but it got pushed back to Wednesday then Thursday. That all certainly suggests an interview before Tuesday. But that is guessing.

cal83dls79 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Yes, by FAR the worst part of this Today Show story for Cal, vis-a-vis what we already know, is the reporters claim that she has talked to multiple women associated with Cal Athletics who verify a culture (or examples) of sexual harassment.

This is either shoddy reporting, multiple people who want to make anonymous false claims, or we have something of a systemic problem. (Some supposedly happened under a "previous coach", did I hear that right? Thanks again, Mr. Pigskins-and-Pearls.)

---

I'm on the record: shoddy reporting, boy that was easy and I can tell my grandkids!

---

The whole Today Show piece was shoddy reporting, in general, IMO.

But when the Today Show reporter says she personally spoke with women in the Cal Athletics community who said they had experienced sexual harassment or believe that there is a culture of sexual harassment within Cal athletics, how is that going to be shoddy reporting? What are some scenarios? Did she make that up? Did she ask loaded questions? Did she interview 50 women until she found two who answered the question "correctly"?

(Did I get this part of the segment right? Honestly, I don't feel like watching it a second time, but it was the reporter speaking, towards the end of the segment.)

I really want to believe this is not systemic in our culture -- In Berkeley, in this day and age -- but if it is, that needs to be addressed.

Big C said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Yes, by FAR the worst part of this Today Show story for Cal, vis-a-vis what we already know, is the reporters claim that she has talked to multiple women associated with Cal Athletics who verify a culture (or examples) of sexual harassment.

This is either shoddy reporting, multiple people who want to make anonymous false claims, or we have something of a systemic problem. (Some supposedly happened under a "previous coach", did I hear that right? Thanks again, Mr. Pigskins-and-Pearls.)

---

I'm on the record: shoddy reporting, boy that was easy and I can tell my grandkids!

---

The whole Today Show piece was shody reporting, in general, IMO.

But when the Today Show reporter says she personally spoke with women in the Cal Athletics community who said they had experienced sexual harassment or believe that there is a culture of sexual harassment within Cal athletics, how is that going to be shoddy reporting? What are some scenarios? Did she make that up? Did she ask loaded questions? Did she interview 50 women until she found two who answered the question "correctly"?

(Did I get this part of the segment right? Honestly, I don't feel like watching it a second time, but it was the reporter speaking, towards the end of the segment.)

I really want to believe this is not systemic in our culture -- In Berkeley, in this day and age -- but if it is, that needs to be addressed.

---

There are degrees of sexual harassment and I can fully believe that some degree of sexual harassment would be prevalent. So if it's things like thinking that players ogling other students, even coaches taking looks, and people making inappropriate comments and advances then I'd be shocked if any football program was 100% in the clear.

But systemic abuse of power to threaten jobs? Actual physical harassment? Specific dress code for individuals? That I don't think would be "systemic" because it's that kind of high-key obvious harassment that training seems to focus on (or at least as the really clear takeaways from training programs on the matter).

Big C said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Yes, by FAR the worst part of this Today Show story for Cal, vis-a-vis what we already know, is the reporters claim that she has talked to multiple women associated with Cal Athletics who verify a culture (or examples) of sexual harassment.

This is either shoddy reporting, multiple people who want to make anonymous false claims, or we have something of a systemic problem. (Some supposedly happened under a "previous coach", did I hear that right? Thanks again, Mr. Pigskins-and-Pearls.)

---

I'm on the record: shoddy reporting, boy that was easy and I can tell my grandkids!

---

The whole Today Show piece was shody reporting, in general, IMO.

But when the Today Show reporter says she personally spoke with women in the Cal Athletics community who said they had experienced sexual harassment or believe that there is a culture of sexual harassment within Cal athletics, how is that going to be shoddy reporting? What are some scenarios? Did she make that up? Did she ask loaded questions? Did she interview 50 women until she found two who answered the question "correctly"?

(Did I get this part of the segment right? Honestly, I don't feel like watching it a second time, but it was the reporter speaking, towards the end of the segment.)

I really want to believe this is not systemic in our culture -- In Berkeley, in this day and age -- but if it is, that needs to be addressed.

---

This woman spoke on the air for about 30 seconds, total. Here is a highly likely reason: the reporter interviewed her at length and discovered serious trouble. Still, they were committed by that time to put something on the air. So, they clipped as little as possible from the woman and let the reporter speak for her. Had the nature of the story not fit the NBC agenda, we would have seen/heard nothing of it.

NBC agenda. BEWARE!

Bobodeluxe said:

---

NBC agenda. BEWARE!

---

just for that, watch the show, 4 hrs each day for a week and report back .. really? The great defenders of the today show! Lordy

Rushinbear said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Full video here:

I guess I'll eat crow about the segment being made up.

---

"...head coach Jussie Wilcox..." That's how I heard it. See what you think.

---

No intent to comment on the merits, but the giant gold lettering that keeps showing up on screen during the report reminds me of a Tarantino movie:

bearister said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Full video here:

I guess I'll eat crow about the segment being made up.

---

"...head coach Jussie Wilcox..." That's how I heard it. See what you think.

---

No intent to comment on the merits, but the giant gold lettering that keeps showing up on screen during the report reminds me of a Tarantino movie:

---

Yeah, the giant lettering is definitely the most sensationalistic thing about the segment. Also very silly looking.

Rushinbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Yes, by FAR the worst part of this Today Show story for Cal, vis-a-vis what we already know, is the reporters claim that she has talked to multiple women associated with Cal Athletics who verify a culture (or examples) of sexual harassment.

This is either shoddy reporting, multiple people who want to make anonymous false claims, or we have something of a systemic problem. (Some supposedly happened under a "previous coach", did I hear that right? Thanks again, Mr. Pigskins-and-Pearls.)

---

I'm on the record: shoddy reporting, boy that was easy and I can tell my grandkids!

---

The whole Today Show piece was shody reporting, in general, IMO.

But when the Today Show reporter says she personally spoke with women in the Cal Athletics community who said they had experienced sexual harassment or believe that there is a culture of sexual harassment within Cal athletics, how is that going to be shoddy reporting? What are some scenarios? Did she make that up? Did she ask loaded questions? Did she interview 50 women until she found two who answered the question "correctly"?

(Did I get this part of the segment right? Honestly, I don't feel like watching it a second time, but it was the reporter speaking, towards the end of the segment.)

I really want to believe this is not systemic in our culture -- In Berkeley, in this day and age -- but if it is, that needs to be addressed.

---

This woman spoke on the air for about 30 seconds, total. Here is a highly likely reason: the reporter interviewed her at length and discovered serious trouble. Still, they were committed by that time to put something on the air. So, they clipped as little as possible from the woman and let the reporter speak for her. Had the nature of the story not fit the NBC agenda, we would have seen/heard nothing of it.

---

It also often means the person is not comfortable or well spoken on camera. This segment reminded me of another thing that happened in the morning show piece on the case I was involved with: 2-3 people were interviewed for 15-30 minutes each and all three got maybe one or two sentences on camera. Actually, I think one was cut entirely. It's a morning show, not 60 Minutes.

Rushinbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Yes, by FAR the worst part of this Today Show story for Cal, vis-a-vis what we already know, is the reporters claim that she has talked to multiple women associated with Cal Athletics who verify a culture (or examples) of sexual harassment.

This is either shoddy reporting, multiple people who want to make anonymous false claims, or we have something of a systemic problem. (Some supposedly happened under a "previous coach", did I hear that right? Thanks again, Mr. Pigskins-and-Pearls.)

---

I'm on the record: shoddy reporting, boy that was easy and I can tell my grandkids!

---

The whole Today Show piece was shody reporting, in general, IMO.

But when the Today Show reporter says she personally spoke with women in the Cal Athletics community who said they had experienced sexual harassment or believe that there is a culture of sexual harassment within Cal athletics, how is that going to be shoddy reporting? What are some scenarios? Did she make that up? Did she ask loaded questions? Did she interview 50 women until she found two who answered the question "correctly"?

(Did I get this part of the segment right? Honestly, I don't feel like watching it a second time, but it was the reporter speaking, towards the end of the segment.)

I really want to believe this is not systemic in our culture -- In Berkeley, in this day and age -- but if it is, that needs to be addressed.

---

This woman spoke on the air for about 30 seconds, total. Here is a highly likely reason: the reporter interviewed her at length and discovered serious trouble. Still, they were committed by that time to put something on the air. So, they clipped as little as possible from the woman and let the reporter speak for her. Had the nature of the story not fit the NBC agenda, we would have seen/heard nothing of it.

---

Rushinbear, first of all, I think we see this the same way. There are many, many holes in the young woman's story. (And yet, we'd like an investigation to reveal the truth and for appropriate action to be taken, based on that truth.)

Here's what concerned me about the Today Show segment (reporter's words)...

(2:44) "NBC News spoke to several, current female Athletic Department employees ... who say ... it's a culture rife with daily harassment."

(3:58) "I've spoken to multiple women now, who currently are still at Cal, who are involved with Cal Athletics, who say what Paige described is accurate and continues today."

If the reporter is making stuff up, or even carefully choosing her words to exaggerate, then shame on her.

It was clear to me that the Today Show segment was slanted in it's general tone, no question about that, but the quotes above worried me and do not put Cal Athletics in a good light.

I also want to say that I quite dislike some of the ways that other news outlets are reporting on this story. Take for example the Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/28/woman-at-center-of-cal-football-sex-harassment-allegations-speaks-out-on-today-show/

Who leads with the sentence (emphasis mine):

Quote:

---

The woman at the center of sexual harassment allegations against members of the UC Berkeley football program appeared Thursday morning on the "Today Show" and stood firm in the explosive accusations she publicized last week on social media.

---

Really? They're going to say "stood firm" when key details of her story have changed since her initial post?

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

I also want to say that I quite dislike some of the ways that other news outlets are reporting on this story. Take for example the Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/28/woman-at-center-of-cal-football-sex-harassment-allegations-speaks-out-on-today-show/

Who leads with the sentence (emphasis mine):

Quote:

---

The woman at the center of sexual harassment allegations against members of the UC Berkeley football program appeared Thursday morning on the "Today Show" and stood firm in the explosive accusations she publicized last week on social media.

---

Really? They're going to say "stood firm" when key details of her story have changed since her initial post?

---

jeez. We are completely outgunned and have zero defense or strategy, taking a pounding. And we ***** about poor email campaigns? Cmon, focus guys

Quote:

---

My guess is that something like the following happened:

* She intentionally got involved with that volunteer "coach" that's no longer with the program. She did so under her own will but regrets some of the decisions she made (eg being drunk and choosing to meet up with him late at night in the office, going over to his room at the Claremont). There was some sexual involvement between the two that she willingly took part in but later regretted.

---

If what you describe turns out to be accurate, that would amount to sexual harassment in an employment sense. Even a low level volunteer assistant coach is an a power position relative to a hydro tech [Why do we call them "hydro-techs"? They are water boys and water girls]. I don't recall anywhere that she claimed to have actually had sex, voluntary or otherwise with anyone in the program.

cal83dls79 said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

I also want to say that I quite dislike some of the ways that other news outlets are reporting on this story. Take for example the Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/28/woman-at-center-of-cal-football-sex-harassment-allegations-speaks-out-on-today-show/

Who leads with the sentence (emphasis mine):

Quote:

---

The woman at the center of sexual harassment allegations against members of the UC Berkeley football program appeared Thursday morning on the "Today Show" and stood firm in the explosive accusations she publicized last week on social media.

---

Really? They're going to say "stood firm" when key details of her story have changed since her initial post?

---

jeez. We are completely outgunned and have zero defense or strategy, taking a pounding. And we ***** about poor email campaigns? Cmon, focus guys

---

An aggressive PR campaign against this woman would do no good for Cal. It would just look like the big dog beating up on the little dog. Cal can't win the PR battle here, only investigate and proceed on the merits of the claim.

sycasey said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

I also want to say that I quite dislike some of the ways that other news outlets are reporting on this story. Take for example the Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/28/woman-at-center-of-cal-football-sex-harassment-allegations-speaks-out-on-today-show/

Who leads with the sentence (emphasis mine):

Quote:

---

The woman at the center of sexual harassment allegations against members of the UC Berkeley football program appeared Thursday morning on the "Today Show" and stood firm in the explosive accusations she publicized last week on social media.

---

Really? They're going to say "stood firm" when key details of her story have changed since her initial post?

---

jeez. We are completely outgunned and have zero defense or strategy, taking a pounding. And we ***** about poor email campaigns? Cmon, focus guys

---

An aggressive PR campaign against this woman would do no good for Cal. It would just look like the big dog beating up on the little dog. Cal can't win the PR battle here, only investigate and proceed on the merits of the claim.

---

It's not like the tree sitters or the PHA, though Cal implements the same strategy with pretty much anybody who is an adversary.

sycasey said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

I also want to say that I quite dislike some of the ways that other news outlets are reporting on this story. Take for example the Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/28/woman-at-center-of-cal-football-sex-harassment-allegations-speaks-out-on-today-show/

Who leads with the sentence (emphasis mine):

Quote:

---

The woman at the center of sexual harassment allegations against members of the UC Berkeley football program appeared Thursday morning on the "Today Show" and stood firm in the explosive accusations she publicized last week on social media.

---

Really? They're going to say "stood firm" when key details of her story have changed since her initial post?

---

jeez. We are completely outgunned and have zero defense or strategy, taking a pounding. And we ***** about poor email campaigns? Cmon, focus guys

---

An aggressive PR campaign against this woman would do no good for Cal. It would just look like the big dog beating up on the little dog. Cal can't win the PR battle here, only investigate and proceed on the merits of the claim.

---

Agree. When you are in a hole, stop digging

sycasey said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

I also want to say that I quite dislike some of the ways that other news outlets are reporting on this story. Take for example the Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/28/woman-at-center-of-cal-football-sex-harassment-allegations-speaks-out-on-today-show/

Who leads with the sentence (emphasis mine):

Quote:

---

The woman at the center of sexual harassment allegations against members of the UC Berkeley football program appeared Thursday morning on the "Today Show" and stood firm in the explosive accusations she publicized last week on social media.

---

Really? They're going to say "stood firm" when key details of her story have changed since her initial post?

---

jeez. We are completely outgunned and have zero defense or strategy, taking a pounding. And we ***** about poor email campaigns? Cmon, focus guys

---

An aggressive PR campaign against this woman would do no good for Cal. It would just look like the big dog beating up on the little dog. Cal can't win the PR battle here, only investigate and proceed on the merits of the claim.

---

I agree with this - Cal should say absolutely nothing about the woman or the specifics of this case.

But Cal could be out front in saying that the investigation is underway (which I assume - and it better be), describing in detail how the investigation will be conducted (e.g., which department and/or with outside help), repeating that ALL allegations will be taken seriously and investigated per standard policy, and that there is a zero tolerance standard for the alleged behavior. This should be repeated over and over again. Saying nothing leads credence to the woman's claim that Cal has not taken action.

This is not hard. And yet Cal makes these mistakes over and over again.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

I also want to say that I quite dislike some of the ways that other news outlets are reporting on this story. Take for example the Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/28/woman-at-center-of-cal-football-sex-harassment-allegations-speaks-out-on-today-show/

Who leads with the sentence (emphasis mine):

Quote:

---

The woman at the center of sexual harassment allegations against members of the UC Berkeley football program appeared Thursday morning on the "Today Show" and stood firm in the explosive accusations she publicized last week on social media.

---

Really? They're going to say "stood firm" when key details of her story have changed since her initial post?

---

jeez. We are completely outgunned and have zero defense or strategy, taking a pounding. And we ***** about poor email campaigns? Cmon, focus guys

---

An aggressive PR campaign against this woman would do no good for Cal. It would just look like the big dog beating up on the little dog. Cal can't win the PR battle here, only investigate and proceed on the merits of the claim.

---

I agree with this - Cal should say absolutely nothing about the woman or the specifics of this case.

But Cal could be out front in saying that the investigation is underway (which I assume - and it better be), describing in detail how the investigation will be conducted (e.g., which department and/or with outside help), repeating that ALL allegations will be taken seriously and investigated per standard policy, and that there is a zero tolerance standard for the alleged behavior. This should be repeated over and over again. Saying nothing leads credence to the woman's claim that Cal has not taken action.

This is not hard. And yet Cal makes these mistakes over and over again.

---

IMO this would have minimal impact and would start to look desperate the more often you say it. The only thing they could add is more detail about how the investigation will proceed. Otherwise they've already said everything else.

Snowflakes gathering. Poor, poor boys.

GBear4Life said:

---

Obvious is obvious.

Let me spare everyone the suspense: it will be shown that she is 10% mentally ill and 90% FOS...

...a young girl is gawked at, manipulates in order to climb the professional/career ladder thus tolerates the minor inconveniences of being hollered at by thirsty men...then when she doesn't get what she wants, goes in for the kill.

Cal will probably still give her a chunk of change for her "trouble". What a joke.

"Harrassment" and "sexual assault" have been *******ized to the point where they are rendered meaningless in public discourse.

What determines "harrassment" and "sexual assult" is often nothing more than the woman's subjective determination after-the-fact.

I touch a female co worker's shoulder and it's no problem. Another man does the same, but because she doesn't like him, it becomes a formal documented incident.

A man can flirt with a girl and so long as she's receptive or acquiescing it's fine. At any time, then or later, she decides it was "unsolicited" then it becomes a platform for her to fully destroy someone as she sees fit. It's not women's fault. It's the well intentioned but misguided gatekeepers and public opinion leaders who perpetuate this delusion.

Remember Brenda Tracy? The poster child for "rape culture" on college campus and the oppressive male patriarchy? Doing tours all around the country over an incident where charges were dropped, where she refused to testify, and where a drunk women acquiesced a gang bang and decided after the fact that someone else should be responsible for her agency. She had a history of sexual deviance and accepting of aggressive male behavior and she knew the defense was going to call her out on it. Nobody questions the veracity of that incident, all the white knights looking to score social brownie points just accept it at face value because.

---

Who'd you rape?

25To20 said:

---

Quote:

---

My guess is that something like the following happened:

* She intentionally got involved with that volunteer "coach" that's no longer with the program. She did so under her own will but regrets some of the decisions she made (eg being drunk and choosing to meet up with him late at night in the office, going over to his room at the Claremont). There was some sexual involvement between the two that she willingly took part in but later regretted.

---

If what you describe turns out to be accurate, that would amount to sexual harassment in an employment sense. Even a low level volunteer assistant coach is an a power position relative to a hydro tech [Why do we call them "hydro-techs"? They are water boys and water girls]. I don't recall anywhere that she claimed to have actually had sex, voluntary or otherwise with anyone in the program.

---

Not exactly. If he used his power to get sexual favors, then yes. But if she got involved on her own accord, then no it's not sexual harassment.

In the employment sense, companies may make rules where people in reporting chains can't date. Typically that means people avoid it or if they do date then they change groups. This is to avoid the power dynamic. But dating a subordinate is not inherently sexual harassment.

Yeah, she never claimed it but reading between the lines of her Insta story about an "unforgettable night she can tell her grandkids" and her going to the guys hotel room late at night, it smells like there was ongoing physical involvement. I just don't see women meeting a guy 1 on 1 late at night when drunk or secretly coming over late to a hotel room unless there's prior involvement since it's pretty obvious what's up (even in college).

My guess is that she's leaving those details out because then it would look like more of a consensual relationship rather than harassment / unwanted advances.

GMP said:

---

Who'd you rape?

---

Nice deflection and obscurantism in service of your virtue signaling.

Translation: "straying from the 'woke' orthodoxy and ideology triggers me, but I have no substance to rebuke. So I'll just make a baseless personal attack."

GBear4Life said:

---

GMP said:

---

Who'd you rape?

---

Nice deflection and obscurantism in service of your virtue signaling.

Translation: "straying from the 'woke' orthodoxy and ideology triggers me, but I have no substance to rebuke. So I'll just make a baseless personal attack."

---

I think, as a society, we can accept that "accepting aggressive male behavior" or "being drunk" doesn't equal consent.

packawana said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

GMP said:

---

Who'd you rape?

---

Nice deflection and obscurantism in service of your virtue signaling.

Translation: "straying from the 'woke' orthodoxy and ideology triggers me, but I have no substance to rebuke. So I'll just make a baseless personal attack."

---

I think, as a society, we can accept that "accepting aggressive male behavior" or "being drunk" doesn't equal consent.

---

Society has not come to a consensus of what "consent" means -- legally, morally, culpably. We also conflate greasy behavior and sexual manipulation with a crime -- both when men or woman do it.

Mainstream culture does not require accountability on behalf of the female. Given that sexual crimes are difficult to indict and prosecute given a lack of evidence in most cases and the difficulty in asserting consent was given or not given (it can be one party did perceive consent given, and the other did not), they use the hammer of cultural pressure to either extort or destroy the alleged perp in the courts and in public.

By her own account, she was clearly giving mixed signals. It was clear both parties were manipulating the other to achieve their ends (not against the law, in principle). We keep telling women that men are responsible for foreseeing any doubt or apprehension. Most sexual contact is initiated and engaged in via non-verbal cues. When a man/woman makes an advance, however inappropriate, it is your responsibility to declare consent or non consent. Despite what those who marinate in the identity politics of our social-political environment, the absence of a 'no' can in fact mean 'yes'. Anybody who has spent time with other humans, particularly the opposite sex, know this to be both intuitively and demonstrably self-evident.

If I were a fly on the wall I have little trouble doubting that this dude's behavior would be cringy and tacky, and that if it were my own son I'd beat his a*s. But I'd feel the same about her behavior also. Being drunk doesn't alleviate your responsibility -- legally and morally -- to acquiescing to sexual contact, regretting it later, and then claiming you were victimized. That's not admirable or acceptable behavior, and it warrants being called out.

This video doesn't claim to reflect a broader consensus of just how hypocritical and sexist the narrative on consent is, but it does give you a glimpse of how deep and unquestioning the double standard is for some.

GBear4Life said:

---

packawana said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

GMP said:

---

Who'd you rape?

---

Nice deflection and obscurantism in service of your virtue signaling.

Translation: "straying from the 'woke' orthodoxy and ideology triggers me, but I have no substance to rebuke. So I'll just make a baseless personal attack."

---

I think, as a society, we can accept that "accepting aggressive male behavior" or "being drunk" doesn't equal consent.

---

Society has not come to a consensus of what "consent" means -- legally, morally, culpably. We also conflate greasy behavior and sexual manipulation with a crime -- both when men or woman do it.

Mainstream culture does not require accountability on behalf of the female. Given that sexual crimes are difficult to indict and prosecute given a lack of evidence in most cases and the difficulty in asserting consent was given or not given (it can be one party did perceive consent given, and the other did not), they use the hammer of cultural pressure to either extort or destroy the alleged perp in the courts and in public.

By her own account, she was clearly giving mixed signals. It was clear both parties were manipulating the other to achieve their ends (not against the law, in principle). We keep telling women that men are responsible for foreseeing any doubt or apprehension. Most sexual contact is initiated and engaged in via non-verbal cues. When a man/woman makes an advance, however inappropriate, it is your responsibility to declare consent or non consent. Despite what those who marinate in the identity politics of our social-political environment, the absence of a 'no' can in fact mean 'yes'. Anybody who has spent time with other humans, particularly the opposite sex, know this to be both intuitively and demonstrably self-evident.

If I were a fly on the wall I have little trouble doubting that this dude's behavior would be cringy and tacky, and that if it were my own son I'd beat his a*s. But I'd feel the same about her behavior also. Being drunk doesn't alleviate your responsibility -- legally and morally -- to acquiescing to sexual contact, regretting it later, and then claiming you were victimized. That's not admirable or acceptable behavior, and it warrants being called out.

This video doesn't claim to reflect a broader consensus of just how hypocritical and sexist the narrative on consent is, but it does give you a glimpse of how deep and unquestioning the double standard is for some.

---

Sure there's a double standard, but it's the same double standard that makes it more acceptable, say, for a man to walk around scantily clad without having to worry about being catcalled or assaulted. Gender roles are something that exist in society and for a large history of it, women have been treated as sexual objects for the men than the other way around. Of course there would be a double standard that exists.

To be honest, this post comes off to me as incredibly self-serving. Woman gives mixed signals to man. Why does that entitle man to keep going? That essentially sounds like an excuse to keep getting what you want without paying any price for it.