Shipley: Victim advocate says football can ‘shift the power’ on sexual assault

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,566
Reaction score
15,641
Points
113
per Shipley:

Football, says Brenda Tracy, might be the best weapon against sexual assault. The key is getting the good guys to take control of the culture, not just within the program, but on campus.

For Tracy, a sexual assault survivor who has forged a life as a victim advocate and lobbyist, a “good guy” is one who would never think about raping someone — and there are a lot more good guys, she insists, than bad guys.

“When I go into a presentation, I don’t go to talk to the kids who might do this, I’m talking to the kids I know are good,” Tracy said in a phone interview this week. “They’re the answer. They need to be the police force, so to speak: If you see something, say something. When there’s locker room talk, shut it down. They need to be role models and leaders.”

http://www.twincities.com/2017/01/1...otball-can-shift-the-power-on-sexual-assault/

Go Gophers!!
 


I'll walk a line that I am not sure is walkable...

I don't think the folks who do this thing typically are all "Hey i'm a rapist and i'm going raping today! Who is with me?!?!?" So i'm not really sure the "good guy" / "bad guy" thing works here. That idea sounds like a byproduct you get out of watching the media that wants you think there is a predator around every corner or that "rape culture" is actually folks talking about raping people all the time or something.

Also I don't think the "good guys" are out there talking to the "bad guys" and talking them down from raping anyone.

I'm not sure the idea put forth by this person is based in reality / helpful, at all.

Her own quotes don't really show much indication she has taken the time to figure out what she was commenting on either...
 

I'll walk a line that I am not sure is walkable...

I don't think the folks who do this thing typically are all "Hey i'm a rapist and i'm going raping today! Who is with me?!?!?" So i'm not really sure the "good guy" / "bad guy" thing works here. That idea sounds like a byproduct you get out of watching the media that wants you think there is a predator around every corner or that "rape culture" is actually folks talking about raping people all the time or something.

Also I don't think the "good guys" are out there talking to the "bad guys" and talking them down from raping anyone.

I'm not sure the idea put forth by this person is based in reality / helpful, at all.

Her own quotes don't really show much indication she has taken the time to figure out what she was commenting on either...

The bad guys don't set out to rape, they just don't see what they do as rape, they think all bitches want it, and just need some help giving it up.
 

So glad when this witch hunt is over. There is room to grow and be better citizens and people but as long as we are in the punishment phase it will be difficult for that to really take hold.
 


I've never paid attention to Shipley before, but man he is just going to keep hammering this:

"It was troubling for many, Tracy among them.

“I was really concerned about the words of the young man who was talking about the boycott, the language he used, words like ‘due process,’ ” she said. “I wondered: Who is leading these kids about what they’re saying? It sounded like there were other people, probably adults, in there directing them.”

Shipley should know after that idiotic Q&A he did with Gaelin WHAT THE HECK WAS MEANT BY DUE PROCESS. Where is the confusion and concern? 5 guys get suspended and served with restraining orders, no one is sure what they did, no boycott, no problem. Other players, some of whom had nothing to do with the incident, were later suspended with no explanation given. Boycott. So again, Mr Shipley, this isn't about the sex that took place and whether it was consensual or assault. So your sexual assault expert, who had many interesting things to say in the rest of the article, shouldn't be troubled, and you should have explained to her what Gaelin told you. Maybe, just maybe, there is more than one party in the wrong in this mess.

But Shipley is just going all in on one side of the story, because Journalism.
 

I've never paid attention to Shipley before, but man he is just going to keep hammering this:

"It was troubling for many, Tracy among them.

“I was really concerned about the words of the young man who was talking about the boycott, the language he used, words like ‘due process,’ ” she said. “I wondered: Who is leading these kids about what they’re saying? It sounded like there were other people, probably adults, in there directing them.”

Shipley should know after that idiotic Q&A he did with Gaelin WHAT THE HECK WAS MEANT BY DUE PROCESS. Where is the confusion and concern? 5 guys get suspended and served with restraining orders, no one is sure what they did, no boycott, no problem. Other players, some of whom had nothing to do with the incident, were later suspended with no explanation given. Boycott. So again, Mr Shipley, this isn't about the sex that took place and whether it was consensual or assault. So your sexual assault expert, who had many interesting things to say in the rest of the article, shouldn't be troubled, and you should have explained to her what Gaelin told you. Maybe, just maybe, there is more than one party in the wrong in this mess.

But Shipley is just going all in on one side of the story, because Journalism.

Huh? A graduating college senior with an English major viewed as a "kid" who would not have an understanding of due process?
 

Huh? A graduating college senior with an English major viewed as a "kid" who would not have an understanding of due process?

Policies at universities pretty much assume their students are victims or are otherwise helpless...... not surprising to see students themselves pick up on it and use it to discount views they don't like.

Laura Kipnis at Northwestern wrote an interesting article about that topic and "sexual paranoia".... and just the article alone prompted a complaint and Title IX investigation. Yup, write something, Title IX investigation, wtf.
 

Policies at universities pretty much assume their students are victims or are otherwise helpless...... not surprising to see students themselves pick up on it and use it to discount views they don't like.

Laura Kipnis at Northwestern wrote an interesting article about that topic and "sexual paranoia".... and just the article alone prompted a complaint and Title IX investigation. Yup, write something, Title IX investigation, wtf.

She just takes a hit to her credibility with statements like that one.
 



Great article. Glad to see someone gets that the students boycotted until all 10 players were reinstated and they received an apology from Kaler. That is not due process. Due process is when they get to present all the viewpoints, evidence etc. so that the full story is heard and considered. It is not getting reinstated and receiving an apology. The boycott never was about due process...it was about getting their buddies back on the team. The attitude of entitlement is incredible. I found it interesting that she heard about this from the boycott (great job Wolitarsky and Leidner...making sure everyone in the country knew). I respected this senior class and what they went through and accomplished until the boycott...then I just thought what a bunch of spoiled, entitled, immature men.
 

I've never paid attention to Shipley before, but man he is just going to keep hammering this:

"It was troubling for many, Tracy among them.

“I was really concerned about the words of the young man who was talking about the boycott, the language he used, words like ‘due process,’ ” she said. “I wondered: Who is leading these kids about what they’re saying? It sounded like there were other people, probably adults, in there directing them.”

But Shipley is just going all in on one side of the story, because Journalism.

Like someone said before, Drew Wolitarsky is a college senior and an English major. If he doesn't at least understand the concept or the term "due process" when nearing graduation, the U has failed. He's also moved across the country, played pressure moments in front of 100K people, and been a public spokesperson for his entire team in a time of controversy. Just because there are coaches who are older in authority positions at one of his extracurricular activities doesn't make him a kid.

I often look askew at our coaches when they call our players "kids". TC did that more than any coach I can recall, but he's far from alone. I would imagine that it's a subtle part of this culture we are talking about. Treat these young men as men, teach them that their actions have consequences, and pull away that safety net that's given to kids.

In one area of these guys' lives (football) they are given extraordinary adult pressure and expectations, but in the day to day, they are given license to screw up as kids. It's weird.
 

Great article. Glad to see someone gets that the students boycotted until all 10 players were reinstated and they received an apology from Kaler. That is not due process. Due process is when they get to present all the viewpoints, evidence etc. so that the full story is heard and considered. It is not getting reinstated and receiving an apology. The boycott never was about due process...it was about getting their buddies back on the team. The attitude of entitlement is incredible. I found it interesting that she heard about this from the boycott (great job Wolitarsky and Leidner...making sure everyone in the country knew). I respected this senior class and what they went through and accomplished until the boycott...then I just thought what a bunch of spoiled, entitled, immature men.

I guess it must be hard for you to understand, or you choose not to because it doesn't fit your narrative. The punishment has already been applied, without the ability of the accused to rebut. That's not due process. The Chair of the BoR even stated as much in public, his concern that there was no due process:

On Gophers players facing penalties without first having a hearing:

"When someone is suspended without hearing – and I think that’s the gist of why the football team decided to boycott; they felt there had been allegations without hearing. I’ve talked to [university President Eric Kaler] about this many times, that somehow we need to take a look at that notification hearing process. You know the old adage, ‘You’re innocent until proven guilty?’ I’m not sure that was true in this case. Their pictures are across the wide spectrum and people just assume they were guilty.”


http://www.startribune.com/regents-...-u-can-learn-from-football-boycott/407354266/
 

Like someone said before, Drew Wolitarsky is a college senior and an English major. If he doesn't at least understand the concept or the term "due process" when nearing graduation, the U has failed. He's also moved across the country, played pressure moments in front of 100K people, and been a public spokesperson for his entire team in a time of controversy. Just because there are coaches who are older in authority positions at one of his extracurricular activities doesn't make him a kid.

I often look askew at our coaches when they call our players "kids". TC did that more than any coach I can recall, but he's far from alone. I would imagine that it's a subtle part of this culture we are talking about. Treat these young men as men, teach them that their actions have consequences, and pull away that safety net that's given to kids.

In one area of these guys' lives (football) they are given extraordinary adult pressure and expectations, but in the day to day, they are given license to screw up as kids. It's weird.

Not the point I was making...the point I was making is her credibility takes a hit when she makes condescending, generalized comments like that, clearly not knowing enough about the situation or person.
 



I guess it must be hard for you to understand, or you choose not to because it doesn't fit your narrative. The punishment has already been applied, without the ability of the accused to rebut. That's not due process. The Chair of the BoR even stated as much in public, his concern that there was no due process:

On Gophers players facing penalties without first having a hearing:

"When someone is suspended without hearing – and I think that’s the gist of why the football team decided to boycott; they felt there had been allegations without hearing. I’ve talked to [university President Eric Kaler] about this many times, that somehow we need to take a look at that notification hearing process. You know the old adage, ‘You’re innocent until proven guilty?’ I’m not sure that was true in this case. Their pictures are across the wide spectrum and people just assume they were guilty.”


http://www.startribune.com/regents-...-u-can-learn-from-football-boycott/407354266/

It has nothing to do whether there was due process or not. According to Wolitarsky, who it has been pointed out, is an English major and thus has total command of the language, said they were boycotting until all the players were reinstated and they received and apology from Kaler. Say whatever you want, using Wolitarsky's words, they were boycotting for the reinstatement of the players, not until they received their due process. It isn't what they said....it is what they said later to cover their butts after making the U the laughingstock of the nation...but at the time, it wasn't for due process...it was for reinstatement. Had the players received due process or if they do, according to the English major, they would not resume play. If they were put back on the team but Kaler didn't apologize, they would not discontinue the boycott. Because receiving due process wouldn't stop the boycott, logic would tell you they weren't boycotting for due process. If they were boycotting because of the lack of a hearing then the English major leader of the team should have said: "We will continue to boycott until our teammates receive a hearing and the system is changed so that going forward, all accused folks get a hearing before consequences are handed out." But unfortunately that isn't what he said.
 

It has nothing to do whether there was due process or not. According to Wolitarsky, who it has been pointed out, is an English major and thus has total command of the language, said they were boycotting until all the players were reinstated and they received and apology from Kaler. Say whatever you want, using Wolitarsky's words, they were boycotting for the reinstatement of the players, not until they received their due process. It isn't what they said....it is what they said later to cover their butts after making the U the laughingstock of the nation...but at the time, it wasn't for due process...it was for reinstatement. Had the players received due process or if they do, according to the English major, they would not resume play. If they were put back on the team but Kaler didn't apologize, they would not discontinue the boycott. Because receiving due process wouldn't stop the boycott, logic would tell you they weren't boycotting for due process. If they were boycotting because of the lack of a hearing then the English major leader of the team should have said: "We will continue to boycott until our teammates receive a hearing and the system is changed so that going forward, all accused folks get a hearing before consequences are handed out." But unfortunately that isn't what he said.

I think you're giving 20 year old football players way too much credit. They are not lawyers, PR professionals or administrators. I doubt they had much of an idea what to call it. They had an administration that locked them out of receiving information regarding what was happening which they judged as being unfair. They did the only thing they could to get the administration to engage with them. It worked. And I don't blame them one bit.
 

It has nothing to do whether there was due process or not. According to Wolitarsky, who it has been pointed out, is an English major and thus has total command of the language, said they were boycotting until all the players were reinstated and they received and apology from Kaler. Say whatever you want, using Wolitarsky's words, they were boycotting for the reinstatement of the players, not until they received their due process. It isn't what they said....it is what they said later to cover their butts after making the U the laughingstock of the nation...but at the time, it wasn't for due process...it was for reinstatement. Had the players received due process or if they do, according to the English major, they would not resume play. If they were put back on the team but Kaler didn't apologize, they would not discontinue the boycott. Because receiving due process wouldn't stop the boycott, logic would tell you they weren't boycotting for due process. If they were boycotting because of the lack of a hearing then the English major leader of the team should have said: "We will continue to boycott until our teammates receive a hearing and the system is changed so that going forward, all accused folks get a hearing before consequences are handed out." But unfortunately that isn't what he said.

Pretty clunky, unsuccessful pivot.

It was always about due process. The two BoR members took the time to listen to the players, something Kaler and Coyle couldn't seem to do. Remember, they even offered to lift some suspensions until they realized they could not. Bush league. The BoR members were successful in getting the team to rethink the boycott approach.

Either way, the action and threat to not play in the bowl game certainly put the spot light where it needed to be, on the EOAA process and Kaler and Coyle. The process is unfair and broken.
 

Pretty clunky, unsuccessful pivot.

It was always about due process. The two BoR members took the time to listen to the players, something Kaler and Coyle couldn't seem to do. Remember, they even offered to lift some suspensions until they realized they could not. Bush league. The BoR members were successful in getting the team to rethink the boycott approach.

Either way, the action and threat to not play in the bowl game certainly put the spot light where it needed to be, on the EOAA process and Kaler and Coyle. The process is unfair and broken.

Despite the people who respond to him, it's just not easy being troll.

He's been proving that for awhile now.
 

Despite the people who respond to him, it's just not easy being troll.

He's been proving that for awhile now.

Well said. His efforts have to be pretty embarrassing to competent trolls. Sad.
 

Pretty clunky, unsuccessful pivot.

It was always about due process. The two BoR members took the time to listen to the players, something Kaler and Coyle couldn't seem to do. Remember, they even offered to lift some suspensions until they realized they could not. Bush league. The BoR members were successful in getting the team to rethink the boycott approach.

Either way, the action and threat to not play in the bowl game certainly put the spot light where it needed to be, on the EOAA process and Kaler and Coyle. The process is unfair and broken.

Umm the national spotlight went on Minnesota's sex scandal...not on the EOAA...a coach and his staff were fired (or the boycott made it easier for Coyle to fire Claeys)...so if you think it was successful, we can agree to disagree. If you think getting a spotlight for the entire nation to see that our players allegedly gang raped a woman...well again, I'll agree to disagree with you. The players were already going to get an appeal before the boycott. Coaches got fired and the sex scandal made the front page of CNN (not the sports section) ESPN etc. The EOAA did not find itself there. My guess is all 10 players will be gone too or at least a good chunk of them. Mission accomplished? I think not. Oh and Coyle and Kaler are still employed and didn't issue apologies to the players but the players came back and ate crow with their second news conference.
 

Umm the national spotlight went on Minnesota's sex scandal...not on the EOAA...a coach and his staff were fired (or the boycott made it easier for Coyle to fire Claeys)...so if you think it was successful, we can agree to disagree. If you think getting a spotlight for the entire nation to see that our players allegedly gang raped a woman...well again, I'll agree to disagree with you. The players were already going to get an appeal before the boycott. Coaches got fired and the sex scandal made the front page of CNN (not the sports section) ESPN etc. The EOAA did not find itself there. My guess is all 10 players will be gone too or at least a good chunk of them. Mission accomplished? I think not. Oh and Coyle and Kaler are still employed and didn't issue apologies to the players but the players came back and ate crow with their second news conference.

It never should have come to a boycott. It was EK's and MC's negligence or outright incompetence that led to it. The responsibility for what a circus this became is squarely on their shoulders.
 

Umm the national spotlight went on Minnesota's sex scandal...not on the EOAA...a coach and his staff were fired (or the boycott made it easier for Coyle to fire Claeys)...so if you think it was successful, we can agree to disagree. If you think getting a spotlight for the entire nation to see that our players allegedly gang raped a woman...well again, I'll agree to disagree with you. The players were already going to get an appeal before the boycott. Coaches got fired and the sex scandal made the front page of CNN (not the sports section) ESPN etc. The EOAA did not find itself there. My guess is all 10 players will be gone too or at least a good chunk of them. Mission accomplished? I think not. Oh and Coyle and Kaler are still employed and didn't issue apologies to the players but the players came back and ate crow with their second news conference.

Well, no.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...andard-needed-for-campus-sexual-assault-cases
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...e-evidence-standard-if-2011-guidance-reversed
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/sports/football/stanford-football-rape-accusation.html?_r=0
http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/16/university-of-minnesota-football-team-bo
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/12/shor...s-sex-assault-standard-of-proof-in-spotlight/
 


The first two articles don't even mention the boycott and are about other schools. The New York Times article is about the Stanford case where the university board can and did find that a guy raped a women...ruling 3-2 but even when the board agreed...it had to be unanimous and the woman was left with " yeah we agree he raped you but not all of us agree and it's too bad you don't feel safe on campus...he can still play on our football team and go to our bowl game".

Wow...yeah, abovethelaw.com and reason.com...big spotlight...much bigger than ESPN and CNN...my bad
 

The first two articles don't even mention the boycott and are about other schools. The New York Times article is about the Stanford case where the university board can and did find that a guy raped a women...ruling 3-2 but even when the board agreed...it had to be unanimous and the woman was left with " yeah we agree he raped you but not all of us agree and it's too bad you don't feel safe on campus...he can still play on our football team and go to our bowl game".

Wow...yeah, abovethelaw.com and reason.com...big spotlight...much bigger than ESPN and CNN...my bad

Why do you think these were in the news...are you that short sighted, or does it just suit your narrative to be that closed minded? I can give you a dozen articles on the boycott from around the US.
 

"...who it has been pointed out, is an English major...according to the English major...the English major..."

You seem pretty hung up about this. Did he make any grammatical errors in the statement?

Maybe if he were a Public Relations major, your weak BS may have held some water, but you're still lacking.
 

No not pointing out grammatical errors or anything. Don't care that he is an English major. It was argued in an earlier post, that as a graduating English major, he would have known what "due process" was all about, and what was alleged in the article, that he was coached in his statement, was therefore not true. I too thought it was ridiculous that saying that he was an "English major" would be evidence that he would understand "due process". I don't ever remember studying anything about due process in English. However, when I was a juvenile probation officer, the kids with whom I dealt, might have known about due process. So I agree with you....it is just silly to argue that. But what I did study in English is words. And words matter. And what I did learn in English is how to compose my thoughts so that what I write is what I mean. For that reason I believe that Wolitarsky meant what he said or is an idiot. Either way, IMO, the boycott was a disaster and I am sure if you asked Claeys if he wished they hadn't boycotted, he would say "yes" if he answered honestly.
 




Top Bottom