It seems that her FB post has now disappeared. I tried to click on the link posted in the first comment in this thread and it's now invalid. I also tried searching for her on FB and I can no longer find her profile. Interesting.
irvinebear said:
It seems that her FB post has now disappeared. I tried to click on the link posted in the first comment in this thread and it's now invalid. I also tried searching for her on FB and I can no longer find her profile. Interesting.
She's probably getting a lot of messages from both sides (many of them not so nice). I would probably shut it down or make it private at that point.irvinebear said:
It seems that her FB post has now disappeared. I tried to click on the link posted in the first comment in this thread and it's now invalid. I also tried searching for her on FB and I can no longer find her profile. Interesting.
OaktownBear said:BearGoggles said:What I found hard to believe (the allegation that Wilcox and Knowlton didn't report) has since been confirmed by Cal's statement - Wilcox and the AD immediately reported the complaint. Could they be lying? I suppose. But, again, I highly doubt that. Weighing credibility (as I'm doing) and pointing to obvious holes/discrepancies in the women's claims (not to mention how she chose to publish them) is not jumping to a conclusion. It is critical thinking.OaktownBear said:I'm responding to you BG, but this isn't aimed at you. I AM picking on one phrase in your post as I think it is representative of a ton of posts here. That phrase is "I find it hard to believe..." I'm seeing this sentiment on both sides. Relatively neutral posts arguing we wait and see followed by a "I find it hard to believe" statement.BearGoggles said:
There have been several posts indicating that the women's story should be believed because false reports of crimes - particularly sexual harassment and rape - are rare. Most claims are true, but many are not.
I think in today's world, it is not accurate to suggest that a claimed victim has nothing to gain. Aside from potential legal recoveries (which have always been available), in today's world a claimed victim gets a ton of attention, the very coveted victim status, and an opportunity to promote an agenda (or in some cases, exact vengeance and/or revenge). The [url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/22/jussie-smollett-attack-hoax-allegation-bogus-police-reports-real-harm/2936672002/][/url]Jussie Smollett episode is only the most recent example. Understandably, many of us can't fathom that a famous relatively wealthy person would make a false claim. Yet is seems almost certain he did.
[url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/22/jussie-smollett-attack-hoax-allegation-bogus-police-reports-real-harm/2936672002/][/url]
There is reporting that false claims are more common than thought. In addition, many of the Title IX claims being litigated in courts on a nationwide basis have shown that the claims are sometimes made with improper motive (i.e., claims made after consensual relationships ended badly).
In this case (every case), the woman's claims should be fully investigated. But it sure seems that there's more to the story. I'm open to all possibilities, but I find it very difficult to believe that complaints were submitted to (and received by) JW or Cal admin and ignored.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/7/false-sex-assault-reports-not-rare-reported-studie/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/another-sexual-assault-acquittal-reaffirms-the-need-to-believeevidence/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/17/sexual-assault-allegations-wait-facts-former-prosecutor-column/1659190002/
I'm sorry, if you live in this world, I find it hard to believe that any of you are so out of it that you still find anything hard to believe.
I find it hard to believe that people do scumbag things like are accused here. But it happens all the time, so I don't find it hard to believe.
I find it hard to believe that people make false accusations. But it happens all the time, so I don't find it hard to believe.
I find it hard to believe that smart people who receive these reports don't handle them properly, but it happens all the time, so I don't find it hard to believe.
I find it hard to believe (and frankly it hurts my heart) that any woman would feel such lack of empowerment to essentially not stand up to bullying to the point where they go to parties or others hotel rooms, but it happens all the time, so I don't find it hard to believe.
I don't find her story hard to believe. I don't find the possibility that she has made it up or exaggerated it hard to believe. I don't find the concept that Cal has done everything correctly hard to believe. I don't find the idea that Cal has failed miserably hard to believe. All of this has been seen over and over.
So here is what I'm going to do until I find out more. I'm going to treat this woman as if she is telling the truth. I'm going to treat the accused as if they are telling the truth.
And I'm going to submit to all of you that no one here is neutral. I think it is safe to say we all hope this is untrue. No one wants to think a young woman went through this. No one wants to think any of our representatives would do this. And let's face it, this would be severely damaging to our football program, and we are on a Cal football board because we care about the fate of our football program. (I would submit that if somehow I could demonstrate that her claims being true would somehow lead to a Rose Bowl while not hurting the reputation of the program, she would garner a lot more sympathy). On the flip side, a lot of people are also inclined to take a societal problem and statistics and apply them to an individual case when that is just not appropropriate.
And I don't claim to be neutral on this issue. The discussions around all of these cases always makes me uncomfortable. Sexual harassment and assault are not false reported any more than any other crime. Which is to say about 6-10% false reporting rate. That is certainly high enough to take the possibility of a false report seriously whether it is a pickpocketing or a sexual assault. What makes me uncomfortable is the speculation as to reasons. Hell, I don't know why anyone would false report anything. But they do. However, the woman scorned, gold digger, **** stories that can be made up spill over on the accuser, and speculation is just not helpful either in the individual case or in the societal case.
As I said, I am not neutral. I have daughters. The statistics are frightening. And as a society we have just flat out been horrible in prosecuting these types of cases. Sexual assault is about the easiest crime to get away with. The percentage of perpetrators that see jail time is shockingly low. In sheer numbers, the number of victims who do not see justice just swamps the number of innocent people who ever see consequences for a crime they don't commit. We really need to do something about this.
However, societal statistics don't mean a damned thing when it comes to an individual case. We've got to stop treating them like they do. And individual cases don't mean squat when it comes to judging a societal problem. We can't put the baggage of all of our history on every individual case. The question of innocence or guilt of an individual accused has nothing to do with how many people were unjustly let go or convicted in the past.
What we can do is stop jumping to conclusions on both sides. What we really must do is start treating all sides with fairness. Stop defending people you think you know. Stop judging situations you think you understand.
In this case, she has made claims that should produce witnesses. They don't always, but I'm hoping that there are enough good people in this world that someone will support her if they can corroborate. Even more importantly, she has made claims of communications that should be provable if they occurred.
What I ask is that Cal do a neutral and competent investigation and for everyone to treat EVERYBODY in the situation with respect until we know more. There will be plenty of time to cast stones at the accuser if she is lying or the accused if she is telling the truth.
You have posted a bunch of disputable statistics and then (correctly) said the statistics don't matter in an individual case. You don't indicate where your 6-10% claimed false reporting rate comes from. The numbers I've found are all over the place - I think in part because it is unclear how to classify cases that are reported and which are not prosecuted/ajudicated (i.e., it is hard to tell if it a criminal complaint is false or just not supported by enough evidence to pursue). It also depends on how the "harassment" is defined - the most commonly cited studies in that regard had an unreasonably broad definition of harassment which included behaviors that many would not consider harassment (such as pickup lines) and certainly were not "assault".
Finally, I think its wrong to conflate statistics regarding sexual assault, which is typically a criminal matter, with harassment claims which are typically civil (and in some cases, such as at Cal, also administrative). I think there is a much greater risk of false/unfair claims in the civil/administrative setting, particularly given the current #metoo environment where the scales are heavily tipped in favor of the "victim," who "must be believed" and receives instant victim status.
All of this was to address earlier posts where people said they believed the woman because false reports are rare and "what does she have to gain" (aka the Jussie Smollett defense) I'll stand by my original statement that the number of false claims is not as low as people like to think and that there are many reasons a person might present a false claim - if you doubt this look at the comments to the women's facebook post. Beyond that, I join you in hoping that Cal will do a fair and competent investigation. Unfortunately, due to privacy concerns and rules, we will likely never now the details and, if innocent people have been wrongly accused, their reputations will never be fully restored because they won't be able to speak about it.
I disagree that the scales are tipped in favor of the "victim" and surely not heavily so. For one, I haven't seen a case where there isn't a heavy response complaining that the "victim must be believed" as an excuse to dismiss all victims and then proceed with the usual tearing into them. And then the #metoo movement is cited as some horror without any evidence that any innocent person has been caught up in it. In fact I would point to the case of Aziz Ansari who many would claim was cheap shotted by a journalist based on one woman with one complaint, and who got a lot of support from people in the #metoo movement.
Making a harassment claim still normally leaves the victim worse off for in most cases. Usually without their job and going through a lot of trauma. Most victims move on because it just isn't worth it.
GMP said:
She didn't say they didn't report it. She said she didn't hear back from them. That does not mean they didn't report it. Was that "critical thinking"?
I recall this is your field of expertise, so some questions:KoreAmBear said:
The Title IX Office of Civil Rights process has been evolving rapidly and has only been enforced for about 5 years now. Remember the investigations done against the University of Montana, Yale and many others targeted (including Cal) -- that's when the systematic stamping of sexual harassment/sexual assault on campus really began.
The procedures are now very numerous and strict. Students and the general public may not exactly know how they are enforced unless they look up the actual policy. Reporting parties such as the head coach of the football team or the director of athletics have a duty to report alleged violations to the Title IX office on campus. However, that part of the process may not be disclosed to the complainant.
The Title IX office will usually send the complainant and responding parties a notice letter that an investigation into certain allegations (and they will keep it somewhat general yet specific enough where you can understand what this is about) is ongoing. But the letter does not usually disclose the source of the report.
Paige easily could have thought the Title IX office began this investigation due to some source other than athletics (Paige could have contacted or met with them directly or perhaps she may have told a classmate who could have reported it on her behalf). And her comments that Cal athletics did not return her calls may have reflected her subjective belief that they were sitting on this, even if Wilcox or Knowlton had already reported this to the Title IX office.
So the bottom line is that it's very feasible that Wilcox/Knowlton reported this while at the same time Paige believed that they did nothing.
BearGoggles said:GMP said:
She didn't say they didn't report it. She said she didn't hear back from them. That does not mean they didn't report it. Was that "critical thinking"?
She claimed she didn't receive a response from anyone at Cal and specifically blamed Wilcox and the AD for that. This led many here to conclude there was a failure to report because, if the claims were reported to the appropriate department, there would have 100% for sure been a "response" Here are her exact words (emphasis added):
"I have emailed Justin Wilcox, Jim Knowlton, our Athletic director, and called and emailed many other coaches and athletic administrators. No response. Why not? Because thats the business. . . . Shoutout to Jim Knowlton, Justin Wilcox, the Cal Athletics Administrative office for teaching me this lesson, and I hope to everyone ignoring my phone calls and emails, that you will see that I do not back down. Females to not back down. This is our time to change the game."
Do you believe there is any chance that the women reported this "in the fall" (as ESPN has now reported), that JW and Knowlton reported this per policy (which Cal has indicated they did) and Cal offered "no response"?
SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:
Pure statistics. Plaintiff's side employment matters are a volume business in the legal industry like personal injury cases. You file as many boilerplate lawsuits as possible and see which ones stick. Less than 10% of these cases see the inside of a courtroom where they are decided on veracity. Many are dismissed on papers or for failure to prosecute. The vast majority are settled by employers and/or their insurers making business decisions to avoid the costs of defense.
There are legitimate cases, of course, but they are a small minority in the sea of frivolity churned up by the bottom-feeding plaintiff's bar in the employment law arena.
How dumb are you that you can't use the quote function?SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:
Man! How dumb are you? In how many different ways do I have spell out the same thing I've been saying all along?
I think that's right. Because any direct contact by Wilcox, etc. could be perceived or characterized as attempting to intimidate or influence the complainant (like Meyer at OSU). Total no win situation for all.hoop97 said:BearGoggles said:GMP said:
She didn't say they didn't report it. She said she didn't hear back from them. That does not mean they didn't report it. Was that "critical thinking"?
She claimed she didn't receive a response from anyone at Cal and specifically blamed Wilcox and the AD for that. This led many here to conclude there was a failure to report because, if the claims were reported to the appropriate department, there would have 100% for sure been a "response" Here are her exact words (emphasis added):
"I have emailed Justin Wilcox, Jim Knowlton, our Athletic director, and called and emailed many other coaches and athletic administrators. No response. Why not? Because thats the business. . . . Shoutout to Jim Knowlton, Justin Wilcox, the Cal Athletics Administrative office for teaching me this lesson, and I hope to everyone ignoring my phone calls and emails, that you will see that I do not back down. Females to not back down. This is our time to change the game."
Do you believe there is any chance that the women reported this "in the fall" (as ESPN has now reported), that JW and Knowlton reported this per policy (which Cal has indicated they did) and Cal offered "no response"?
I think the distinction is none of those parties she references (Wilcox, Knowlton, coaches, athletic administrators) should have responded. Per policy it is referred to a university office separate from the athletic department. At least that's how I'm interpreting.
NYCGOBEARS said:
We'd better hope that Wilcox responded appropriately
NVBear78 said:
.... And now the CA Legislature is contemplating eliminating arbitration agreements, one of the only strategies to protect employers.
bearister said:NVBear78 said:
.... And now the CA Legislature is contemplating eliminating arbitration agreements, one of the only strategies to protect employers.
If you felt you were wrongfully terminated or discriminated against by your employer, who would you rather have decide your case, a jury of your peers or an arbitrator that derives substantial income from the volume business directed his way by defense law firms?
+1. I would think this would qualify as a hostile work environment and as the supervisor (wilcox) he would be especially encouraged/prohibited NOT to respond except under VERY controlled circumstances by HR (and even then probably not). But it is shocking to me that the office in charge of harassment would not have reached out to at least acknowledge the complaint had been received and to start collective information.BearGoggles said:I think that's right. Because any direct contact by Wilcox, etc. could be perceived or characterized as attempting to intimidate or influence the complainant (like Meyer at OSU). Total no win situation for all.hoop97 said:BearGoggles said:GMP said:
She didn't say they didn't report it. She said she didn't hear back from them. That does not mean they didn't report it. Was that "critical thinking"?
She claimed she didn't receive a response from anyone at Cal and specifically blamed Wilcox and the AD for that. This led many here to conclude there was a failure to report because, if the claims were reported to the appropriate department, there would have 100% for sure been a "response" Here are her exact words (emphasis added):
"I have emailed Justin Wilcox, Jim Knowlton, our Athletic director, and called and emailed many other coaches and athletic administrators. No response. Why not? Because thats the business. . . . Shoutout to Jim Knowlton, Justin Wilcox, the Cal Athletics Administrative office for teaching me this lesson, and I hope to everyone ignoring my phone calls and emails, that you will see that I do not back down. Females to not back down. This is our time to change the game."
Do you believe there is any chance that the women reported this "in the fall" (as ESPN has now reported), that JW and Knowlton reported this per policy (which Cal has indicated they did) and Cal offered "no response"?
I think the distinction is none of those parties she references (Wilcox, Knowlton, coaches, athletic administrators) should have responded. Per policy it is referred to a university office separate from the athletic department. At least that's how I'm interpreting.
Assuming that's correct, what exactly was the woman complaining about on Facebook? She claimed she got "no response" in a situation where she almost certainly got a letter and the people involved properly did not contact her. I would understand if her complaint was that Cal was taking too long to complete its investigation. But that's not what she said and instead implied that Cal did nothing ("no response").
socaltownie said:+1. I would think this would qualify as a hostile work environment and as the supervisor (wilcox) he would be especially encouraged/prohibited NOT to respond except under VERY controlled circumstances by HR (and even then probably not). But it is shocking to me that the office in charge of harassment would not have reached out to at least acknowledge the complaint had been received and to start collective information.BearGoggles said:I think that's right. Because any direct contact by Wilcox, etc. could be perceived or characterized as attempting to intimidate or influence the complainant (like Meyer at OSU). Total no win situation for all.hoop97 said:BearGoggles said:GMP said:
She didn't say they didn't report it. She said she didn't hear back from them. That does not mean they didn't report it. Was that "critical thinking"?
She claimed she didn't receive a response from anyone at Cal and specifically blamed Wilcox and the AD for that. This led many here to conclude there was a failure to report because, if the claims were reported to the appropriate department, there would have 100% for sure been a "response" Here are her exact words (emphasis added):
"I have emailed Justin Wilcox, Jim Knowlton, our Athletic director, and called and emailed many other coaches and athletic administrators. No response. Why not? Because thats the business. . . . Shoutout to Jim Knowlton, Justin Wilcox, the Cal Athletics Administrative office for teaching me this lesson, and I hope to everyone ignoring my phone calls and emails, that you will see that I do not back down. Females to not back down. This is our time to change the game."
Do you believe there is any chance that the women reported this "in the fall" (as ESPN has now reported), that JW and Knowlton reported this per policy (which Cal has indicated they did) and Cal offered "no response"?
I think the distinction is none of those parties she references (Wilcox, Knowlton, coaches, athletic administrators) should have responded. Per policy it is referred to a university office separate from the athletic department. At least that's how I'm interpreting.
Assuming that's correct, what exactly was the woman complaining about on Facebook? She claimed she got "no response" in a situation where she almost certainly got a letter and the people involved properly did not contact her. I would understand if her complaint was that Cal was taking too long to complete its investigation. But that's not what she said and instead implied that Cal did nothing ("no response").
I am sorry. Something here does NOT ring true. Maybe at a campus which hadn't been through the ringer over harassment lately. But given its visibilty at Cal I am now squarely in the camp of...."hmm.....something doesn't make ANY sense."
Nah. Just call me stupid for not double checking what I wrote. That darn spell check got me again....NYCGOBEARS said:71Bear said:Here is what I find hard to believe...BearGoggles said:What I found hard to believe (the allegation that Wilcox and Knowlton didn't report) has since been confirmed by Cal's statement - Wilcox and the AD immediately reported the complaint. Could they be lying? I suppose. But, again, I highly doubt that. Weighing credibility (as I'm doing) and pointing to obvious holes/discrepancies in the women's claims (not to mention how she chose to publish them) is not jumping to a conclusion. It is critical thinking.OaktownBear said:I'm responding to you BG, but this isn't aimed at you. I AM picking on one phrase in your post as I think it is representative of a ton of posts here. That phrase is "I find it hard to believe..." I'm seeing this sentiment on both sides. Relatively neutral posts arguing we wait and see followed by a "I find it hard to believe" statement.BearGoggles said:
There have been several posts indicating that the women's story should be believed because false reports of crimes - particularly sexual harassment and rape - are rare. Most claims are true, but many are not.
I think in today's world, it is not accurate to suggest that a claimed victim has nothing to gain. Aside from potential legal recoveries (which have always been available), in today's world a claimed victim gets a ton of attention, the very coveted victim status, and an opportunity to promote an agenda (or in some cases, exact vengeance and/or revenge). The [url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/22/jussie-smollett-attack-hoax-allegation-bogus-police-reports-real-harm/2936672002/][/url]Jussie Smollett episode is only the most recent example. Understandably, many of us can't fathom that a famous relatively wealthy person would make a false claim. Yet is seems almost certain he did.
[url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/22/jussie-smollett-attack-hoax-allegation-bogus-police-reports-real-harm/2936672002/][/url]
There is reporting that false claims are more common than thought. In addition, many of the Title IX claims being litigated in courts on a nationwide basis have shown that the claims are sometimes made with improper motive (i.e., claims made after consensual relationships ended badly).
In this case (every case), the woman's claims should be fully investigated. But it sure seems that there's more to the story. I'm open to all possibilities, but I find it very difficult to believe that complaints were submitted to (and received by) JW or Cal admin and ignored.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/7/false-sex-assault-reports-not-rare-reported-studie/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/another-sexual-assault-acquittal-reaffirms-the-need-to-believeevidence/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/17/sexual-assault-allegations-wait-facts-former-prosecutor-column/1659190002/
I'm sorry, if you live in this world, I find it hard to believe that any of you are so out of it that you still find anything hard to believe.
I find it hard to believe that people do scumbag things like are accused here. But it happens all the time, so I don't find it hard to believe.
I find it hard to believe that people make false accusations. But it happens all the time, so I don't find it hard to believe.
I find it hard to believe that smart people who receive these reports don't handle them properly, but it happens all the time, so I don't find it hard to believe.
I find it hard to believe (and frankly it hurts my heart) that any woman would feel such lack of empowerment to essentially not stand up to bullying to the point where they go to parties or others hotel rooms, but it happens all the time, so I don't find it hard to believe.
I don't find her story hard to believe. I don't find the possibility that she has made it up or exaggerated it hard to believe. I don't find the concept that Cal has done everything correctly hard to believe. I don't find the idea that Cal has failed miserably hard to believe. All of this has been seen over and over.
So here is what I'm going to do until I find out more. I'm going to treat this woman as if she is telling the truth. I'm going to treat the accused as if they are telling the truth.
And I'm going to submit to all of you that no one here is neutral. I think it is safe to say we all hope this is untrue. No one wants to think a young woman went through this. No one wants to think any of our representatives would do this. And let's face it, this would be severely damaging to our football program, and we are on a Cal football board because we care about the fate of our football program. (I would submit that if somehow I could demonstrate that her claims being true would somehow lead to a Rose Bowl while not hurting the reputation of the program, she would garner a lot more sympathy). On the flip side, a lot of people are also inclined to take a societal problem and statistics and apply them to an individual case when that is just not appropropriate.
And I don't claim to be neutral on this issue. The discussions around all of these cases always makes me uncomfortable. Sexual harassment and assault are not false reported any more than any other crime. Which is to say about 6-10% false reporting rate. That is certainly high enough to take the possibility of a false report seriously whether it is a pickpocketing or a sexual assault. What makes me uncomfortable is the speculation as to reasons. Hell, I don't know why anyone would false report anything. But they do. However, the woman scorned, gold digger, **** stories that can be made up spill over on the accuser, and speculation is just not helpful either in the individual case or in the societal case.
As I said, I am not neutral. I have daughters. The statistics are frightening. And as a society we have just flat out been horrible in prosecuting these types of cases. Sexual assault is about the easiest crime to get away with. The percentage of perpetrators that see jail time is shockingly low. In sheer numbers, the number of victims who do not see justice just swamps the number of innocent people who ever see consequences for a crime they don't commit. We really need to do something about this.
However, societal statistics don't mean a damned thing when it comes to an individual case. We've got to stop treating them like they do. And individual cases don't mean squat when it comes to judging a societal problem. We can't put the baggage of all of our history on every individual case. The question of innocence or guilt of an individual accused has nothing to do with how many people were unjustly let go or convicted in the past.
What we can do is stop jumping to conclusions on both sides. What we really must do is start treating all sides with fairness. Stop defending people you think you know. Stop judging situations you think you understand.
In this case, she has made claims that should produce witnesses. They don't always, but I'm hoping that there are enough good people in this world that someone will support her if they can corroborate. Even more importantly, she has made claims of communications that should be provable if they occurred.
What I ask is that Cal do a neutral and competent investigation and for everyone to treat EVERYBODY in the situation with respect until we know more. There will be plenty of time to cast stones at the accuser if she is lying or the accused if she is telling the truth.
You have posted a bunch of disputable statistics and then (correctly) said the statistics don't matter in an individual case. You don't indicate where your 6-10% claimed false reporting rate comes from. The numbers I've found are all over the place - I think in part because it is unclear how to classify cases that are reported and which are not prosecuted/ajudicated (i.e., it is hard to tell if it a criminal complaint is false or just not supported by enough evidence to pursue). It also depends on how the "harassment" is defined - the most commonly cited studies in that regard had an unreasonably broad definition of harassment which included behaviors that many would not consider harassment (such as pickup lines) and certainly were not "assault".
Finally, I think its wrong to conflate statistics regarding sexual assault, which is typically a criminal matter, with harassment claims which are typically civil (and in some cases, such as at Cal, also administrative). I think there is a much greater risk of false/unfair claims in the civil/administrative setting, particularly given the current #metoo environment where the scales are heavily tipped in favor of the "victim," who "must be believed" and receives instant victim status.
All of this was to address earlier posts where people said they believed the woman because false reports are rare and "what does she have to gain" (aka the Jussie Smollett defense) I'll stand by my original statement that the number of false claims is not as low as people like to think and that there are many reasons a person might present a false claim - if you doubt this look at the comments to the women's facebook post. Beyond that, I join you in hoping that Cal will do a fair and competent investigation. Unfortunately, due to privacy concerns and rules, we will likely never now the details and, if innocent people have been wrongly accused, their reputations will never be fully restored because they won't be able to speak about it.
That anyone would think something is "hard to believe". In this day and age, anything is possible and nothing surprises me. Call me cyclical if you wish but I really think that everything and anything is believable......
I've often called you cynical. I should add cyclical now? Will do.
Once something is reported to a Title IX office (for Cal, OPHD), there are rigid processes that universities must abide by (per advisory letters issued by the Office of Civil Rights, US Dept of Education) including providing notice letters to both the complainant and respondent, and ensuring that interim measures are in place to reduce or eliminate any potential contact between the parties. While conducting a thorough but prompt investigation, OPHD is to give the parties status updates on whether the investigation will take longer than the normal timelines and closing letters on whether the allegations were found to be substantiated.BearGoggles said:I recall this is your field of expertise, so some questions:KoreAmBear said:
The Title IX Office of Civil Rights process has been evolving rapidly and has only been enforced for about 5 years now. Remember the investigations done against the University of Montana, Yale and many others targeted (including Cal) -- that's when the systematic stamping of sexual harassment/sexual assault on campus really began.
The procedures are now very numerous and strict. Students and the general public may not exactly know how they are enforced unless they look up the actual policy. Reporting parties such as the head coach of the football team or the director of athletics have a duty to report alleged violations to the Title IX office on campus. However, that part of the process may not be disclosed to the complainant.
The Title IX office will usually send the complainant and responding parties a notice letter that an investigation into certain allegations (and they will keep it somewhat general yet specific enough where you can understand what this is about) is ongoing. But the letter does not usually disclose the source of the report.
Paige easily could have thought the Title IX office began this investigation due to some source other than athletics (Paige could have contacted or met with them directly or perhaps she may have told a classmate who could have reported it on her behalf). And her comments that Cal athletics did not return her calls may have reflected her subjective belief that they were sitting on this, even if Wilcox or Knowlton had already reported this to the Title IX office.
So the bottom line is that it's very feasible that Wilcox/Knowlton reported this while at the same time Paige believed that they did nothing.
Is there any scenario where the Title IX office wouldn't send the complainant a notice advising them of an investigation?
I am confused by your last sentence. Are you saying that she was presumably aware of an investigation (because she would have received a notice from the Title IX office), but is still upset because Wilcox/Knowlton and others didn't separately return her calls and emails?
You have a tendency to say a lot of things are "beyond dispute" (or using similar language) when making a claim that would very much be disputed. For example, above you seem to think it's "beyond dispute" that Obama wanted to eliminate due process. Really? That's beyond dispute?BearGoggles said:
The Obama guidance to universities (recently reversed by Devos) massively tipped the scales in favor of alleged victims and eliminated due process for the alleged wrongdoers. This was explicitly the intention and beyond dispute.
SoCalie said:
I'm with you RB...and it has language/examples like that throughout the statement...
"In the end, I did not receive the position because they did not want me in the training room taking focus away from the players. Those that were hired were either men or unqualified applicants, but they all had in common is that they wouldn't be "distracting the players".
-How the heck does she know why she didn't receive the position? Ridiculous.
-Taking focus away from the players? Not if you were just doing your job - which is to sit on the side - out of the way - and do nothing, unless there is an injury.
-How does she know that the people that were hired were unqualified? Is this a joke?
-How does she know that the people that were hired wouldn't "distract the players"? Oh...cuz they're not as 'hawt' as her. I get it. Who is this person?
"As for the players, they would look at me in practice and make lewd remarks, but I had been working so hard for my promotion from hydrotech to sports medicine intern, so I let myself feel like a piece of meat at practice, and then go home and try to forget about it until the next day.
-BUT, when she was invited to party at the football house, she wentaloneand drank vast amounts of tequila? To a house filled with people that made her uncomfortable, made lewd comments to her, called her a hoe, and scared her?
"If I responded please leave me alone to a DM, I was answered back with "I'm going to treat you like the hoe that you are".
-She'd tell players to leave her alone. But, then she'd go to the football house to party?
"One night, I was invited over to a football house, where I was given vast amounts of tequila, to which I later realized, no one else was drinking that much. That night is also a little fuzzy, but I clearly remember the players talking to another saying "looks like we are gonna get lucky tonight". Thankfully my friends rescued me from the house, calling me an Uber."
-This part of her statement is, IMO, extremely disturbing. She was GIVEN vast amounts of tequila and chose to drink all of it? She later realized "no one else was drinking that much". Whose fault is that? Is she implying that they were intentionally trying to get her drunk so they could have sex with her which, if she were drunk, would be rape? And, she didn't have any control over, or responsibility for what she drank and how much? This is outrageous! And, she was so drunk (due to her own voluntary behavior) that her friends had to "rescue her" from the house that she went to voluntarily and alone? A house that was filled with guys that made lewd comments to her and scared her? And, her friends had to call her an uber? She couldn't do that herself? This entire paragraph implies that they players were conspiring to get her drunk and somehow sneakily/forcibly got her drunk, unbeknownst to her - so they could rape her. And, they would have raped her had her friends not "rescued her."
-IMO, what she wrote above is ridiculous she takes zero responsibility for her own behavior, and implies that others were out to get her. Yet, victims of sexual harassment or abuse tend to do the exact opposite. They tend to blame themselves for the things they did that they think "contributed to" or "caused" it to happen.
SoCalie said:
I'm with you RB...and it has language/examples like that throughout the statement...
"In the end, I did not receive the position because they did not want me in the training room taking focus away from the players. Those that were hired were either men or unqualified applicants, but they all had in common is that they wouldn't be "distracting the players".
-How the heck does she know why she didn't receive the position? Ridiculous.
-Taking focus away from the players? Not if you were just doing your job - which is to sit on the side - out of the way - and do nothing, unless there is an injury.
-How does she know that the people that were hired were unqualified? Is this a joke?
-How does she know that the people that were hired wouldn't "distract the players"? Oh...cuz they're not as 'hawt' as her. I get it. Who is this person?
"As for the players, they would look at me in practice and make lewd remarks, but I had been working so hard for my promotion from hydrotech to sports medicine intern, so I let myself feel like a piece of meat at practice, and then go home and try to forget about it until the next day.
-BUT, when she was invited to party at the football house, she wentaloneand drank vast amounts of tequila? To a house filled with people that made her uncomfortable, made lewd comments to her, called her a hoe, and scared her?
"If I responded please leave me alone to a DM, I was answered back with "I'm going to treat you like the hoe that you are".
-She'd tell players to leave her alone. But, then she'd go to the football house to party?
"One night, I was invited over to a football house, where I was given vast amounts of tequila, to which I later realized, no one else was drinking that much. That night is also a little fuzzy, but I clearly remember the players talking to another saying "looks like we are gonna get lucky tonight". Thankfully my friends rescued me from the house, calling me an Uber."
-This part of her statement is, IMO, extremely disturbing. She was GIVEN vast amounts of tequila and chose to drink all of it? She later realized "no one else was drinking that much". Whose fault is that? Is she implying that they were intentionally trying to get her drunk so they could have sex with her which, if she were drunk, would be rape? And, she didn't have any control over, or responsibility for what she drank and how much? This is outrageous! And, she was so drunk (due to her own voluntary behavior) that her friends had to "rescue her" from the house that she went to voluntarily and alone? A house that was filled with guys that made lewd comments to her and scared her? And, her friends had to call her an uber? She couldn't do that herself? This entire paragraph implies that they players were conspiring to get her drunk and somehow sneakily/forcibly got her drunk, unbeknownst to her - so they could rape her. And, they would have raped her had her friends not "rescued her."
-IMO, what she wrote above is ridiculous she takes zero responsibility for her own behavior, and implies that others were out to get her. Yet, victims of sexual harassment or abuse tend to do the exact opposite. They tend to blame themselves for the things they did that they think "contributed to" or "caused" it to happen.
GMP said:SoCalie said:
I'm with you RB...and it has language/examples like that throughout the statement...
"In the end, I did not receive the position because they did not want me in the training room taking focus away from the players. Those that were hired were either men or unqualified applicants, but they all had in common is that they wouldn't be "distracting the players".
-How the heck does she know why she didn't receive the position? Ridiculous.
-Taking focus away from the players? Not if you were just doing your job - which is to sit on the side - out of the way - and do nothing, unless there is an injury.
-How does she know that the people that were hired were unqualified? Is this a joke?
-How does she know that the people that were hired wouldn't "distract the players"? Oh...cuz they're not as 'hawt' as her. I get it. Who is this person?
"As for the players, they would look at me in practice and make lewd remarks, but I had been working so hard for my promotion from hydrotech to sports medicine intern, so I let myself feel like a piece of meat at practice, and then go home and try to forget about it until the next day.
-BUT, when she was invited to party at the football house, she wentaloneand drank vast amounts of tequila? To a house filled with people that made her uncomfortable, made lewd comments to her, called her a hoe, and scared her?
"If I responded please leave me alone to a DM, I was answered back with "I'm going to treat you like the hoe that you are".
-She'd tell players to leave her alone. But, then she'd go to the football house to party?
"One night, I was invited over to a football house, where I was given vast amounts of tequila, to which I later realized, no one else was drinking that much. That night is also a little fuzzy, but I clearly remember the players talking to another saying "looks like we are gonna get lucky tonight". Thankfully my friends rescued me from the house, calling me an Uber."
-This part of her statement is, IMO, extremely disturbing. She was GIVEN vast amounts of tequila and chose to drink all of it? She later realized "no one else was drinking that much". Whose fault is that? Is she implying that they were intentionally trying to get her drunk so they could have sex with her which, if she were drunk, would be rape? And, she didn't have any control over, or responsibility for what she drank and how much? This is outrageous! And, she was so drunk (due to her own voluntary behavior) that her friends had to "rescue her" from the house that she went to voluntarily and alone? A house that was filled with guys that made lewd comments to her and scared her? And, her friends had to call her an uber? She couldn't do that herself? This entire paragraph implies that they players were conspiring to get her drunk and somehow sneakily/forcibly got her drunk, unbeknownst to her - so they could rape her. And, they would have raped her had her friends not "rescued her."
-IMO, what she wrote above is ridiculous she takes zero responsibility for her own behavior, and implies that others were out to get her. Yet, victims of sexual harassment or abuse tend to do the exact opposite. They tend to blame themselves for the things they did that they think "contributed to" or "caused" it to happen.
A lot of posts here are like this. "If she felt this way, why'd she do THAT?" You're sitting at your computer away from any stress and analyzing her claims based on what you'd do as you sit there now.
But not everyone acts rationally at all times, especially in stressful situations, and especially if they are dealing with mental health issues.
You also at times seem to think her post is chronological. "Why'd she do this after they said that?" But it's not at all clear it is chronological, so many of your points are a bit meaningless.
She has already posted on a social media site about being diagnosed as bi-polar.SRBear said:
Well...one thing is for sure, if her friends had to "rescue" her, there are witnesses to some of this behavior.
It's probably been "wondered" in this thread a dozen times. I don't think it's very relevant.pingpong2 said:
Is nobody wondering how she went from going to an expensive private school in Brentwood, flying on private jets to XC meets, travelling through Asia and Europe, vacationing in Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons, all while staying at the Ritz and Four Seasons to suddenly becoming a poor college student? Her family must have had fallen on some serious hard times or something in the past year...either that or college students these days have it wayyyyyy better than I did.