Update: Jennifer Fleck has an excellent story on today’s protest in the Daily Emerald. There will be another one tomorrow at 12, in Johnson Hall.
Details to be posted on the UO-CESV website here. Show up and let Gottfredson know how you feel about the assault and his cover-up.
Update: There was a large crowd. 400? We listened to some brief speeches, then marched into Johnson Hall, filling the lobby and steps inside and out the front. A few admins came out and gave the usual non-responses, including re-iterating the FERPA lie. They got nervous and left when they realized people aren’t fooled by that anymore, and that the questions weren’t going away. We stayed in the lobby and chanted for about 30 minutes. Things like “Survivors over sports!” and “What did Gottfredson know?” and “We want answers”. Jennifer Freyd got Provost Scott Coltrane to come out and try again, but he still wouldn’t say anything substantive – probably waiting for his talking points from the new crisis management consultants. Rumor has it Robin Holmes wants to go with RBI strategies again. OK, that’s a joke.
Gottfredson was last seen heading north on I-5, though he did meet with the faculty coalition in the AM, and he’ll be back tonight for a dinner at the Longhouse.
The CESV plan is to go back to JH again tomorrow at noon, and give the administration another chance to explain their cover-up. The lobby has some nice chairs and UO’s best wifi. The perfect place to stake out and do some homework, while you wait to buttonhole your president.
ODE video here.
Sometimes, there is little that people hate more than having a nuanced perspective. Telling the truth isn’t always popular. However, this needs to be said….
I truly hope people attend this rally. Also, I desperately want the UO to do more to combat sexual violence on campus.
That said, in terms of the events that spurred this rally: I’ve read the police report in this case. Then, I also read the DA’s well-reasoned statement on why there were no charges filed: http://uploads.registerguard.com/newsroom/uo-basketball-da-news-release-20140506.pdf .
I realize that sometimes facts and evidence can get in the way of a good old-fashioned witch hunt. But, as the point of this rally, I would urge people not to look at the three young black men who may or may not have done something wrong. Rather, I would encourage people to look at how we can change existing structures and institutions to protect women and also how we can change the culture of masculinity into one in which “enthusiastic consent” is required for a sexual relationship. If we did the latter, this situation would never have happened.
Changing the culture of masculinity is hard work. But, ultimately, to prevent anything like this from happening in the future, that’s the work that we need to do.
Thank you for this. Leaders on this campus need to take this opportunity to decry sexual assault and rape culture, NOT blatantly label accused students as rapists and predators. We, as a society, have a long road ahead to change things but it will start when we seek justice instead of punitive retribution.
UO administration love a witch hunt……. unless it targets one of them or their $$$ generating plantation “workers”
Witch hunt. Wow. You guys really believe a woman chose to have sex with three men she just met in a bathroom. In your dreams, bros. The DA should resign given his bizarre claims “justifying” his decision not to file. EPD Officer Hall should be citing jaywalkers, not investigating felonies. It’s ridiculous to debate whether or not she consented. The fact that we all disagree is evidence that there is doubt about what happened and that’s why, you know, a jury should decide.
I don’t know exactly what your President is hiding, but it’s got to be big or he wouldn’t make his staff take this much heat for him.
Or at least that’s been my experience.
It’s blatantly disingenous to call this a “cover up.” As usual, Harbaugh is exploting this incident to unfairly smear the administration.
What sort of euphemism would you prefer? Wikipedia likes “snow-job” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover-up
If you want to argue that the administration should have made this incident public earlier, go ahead. (Note–I haven’t seen anyone yet make a cogent argument for why they should have done so, legally or morally.)
But calling what the administration did a “cover up”–implying that they lied about or concealed evidence–is, like I said, blatantly disingenuous.
By their own admission, they technically “covered” this up. They knew about it before they made it public, thereby “concealing” what they knew. So it can’t be disingenuous if it’s true.
Whether they were wrong to do so is the question. Questioning the judgment to let the players play in the NCAA tournament when they knew about the incident is fair game.
I’d rather see the administration be a little uncomfortable than hide potentially bad judgment or unethical behavior behind a wall of bureaucracy.
No, they didn’t technically “cover” this up. It’s not a “cover up” to decline to immediately publicly reveal incomplete and highly sensitive information.
I agree with the rest of what you said.
The responding officer was UO Officer Loos. So UO knew immediately. =The incident was a huge deal and the players should not have been allowed to play in the NCAA tournament. LCDA issued a no-file statement on Dotson but not Artis and Austen on April 14. [google perlow, no file, dotson to see it.] It is pretty clear that UO, EPD and LCDA thought it would never be made public. How exactly did it become public this week?
Hey SomeGuy – are you working for UO’s crisis management consultants? I’m not trying to be sarcastic. Just curious.
No.
TECHNICAL FOUL: uomatters’ snarky, content-free pseudo-question to SomeGuy’s unfounded allegation that uomatters is exploiting this situation for a previous personal agenda has a nastiness/content ratio of at least 3.14159 which is clearly greater that 2.718, not to mention, a much more mathematically significant number. Appropriate penalty? Maybe SomeGuy is allowed one comment over 2.718 but less than or equal to pi.
Federal law (Clery Act – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clery_Act) requires prompt notification of campus crimes/public safety issues. To comply, UO public safety does this regularly on their webpage (http://police.uoregon.edu/). There’s a recent notice for an alleged non injury robbery. But nothing on the far more serious allegation that three rapists were loose on campus.
On the UO police page (http://police.uoregon.edu) it says:
“Don’t touch people against their will, or without their consent (and impaired incapacitated people are not able to legally consent); this is a crime.”
The word “impaired” is struck out. Wonder when that happened and why. Also, how does this jibe with the UO/DA position that this was not a crime?
If the Eugene and/or UO police promptly informed the athletic department of the complaint and the department then informed the players (and then perhaps coached them how to respond), is that obstruction of justice?
Do the responses of the players in the taped conversations with the victim seem oddly synched?
From the police report, there was a fourth, “older” guy who observed the alleged assault who “lived in the same apartment complex.”
Why wasn’t this key independent witness interviewed?
The DA relies on Duck boosters for big contributions for elections (including the recent jail levy). The EPD relies on the UO to pay officers time and a half to police Duck games. Normally, when there’s a conflict of interest, the case is referred to outside prosecutors and investigators. How about an investigation by the Oregon State Police and the state Attorney General? Has anyone asked Kitzhaber where he stands?