11/21/24
December 16, 2003
Coaches who prey.: Today is the third day in a week-long series by the Seattle Times about girls sports coaches who sexually exploit their charges -- and typically don't face consequences, instead leaving to coach other teams. Some harrowing stories, and a thought-provoking look into the rise of "select" teams. The Times found that "at least 159 Washington coaches have been reprimanded, warned or let go in the past decade because of sexual misconduct. However ... at least 98 of them continued coaching or teaching afterward."
I'm working my way back through the series. This of course hits close to home being in Seattle and all. Naturally I recognize every school name they've mentioned, some being in my neighborhood. People wonder why I don't want children. It's partly because karma being what it is, I would probably have a daughter, and if she ever crossed paths with one of these sorry motherfuckers, it would just about be the worst thing I could ever imagine. The ease with which these guys are landing jobs coaching a girl's volleyball team within months of molesting members of a girl's soccer team two counties away is really astounding. [political flame] Sometimes the liberals have it wrong.[/political flame]
posted by vito90 at 02:38 PM on December 16, 2003
I'm not sure what "liberals" have to do with this. Seems to me the outrage is coming from womens groups -- and, of course, the "liberal media." I also didn't see anyone in the stories -- liberal or conservative -- defending these loathsome individuals.
Like the series says, "schools, the state and even some parents" looked the other way while this went on. That's appalling and shameful, and there's plenty of blame to go around.
In my experience, shortsightedness in the interests of sports success crosses political boundaries pretty easily.
posted by jeffmshaw at 04:58 PM on December 16, 2003
jeff - I most definitely should have explained that statement. The main thing it was in reference to was the ability of a coach to jump to another school because of fear of lawsuits if he gets a crappy reference from previous employers. In the world today, it is very, very difficult to get and very, very difficult to give a reference to companies or organizations seeking information about a particular potential hiree. The article explicitly mentions the one coach who after molesting a young girl was able to leave and go to another school to coach girls again when the first school agreed to not disclose his violations to his new employer. That is sick, and wrong, and naturally resulted in a much more egregious offense committed against a little girl than would have been committed against the asshole coach if the truth could have been spoken without fear of reprisal. That whole "can't criticize former employee" is a liberal mindset and a shitty one.
posted by vito90 at 06:42 PM on December 16, 2003
Agreed that it's a shitty mindset. Agreed that the non-disclosure policy is absurd and utterly awful.
Don't agree that it's a "liberal" mindset, though. I think you could just as easily say that conservative good-old-boy-ism is at fault for turning a blind eye. Not sure it's fair to say either. Again, plenty of blame to go around.
posted by jeffmshaw at 07:31 PM on December 16, 2003
This attitude has nothing to do with liberalism, Vito, and everything to do with the rise of lawyers and the lawsuit tidal wave. Whenever something bad happens, look around and see who's making money off it--this is nothing about politics.
posted by billsaysthis at 09:00 PM on December 16, 2003
Vito, I am a liberal and in my mindset, if some idiot did that to my daughter, I would give him a liberal dose of ass kickings.
posted by jasonspaceman at 05:23 AM on December 17, 2003
what bill said, except for the last part...politics can't be extracted from the law....elected officials make law. It's America's ultra-liberal legal system that is to blame.
posted by garfield at 09:02 AM on December 17, 2003
Well I'm a liberal too. Bleeding heart, even. But a system is broken when an individual person can be protected to the detriment of other "helpless" individuals. By helpless, I mean specifically children, whom our society has agreed that there is a need to protect. I guess I can tolerate some protection of individual privacy where hiring is concerned, but there has to be a stricter standard where children are involved. There should be no secrets with teachers, coaches, principals, etc. unto whom children are entrusted. I'm still not articulating myself too well...my initial "liberal" statement was probably a poor choice of words.
posted by vito90 at 09:49 AM on December 17, 2003
vito, I understood what you meant (I think). Probably that it's a traditionally "liberal" position to give people a second chance and allow them the opportunity to redeem themselves. I think that's a good idea to a point. I'm a resident manager at an apartment community populated by petty criminals under social services supervision, and some folks want to change. You can tell that they want to contribute. Others, you can tell, are just killing time until nobody's watching over them anymore. Needless to say, if anyone took advantage of and harmed my daughter, I'd rip his (or her) throat out and beat them with a shovel.
posted by rocketman at 10:24 AM on December 17, 2003
I get you...and no one in their right mind is going to argue for hurting more kids. I find it peculiar that this happened within the same state. Usually this occurs across state lines, foiling non-federal law enforcement...somewhat. But its a tough situation because sexual misconduct does not a convicted sex offender make, thereby making their actions deplorable, illegal, but not proven in the court of law. Which brings us full circle - fear of the ramifications of a legal system that hands out the most liberal decisions on the planet. (ruling tendencies vary by state, but as a country as a whole, this is the best place to commit a crime, less anything punishable by death.)
posted by garfield at 10:29 AM on December 17, 2003
The Houston Chronicle did a similar thing on the same topic several years ago... With regards to liberalism's effect on "passing the trash", that theory sounds a bit over the top (even though I haven't read the Seattle pieces). The practice of not "criticizing the former employer" is like settling out of court, probably not policy. But if you have a settlement in writing, you can't decide that you're going to violate the agreement. If the reference is to the litigious society and the liberal influence, I don't think the school is too worried about losing a court case against a child molester they have down cold. The issue is that schools like to preserve the notion that they are a safe cocoon where parents can send their kids without worry, which would end with the opened can of worms coming from a lawsuit, or from encouraging the children to press charges against the accused molester. This concern about image spans the political spectrum, and schools find it easier to sweep things under the rug. Colleges routinely under-report crime statistics, so it makes sense that high schools would be even more paranoid. After all, no one wants to be the principal asked about hiring the sexual predator, or worse yet, about ignoring the signs. Not great for one's reputation. Instead: No firing. No talking. No lawsuit. No bad publicity. It's selfish, but the CYA approach is also pragmatic. Secondly, if a school wants to get the low-down on a coaching prospect, due diligence will normally result in enough information to get an idea whether the coach is a bit slimy or not. School administrators can't tell you anything, but there's no law binding parents and former players to those settlements. But if the record or references were good enough, or if the school was just plain lazy enough, it's possible for a rogue coach to skate from school to school doing this.
posted by jackhererra at 11:13 AM on December 17, 2003
My only objection was to the repeated use of the liberal tag, Vito. I agree that scum should be publicized.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:53 PM on December 17, 2003
I was going to wait until the series was completed to post this, but tomorrow there is an online Q + A with the reporters. I wanted people to be able to participate if they wished.