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.
Accusation of sexual harassment by Cal football
138,314 Views |
640 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by BearGreg
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 probably changed her privacy settings. Perhaps she was getting harassed as a result of her post.
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.
"The hills across the valley of the Ebro were long and white. On this side there was no shade and no trees and the station was between two lines of rails in the sun. Close against the side of the station there was the warm shadow of the building and a curtain, made of strings of bamboo beads, hung across the open door into the bar, to keep out flies. The American and the girl with him sat at a table in the shade, outside the building. It was very hot and the express from Barcelona would come in forty minutes. It stopped at this junction for two minutes and went to Madrid.
'What should we drink?' the girl asked. She had taken off her hat and put it on the table.
'It's pretty hot,' the man said.
'Let's drink beer.'
'Dos cervezas,' the man said into the curtain.
'Big ones?' a woman asked from the doorway.
'Yes. Two big ones.'
The woman brought two glasses of beer and two felt pads. She put the felt pads and the beer glass on the table and looked at the man and the girl. The girl was looking off at the line of hills. They were white in the sun and the country was brown and dry.
'They look like white elephants,' she said.
'I've never seen one,' the man drank his beer.
'No, you wouldn't have.'
'I might have,' the man said. 'Just because you say I wouldn't have doesn't prove anything.'
The girl looked at the bead curtain. 'They've painted something on it,' she said. 'What does it say?'
'Anis del Toro. It's a drink.'
'Could we try it?'
The man called 'Listen' through the curtain. The woman came out from the bar.
'Four reales.' 'We want two Anis del Toro.'
'With water?'
'Do you want it with water?'
'I don't know,' the girl said. 'Is it good with water?'
'It's all right.'
'You want them with water?' asked the woman.
'Yes, with water.'
'It tastes like liquorice,' the girl said and put the glass down.
'That's the way with everything.'
'Yes,' said the girl. 'Everything tastes of liquorice. Especially all the things you've waited so long for, like absinthe.'
'Oh, cut it out.'
'You started it,' the girl said. 'I was being amused. I was having a fine time.'
'Well, let's try and have a fine time.'
'All right. I was trying. I said the mountains looked like white elephants. Wasn't that bright?'
'That was bright.'
'I wanted to try this new drink. That's all we do, isn't it look at things and try new drinks?'
'I guess so.'
The girl looked across at the hills.'They're lovely hills,' she said. 'They don't really look like white elephants. I just meant the colouring of their skin through the trees.'
'Should we have another drink?'
'All right.'
The warm wind blew the bead curtain against the table.
'The beer's nice and cool,' the man said.
'It's lovely,' the girl said.
'It's really an awfully simple operation, Jig,' the man said. 'It's not really an operation at all.'
The girl looked at the ground the table legs rested on.
'I know you wouldn't mind it, Jig. It's really not anything. It's just to let the air in.'
The girl did not say anything.
'I'll go with you and I'll stay with you all the time. They just let the air in and then it's all perfectly natural.'
'Then what will we do afterwards?'
'We'll be fine afterwards. Just like we were before.'
'What makes you think so?'
'That's the only thing that bothers us. It's the only thing that's made us unhappy.'
The girl looked at the bead curtain, put her hand out and took hold of two of the strings of beads.
'And you think then we'll be all right and be happy.'
'I know we will. You don't have to be afraid. I've known lots of people that have done it.'
'So have I,' said the girl. 'And afterwards they were all so happy.'
'Well,' the man said, 'if you don't want to you don't have to. I wouldn't have you do it if you didn't want to. But I know it's perfectly simple.'
'And you really want to?'
'I think it's the best thing to do. But I don't want you to do it if you don't really want to.'
'And if I do it you'll be happy and things will be like they were and you'll love me?'
'I love you now. You know I love you.'
'I know. But if I do it, then it will be nice again if I say things are like white elephants, and you'll like it?'
'I'll love it. I love it now but I just can't think about it. You know how I get when I worry.'
'If I do it you won't ever worry?'
'I won't worry about that because it's perfectly simple.'
'Then I'll do it. Because I don't care about me.'
'What do you mean?'
'I don't care about me.'
'Well, I care about you.'
'Oh, yes. But I don't care about me. And I'll do it and then everything will be fine.'
'I don't want you to do it if you feel that way.'
The girl stood up and walked to the end of the station. Across, on the other side, were fields of grain and trees along the banks of the Ebro. Far away, beyond the river, were mountains. The shadow of a cloud moved across the field of grain and she saw the river through the trees.
'And we could have all this,' she said. 'And we could have everything and every day we make it more impossible.'
'What did you say?'
'I said we could have everything.'
'We can have everything.'
'No, we can't.'
'We can have the whole world.'
'No, we can't.'
'We can go everywhere.'
'No, we can't. It isn't ours any more.'
'It's ours.'
'No, it isn't. And once they take it away, you never get it back.'
'But they haven't taken it away.'
'We'll wait and see.'
'Come on back in the shade,' he said. 'You mustn't feel that way.'
'I don't feel any way,' the girl said. 'I just know things.'
'I don't want you to do anything that you don't want to do -'
'Nor that isn't good for me,' she said. 'I know. Could we have another beer?'
'All right. But you've got to realize '
'I realize,' the girl said. 'Can't we maybe stop talking?'
They sat down at the table and the girl looked across at the hills on the dry side of the valley and the man looked at her and at the table.
'You've got to realize,' he said, ' that I don't want you to do it if you don't want to. I'm perfectly willing to go through with it if it means anything to you.'
'Doesn't it mean anything to you? We could get along.'
'Of course it does. But I don't want anybody but you. I don't want anyone else. And I know it's
perfectly simple.'
'Yes, you know it's perfectly simple.'
'It's all right for you to say that, but I do know it.'
'Would you do something for me now?'
'I'd do anything for you.'
'Would you please please please please please please please stop talking?'
He did not say anything but looked at the bags against the wall of the station. There were labels on them from all the hotels where they had spent nights.
'But I don't want you to,' he said, 'I don't care anything about it.'
'I'll scream,' the girl said.
The woman came out through the curtains with two glasses of beer and put them down on the damp felt pads. 'The train comes in five minutes,' she said.
'What did she say?' asked the girl.
'That the train is coming in five minutes.'
The girl smiled brightly at the woman, to thank her.
'I'd better take the bags over to the other side of the station,' the man said. She smiled at him.
'All right. Then come back and we'll finish the beer.'
He picked up the two heavy bags and carried them around the station to the other tracks. He looked up the tracks but could not see the train. Coming back, he walked through the bar-room, where people waiting for the train were drinking. He drank an Anis at the bar and looked at the people. They were all waiting reasonably for the train. He went out through the bead curtain. She was sitting at the table and smiled at him.
'Do you feel better?' he asked.
'I feel fine,' she said. 'There's nothing wrong with me. I feel fine.'"
'What should we drink?' the girl asked. She had taken off her hat and put it on the table.
'It's pretty hot,' the man said.
'Let's drink beer.'
'Dos cervezas,' the man said into the curtain.
'Big ones?' a woman asked from the doorway.
'Yes. Two big ones.'
The woman brought two glasses of beer and two felt pads. She put the felt pads and the beer glass on the table and looked at the man and the girl. The girl was looking off at the line of hills. They were white in the sun and the country was brown and dry.
'They look like white elephants,' she said.
'I've never seen one,' the man drank his beer.
'No, you wouldn't have.'
'I might have,' the man said. 'Just because you say I wouldn't have doesn't prove anything.'
The girl looked at the bead curtain. 'They've painted something on it,' she said. 'What does it say?'
'Anis del Toro. It's a drink.'
'Could we try it?'
The man called 'Listen' through the curtain. The woman came out from the bar.
'Four reales.' 'We want two Anis del Toro.'
'With water?'
'Do you want it with water?'
'I don't know,' the girl said. 'Is it good with water?'
'It's all right.'
'You want them with water?' asked the woman.
'Yes, with water.'
'It tastes like liquorice,' the girl said and put the glass down.
'That's the way with everything.'
'Yes,' said the girl. 'Everything tastes of liquorice. Especially all the things you've waited so long for, like absinthe.'
'Oh, cut it out.'
'You started it,' the girl said. 'I was being amused. I was having a fine time.'
'Well, let's try and have a fine time.'
'All right. I was trying. I said the mountains looked like white elephants. Wasn't that bright?'
'That was bright.'
'I wanted to try this new drink. That's all we do, isn't it look at things and try new drinks?'
'I guess so.'
The girl looked across at the hills.'They're lovely hills,' she said. 'They don't really look like white elephants. I just meant the colouring of their skin through the trees.'
'Should we have another drink?'
'All right.'
The warm wind blew the bead curtain against the table.
'The beer's nice and cool,' the man said.
'It's lovely,' the girl said.
'It's really an awfully simple operation, Jig,' the man said. 'It's not really an operation at all.'
The girl looked at the ground the table legs rested on.
'I know you wouldn't mind it, Jig. It's really not anything. It's just to let the air in.'
The girl did not say anything.
'I'll go with you and I'll stay with you all the time. They just let the air in and then it's all perfectly natural.'
'Then what will we do afterwards?'
'We'll be fine afterwards. Just like we were before.'
'What makes you think so?'
'That's the only thing that bothers us. It's the only thing that's made us unhappy.'
The girl looked at the bead curtain, put her hand out and took hold of two of the strings of beads.
'And you think then we'll be all right and be happy.'
'I know we will. You don't have to be afraid. I've known lots of people that have done it.'
'So have I,' said the girl. 'And afterwards they were all so happy.'
'Well,' the man said, 'if you don't want to you don't have to. I wouldn't have you do it if you didn't want to. But I know it's perfectly simple.'
'And you really want to?'
'I think it's the best thing to do. But I don't want you to do it if you don't really want to.'
'And if I do it you'll be happy and things will be like they were and you'll love me?'
'I love you now. You know I love you.'
'I know. But if I do it, then it will be nice again if I say things are like white elephants, and you'll like it?'
'I'll love it. I love it now but I just can't think about it. You know how I get when I worry.'
'If I do it you won't ever worry?'
'I won't worry about that because it's perfectly simple.'
'Then I'll do it. Because I don't care about me.'
'What do you mean?'
'I don't care about me.'
'Well, I care about you.'
'Oh, yes. But I don't care about me. And I'll do it and then everything will be fine.'
'I don't want you to do it if you feel that way.'
The girl stood up and walked to the end of the station. Across, on the other side, were fields of grain and trees along the banks of the Ebro. Far away, beyond the river, were mountains. The shadow of a cloud moved across the field of grain and she saw the river through the trees.
'And we could have all this,' she said. 'And we could have everything and every day we make it more impossible.'
'What did you say?'
'I said we could have everything.'
'We can have everything.'
'No, we can't.'
'We can have the whole world.'
'No, we can't.'
'We can go everywhere.'
'No, we can't. It isn't ours any more.'
'It's ours.'
'No, it isn't. And once they take it away, you never get it back.'
'But they haven't taken it away.'
'We'll wait and see.'
'Come on back in the shade,' he said. 'You mustn't feel that way.'
'I don't feel any way,' the girl said. 'I just know things.'
'I don't want you to do anything that you don't want to do -'
'Nor that isn't good for me,' she said. 'I know. Could we have another beer?'
'All right. But you've got to realize '
'I realize,' the girl said. 'Can't we maybe stop talking?'
They sat down at the table and the girl looked across at the hills on the dry side of the valley and the man looked at her and at the table.
'You've got to realize,' he said, ' that I don't want you to do it if you don't want to. I'm perfectly willing to go through with it if it means anything to you.'
'Doesn't it mean anything to you? We could get along.'
'Of course it does. But I don't want anybody but you. I don't want anyone else. And I know it's
perfectly simple.'
'Yes, you know it's perfectly simple.'
'It's all right for you to say that, but I do know it.'
'Would you do something for me now?'
'I'd do anything for you.'
'Would you please please please please please please please stop talking?'
He did not say anything but looked at the bags against the wall of the station. There were labels on them from all the hotels where they had spent nights.
'But I don't want you to,' he said, 'I don't care anything about it.'
'I'll scream,' the girl said.
The woman came out through the curtains with two glasses of beer and put them down on the damp felt pads. 'The train comes in five minutes,' she said.
'What did she say?' asked the girl.
'That the train is coming in five minutes.'
The girl smiled brightly at the woman, to thank her.
'I'd better take the bags over to the other side of the station,' the man said. She smiled at him.
'All right. Then come back and we'll finish the beer.'
He picked up the two heavy bags and carried them around the station to the other tracks. He looked up the tracks but could not see the train. Coming back, he walked through the bar-room, where people waiting for the train were drinking. He drank an Anis at the bar and looked at the people. They were all waiting reasonably for the train. He went out through the bead curtain. She was sitting at the table and smiled at him.
'Do you feel better?' he asked.
'I feel fine,' she said. 'There's nothing wrong with me. I feel fine.'"
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.
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. Things may be different outside of Universities/title IX scenarios where the main impetus has been #metoo and optics, as opposed to college kangaroo courts.
And keep in mind that even though Devos revoked the guidance, many universities, including Cal, have either: (i) not yet revised their policies; and/or (ii) made the decision to continue operating under the flawed Devos guidelines because of #believeallwomen and #metoo.
The courts have reversed the kangaroo courts in literally hundreds of cases so much so that UC and CSU are now settling out all of the pending cases. But by then, much of the damage is done.
If you disagree, I strongly suggest you peruse this professor's twitter feed and check out the related links.
https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9?lang=en
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/author/kcjohnson/
In terms of cases where situations where an "innocent person has been caught up," if you haven't heard about them, its because you haven't been looking:
UC Santa Barbara case:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/a-terrible-college-case-shows-the-high-cost-of-believe-women/
Acquittal of Baylor football player:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/another-sexual-assault-acquittal-reaffirms-the-need-to-believeevidence/
Well known case of the USC kicker (who won a bowl game for them) who was expelled for "attacking his girlfriend" despite the fact that the girlfriend never filed a complaint and then testified that no such attack had occurred. And the school threatened the girlfriend if she didn't cooperate/keep quiet!
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20210137/girlfriend-matt-boermeester-case-supports-former-usc-trojans-kicker
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/campus-sex-crime-tribunals-losing/
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.
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.
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"?
No surprise. Her FB post was drafted by a lawyer. Now they are trying to gain leverage and additional plaintiffs.
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?
Stop asserting that I've made a judgment about whether or not she's telling the truth. All I'm saying is that clearly lawyers are involved (something that has now been proven true) and that I know how these types of cases usually pan out.
Saying that lawyers are involved and that these types of cases usually end in confidential, cost-of-defense settlements is not the same as calling her a liar.
Saying that lawyers are involved and that these types of cases usually end in confidential, cost-of-defense settlements is not the same as calling her a liar.
BearGreg
Joined:
Jul 9, 2017
Posts:
7,420
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
A couple of things:
This is a difficult topic that evokes a lot of strong feelings. It's imperative that we all be respectful to one another and avoid any victim shaming or definitive judgments of guilt.
This is a difficult topic that evokes a lot of strong feelings. It's imperative that we all be respectful to one another and avoid any victim shaming or definitive judgments of guilt.
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.
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.
+1,000,000 I see a million frivolous inquiries and claims against my clients from these bottom feeding plaintiff attorneys.
Their favorite strategy du jour is to request the complete employee file for any employee who litigates their work comp claim. Below bottom feeders on a fishing expedition. And now the CA Legislature is contemplating eliminating arbitration agreements, one of the only strategies to protect employers.
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.
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").
NYCGOBEARS said:
We'd better hope that Wilcox responded appropriately
Story is not positive for Cal FB in general
BUT
I am encouraged by the fact that Knowlton and Wilcox are working together.
Our firm on this topic has biannual training mandated by CA law (Fed law?).
The one big take away I got from last year's training was to immediately report every alleged occurrence to your supervisor and don't try to solve the problem yourself. Don't try to carry on your own investigation.
Despite good intentions you might make things worse for everyone involved.
Don't automatically accept each allegation as true. But also don't ignore any allegation.
I stand corrected here. The "meme" button is from GroupMe, not a watermark.
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?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
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?
If you were an employer trying to survive labor law in CA would you want to be abused by multiple bogus employee suits, litigated work comp claims etc?
My client hired a young man who folded towels as part of his job. He filed a work comp claim within a week claiming soft tissue injury. He refused modified duty and hired an attorney for his claim. The attorney also requested his employee file on a fishing expedition.
The "injured" young employee was then seen bowling at a company party.
This crap happens all the time and costs employers big bucks. I am all in favor of the ability to make a legitimate claim and grievance when one has been wronged.
I see 99 frivolous claims for every legitimate one.
+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."
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."
At this point I'm guessing that the complaint was reported up the chain properly and the accuser is upset about how long it's taking and the lack of transparency in the process. And those latter things may be reasonable effects of how this process works, no matter how frustrating.
Just a guess, of course. I have no special knowledge.
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.
If the underlying claims are true, the fact that Wilcox reported this properly up the chain is really only exculpatory for a portion of the wrongdoing. The first question is did these events take place in a manner that is reasonably close to what the student is claiming? If so - there would be consequences for many people based on actions prior to the formal complaint.
In other words, Wilcox reporting up the chain only protects him personally if the first he heard of this activity was through the complaint. And it doesn't protect any other people who were involved or aware of the activity.
Again, I want to be clear that I am not making a substantive judgment on whether the underlying claims are true, just speaking to the hypothetical. It seems many people are assuming that Wilcox reporting this up the chain somehow makes this all go away for the university and the individuals involved and that is not true. Obviously if the facts are quite different and this is all a fabrication, then reporting the complaint would be more or less a slam dunk in favor of Wilcox.
In other words, Wilcox reporting up the chain only protects him personally if the first he heard of this activity was through the complaint. And it doesn't protect any other people who were involved or aware of the activity.
Again, I want to be clear that I am not making a substantive judgment on whether the underlying claims are true, just speaking to the hypothetical. It seems many people are assuming that Wilcox reporting this up the chain somehow makes this all go away for the university and the individuals involved and that is not true. Obviously if the facts are quite different and this is all a fabrication, then reporting the complaint would be more or less a slam dunk in favor of Wilcox.
Hopefully one day everything will come out in the open and justice will be served one way or another. In the meanwhile, if I have to choose to believe in either the integrity of the coaching staff or the allegation of this woman, based on what I know about Wilcox and Knowlton and the little I know about the woman through her IG posts and her FB post, I am hopeful for Cal football program. In the best scenario it still sucks and is a big distraction though.
Cal can't have good things!?
Where is Cal Strong when we needed him? :-)
Edited to add: I went and read some of her Instagram posts, particularly one revealing having to leave school because of anxiety OCD and bipolar depression. Feeling bad for her and wishing her the best. These conditions are real. Here's hoping it works out well for both parties.
Cal can't have good things!?
Where is Cal Strong when we needed him? :-)
Edited to add: I went and read some of her Instagram posts, particularly one revealing having to leave school because of anxiety OCD and bipolar depression. Feeling bad for her and wishing her the best. These conditions are real. Here's hoping it works out well for both parties.
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?
I think what I meant by that last sentence was that it could entirely true that BOTH of the following were happening at the same time: Cal Athletics reported the incident to OPHD AND Paige thought Knowlton/Wilcox were doing nothing about it, even if she got a notice of investigation letter from OPHD. She could have easily thought while OPHD was investigating, the radio silence from Knowlton/Wilcox meant that they were ignoring her complaint as if OPHD and Cal athletics are separate entities that don't work with each other.
Is it possible that Wilcox never told any of the other female student volunteers that they could not wear tank tops becausethey never did?
I played a sport at Cal and I do not ever recall ANY coach (on any level), member of the medical staff, assistants, interns or volunteers wear a tank top. Not to a game/meet, not to practice and not even to conditioning sessions. The philosophy was that, as a coach, trainer, intern, volunteer for a team, you are representing the university and are to wear Cal gear, or appropriately colored polo shirts (short sleeves with a collar) even to practices. If it's really hot out and/or you're going to be active during the practice, some would wear a Cal T-shirt for practice but, it was a nice T-shirt. Nothing ripped or stainedand not a tank top. It's not professional or appropriate to be running around in a tank when you are representing the university. ESPECIALLY the student volunteers that need to separate themselves (from any regular student at the school) by being extremely professional so they can gain respect/authority and be treated like part of the team/coaches/medical staff.
This is another part of her statement that immediately struck me as odd. She had to be TOLD not to wear tank tops? Weird. And, one instance of being "leered" at by a player or coach would be more than enough to cause any normal woman to be very mindful about what she wore in the future. ESPECIALLY if she was uncomfortable with/upset by with that type of attention. NO, I am not saying that she should have to cover up to avoid negative attention everywhere she goes. But, I AM saying that when she is in a professional setting, she should look around at what the coaches and staff are wearing as that is the "standard" of propriety for that respective team and make an adjustment as necessary.
Now, if the other female staff/interns/volunteers were running around in the weight room and on the practice field wearing tank tops, then I believe that (1) she should have been able to wear the same type of shirt/tank as them (without question), and (2) Justin Wilcox needs to make some changes to his dress code policy for his coaches, staff, interns, medical staff, etc.
The other thing I found very strange was that she had a bunch of pictures of herself in a bikini on her Instagramwhile she was a member of the Cal football staff/medical staff/interns. Don't get me wrong, I am all for Free Speech and Expression. However, as someone that is representing one of Cal's teams, she should be subject to the same rules regarding Instagram posts as any of the other coaches, staff, interns and even players. I can tell you for certain that the student athletes have multiple trainings each year about what is, and is NOT appropriate to post on their social media accounts while they are athletes/coaches [staff/interns]/representatives of Cal athletics. Furthermore, any team/coach can put additional restrictions on coach/staff/player social media accounts if they choose to do so. And, this applies to the off-season as well. So, I think she should have removed her bikini shots (no matter how cute she looked) from her accounts while she was working for the team especially if her accounts were open to the public to see.
Additionally, if she received unwanted "feedback" on her social media from players/coaches, then she could have either blocked the user, made her account private, or removed the specific pictures while she was working for the team. It's just nonsense.
Again, I am not saying that she wasn't harassed at some point. She may have been and, if so, it is unacceptable and the perpetrator/s should be dealt with accordingly. However, what I am saying is that, in my opinion, there is a marked dissonance between her alleged thoughts/feelings (being uncomfortable, offended and scared) and her behavior/reactions - in many of the instances/examples she provided in her statement. Maybe there are several other examples that she did not include in that are more damning than those provided in her statement.
Lastly, I feel that publicly naming people she is accusing of these things (whether it be the young lady or the university) is totally inappropriate at this point. Reprehensible, even. Don't get me wrong, if certain people are proved to have sexually harassed her go ahead and name them and punish them appropriately. However, I think it is just as crucial to ensure the privacy of the accused right now as it is to thoroughly investigate the allegations on behalf of the young lady. These types of accusations can ruin reputations, relationships and lives. Even when the accusations are shown to be false, many people still believe the individuals to be guilty ("they just didn't have enough evidence to convict"), and it can be the type of thing that stays with them for the rest of their lives no matter what they do.
Sorry for the voluminous post, friends!
I played a sport at Cal and I do not ever recall ANY coach (on any level), member of the medical staff, assistants, interns or volunteers wear a tank top. Not to a game/meet, not to practice and not even to conditioning sessions. The philosophy was that, as a coach, trainer, intern, volunteer for a team, you are representing the university and are to wear Cal gear, or appropriately colored polo shirts (short sleeves with a collar) even to practices. If it's really hot out and/or you're going to be active during the practice, some would wear a Cal T-shirt for practice but, it was a nice T-shirt. Nothing ripped or stainedand not a tank top. It's not professional or appropriate to be running around in a tank when you are representing the university. ESPECIALLY the student volunteers that need to separate themselves (from any regular student at the school) by being extremely professional so they can gain respect/authority and be treated like part of the team/coaches/medical staff.
This is another part of her statement that immediately struck me as odd. She had to be TOLD not to wear tank tops? Weird. And, one instance of being "leered" at by a player or coach would be more than enough to cause any normal woman to be very mindful about what she wore in the future. ESPECIALLY if she was uncomfortable with/upset by with that type of attention. NO, I am not saying that she should have to cover up to avoid negative attention everywhere she goes. But, I AM saying that when she is in a professional setting, she should look around at what the coaches and staff are wearing as that is the "standard" of propriety for that respective team and make an adjustment as necessary.
Now, if the other female staff/interns/volunteers were running around in the weight room and on the practice field wearing tank tops, then I believe that (1) she should have been able to wear the same type of shirt/tank as them (without question), and (2) Justin Wilcox needs to make some changes to his dress code policy for his coaches, staff, interns, medical staff, etc.
The other thing I found very strange was that she had a bunch of pictures of herself in a bikini on her Instagramwhile she was a member of the Cal football staff/medical staff/interns. Don't get me wrong, I am all for Free Speech and Expression. However, as someone that is representing one of Cal's teams, she should be subject to the same rules regarding Instagram posts as any of the other coaches, staff, interns and even players. I can tell you for certain that the student athletes have multiple trainings each year about what is, and is NOT appropriate to post on their social media accounts while they are athletes/coaches [staff/interns]/representatives of Cal athletics. Furthermore, any team/coach can put additional restrictions on coach/staff/player social media accounts if they choose to do so. And, this applies to the off-season as well. So, I think she should have removed her bikini shots (no matter how cute she looked) from her accounts while she was working for the team especially if her accounts were open to the public to see.
Additionally, if she received unwanted "feedback" on her social media from players/coaches, then she could have either blocked the user, made her account private, or removed the specific pictures while she was working for the team. It's just nonsense.
Again, I am not saying that she wasn't harassed at some point. She may have been and, if so, it is unacceptable and the perpetrator/s should be dealt with accordingly. However, what I am saying is that, in my opinion, there is a marked dissonance between her alleged thoughts/feelings (being uncomfortable, offended and scared) and her behavior/reactions - in many of the instances/examples she provided in her statement. Maybe there are several other examples that she did not include in that are more damning than those provided in her statement.
Lastly, I feel that publicly naming people she is accusing of these things (whether it be the young lady or the university) is totally inappropriate at this point. Reprehensible, even. Don't get me wrong, if certain people are proved to have sexually harassed her go ahead and name them and punish them appropriately. However, I think it is just as crucial to ensure the privacy of the accused right now as it is to thoroughly investigate the allegations on behalf of the young lady. These types of accusations can ruin reputations, relationships and lives. Even when the accusations are shown to be false, many people still believe the individuals to be guilty ("they just didn't have enough evidence to convict"), and it can be the type of thing that stays with them for the rest of their lives no matter what they do.
Sorry for the voluminous post, friends!
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.
"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.
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.
I'm not taking issue with the rest of your argument about University policies for adjudicating sexual-assault claims. It does seem that it's been quite a mess in some cases. I would just advise against making these kinds of absolutist claims; it taints the rest of your evidence.
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.
Spot on, +1,000,000
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.
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.
And also she is a 20-year-old college student. How rationally did you behave at that age?
Well...one thing is for sure, if her friends had to "rescue" her, there are witnesses to some of this behavior.
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.
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.
Featured Stories
See All