|
Post by bigfan on Jun 12, 2019 11:54:24 GMT -5
UW now national news. The administration is going to have to come clean about all of this.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Jun 12, 2019 11:57:24 GMT -5
UW now national news. The administration is going to have to come clean about all of this. I am guessing people will be getting fired by the end of the week if they have not already. There has to be tons of other universities clinching their butt holes hoping they are not exposed next.
|
|
|
Post by vollem on Jun 12, 2019 11:58:42 GMT -5
Heartbreaking and horrifying.
Standing with you, Cassie.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 12, 2019 11:58:51 GMT -5
I find this paragraph problematic. The victim should have the power to control how this is handled. She didn't (at the time at least) want a drawn-out, public issue made of this so Strickland was the one who requested it not be reported to the police. Then the very next sentence claims that universities do this to cover up the situation? It's to protect the victims. If victims know that reporting this act to University officials means that this will end up in the legal system (and in the newspaper), then victims will report less frequently. This is a horrible situation, but my reading of that article doesn't make me think that Washington did anything wrong. Strickland never filed an actual report and they STILL got rid of the guy. My biggest issue is with sending Strickland to a booze-filled alumni event while she was still an athlete at the University. (Issue with the university sending her, not with her going if invited)
I see that you have bought into the narrative that UW most likely hoped would be accepted.
Visualize the likely scene. You have the victim, a traumatized young (barely) adult with no experience handling this type of situation and likely had no advocate for her providing assistance in making decisions. On the other side, you had a team from the university including legal counsel whose primary motive was protecting the reputation of the university and likely providing all of the "advice" to the victim and likely making promises they had no intention of keeping.
I don't know. The legal counsel would have to be both immoral and incompetent to think that a cover-up is the right way to go. This happened and this person is being fired immediately looks a little bad. A cover-up of sexual assault massively blows things up. Not to mention, they would know that as a state university, the document shared by the Times can be publicly accessed. Edit: And yes, I generally believe in the goodness of humanity until evidence is presented otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 12, 2019 11:59:39 GMT -5
UW now national news. The administration is going to have to come clean about all of this. I am guessing people will be getting fired by the end of the week if they have not already. There has to be tons of other universities clinching their butt holes hoping they are not exposed next. Which is precisely the reason no one is likely to get fired at UW by the end of the week.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jun 12, 2019 12:08:12 GMT -5
I see that you have bought into the narrative that UW most likely hoped would be accepted.
Visualize the likely scene. You have the victim, a traumatized young (barely) adult with no experience handling this type of situation and likely had no advocate for her providing assistance in making decisions. On the other side, you had a team from the university including legal counsel whose primary motive was protecting the reputation of the university and likely providing all of the "advice" to the victim and likely making promises they had no intention of keeping.
I don't know. The legal counsel would have to be both immoral and incompetent to think that a cover-up is the right way to go. This happened and this person is being fired immediately looks a little bad. A cover-up of sexual assault massively blows things up. Not to mention, they would know that as a state university, the document shared by the Times can be publicly accessed. Edit: And yes, I generally believe in the goodness of humanity until evidence is presented otherwise.
Legal counsel can be immoral and/or incompetent. Probably more likely, they represent the university, not the victim.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 12, 2019 12:13:07 GMT -5
I don't know. The legal counsel would have to be both immoral and incompetent to think that a cover-up is the right way to go. This happened and this person is being fired immediately looks a little bad. A cover-up of sexual assault massively blows things up. Not to mention, they would know that as a state university, the document shared by the Times can be publicly accessed. Edit: And yes, I generally believe in the goodness of humanity until evidence is presented otherwise.
Legal counsel can be immoral and/or incompetent. Probably more likely, they represent the university, not the victim.
So what is the correct action if the victim says she doesn't want to participate and doesn't want this to go to police? Am I wrong in thinking that a firing for cause would require some kind of hearing, forcing Strickland to get involved? Even if he DOES get fired, aren't there confidentiality laws that the University still has to abide by? I guess I don't quite understand where that line is between a cover-up and legally-required confidentiality.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 12, 2019 12:17:05 GMT -5
I don't know. The legal counsel would have to be both immoral and incompetent to think that a cover-up is the right way to go. This happened and this person is being fired immediately looks a little bad. A cover-up of sexual assault massively blows things up. Not to mention, they would know that as a state university, the document shared by the Times can be publicly accessed. Edit: And yes, I generally believe in the goodness of humanity until evidence is presented otherwise.
Legal counsel can be immoral and/or incompetent. Probably more likely, they represent the university, not the victim.
Competent and immoral is the problem. It's not illegal to fashion a favorable settlement agreement with a victim. It's not illegal to allow someone to resign. These actions provide cover (and avoid negative publicity) and allow the University to claim it did what it could or that its actions were sufficient or appropriate under the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Jun 12, 2019 12:20:28 GMT -5
I would have said, “Bravo, UW for firing this guy.” Seriously doubt this guy would have sought recourse.
But instead I’m saying, “You are no worse than the Catholic Church cover up.”
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 12, 2019 12:21:13 GMT -5
Legal counsel can be immoral and/or incompetent. Probably more likely, they represent the university, not the victim.
Competent and immoral is the problem. It's not illegal to fashion a favorable settlement agreement with a victim. It's not illegal to allow someone to resign. These actions provide cover (and avoid negative publicity) and allow the University to claim it did what it could or that its actions were sufficient or appropriate under the circumstances. But they have to file a public record with the result of the finding. I think "let's hope nobody finds this" would show incompetency.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 12, 2019 12:24:13 GMT -5
Legal counsel can be immoral and/or incompetent. Probably more likely, they represent the university, not the victim.
So what is the correct action if the victim says she doesn't want to participate and doesn't want this to go to police? Am I wrong in thinking that a firing for cause would require some kind of hearing, forcing Strickland to get involved? Even if he DOES get fired, aren't there confidentiality laws that the University still has to abide by? I guess I don't quite understand where that line is between a cover-up and legally-required confidentiality. If it went to a hearing, it wouldn't necessarily require Strickland to testify or her name to be revealed in order to make an adequate case for termination.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jun 12, 2019 12:29:47 GMT -5
Legal counsel can be immoral and/or incompetent. Probably more likely, they represent the university, not the victim.
So what is the correct action if the victim says she doesn't want to participate and doesn't want this to go to police? Am I wrong in thinking that a firing for cause would require some kind of hearing, forcing Strickland to get involved? Even if he DOES get fired, aren't there confidentiality laws that the University still has to abide by? I guess I don't quite understand where that line is between a cover-up and legally-required confidentiality. I'm far from an informed expert to provide this type of advice, but I'll give my laymen thoughts as the father of two daughters who went to a major public university.
Unless the privacy laws legally prohibit this, I wonder if her parents were informed of the situation and involved in the decision making. Not sure if I recommend this or not because they could easily be as much of a hindrance as help.
I do question the involvement of UW in this case as likely this occurred off-campus and I wouldn't think the University Police would have jurisdiction. Likely it should have been reported to the police even if the victim was opposed to this.
I would get independent counsel for the victim to protect her rights.
I would initiate termination of the associate AD and not just allow him to resign. This is how many "predators" are allowed to continue their actions from place to place.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 12, 2019 12:34:14 GMT -5
So what is the correct action if the victim says she doesn't want to participate and doesn't want this to go to police? Am I wrong in thinking that a firing for cause would require some kind of hearing, forcing Strickland to get involved? Even if he DOES get fired, aren't there confidentiality laws that the University still has to abide by? I guess I don't quite understand where that line is between a cover-up and legally-required confidentiality. If it went to a hearing, it wouldn't necessarily require Strickland to testify or her name to be revealed in order to make an adequate case for termination. Gotcha. Here's just where I really struggle with this and I don't know the right answer. I think it is CRUCIAL for universities to provide confidential resources for sexual assault victims. Somebody that victims can talk to, knowing that the information won't leave that conversation unless the victim gives the go-ahead. If that resource is eliminated, the number of reports would go WAY down and that's a huge negative. The easy answer is "any time somebody in the university gets a sniff of anything related to sexual assault, it should be blown open", but that's really not how it works or should work. (And this is 100% to support victims) I'm sure this will be investigated and hopefully heads don't roll just for PR. If there genuinely was a cover-up, they should but if those individuals were attempting to protect to the privacy of Strickland they should be applauded.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Jun 12, 2019 12:34:45 GMT -5
So what is the correct action if the victim says she doesn't want to participate and doesn't want this to go to police? Am I wrong in thinking that a firing for cause would require some kind of hearing, forcing Strickland to get involved? Even if he DOES get fired, aren't there confidentiality laws that the University still has to abide by? I guess I don't quite understand where that line is between a cover-up and legally-required confidentiality. The correct action is always to go immediately to the police, to a doctor and confide in friends, to document the situation and gather evidence. That is extraordinarily hard on a victim who is traumatized, embarrassed, ashamed, afraid and just wants the situation to go away. It is way to easy for such victims to be shut up by the department they worked for, the school itself and/or the school police department. They will say they want to help you, but their primary goal is always to minimize exposure and damage to the department and school. The school police departments often just do the bidding of the institutions and other times are well meaning but just aren't equipped to deal with certain crimes like a big city PD. I believe with most campus police forces, once a person is arrested, the matter is turned over to the local police or sheriff (if outside a city).
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 12, 2019 12:45:47 GMT -5
So what is the correct action if the victim says she doesn't want to participate and doesn't want this to go to police? Am I wrong in thinking that a firing for cause would require some kind of hearing, forcing Strickland to get involved? Even if he DOES get fired, aren't there confidentiality laws that the University still has to abide by? I guess I don't quite understand where that line is between a cover-up and legally-required confidentiality. I'm far from an informed expert to provide this type of advice, but I'll give my laymen thoughts as the father of two daughters who went to a major public university.
Unless the privacy laws legally prohibit this, I wonder if her parents were informed of the situation and involved in the decision making. Not sure if I recommend this or not because they could easily be as much of a hindrance as help.
I do question the involvement of UW in this case as likely this occurred off-campus and I wouldn't think the University Police would have jurisdiction. Likely it should have been reported to the police even if the victim was opposed to this.
I would get independent counsel for the victim to protect her rights.
I would initiate termination of the associate AD and not just allow him to resign. This is how many "predators" are allowed to continue their actions from place to place.
When a student enrolls in a post-secondary institution, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) transfers all disclosure rights from the parent to the student. Universities are prohibited from sharing educational records or actions that involve the student, even with their parents.
|
|