The CardBoard
Notre Dame takes a safety - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Notre Dame takes a safety (/thread-984.html)



Notre Dame takes a safety - fullmetal - 12-28-2010

Quote:Notre Dame’s president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins, said the university acted with integrity in its handling of sexual-misconduct allegations against a football player by a St. Mary’s College student who later committed suicide. St. Joseph (Ind.) County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak, who did not name the player, has said his office will not pursue criminal charges.

The parents of the dead student, Tom and Mary Seeberg of Northbrook, Ill., criticized Notre Dame, telling The Chicago Tribune that the university’s investigation of the death of their daughter, Elizabeth, 19, was superficial. Jenkins said the campus police conducted a “thorough and judicious investigation that followed the facts where they led.” He added: “I cannot stand by and allow the integrity of Notre Dame to be challenged so publicly. The values at issue go to the very heart of who and what we are at Notre Dame.”

Link here.


Re: Notre Dame takes a safety - yvonne - 12-28-2010

Wait, you lost me at

Quote:Notre Dame’s president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins,
Quote: acted with integrity in its handling of sexual-misconduct  





I think ND saw an avenue of plausible deniability. - Redrum - 12-28-2010

and took it.  While heaving a sigh of relief.

This is going to risk some flak, but here\'s the theory.  
1.   The actual sexual harrassment was,  apparently, fondling her breasts.   I know, I know.  The integrity of a person is the principle,  not just some sliding score of body parts touched.   But a LOT of people thought at first they were looking at a case of rape,  and when the reports came out,  the response was "oh...that\'s IT?".  

2.    ND is going after her mental instability.   The so-called commonsense  reaction -- and I read comments like this on ND bulletin boards--  is: "Big deal.  Teenage boys have groped girls since time immemorial.  Whaddayagonnado?  Women have seemed to be able to survive this part of growing up, even thrive despite it."  ERGO says ND,  this wouldn\'t be that big a deal to a "normal" woman.  Maybe not what fondled women wanted and not pleasant, but no reason to kill oneself.  But she was mentally unstable, had been diagnosed with mental problems,  and reacted out of proportion to how a normal woman might react.  Thus speaks ND.

That might not be the most principled of defenses,  but it\'s the one ND is taking and will probably get away with.    They are lucky (until the next incident)  that it wasn\'t rape or coerced sexual intercourse.    So all they have to do is rope-a-dope it and keep chipping away at the dead victim.  Takes care of priority #1:  protect Notre Dame.   And if that next time does involve a rape,  they\'ve got the "one bad apple" defense tanned, rested and ready to go.





Re: Notre Dame takes a safety - fullmetal - 12-28-2010

If all they can prove was #1, then that\'s that, but she did get medically examined, didn\'t she?  I don\'t think she would go through that process expecting to gain evidence had she been groped.

ND takes the cheap shot pointing to the victim.  That\'s all that needs to be said.


Yeah, the medical exam and sampling is odd - Redrum - 12-28-2010

But the so far the only information leaking out of the case was that no intercourse or whatever fumbling, icky teenage thing might have happened....well,  per the authorities,  it didn\'t..  I\'ll  concede that the "just groping" stuff may be mis/disinformation from the ND side.   But in the meantime,  there isn\'t much else to go on.

I think ND\'s major misstep is procedural.  Why didn\'t they jump on this?  Or, at least,  show concern and act with dispatch before the girl\'s parents blew it up in their face?  Would they be protecting your average pimply dorm rat the way they are protecting their quarterback?