Tue 27 Dec 2016
The news as reported in this story is greatly dismaying to me as a parent and as an alumnus. I feel great sympathy for the victim and for her Alumni parents who felt so good as their daughter. entered her freshman year. I see the college attitude and policies as being developed with proper inputs, guarantees of confidentiality, and recently-enhanced and improved methods of investigation.
Yet the criticisms seem valid. In particular:
• The victim’s perception of the college not wanting to ruin the perpetrator’s life at this early stage when as she observes, hers has already been ruined.It is my guess that the perps will almost certainly be male and the victims female. Is the college standing in loco parentis at the final moment of judgement despite the rigorous process of investigation and determination of guilt?
• The parents’ belief as alums that their daughter was going to a safe place and their subsequent disappointment at the eventual steps taken.
• The separate but related question of the sanctity of mens sports, in this case hockey.
From the story cited above:
“She also hopes to bring into question a college culture she sees as too protective of athletes. “On the Williams campus, it should hopefully generate a conversation about this individual case and the fact that a winning team is not worth sexual assault on campus,” Lexie says.
Lexie and her parents believe that a culture of older, experienced hockey players — admitted as freshmen — played a role in her assault. Her alleged assailant was admitted as a 20-year-old after a year in a Canadian league. That same year, the college accepted five other freshmen hockey players, ranging in age from 19 to 22 years old, who had delayed entering college to play hockey.
• The victim’s treatment on campus by fellow students following the rape. If as the story reports, the word “heartless” comes to mind.
I believe that the statements by the college on policies and practices being referred to by different levels of administration will be seen as a screen and a shield for protection of the College rather than the protection of the victim involved.
Perhaps the college’s best course of action in cases like this is to turn the matters over to the proper level of local police and court authority.
“In loco Parentis” may not be a fitting role for a college in these more open times. Particularly in cases in which the punishments more accurately and appropriately are civil matters.
Dick Swart 1956
Would the College’s handling of the Safety Dance case cause Dick to revisit these suggestions? Should it?
|« George Michaels. 25th December, 2016.||Pittsfield Police Chief Wynn ’93 and the Civil Service »|
No Responses to “Swart ’56 on Brackenridge”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.