OUCH: Huffington Post singles out McCombs for assault

[gars44]

The guy at the head of the NCAA allowed administrators who covered up a rape by Roc Alexander to stay on the job. How serious do you think Emmert takes rape by football player after reading this?

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004177723_uwrapecase12m.html

The actual narrative was much more harrowing than this article accounts for, the administrator told her to keep her mouth shut.

AND, check out this testimony from the administrator:


This is my experience in academia. Because people don't want to know, they kick these things down the line. Looking at the Sandusky case, there is ample evidence that this is what Paterno did. McQueary is clear he never told Paterno what happened, but Paterno saw him agitated. What, he didn't ask? No, Paterno didn't ask. He sent McQueary to see the AD. Spanier was told about a Physics professor who molested a boy at a camp in Maryland (out of PSU's jurisdiction). When evidence turned up in the form of a tape with the professor's confession (recorded over the phone, which is illegal in Maryland), the victim said to Spanier directly that he had a tape and would send it to him. Spanier told him directly that he did not want the tape and would not accept it. CYA is the modus operandi.

Mark Emmert had multiple people under hush up the rape of this woman, and after the lid blew off the cover-up, he never fired or reprimanded a single one. Peyton Manning, Mr. Clean, had an incident in which -- were he an average student -- would have been thrown out of school. Of course it was hushed, especially at Tennessee.

Not just academia. Every institution, every organization, human nature.

 

[J187Money]

I get that, and agree with you. Stories like this get everyone exercised. Everyone with a supressed gripe is now going to come forward. Everyone who feels that they have been the victim of some past, unreported injustice is now invited to vent. Prepare for more of it. I'm just saying, you have to let them all talk, and you have to listen, nod, be sensitive, let it heal and dry out. It's part of caring, and we should care. Nothing else we can do. Nothing else we should do.

Interesting. I'm clearly not being sensitive to the witness. I'll have to think about that.

 

[upstater]

It's more a bureaucratic-type issue than it is a "Uconn" issue, because you tend to see the same type of bureaucratic response to these accusations everywhere. This leads you to believe that what the accusers are saying is mostly true because it fits the same old pattern that repeats itself again and again - not just at Uconn but in every type of organization. As women enter more fields and become more outspoken, you will continue to see this type of thing exposed (e.g., in the military). One would think a college community would show a greater sensitivity, but after all, it is the state - and the state is the state. Hopefully Uconn can become a leader in the fight against rape/bullying/discrimination of all types and turn this into a positive . . . .

Exactly, this is my view of it as well. Small private colleges too. It's institutional.

 

[upstater]

This I don't understand. Unless things have changed people got moved all of the time, mostly for made up BS reasons. I have a hard time believing the girl wanted to move and was told she couldn't. And she could probably say she didn't know how, but I guarantee she knows 10 friends that have stories about how they begged the housing department and ended up getting roommate swaps, etc.

It's probably more likely that she was shocked, upset, she says she started crying, and didn't think to ask. She probably also didn't feel the fear and the ramifications of testifying until later. I don't know whether she later asked to be moved, but her point is that she feels a 3rd party witness like her should be encouraged to offer testimony. How? By the administrator offering her incentives to testify. Just as police do. But in this case, the administrator implied she was overly sensitive because of her own past experiences. In other words, if a woman like her has been assaulted in the past, her testimony as a witness in another case is problematic. That's the crux of this whole article.

 

[UConn07]

I don't mean to seem like I'm picking on you and I'm not, but I need to address your "lunatic" comment. Just because a victim may overreact or overstate a point - like perhaps in this case - should not be interpreted to undermine the entire message. People do overreact, and make inconsistent statements, but that does not mean that they are lunatics.

Caroline Luby is a lunatic. The rest are not. Luby is using the others to promote her agenda, whatever it may be. Her agenda includes, the rape trail incites rape at UCONN and so does the new UCONN logo. Lunatic comments to me.

 

[J187Money]

It's probably more likely that she was shocked, upset, she says she started crying, and didn't think to ask. She probably also didn't feel the fear and the ramifications of testifying until later. I don't know whether she later asked to be moved, but her point is that she feels a 3rd party witness like her should be encouraged to offer testimony. How? By the administrator offering her incentives to testify. Just as police do. But in this case, the administrator implied she was overly sensitive because of her own past experiences. In other words, if a woman like her has been assaulted in the past, her testimony as a witness in another case is problematic. That's the crux of this whole article.

I hadn't looked at it that way.

 

[upstater]

If she feels unsafe she feels unsafe. But it is hard for me to buy the fact that because McCombs got in a fight with his girlfriend (even if he did push and spit on her) that he is suddenly going to turn into a mafioso who is disappearing witnesses. These things just look ridiculous on paper, and the articles are all written to get eyeballs, not get to the truth. And it works. Here we are talking about it and repeatedly clicking on the link to reread the story.

She says she witnessed him hit a girl, and she testified to that officially. I'd imagine that this alone would create a difficult and perhaps unsafe environment for her.

 

[upstater]

I have to say, given everything that's written in this thread, the crazy rule at Brown University about sleeping with an inebriated person is starting to make a lot of sense.

If you sleep with a very drunk person and they later accuse you of rape/assault, that's it. You are done. All it takes is for them to somehow show that they were drunk, and from incidents when this rule has been applied and people have been expelled, that means people seeing you drunk (at a party or bar). And it has been applied to at least one woman I've read of, not only men.

That rule absolutely ends these discussions.

 

[UConn07]

This is victim blaming. It needs to stop. You have never been in this situation and do not know what it would be like.

It's not victim blaming. If you are a victim of rape, you should come forward immediately. Over time, more and more evidence will not be there and recollection of the incident will fade. It's not UCONN's fault they were raped. That's all I'm saying. If they wanted to seek repurcussions from the actual incident and against their rapists, they need to do so as quickly as possible, regardless of if they are in emotional distress. Blaming UCONN for not taking action is not the way to do it. They were the ones affected, they should be taking action. You can call it insensitive, but it is what it is. At some point there is only so much a school can do. The fact of the matter is, more rapists will be caught the sooner it is reported to authorities.

For example: a student has a heart attack partly because they ate too much greasy food at UCONN, served by UCONN's dining halls. This lawsuit is like saying the tudent should sue UCONN because they contributed to the heart attack. That's just wrong.

 

[UConn07]

I have to say, given everything that's written in this thread, the crazy rule at Brown University about sleeping with an inebriated person is starting to make a lot of sense.

If you sleep with a very drunk person and they later accuse you of rape/assault, that's it. You are done. All it takes is for them to somehow show that they were drunk, and from incidents when this rule has been applied and people have been expelled, that means people seeing you drunk (at a party or bar). And it has been applied to at least one woman I've read of, not only men.

That rule absolutely ends these discussions.

As crazy as it is to think - I agree with you. If there's any gray area whatsoever, take the gray area out. Good job by Brown here. Otherwise no one truly knows what happened or what/who to believe.

 

[J187Money]

I have to say, given everything that's written in this thread, the crazy rule at Brown University about sleeping with an inebriated person is starting to make a lot of sense.

If you sleep with a very drunk person and they later accuse you of rape/assault, that's it. You are done. All it takes is for them to somehow show that they were drunk, and from incidents when this rule has been applied and people have been expelled, that means people seeing you drunk (at a party or bar). And it has been applied to at least one woman I've read of, not only men.

That rule absolutely ends these discussions.

It will certainly solve the problem (or at least get a lot of guys kicked out of school). Post a link to the story about the woman...???

 

[SubbaBub]

... but the problem is, the institution has to do more to protect what are essentially children away from home who do not always act in their own best interest.

This is a common sentiment these days and absolutely a major cause of these problems. They are adults and should be treated as such, especially when discussing alleged felonies. It also applies to securing your personal safety. My school made it very clear what resources were available with respect to rides, escorts, security phones, door policies, etc. And college as it is there were certain things that are easy to breach, but on campus it was pretty safe aside from petty larcenies from other students and the occasional townie.

Just off campus was a completely different story. Had my apt robbed, girlfriend and her friends assualted, another friends apt robbed twice, two random muggings and the coup de grace, a prostitute was shot right outside my building (though during the summer). I .sure I'm forgetting some things but you get the idea that a campus setting isn't a bubbled cocoon, it's like any place else.

 

[upstater]

It will certainly solve the problem (or at least get a lot of guys kicked out of school). Post a link to the story about the woman...???

This was a long time ago. The rule has been in force for over a decade. I have a Brown grad in my immediate family. Showed me the link in the student paper. It didn't say anything other than she was expelled. No details.

 

[whaler11]

I have to say, given everything that's written in this thread, the crazy rule at Brown University about sleeping with an inebriated person is starting to make a lot of sense.

If you sleep with a very drunk person and they later accuse you of rape/assault, that's it. You are done. All it takes is for them to somehow show that they were drunk, and from incidents when this rule has been applied and people have been expelled, that means people seeing you drunk (at a party or bar). And it has been applied to at least one woman I've read of, not only men.

That rule absolutely ends these discussions.

Other than you can completely set someone up and ruin their lives it works.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

They don't make billions if they don't have product to televise. NCAA (college football) has that product . . . . act like it. ESPN? Without that product are back to the days of broadcasting Australian Rules football.

The NCAA has little to no power related to FBS Football and TV deals. The individual conferences deal directly with the networks. More importantly, the conferences won their TV related rights in court when, I believe, either Nebraska or Georgia sued the NCAA. The Presidents are not going to give anything back.

 

[upstater]

Other than you can completely set someone up and ruin their lives it works.

Only if they screw an inebriated person.

When you have schools without this rule, lives get ruined as well.

 

[Stinger92860]

Does anyone know of Mccombs and his girlfriend stopped seeing each other as a result of the incident or did they continue their relationship?

 

[SubbaBub]

Only if they screw an inebriated person.

When you have schools without this rule, lives get ruined as well.

This is closer to old school honor code stuff. Get caught in the girls dorm stuff. I assume now as it was then, ignored except when convenient. The drunk part seems a bit hard to prove. I saw Jane at the bar isn't much of a case.

I assume it's used to force undesirables off campus. We are expelling you for an honor code violation. Accept it or we begin the assault proceedings. Not sure how that's any better. If you believe a crime has been committed then remand it to the DA, if not they say you don't have enough of a case.

 

[whaler11]

Only if they screw an inebriated person.

When you have schools without this rule, lives get ruined as well.

Yes - I'm really just getting at people in relationships and their ability to exact revenge for whatever reason.

 

[RMoore1999]

Hopefully someone digs up those threads. Plenty called P out that day.

The fact P lasted as long as he did is a disgrace.

No disgrace. Didn't you know that Warde wasn't permitted to fire the football coach after only 2 years? NCAA regulations dictate that a coach must be given time to win with "his" guys....

 

[gars44]

She says she witnessed him hit a girl, and she testified to that officially. I'd imagine that this alone would create a difficult and perhaps unsafe environment for her.

Upstater, thank you. That's such a "duh" I can't believe it even has to be explained. How can people not understand that it is terrifying to testify in court against someone, especially a person of power (at Uconn, an athlete)? It's so safe sitting in front of one's computer in one's basement.