• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

The Ohio State University Marching Band (TBDBITL)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
1. It doesn't have to be illegal to be contrary to policy. 'Contrary to policy' is grounds for termination. Ohio is an employment at will state, so they don't even NEED grounds to terminate--unless he's under contract.
2. In an organizational setting, a sexualized culture constitutes harassment. A manager, or in this case, instructor, who allows one to persist is asking for trouble.
3. If you note in the report, following the first sexual assault, the title 9 office recommended that he schedule training for the band. He failed to do so. Then, there was another incident. That, in many organizations, would be regarded as failure to adhere to a corrective and preventative action plan--which leaves one open to termination should the situation recur. Which it did.
4. If he was determined to change the culture, he would have been well advised to document his efforts. An even better idea would have been to work with other units of the university to bring about these changes. Not working with the title 9 office when they asked him to completely undercuts any argument he could make about his desire to change the culture.

Regardless of his intentions, he gave them enough rope to hang him with, and I have little sympathy for that side of the argument.

From the university's perspective, though... They should have suspended him based on the initial investigation, and let the independent investigation play out. This was rushed, and makes the administration look like a clown show.

Good job, everyone.
 
Upvote 0
VprHis said:
3. If you note in the report, following the first sexual assault, the title 9 office recommended that he schedule training for the band. He failed to do so. Then, there was another incident. That, in many organizations, would be regarded as failure to adhere to a corrective and preventative action plan--which leaves one open to termination should the situation recur. Which it did.
Click to expand...

1. As I read this, the second incident took place at a party totally unrelated to the band or band activity. The victim stated she had been drinking. Enough I presume to be unable to react against unwanted sexual attention because she states that she wakes up to find this boy taking advantage of her condition. Is this correct? If my understanding is correct, how do you hold a band director responsible for something that takes place beyond his control? The fact that the victim and the perpetrator are both in the band is strictly coincidental.

2. How does the university get off scot free? If sexuality is a campus problem, and many sources seem anxious to state that it is, then why isn't the school required to provide the education component? Further, what fucking rock did the girl live under that she didn't realize that drinking enough to essentially pass out at a party is dangerous behavior? It's not like this happened during freshman orientation, and if Moeller High School is any sort of example, she should have been wise before even thinking about going to college.

3. Can't believe I'm sounding this Stephen A/BWIish, but damn, doesn't responsibility cut two ways?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
cincibuck said:
1. As I read this, the second incident took place at a party totally unrelated to the band or band activity. The victim stated she had been drinking. Enough I presume to be unable to react against unwanted sexual attention because she states that she wakes up to find this boy taking advantage of her condition. Is this correct? If my understanding is correct, how do you hold a band director responsible for something that takes place beyond his control? The fact that the victim and the perpetrator are both in the band is strictly coincidental.

2. How does the university get off scot free? If sexuality is a campus problem, and many sources seem anxious to state that it is, then why isn't the school required to provide the education component? Further, what fucking rock did the girl live under that she didn't realize that drinking enough to essentially pass out at a party is dangerous behavior? It's not like this happened during freshman orientation, and if Moeller High School is any sort of example, she should have been wise before even thinking about going to college.

3. Can't believe I'm sounding this Stephen A/BWIish, but damn, doesn't responsibility cut two ways?
Click to expand...

You make excellent points. I have to wonder why the girl brought the issue to waters, if it was a non-band event. I'm guessing it was at an I-dot or other by-band for-band party, so she thought to bring it to the director. Pure speculation, though.

My point has less to do with sane reality than with the insane regulatory lens through which these sorts of things are viewed. I've worked very hard, since I started working on the compliance side of things, to try to sort out objective reality from what is/isn't documented, but at the end of the day, you're left to defend yourself with what you have.

He had anecdotes to defend against anecdotes. As the investigation brought forth more salacious, embarrassing stories, all he was able to say was that he was cutting back on that. It's not enough. He needed to be able to demonstrate that concrete action was taken and documented, and he never put himself in a position to do that.

The title IX office issue, I brought up as an example of the easiest possible thing he could've done to make progress from both standpoints--concrete action that might just help some people out, too.

And he failed.
 
Upvote 0
VprHis said:
1. It doesn't have to be illegal to be contrary to policy. 'Contrary to policy' is grounds for termination. Ohio is an employment at will state, so they don't even NEED grounds to terminate--unless he's under contract.
2. In an organizational setting, a sexualized culture constitutes harassment. A manager, or in this case, instructor, who allows one to persist is asking for trouble.
3. If you note in the report, following the first sexual assault, the title 9 office recommended that he schedule training for the band. He failed to do so. Then, there was another incident. That, in many organizations, would be regarded as failure to adhere to a corrective and preventative action plan--which leaves one open to termination should the situation recur. Which it did. The report seems to take a personal vendetta tone in several places where at least one of the authors had an axe to grind and let their emotions control their writing.
4. If he was determined to change the culture, he would have been well advised to document his efforts. An even better idea would have been to work with other units of the university to bring about these changes. Not working with the title 9 office when they asked him to completely undercuts any argument he could make about his desire to change the culture.

Regardless of his intentions, he gave them enough rope to hang him with, and I have little sympathy for that side of the argument.

From the university's perspective, though... They should have suspended him based on the initial investigation, and let the independent investigation play out. This was rushed, and makes the administration look like a clown show.

Good job, everyone.
Click to expand...

1. But that's not the grounds given.
2. They didn't find a single victim of sexual harassment. They *assumed* that females aren't capable of participating equally in this so-called "sexualized culture". However, they are... and do... and imo it's the insistence that females shouldn't be permitted to enjoy innuendo or jokes is the real harassment.
3. Then terminate him for that; not for bogus claims of sexual harassment that don't actually exist. I'm not entirely clear on this allegation either since it's made by one of the authors of the report w/o any input on his part and other parties have indicated that such training did occur. The report seems to lean more towards claiming that he didn't immediately schedule the event and they took it personally ... but that it did happen. Which goes back to persecuting the guy over bedside manner rather than his actual actions.
4. Not everyone thinks in such a legally paranoid manner -- he's a band director, not a lawyer. And as the student reports have shown, they don't have the support (legal or otherwise) that other athletic activities receive. The report itself highlights in several places that he did take specific actions. The letters from students about the matter corroborate that as well.

If you think that's enough rope to hang him with, you'll have to fire just about every band director across the country.
Nor did he endeavor at any point in the process to cover material up.
The entire finding is based on interviewing 4 band members... and *assuming* that any sexual jokes are a crime against women. Which is a very backwards way of thinking.

It looks like a clown show, because it is.
 
Upvote 0
VprHis said:
You make excellent points. I have to wonder why the girl brought the issue to waters, if it was a non-band event. I'm guessing it was at an I-dot or other by-band for-band party, so she thought to bring it to the director. Pure speculation, though.

My point has less to do with sane reality than with the insane regulatory lens through which these sorts of things are viewed. I've worked very hard, since I started working on the compliance side of things, to try to sort out objective reality from what is/isn't documented, but at the end of the day, you're left to defend yourself with what you have.

He had anecdotes to defend against anecdotes. As the investigation brought forth more salacious, embarrassing stories, all he was able to say was that he was cutting back on that. It's not enough. He needed to be able to demonstrate that concrete action was taken and documented, and he never put himself in a position to do that.

The title IX office issue, I brought up as an example of the easiest possible thing he could've done to make progress from both standpoints--concrete action that might just help some people out, too.

And he failed.
Click to expand...

She thought to bring it to his attention because students aren't preoccupied with the concept of jurisdiction.
It was a band party (even if unofficial and off campus), it was a band member... makes common sense to bring it to his attention.
Your statement that he had "anecdotes to defend against anecdotes"... it's weird to me as an engineer that you'd place weight on the accusatory anecdotes to begin with. The prosecution falls apart there.
I'm also somewhat laughing at the idea of "salacious"... what was salacious? That 18-22yo make a lot of jokes related to sex? When all this came out I was expecting to see something about initiations involving sex acts, or pressuring students to participate in underwear marching ... instead all they found were funny nicknames and college students having fun in a responsible manner. When it did cross the line (the tabloid), it got shut down and a student was punished.
 
Upvote 0
If we go back to the 1950's Supreme Court decision that "obscenity is based on local standards," and "something is not obscene unless the people of the local community find it obscene" and if we use as "local standards" 18 to 24 year-olds attending a land grant college... I'd say that there isn't much that you could say, write or print that would be obscene.
 
Upvote 0
Again, you're talking law. I'm talking university policy and HR practices.

Have a read: http://hr.osu.edu/public/documents/policy/policy115.pdf?t=2014841818

Based on the definitions in OSU policy, the sexualized environment could be considered harassment. Waters had the duty to act. The University found his actions wanting. That's all I'm saying. They had justification.

I'm playing devil's advocate here--remember, I think he should have been suspended pending the thorough investigation. These federally-mandated 60-day (30, in my line of work) investigations tend to be broad, but not particularly deep--clearly evidenced by this one--so I'd hate to terminate someone based on one.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top