|
Post by n00b on Jun 12, 2019 14:03:29 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) Cassie was in graduate school and had completed her volleyball career when this incident occured. Gotcha. It just said 'Spring 2017' and according to the online roster, she DID play on the beach team that spring.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Jun 12, 2019 14:06:30 GMT -5
Good info. However, in this case there wasn't actually a report, right? Strickland met with the UCIRO investigators but ultimately declined to file an individual complaint. When a student tells someone at the college who is a "responsible employee" the college is considered to be on notice and is required by Title IX to take action to come up with a "prompt and effective remedy." Colleges get to designate who is a "responsible employee" but those investigators would 100% be within that category. Once that notification happens, the college needs to take action, regardless of whether any formal report was filed. Since you have Title IX training, I appreciate your explanation of the rules. I think the problem many of us have is a system that allows someone credibly accused of sexual assault to simply move to another institution and a new employer - and potential new victims - are unaware of anything amiss. Also, this notion of "We'll pay for your therapy, but we need to get reports on your progress" seems just short of draconian.
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Jun 12, 2019 14:06:56 GMT -5
In our society in general there is this reaction “keeping things confidential to limit legal liability “ It is wrong and leads to this time and time again
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 12, 2019 14:12:38 GMT -5
Security on campus should be limited to parking tickets and maybe some basic college level infractions Why? Particularly in a public school, the school police officers are public employees. They usually have the full rights and responsibilities of any other public police officers. On most campuses with a police department with sworn officers, the Chief usually reports to a Vice President (usually VP Administration). It's not unusual, therefore, for some higher-ups to want to get very involved in the decision making of the Police Chief, in the same way City Council members want to get involved. The smart ones realize that it is much better in the long run to avoid the urge to meddle too much.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Jun 12, 2019 14:17:41 GMT -5
In our society in general there is this reaction “keeping things confidential to limit legal liability “ It is wrong and leads to this time and time again In our society, there is also this notion that powerful men, especially those who bring in the money, must be protected, until the tide is too strong. See Cosby, Clinton, Epstein, Ailes, O'Reilly, Lauer. Some get lifetime appointments to powerful positions. Most women who make accusations against powerful men are either never believed or they go through living hell before there is any justice. Sadly, if not for this Seattle Times after-the-fact reporting, this would be one more case of a powerful man just moving along to the next high-paying gig with no consequences.
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Jun 12, 2019 14:26:04 GMT -5
When a student tells someone at the college who is a "responsible employee" the college is considered to be on notice and is required by Title IX to take action to come up with a "prompt and effective remedy." Colleges get to designate who is a "responsible employee" but those investigators would 100% be within that category. Once that notification happens, the college needs to take action, regardless of whether any formal report was filed. Since you have Title IX training, I appreciate your explanation of the rules. I think the problem many of us have is a system that allows someone credibly accused of sexual assault to simply move to another institution and a new employer - and potential new victims - are unaware of anything amiss. Also, this notion of "We'll pay for your therapy, but we need to get reports on your progress" seems just short of draconian. That last notion still has the hairs on the back of my neck standing on end.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 12, 2019 14:28:29 GMT -5
In the United States of America there's really not that much power with many victims of sexual assault. This gets to the heart of the problem. Many victims of sexual assault don't report it because the results of reporting it can be very painful to them -- and it's particularly bad when they go through that pain but the assaulter ends up not being punished anyway. As we have seen from the Catholic Church (but don't kid yourself, it's not only them), groups that have something to lose from the bad PR will often participate in keeping the situation hushed up. Together this leads to victims just wanting the whole thing to go away and institutions with an incentive to facilitate and encourage that. Combined with the nature of the crime often meaning it happened between two people with little or no objective evidence involved, it's so much easier to just quietly cover it up. But what are they supposed to do? Force the victim to bring open legal charges? Publicly identify people as sexual assaulters when they haven't been convicted in court? Maintain a secret clearinghouse for accused former university employees? One of the things I think we can do, however, is to prohibit institutions from asking victims to sign anything that waives any of their rights. It should be illegal to ask for the victim to sign a release allowing the school to check up on the progress of her therapy, even though the school is paying for it. Also, no part of the process should ever involve the victim being asked to sign any nondisclosure form. What is really needed is something like a public defender -- a legal representative paid for by the school but who is legally obligated to represent the victim, not the school. The victim shouldn't be the only one in the process who hasn't "lawyered up".
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Jun 12, 2019 14:32:35 GMT -5
Very much Agee
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 12, 2019 14:37:56 GMT -5
In the United States of America there's really not that much power with many victims of sexual assault. This gets to the heart of the problem. Many victims of sexual assault don't report it because the results of reporting it can be very painful to them -- and it's particularly bad when they go through that pain but the assaulter ends up not being punished anyway. As we have seen from the Catholic Church (but don't kid yourself, it's not only them), groups that have something to lose from the bad PR will often participate in keeping the situation hushed up. Together this leads to victims just wanting the whole thing to go away and institutions with an incentive to facilitate and encourage that. Combined with the nature of the crime often meaning it happened between two people with little or no objective evidence involved, it's so much easier to just quietly cover it up. But what are they supposed to do? Force the victim to bring open legal charges? Publicly identify people as sexual assaulters when they haven't been convicted in court? Maintain a secret clearinghouse for accused former university employees? One of the things I think we can do, however, is to prohibit institutions from asking victims to sign anything that waives any of their rights. It should be illegal to ask for the victim to sign a release allowing the school to check up on the progress of her therapy, even though the school is paying for it. Also, no part of the process should ever involve the victim being asked to sign any nondisclosure form. What is really needed is something like a public defender -- a legal representative paid for by the school but who is legally obligated to represent the victim, not the school. The victim shouldn't be the only one in the process who hasn't "lawyered up". Interestingly, that story says they acquired the settlement through a public-record request, but it wasn't posted like the investigation report was. The AD did say that there was no requirement that Strickland keep the agreement confidential.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 12, 2019 14:47:47 GMT -5
In the United States of America there's really not that much power with many victims of sexual assault. This gets to the heart of the problem. .... One of the things I think we can do, however, is to prohibit institutions from asking victims to sign anything that waives any of their rights. It should be illegal to ask for the victim to sign a release allowing the school to check up on the progress of her therapy, even though the school is paying for it. Also, no part of the process should ever involve the victim being asked to sign any nondisclosure form. What is really needed is something like a public defender -- a legal representative paid for by the school but who is legally obligated to represent the victim, not the school. The victim shouldn't be the only one in the process who hasn't "lawyered up". It's a cliche, but sunshine is a good disinfectant. The legal system accepts non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements because they are perceived as efficient because they bring about settlements more quickly, and it is true to some degree. Public institutions of all kinds should be prohibited from entering into confidential settlement agreements. But, lawyers. There is an existing law in California that allows someone to sue with regard to a legally binding agreement not to sue if information is subsequently found to exist that would have materially affected their understanding of the situation, regardless of whether the information was willfully withheld or not. So, lawyers began inserting a "standard" clause into settlement agreements whereby the party accepting the settlement waived that law (while the party offering it did not), until the practice was challenged in court.
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Jun 12, 2019 14:48:46 GMT -5
The article did say they encouraged her to seek legal counsel and that she was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement. My thoughts are in such cases the university should morally bound to do more that. Just how is the student going to know how to proceed to find and pay for that legal counsel? Also if a public university places someone on a do not rehire list should that not be public knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 12, 2019 14:54:45 GMT -5
Also if a public university places someone on a do not rehire list should that not be public knowledge? That's problematical. Do people on such a list have any right to due process to get removed from it? Remember all the problems that the US "No Fly List" has had in terms of people not knowing they were on the list, not knowing why they were on the list, not being able to get off the list, being misidentified as someone else with the same or similar name, etc.
|
|
|
Post by vollem on Jun 12, 2019 15:40:17 GMT -5
The article did say they encouraged her to seek legal counsel and that she was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement. My thoughts are in such cases the university should morally bound to do more that. Just how is the student going to know how to proceed to find and pay for that legal counsel? Also if a public university places someone on a do not rehire list should that not be public knowledge? Adding onto this, there's a good chance when the crime happened, the victim doesn't tell the parents. Not sure if this is the case for Strickland, and I will not make such assumptions, but it's unfortunately common to not confide in parents for more help on how to navigate this process.
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Jun 12, 2019 15:49:05 GMT -5
The power is actually with the victim to decide where this goes. Strickland did not want this to become a thing. Right or wrong, it's her decision. In the United States of America there's really not that much power with many victims of sexual assault. Why complicate what happened to Strickland with cases for which there are validity questions? I have no reason to doubt Strickland's claims. I recognize I'm likely in the minority, but I have doubts about the people claiming victimhood that you've selected to show. Why bring up their cases?
|
|
|
Post by preschooler on Jun 12, 2019 16:09:18 GMT -5
Also if a public university places someone on a do not rehire list should that not be public knowledge? That's problematical. Do people on such a list have any right to due process to get removed from it? Remember all the problems that the US "No Fly List" has had in terms of people not knowing they were on the list, not knowing why they were on the list, not being able to get off the list, being misidentified as someone else with the same or similar name, etc. IMO if an institution has investigated an allegation of this nature that they have found “credible” and that individual is as a result is deemed by that institution to be non re hirable is a pretty big red flag even if the victim declined to prosecute. There should be some type of mandatory disclosure to future employers to ask some questions at least.
|
|