Interim MSU Pres Engler triples down on protecting rape culture
And that is kinda my point. Had RichRod & Bill Martin told the NCAA & the Freep to go fuck themselves, we did nothing wrong I dont think anything would've happened.
What's funny (ironic funny - not actually humorous at all) to me is that if the Freep, Det News or Lansing Journal had 1/10th the interest in this case as the Freep did in "blowing the lid off the Michigan practice scandal" my well documented position on the outcome here would change.
A huge part of why I continue to think nothing is going to really come of this is the protection both Dantonio & Izzo are afforded by the lapdog Detroit media. They are the chosen sons and they must be protected at all cost.
Michigan? Not so much.
Ugh... I hate agreeing with you because you keep ramming down throats. But with the protectionism for Izzo and Dirtonyo, I have to. Blowing up Michigan is something every paper in Michigan would get behind today if some scandal broke its ugly face this morning. Michigan is the popular, sexy target. MSU is the dingy backwater that gets hand-me-downs, so anything that helps them - read: good sports teams - will be celebrated as the little engine that could.
So long as it's only ESPN applying pressure, change will be small, and long in process. If the local papers went all in to clean it up, change would happen in a couple of months.
This embodies a reality with the NCAA and the justice system: in olden times, yore, people were afraid of NCAA and the police/FBI/court. Michigan's stretchgate came right at the top of NCAA power - people still feared it, and Michigan probably thought compliance to the letter of the law was the right thing to do. The NCAA has made a mockery of themselves since, so certainly the new rule today is deny as you say. Same thing with actual crime, people don't fear charges anymore, where in the past they would have been scared into a confession. Deny forever now, and it typically either goes away or the charges are reduced.
Good and bad with this change. Hopefully more innocent people who in the past were intimidated into prison with false confessions avoid that. But expect a lot more parents like those in the MSU rape case, bitterly disappointed in the system. And if you hire a contractor pay him as little as you can until done.
""And if you hire a contractor pay him as little as you can until done."
We may have had our differences over the years but THAT sentence my friend is the truest and most accurate thing anybody will post here today.
Trust me.
I've always like you as a poster mGrowOld, I'm sorry if you haven't felt the same. Because I disagreed with several of your takes during the Hoke/Brandon implosion never meant I didn't value your discussions on the board. Brevity and anonymity (for me) makes rude dogs of many of us, apologies if you took anything personally.
I just meant we just generally disagree on things. Not in a disagreeable way at all - we just view events from a different prism.
I agree with most of this except the perception that the NCAA was feared or at the height of its power during stretchgate. That's a faulty understanding of the reasons why Michigan chose to self investigate and cooperate. The NCAA hadn't been feared for many, many, many years prior to that and Michigan chose to investigate for reasons other than fear.
I'll take "Dark days in Michigan football history for $500 Alex"
Your answer is: " The term used to undermine this head coach who was so hated inside the Michigan football program by insiders they self-investigated and fed local media and the NCAA misinformation over a minor transgression in the hopes it would lead to his termination."
What is "Stretchgate?"
are most often not the focus (although they have been). The focus has been on MSU administration. In terms of coverage, for months there hasn't been a week gone by where there isn't a story from both the Freep and News; which is also in M Live and NPR. It isn't just ESPN. Even the Lansing paper.
This saga is a long time unfolding and I think the local papers are staying with every new development as it happens. In addition to news stories, there have been stinging editorials from the News/Freep blasting MSU from every direction. I don't think there's any real effort to shield the football and BB coaches so much as they are not the primary targets. If any evidence surfaces implicating either of them it will be reported (and has already). I'm sure Mork is hiding under his rock daydreaming about how he will beat Michigan, but in the future, he won't be able to bring criminals onto campus or shield them so easily.
Cant wait for when Engler quadrulples down on the rape culture. This limit the damages cover up is insane by the MSU "leaders"
Nothing like some good ole sexual harassment and rape enabling. So I guess he's a perfect fit for MSU!
There is a perfectly good argument to be had, about former Chief Justice Young's tenure on the Michigan Supreme Court, and his rulings in workplace/employment cases, and his history with certain plaintiff attorneys, and the various campaigns (not just Young) for the Michigan Supreme Court elections.
It's a good argument/discussion, and it is profoundly political.
Seth, I read your response in the Moderator Action Sticky. I take it that there are some political areas that you will countenance in this regard. But I expect that you wouldn't like my reply.
Am I misreading this? I'm just not sure what's going on.
I think you can discuss court cases without getting political. In fact, I think the article focuses on the allegations in the cases and the rulings without much reference to political views.
Court is one of the few places where you can get into the details of a specific incident. Where you might be able to get past political dispositions. At some point, every conservative judge must admit there are valid claims by certain plaintiffs (often admitting so informally with an emphasis on settling). And, every liberal judge faces a frivolous lawsuit that has to be kicked out of court.
Discuss the cases. Don't discuss the politics.
I often respond to these questions, as an employer-side attorney and I'm probably in the minority in my views on these because of what I do. But you can do so without being overtly political.
A bipartisan issue. I would have bet money myself that is was as recently as a couple months ago.
However, it now seems that hope has been misplaced.
Presuming that someone like Gov. Engler, or Justice Young have a "pro-rape culture" agenda...?!?
Is the Hobson's choice that you are presenting to us that we must be either (a) pro-plaintiff attorneys or (b) pro-rape culture?
I am not even going to play that game with you.
When Engler was hired, he made statements to the effect that he was there in large part to effectuate changes to the MSU culture. Skeptics at MSU did not believe this and took no confidence votes on both Engler and the BOT. However with every decision Engler has made, he has shown the initial rationale for his hiring to have been a cynical ruse. Instead of changing the culture at MSU, he in reinforcing the existing rape culture with hirings like this one. Can you name any actions Engler has taken which might be viewed by an objective observer as culture changing? I’m for honesty, and I recognize MSUs right to vigorously defend itself and the prerogatives of its incestuous power structure. Had Englers hiring statement said “Governor Engler is here to eliminate our liability for these misunderstood medical procedures and protect our jobs and luxury boxes at all costs, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. I might have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.
He is doing just that. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I'll say it again. His role also could be seen to serve a dual purpose. He can be the "rogue" bad guy that protects the university and it's revenue generators by any means necessary and the "good spartans" can claim, justifiably so, that he doesn't represent their true values as an institution. Best of both worlds... MSU gets to fight the victims and the "ambulance chasers" - as Trustee Joel Ferguson refers to them as - without gloves while still appearing to give a shit about them and the other girls raped by athletes under the ever vigilante eyes of Izzo and Mork. The University saves money, the alumni can still show their face in public... Win win situation...
As an alum of the law school, I'm now simultaneously disgusted and filled with admiration for the stragegy.
They are winning. Incredible job. I'd hire Engler in a second to defend my company if something this awful happens on my watch - it won't btw if anyone knows my true identity on this site... Sad but true. Spartans will.
But what we see on this board, week after week, are allegations of one particular political party tolerating a “rape culture”
Seriously? I come to this site A LOT and it does not seem like sex assault is a political issue. It is almost always an issue of abuse of power in a sexual way. Both sides have that same power and abose it the same way.
It's odd that an attorney, who should be able to seperate sexual assualt issues from politics, is the one baselessly claimining that other people are really the ones who make it political week after week here.
There is a big problem with your stance. The concern isn't about his political party or his politics. It's about his ability to help fix a very real problem at MSU. When a society can't discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of someone with a political afilliation without that discussion becoming political, then you end up with a society where those with political affiliations never get questioned or held accountable by their own political affiliation.
In other words you are promoting a certain form of protectionism by forcing any ethical or merit based discussion regarding a political individual to be political.
Why does it bother you so much that people want to talk about this? Don't click on the link? Seriously, what is your agenda here?
...of "no politics" and then launches into one of these discussions, a couple of times a week.
I am not unhappy that there is a discussion. Discussions are fine. I like discussions. I like debates. I'm not even unhappy about discussions and/or debates with a poltical edge. There are lots of worthy, debatable topics in collegiate athletics that have meaningful political angles to them.
I am only unhappy when the "no politics" rule gets applied selectively.
I am not denying anybody their rights to expression. I'm not trying to silence any legitimate viewpoints.
And of course the owner(s) of MGoBlog are free to express their own political viewpoints.
At the outset, at least, mine is the mildest of viewpoints. My view being; isn't this, uh, political? After that, my view is; hey, there is another side to this.
See my post above regarding forum vs content... I'd still err on the side of non-censorship. I guess I don't see the horrible wrong you are seeking to prevent by suggesting the mods put a stop to these discusions on the blog.
I guess I'm confused by how posts pertaining to Engler and MSU are automatically attributed to being political. While there is Judicial Activism which will play along party lines, the judicial system by and large is agnostic of politics. I suppose you could say it's a chicken/egg situation since you can't have politics without ideals that are uphled along judicial lines. Just because Engler was a partisan participant in his governorship, does not mean that every post on here about him is political by association. Personally, the mods should create a super thread and shove any new threads started about the situation at MSU into that one thread.
I think you are on to something there poseidon. Perhaps a compromise? Surely a super thread to be used by those wishing to discuss this wouldn't offend anyone? To fight against that could only be percieved as a fight against rational oppinions, not the forum in which they are being expressed.
Posts that simply claim that Engler and Young are somehow protecting a "rape culture" are so bad that it is almost hard to categorize them as "political."
I don't think that every post here about Engler is political. Only a lot of them.
and institution, not the person/ employee, and the people up top. Anyone being brought in here is not being brought in to solve the underlying issue. They are there to protect the University and their fancy new seats in Breslin.
Just like Brandon was not hired to protect Toys-R-Us from calapsing, he was there to protect his friends investments. Businesses and institutions have the money and are going to do whatever they can to protect it.
Good people are often silenced. It takes the right person with the right power, willing to do the right thing to stop something like this.
He is coming in to Assist the legal team, and gave them a 10 percent discount on his 640 dollar an hour fees.
They are doing all they can to prevent paying out on this. The culture not going to change their if it pertains to any decent athlete who gets playing time.
do not worry we will pay for it all. so they can spend what ever they want. screwed again
giving that HUGE 10% discount on his hourly rate down to a meager $576/hour. That's like subsistence living for him. I for one will remember it fondly when the bill comes due.
after this is all over
It's a but unclear, but, the MSU posting says:
In addition to Zayko, Robert Young, of the Dickinson Wright Law Firm, has been selected as lead counsel assigned to coordinate the multiple investigations and the Title IX lawsuits that have been filed against MSU. He will oversee the law firms that are assisting the university.
I don't read that he's leading MSU's Title IX unit, rather, that he's acting as a defense attorney for MSU for their lawsuits. That also seems consistent with previous reports. Young is extremely legally conservative, business-friendly, and generally considered a textualist (those three often go hand-in-hand), as probably every lawyer in Michigan knows. He's defending MSU, that is why they hired him.
That being said, I understand the criticism. There's a balancing act MSU should be doing in terms of defense and sending the appropriate message, and I think they're doing too much of the former and not enough of the latter.
I also wouldn't read the decision in Brown v. SWS to be as negative as the treatment it's getting. The question there was whether the employer could be liable for the rape that occured through a negligent retention standard due to harassing comments the individual had made. The statements Young made in that case are in that context, although as noted above, he's more business-friendly in the employment realm.
One way to start getting more attention on this is for prospective college students to boycott MSU and not attend. When the bottom line is affected, that is (unfortunately) when institutions, companies, etc. REALLY start to address problems.
This is true. And it amazes me - yes, AMAZES (as often as that word is overused) - that MSU is still getting female students to enroll. And I'm slightly less amazed that women continue to work for MSU, especially in public roles like 'spokesperson'. Why the hell would a moan support MSU leadership like that?
And what parent would send a daughter to MSU? Yeah, I get that women have thier own voice and say in where they go and what they do. But, my gawd...
Women still enroll at MSU because it's a good school in the grand scheme of things. If people have the choice between MSU and one of the many mid-major / D2 schools in Michigan, they're generally going to pick MSU because an MSU degree will generally get you further in life than a degree from some of the lesser universities in Michigan. You could also form an argument from the facts that a) sexual assaults happen on every college campus, b) the Nassar thing was largely within the gymnastics community, and c) I don't think anyone has shown you are more likely to be assaulted at MSU vs other schools
Obviously, I'm as disgusted by MSU as the next person, but is it really 'amazing' that people continue to enroll there? I'm not amazed at all.
A sad but true fact of life. The only way you can really get the cable companies to stop hosing you is cut the cord and force them to make a change. Your Congressman isn't standing by the promises he/she made during their campaign? Vote them out of office. Hit them where they hurt.
I don't think its a stretch to say many people in this world couldn't give two shits about your problems, no matter how bad they are. And they will continue to not give two shits until your problems become their problems. I know this is a cynical, glass half-empty approach to life, but the world is a cruel and unforgiving place.
And if they won't do it, the state of Michigan should force them to. "Oh but if we do that it'll cause us to get killed in a lawsuit." Good, settle it and pay out the ass if you have to. If the law doesn't currently allow it, the state should pass one allowing colleges and corporations to go after execs/administrators who through incompetence or worse cause them to have massive lawsuit payouts. Make Simon have to chip in to pay back the victims of her incompetence, or at least bankrupt her so she doesn't just walk away from this scot free.
It's a travesty for any college to behave the way MSU has and then try to defend themselves this way. They're partially state funded, it's up to the state to force the issue here.
Having Robert Young as their defense counsel really doesn't have anything to do with rape culture. The case in question, for example..... the plaintiff herself testified she didn't have any fear of physical assault based on the harasser's comments, and the court very reasonably decided the employer shouldn't necessarily be so much better at anticipating the eventual rape any more than the plaintiff. I shudder to think of a future in which employers must fire anyone accused of saying something harassing - and if you can't be employed in one place for being a potential rapist, you can't be employed anywhere. So actually, yeah, Young's decision in that case was entirely correct.
I'm not defending MSU's behavior and never will. But you know, most of the criticism seems to be coming from the plaintiffs and their attorneys. It's their job to make the defendants look as bad as possible. So they sent their bloodhounds to sniff around for cases in which Young ruled against a rape victim, found one from 11 years ago, and paraded it around as "proof" that MSU is a rape culture school. Not buying it. There's plenty of other things they could cling to besides "their legal counsel once wrote a decision we don't like."
Thanks. I think the OP needs to be reworded to not read like a buzzfeed hit job.
You say "So they sent their bloodhounds to sniff around for cases in which Young ruled against a rape victim, found one from 11 years ago, and paraded it around as "proof" that MSU is a rape culture school." as if this decision is some obscure ruling that is being cherry picked in furtherance of the MSU victim lawsuits.
The reality is MSU's legal team is citing this very decision as part of their defenset that they should walk away from these lawsuits scot free.
This makes Young's previous cases exactly on point when it comes to evaluating Engler/MSU/rape culture.
Well, if that's the case, then they're grossly misusing the case. I haven't read that in the articles - the News article mentioned USAG, but not MSU. But that case decided that accusations of verbal harassment are not enough to predict that someone will commit physical rape. Nassar's case is about whether accusations of a particular act of assault are enough to predict whether he will commit that exact particular assault.
I think that makes sense if you only focus on the minute details. If you take a higher level view it's a bit different. From a logical standpoint hiring an ex-MSC Justice who ruled against holding coorporations negligently liable for this type of case is a no-brainer. That's logical. From a PR standpoint it is another public display of MSU protecting itself instead of a public display of MSU "standing with the survivors."
OK move logically. Bad PR move.
In addition to that it's a big middle finger to those who think real change is required. It's not so much about the merits of the original case.
Yeah, but I mean, they're supposed to protect themselves from lawsuits. Yes, I completely recognize that when it comes to their own governance, they need to blow the whole thing up and not be protective of various individuals or their already-shot reputation.
But when it comes to the lawsuits, I don't expect them to "stand with the survivors" and not protect themselves. They can't just throw open the vault and say "take what you think you deserve." Just as much as anyone else, no matter how heinous the accusations, they're entitled to a defense and legal representation. I want a fair outcome for the plaintiffs, not a gold-plated one. And I think it's only right to separate their legal defense in the court cases from their governance issues. Wanting to limit the money that goes out the door is separate from changing their governance culture.
And when it comes to choosing your legal representation, well, if you want someone that has zero past of having fought or ruled against sexual assault victims, you probably have to rule out any actual defense lawyers. You're left with plaintiff's attorneys and, to be honest, probably left-wing judges (like Young, but on the other side of the spectrum) - the former of which is not on your side and the latter of which won't take your case.