He clearly ignored some key parts of the recipe. When I asked if he had seen the recipe he said that he probably had but then he conferred with his counsel and told me he had no recollection of seeing the recipe
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Why can't they privately thank him? And you don't have to run a university perfectly to avoid the shit-storm Starr allowed to develop at Baylor.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Thanking him for integrity is worse than being just inaccurate....it tacitly implies that he is somehow not responsible for what happened and I don't know what universe you would need to be from to even hint at that.
Worse yet, Starr has employed a snake/professional liar/crisis manager that is a real and more sinister version of the characters in "Thank You for Smoking." His goal is to essentially spin this whole thing so that he looks like a victim in all this and that somehow it was only his position at the university that prevented him from doing the right thing and being transparent about it after it was exposed. Please watch the interview where he gives three entirely different answers regarding an email he got from a victim with the subject "I was raped at Baylor University" and tries to pressure the reporter into not using his first response because it makes it clear he got the email and did nothing but try to squelch it. He did not accept any responsibility and is in fact spending all his energy actively trying to lie his way out of it while attempting to mitigate the consequences.
He is a snake, as are the people defending him. They have zero regard for the victims and care little, if at all, about people outside their insular little world.
Integrity?
Didn't they say something like that about the captain of the Titanic?
"Well, sure, that iceberg thing ... but you gotta admit, those deck chairs never looked better!"
Starr wasn't running off half-cocked, and he wasn't incompetent. Baylor institutionalized a slut-shaming response to complainants because that's what the handful of older alums that actually run the place wanted.
Now we have a list of them. This isn't a random collection of alums and it certainly isn't representative--these are big names locally, and major donors.
And this part of the scandal had nothing to do with football--it has to do with their attitudes about sex, about young people, about women. Baylor students can hold all the candlelight vigils they like, nothing's likely to change there until the Title IX whip cracks down.
So these people all support girls getting raped, good to know.....
Where you and I see rape, they see promiscuous women suffering the consequences of their behavior. The proper response of the school is to prohibit promiscuity, which the school has done. They are absolutely pissed at the federal government's Title IX meddling, trying to force the school to take seriously the complaints of girls that by all rights should have been kicked out of the school for having sex before marriage.
There was an interesting exchange at OurDailyBears a while back--one younger alum made a reasoned defense of the standard of "enthusiastic consent" as a way of staying clear of the gray area, and one of these clowns called that standard, and for that matter all Title IX concerns regarding consent and assault, "anti-rape propaganda." "Not that I'm pro-rape," he went on....
It's a shame that ESPN, and the media generally, has diverted public attention to the football component of the scandal. That's real, but if you ask me this other part is a lot more important. There's a public conversation that's badly needed. At the very least we need to get it out in the open, have some truth-in-advertising so incoming students there really know what the people in charge think.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Penn State was about football, and a football coach. You didn't have anybody there trying to say that what Sandusky did wasn't really rape.
The comment I'm referring to is just the opposite--it had nothing to do with football, it's about a different set of beliefs and opinions about gender and sex. (A set of beliefs that's popped up around here now and again, in fact. The posts have been deleted by now but if you've been here since 2009 you can probably remember somebody leaping to the defense of Lewan and Gibbons back in the day.)
Another way the two situations are different is that at Penn State you had mass campus demonstrations in support of Paterno. At Baylor the vigils are in support of female students. Guys like this aren't at all representative of general sentiment on campus, or even among alums. Unfortunately I suspect he's not too distant from the sentiment of the people in charge of the school. From my perspective I agree that that's effed up, but not at all in the way that Happy Valley is.
This is insane... Penn State was a hell of a lot more than just football as you say. It's rooted in their culture. At Penn State, all the way to the top, people there knew what Sandusky was doing. They knew what he was doing for years! They did nothing about it.
McQueary -- what kind of person walks in on a kid getting abused and just doesn't beat the living shit out of Sandusky and defending that helpless kid. Instead, his reaction is to go to JoePa's house, tell St Joe once, and then it dies on the vine.
The PSU administration -- they all covered it up. Why the hell is the head of the campus police a part of the of the athletic administration!
The fans and alums -- despicable... the marches in the streets, the demand for the statue back, the whining that the NCAA is out to get them.
The players -- shameful for wearing 409 stickers and patches in all their sports.
I suppose you're right, this isn't like Penn State. PSU is way worse and continues to this day because of the St Joe cult of personality there.
Also, I don't remember a soul defending Gibbons here. If there was I stand corrected but just didn't see it; he was universally slammed.
Section One was looking for defamation actions against people referring to Gibbons as a "rapist" or what he had done as "rape." He did so for reasons very similar to the poster I quoted: it was an assault only under the, to him, unreasonably broad definition adopted by the university for its administrative proceedings and forced on them by the federal government's Title IX war on men.
Try this thread as an example. Imagine you read this on a Baylor blog, referring to one of the cases that never made it to trial, but resulted in expulsion of the player. (There have been a couple of these, if I'm not mistaken.) Notice the votes, too, to get a sense of the board at the time.
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/espns-rittenberg-says-um-must-answer-gibbon…
Except for the callous references to the victim's "alleged" injuries, this one's pretty tame, but I don't have time now to dig for something worse.
Fair enough.
This explains, at least in part, why it took the Board of Regents so long to act (didn't they have the report for two weeks before taking any action?) and why they relieved Starr of the presidency but not the chancellery: they wanted to retain him in his donation collecting position to pacify some of the big donors.
I really have to wonder about the BoR though. From the sounds of what went on, they should have fired a dozen or more people. They seemed to decide to go after a few at the top though (as well as two staffers affiliated with the football team). Art Briles, yes, he had to go, but it wasn't just the football coaches protecting players, it seems to have gone far beyond that to other areas of the university, including the counseling center. And how in the world are we to believe that the rest of the football coaching staff had nothing to do with any of this?
Do you think the Regents think differently from these seven donors? You think a lot of people should be fired because, to you, a lot of people behaved wrongly. But that complaint system's been in place for a long time, there's a history of student unhappiness with how it works, and nobody's ever seen fit to respond. To me, that's a sign that the Board was happy with things as they were.
There are two prongs to this:
(1) The University's system for dealing with complaints. I seriously doubt the Regents had any more problem with this system than the major donors did, until it ran afoul of Title IX and they risked a cutoff of federal funds. That's something they can't afford to risk, no matter what their personal feelings on the subject may be, so they took the most limited action they could get away with. But as far as they're concerned Starr and his administration acted appropriately throughout.
(2) Briles's insubordination. He wasn't authorized to run his own investigations, or contact victims or their families, and if he'd left well enough alone the feds probably never would have come down on the place. That's a fireable offense. My suspicion, although I don't think we know anything, is that the two fired staffers were probably the people handling the operation, which means they also deliberately violated university policy. Again, fireable.
would first axe a bunch of counselors and low level admins and try to preserve the coach and higher ups.
These things normally start at the bottom and unravel upwards as people try to cover their ass and are unable to do so.
This isn't unique to Baylor or Happy Valley, sadly. You win, and they'll sanctify you, no matter what you did to get there. People'll polish the turd of their history and relive the "glory days," and rewrite the narrative to gloss over whatever damage was done on the way. JoePa will always be a saint to some, Briles and Starr beacons of integrity, even Japan is officially actively denying war crimes in China. It's just sick and pathetic. What happened happened, and acting like it didn't almost guarantees it'll happen again.
If Starr's culpability gets worse (I think it can?) these folks may regret being so quick to publicly endorse him. I don't think all the dust has settled yet.
If whatever comes out of this report is even half as bad as it sounds, these folks will likely come to regret this choice for the rest of their days.
They may not see it this way, but having your name associated with people who assisted the cover up of rape is not something I'd want for myself or my family.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
when those you trust are not worthy of it.
NOT.....All I can say is, only in Texas and the Mideast. Where the rich wash their hands in oil. While the rest of the world washes their hands of oil.
Womens promiscuity causing rape is like saying the only solution is Sharia law.