The reporting of the trial against the Wayne County (Tennessee) School District by two families whose sons had been sexually assaulted by fellow team members on the middle school basketball team has raised some interesting questions about what constitutes bullying versus sexual assault.
An article I linked to the other day when I posted about the outcome of the trial is entitled "Horseplay or sexual assault" and is indicative of the belief that the two are somehow inherently separate. Of course, the term horseplay is quite deficient in describing the events that occurred in the basketball team's locker room at Waynesboro Middle School. Bullying is somewhat more appropriate. But the debate over whether what happened was bullying or sexual assault sets up a problematic hierarchy.
Both bullying and sexual assault (and sexual harassment) in schools are potential Title IX violations. Thus this discussion is not about the ability to file a complaint or lawsuit. Rather I wanted to explore the meanings behind these categories; the meanings as I see them and as they have been constructed by the people (including the media) in this case.
Obviously turning out the lights in the locker room and engaging in physical attacks of a sexual nature, or holding someone down and threatening to sodomize him with a marker extends far beyond horseplay.
The boys will be boys mantra has never really held much weight for me, and this case certainly has not altered my thoughts on that excuse. The charges against the perpetrators in this case were dropped by a juvenile court judge even though they all pleaded no contest. Various investigations found no "punishable offenses." Curious, but moving on...
At the federal trial last week the plaintiffs asked why some of the incidents in which sex acts were simulated were not dealt with. These all happened prior to what has been referred to as the marker incident. The answer from the former school principal was that there was a verbal reprimand, but that he didn't think these simulated sex acts were sexual assault.
So were they?
Were they just bullying?
Was it sexual bullying?
The article quoted Vanderbilt University professor Maury Nation, who is a bullying expert. Nation validated the severity of the marker incident but categorized it as chronic or serious bullying and not sexual assault because "this isn’t sexual behavior, per se, as much as power and dominance behavior. That is, the goal is to intimidate. I don’t think any of the kids were doing this for sexual gratification as much as the humiliation and embarrassment it was having to the victim.”
First, we have no idea about the level of sexual arousal.
But more importantly, sexual assault is itself about power and dominance and intimidation. Not all bullying is sexual in nature, but all sexual assault has a bullying component if we define bullying as behavior meant to exert power and control over another.
If the bullying involves simulated or actual sex acts as the means for exerting that control, then why isn't it sexual assault? And I am not speaking about the legal definitions, here; I am talking about the cultural constructions of these terms and behaviors.
Why did these boys choose to exert dominance via sex acts?
The inability to answer this question means we cannot ignore the sexual nature of these acts. The way they intimidated was sexual in nature, regardless of whether they received sexual pleasure from it. Nation's views--as presented in the article--seem to assume that all sex acts produce pleasure and that there is no sexual pleasure derived from exerting power and control over others. These, in my mind, are false assumptions.
Again, I don't want to suggest that bullying is not as bad as sexual assault. I do want to suggest that not calling the acts that occurred in Waynesboro Middle School sexual assault downplays the severity of the incidents and attempts to curtail discussions of behavior among boys and within sport culture. And it fails to acknowledge the motivations behind sexual assault.
I plan on one more post about this in which I talk about sport culture and sexual assault more generally.
Showing posts with label Tennessee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tennessee. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Victims in TN sexual assault case receive $100,000
Last week a jury, after deliberating only an hour, awarded two families $100,000 each in damages in a case of sexual assault. Parents of two middle school students in Wayne County, Tennessee sued the school district for failing to protect their sons from the sexual assault by teammates on the school's basketball team.
There seemed to be a culture of sexual pranks in the team's locker room and the plaintiffs alleged that the school did not respond in an appropriate way to the incidents, which began in October of 2008. The school looked into the allegations but apparently the investigation was stymied or in some way inconclusive because investigators could not certify that a felt pen had actually penetrated one of the victims. I know there are a lot of legal distinctions among crimes based on things like whether penetration has occurred. But intent is obviously a large factor as well. If a boy is being held down by other boys who intend to penetrate him with a foreign object...well that would seem to indicate a fairly egregious act of sexual assault. (More on this in a forthcoming post about bullying and sexual assault and the attempt to differentiate and hierarchize the two.)
School officials did temporarily suspend four identified perpetrators and kicked them off the basketball team. But the four came back to school after 11 days and were allowed to rejoin the team at a later point. Also, the victims were harassed by peers for getting these boys in trouble. Both victims were removed from the school by their parents. Some of the perpetrators argued at the trial that things had been blown out of proportion.
Also of note: apparently the locker room culture was stimulated by the coach who mentioned pranks himself though he allegedly told the boys not to engage in them.
“I shared stories with boys. In hindsight, obviously, I wish I hadn’t done that.”
Probably even more so now that damages have been awarded.
I have not read anything on how the jury decided on the damages figure. The plaintiffs were seeking a combined $3 million in damages initially.
No word on whether the school district will appeal.
There seemed to be a culture of sexual pranks in the team's locker room and the plaintiffs alleged that the school did not respond in an appropriate way to the incidents, which began in October of 2008. The school looked into the allegations but apparently the investigation was stymied or in some way inconclusive because investigators could not certify that a felt pen had actually penetrated one of the victims. I know there are a lot of legal distinctions among crimes based on things like whether penetration has occurred. But intent is obviously a large factor as well. If a boy is being held down by other boys who intend to penetrate him with a foreign object...well that would seem to indicate a fairly egregious act of sexual assault. (More on this in a forthcoming post about bullying and sexual assault and the attempt to differentiate and hierarchize the two.)
School officials did temporarily suspend four identified perpetrators and kicked them off the basketball team. But the four came back to school after 11 days and were allowed to rejoin the team at a later point. Also, the victims were harassed by peers for getting these boys in trouble. Both victims were removed from the school by their parents. Some of the perpetrators argued at the trial that things had been blown out of proportion.
Also of note: apparently the locker room culture was stimulated by the coach who mentioned pranks himself though he allegedly told the boys not to engage in them.
“I shared stories with boys. In hindsight, obviously, I wish I hadn’t done that.”
Probably even more so now that damages have been awarded.
I have not read anything on how the jury decided on the damages figure. The plaintiffs were seeking a combined $3 million in damages initially.
No word on whether the school district will appeal.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Parents Make Equal Treatment Claim Against School District
Parents have sued the Coffee County, Tennessee school district in federal court, alleging that Central High School discriminates against their daughters, female soccer players, by failing to provide equal treatment to girls' sports. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges disparities in funding that result in members of the girls' soccer team having to raise funds for the same equipment and supplies that are provided to the boys' team. The lawsuit also alleges that girls' teams have less access to facilities for competition, practice and locker rooms.
Title IX regulations require schools to equitably support male and female athletic programs, including in the allocation of facilities, equipment, locker rooms, and other factors. The regulations do not, however, require equity within a particular sport. Thus, disparities between boys' and girls' soccer do not violate Title IX if girls' teams in other sports receive more favorable treatment. But, if the disparities between boys and girls' soccer programs are indicative of the athletic program as a whole, the district may be liable.
Title IX regulations require schools to equitably support male and female athletic programs, including in the allocation of facilities, equipment, locker rooms, and other factors. The regulations do not, however, require equity within a particular sport. Thus, disparities between boys' and girls' soccer do not violate Title IX if girls' teams in other sports receive more favorable treatment. But, if the disparities between boys and girls' soccer programs are indicative of the athletic program as a whole, the district may be liable.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Tenn county has to answer to disparities
A county in Tennessee has received a complaint regarding the treatment of its girls' soccer team. OCR is set to investigate as soon as the school turns in its own report. The school had already been undertaking a Title IX assessment.
But the complaint targets the perks some parents see the football team receiving and the lack of access the girls' soccer team, which has the season in the fall as well, receives.
The complaint about funding will likely go nowhere. Simply saying that football receives more money, as the complaint does, is not a violation. It is to be expected that a team with a much larger roster and more expensive equipment/uniform needs would receive more funding. There would be issue, however, if football was receiving funds to buy the highest quality equipment while soccer was getting only average equipment. But the exact nature of the funding disparities has not been explained.
The access to facilities complaint could be more salient in this case. Soccer players apparently are not receiving consistent access to locker rooms and practice facilities. Also at issue are practice times, booster club monies, and scheduling of games.
But the complaint targets the perks some parents see the football team receiving and the lack of access the girls' soccer team, which has the season in the fall as well, receives.
The complaint about funding will likely go nowhere. Simply saying that football receives more money, as the complaint does, is not a violation. It is to be expected that a team with a much larger roster and more expensive equipment/uniform needs would receive more funding. There would be issue, however, if football was receiving funds to buy the highest quality equipment while soccer was getting only average equipment. But the exact nature of the funding disparities has not been explained.
The access to facilities complaint could be more salient in this case. Soccer players apparently are not receiving consistent access to locker rooms and practice facilities. Also at issue are practice times, booster club monies, and scheduling of games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
