Rob Gage

[OverandOnward]

@YankeeDuchess

This is parallel to the discussion of hugs in the workplace. “Best practice” in the workplace is no touching beyond a handshake, and therefore do not hug a coworker, subordinate or superior.
However, failing to follow best practices does not automatically mean you’ve done something sanctionable; a hug in and of itself is not sexual harassment.
If you ARE in fact, harassing someone, the hug will make your case look worse. If you are not harassing anyone but are worried your interactions with a coworker might be misconstrued, you should probably refrain from hugging.
WRT SafeSport, if someone accuses you of abuse of a minor, you are in a stronger position if you have refrained from giving the child unpermitted car rides and if all your texts with the child include another adult.

…

As a trainer or AA I would not go on a road trip and stay at a hotel with a minor without another adult and whatever else the MAAP policies suggest. I would not want to put myself in a compromising position like that.

SafeSport and MAAP together say:

1. Don’t abuse minors (This part protects minors)
   2. Don’t put yourself in a compromising position; here are some examples of compromising positions you probably want to avoid. (This part mostly protects adults.)

YankeeDuchess, keep reminding us, and maybe this will be gradually sinking in.

Back to the example of a trainer taking a minor to the tack shop.

To the Trainer: Not being in the car alone with a minor is FOR YOUR PROTECTION since, as you say, you are no danger to the minor.

Are you registering that? You, honorable person that you are, are not a danger to the minor.

BUT THE MINOR IS A POTENTIAL DANGER TO YOU. Are you getting that ??? It doesn’t matter HOW sure you are that the minor and/or their parent(s) will never be a threat to you. Are you reading all of these stories of SS suspensions and and controversies, but still NOT getting that ???

Teachers know this. Youth counselors know this. You also need to get a grip on the real world beyond the barn, for all of the reasons that they have had to learn these same types of policies.

Getting caught up in an unwarranted harassment or assault claim is right up there with all of the other lifetime catastrophes that people think happen to someone else. In this thread we are supporting the complainants as authentic, but of course there are cases in and out of the horse world that were in fact vindictive or just some brand of mental illness on the part of the accuser. And as we see, the accusations can surface years later. A fair investigation is to be hoped for, but it may not stop the rumor mill – because yeah, the accusers are going to talk about their accusation, it’s what people do.

MAAP is your seatbelt and airbag. Your safety vest and ASTM helmet.

Like all of those things, maybe you will never need it. But god help you if you need it and don’t have it.

MAAP is the same as all of the things you do around horses to make sure that you aren’t injured by getting stepped on, kicked or bucked off. Not because you believe that you’ll be injured today, but because, as a pro, you can’t really afford it if you are. Plus pain. Plus humiliation when everyone finds out.

You don’t have to shell out a dime to be smart about following MAAP. You just have to be smart enough to study it and learn how to make it effective for you. Not just for the kids. Think of it selfishly as being your own protection, if it helps you get a handle on it.

There are no do-overs once you realize, too late, why these things are important. Like any other safety procedure, every day you have one chance to get it right. You can’t go back in time and change what you did then, to make for a better outcome after the worst has already happened.

Please think wisely about starting, supporting and practicing a wise application of MAAP in your equestrian business.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Tiramit

@YankeeDuchess, It’s completely fine with me if you disagree. You are entitled to your opinion.

Your disagreement doesn’t change the fact that OpEd pieces can re-create and add-on to the truth to make their point, if that’s the author’s opinion.

Unfortunately linking to the original article won’t help as one must have a subscription to read it, but on July 11th the Washington Post published an OpEd review of the new Lion King that claimed it was nothing more than white supremacist fascist propaganda. The author claims the movie displays explicit Nazi iconography. The Disney movie, The Lion King.

If you want to sign up for a free trial you can read the article yourself. This link quotes from the piece. Google the story if you don’t believe me.

Do we really think Disney would take one of its most beloved stories and create a Nazi-fueled, fascist piece to indoctrinate young children around the world? No. Are the examples and interpretations of the film’s motives cited in the OpEd facts? No. Is it his opinion, yes. Was it published? Yes.

I dare say the Washington Post qualifies as a news outlet, wouldn’t you?

I’d like to underline your opinion, which you describe as a fact, “that OpEd pieces can recreate and add-on to the truth to make their point.”

 I have seen the animated version of the Lion King many times. Your OpEd authors presented their own allegorical interpretation of the story. An allegorical interpretation is an opinion, presented as an opinion. You think his interpretation/opinion is ludicrous. I am OK with people expressing stupid, ludicrous, and preposterous interpretations and opinions as long as they are presented as opinion and not fact. 

I did not see any statements in which he misrepresented facts or pretended his interpretation was fact. I am not complaining about OpEds that express silly opinions, I’m complaining about representing your opinions as facts.

[Peggy]

@Tiramit

@YankeeDuchess, It’s completely fine with me if you disagree. You are entitled to your opinion.

Your disagreement doesn’t change the fact that OpEd pieces can re-create and add-on to the truth to make their point, if that’s the author’s opinion.

Unfortunately linking to the original article won’t help as one must have a subscription to read it, but on July 11th the Washington Post published an OpEd review of the new Lion King that claimed it was nothing more than white supremacist fascist propaganda. The author claims the movie displays explicit Nazi iconography. The Disney movie, The Lion King.

If you want to sign up for a free trial you can read the article yourself. This link quotes from the piece. Google the story if you don’t believe me.

Do we really think Disney would take one of its most beloved stories and create a Nazi-fueled, fascist piece to indoctrinate young children around the world? No. Are the examples and interpretations of the film’s motives cited in the OpEd facts? No. Is it his opinion, yes. Was it published? Yes.

I dare say the Washington Post qualifies as a news outlet, wouldn’t you?

Washington Post is definitely a news outlet, but my opinion on the piece is that it’s an interpretation of the movie. An example of a fact that is stated in the article is that the cast is majority-black. Had they stated that the cast was majority-white or that Simba was a tiger, then that would have been a factual error.

If anyone’s curious about the WaPo article, I read it without signing up for a free trial or paying money. It’s possible that I registered or something, but I doubt it as they don’t send me continual emails. I just get a message that I’m getting close to my limit of free articles for the month. Link - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/10/lion-king-is-fascistic-story-no-remake-can-change-that/?utm_term=.d91c25351d7b

[skydy]

@OverandOnward

YankeeDuchess, keep reminding us, and maybe this will be gradually sinking in.

Back to the example of a trainer taking a minor to the tack shop.

To the Trainer: Not being in the car alone with a minor is FOR YOUR PROTECTION since, as you say, you are no danger to the minor.

Are you registering that? You, honorable person that you are, are not a danger to the minor.

BUT THE MINOR IS A POTENTIAL DANGER TO YOU. Are you getting that ??? It doesn’t matter HOW sure you are that the minor and/or their parent(s) will never be a threat to you. Are you reading all of these stories of SS suspensions and and controversies, but still NOT getting that ???

Teachers know this. Youth counselors know this. You also need to get a grip on the real world beyond the barn, for all of the reasons that they have had to learn these same types of policies.

Getting caught up in an unwarranted harassment or assault claim is right up there with all of the other lifetime catastrophes that people think happen to someone else. In this thread we are supporting the complainants as authentic, but of course there are cases in and out of the horse world that were in fact vindictive or just some brand of mental illness on the part of the accuser. And as we see, the accusations can surface years later. A fair investigation is to be hoped for, but it may not stop the rumor mill – because yeah, the accusers are going to talk about their accusation, it’s what people do.

MAAP is your seatbelt and airbag. Your safety vest and ASTM helmet.

Like all of those things, maybe you will never need it. But god help you if you need it and don’t have it.

MAAP is the same as all of the things you do around horses to make sure that you aren’t injured by getting stepped on, kicked or bucked off. Not because you believe that you’ll be injured today, but because, as a pro, you can’t really afford it if you are. Plus pain. Plus humiliation when everyone finds out.

You don’t have to shell out a dime to be smart about following MAAP. You just have to be smart enough to study it and learn how to make it effective for you. Not just for the kids. Think of it selfishly as being your own protection, if it helps you get a handle on it.

There are no do-overs once you realize, too late, why these things are important. Like any other safety procedure, every day you have one chance to get it right. You can’t go back in time and change what you did then, to make for a better outcome after the worst has already happened.

Please think wisely about starting, supporting and practicing a wise application of MAAP in your equestrian business.

I hope someone transfers this post, in its entirety, to the land of facebook.

[Tiramit]

@YankeeDuchess

I did not see any statements in which he misrepresented facts or pretended his interpretation was fact. I am not complaining about OpEds that express silly opinions, I’m complaining about representing your opinions as facts.

The review is for the new movie that opened this weekend, not the animated version from decades ago.

I’m not going to bother quoting from the entire Post’s OpEd but will include this snippet since it connects with your bolded line above where he presented his opinion as a fact: [INDENT]“the explicit Nazi iconography serves primarily to distract us from the heroes’ own fascism.”[/INDENT]

He doesn’t say I think or I feel first, he states it as fact. In case you need it, the definition of explicit is, “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.” He’s stating–as a fact–that Disney used Nazi iconography in the movie. Furthermore, he claims that they used said obvious iconography to drive home a white supremacy mission.

I’m not defending the COTH’s 17 year old OpEd author’s message as I disagree with her. Rather, I’m defending her right to voice her opinion and the COTH’s for publishing it. OpEds are part of just about every media outlet’s lineup and the girl herself is still a teenager. Far from a seasoned news reporter. She could have just as easily written a letter to the editor. For all we know, it started as a letter to the Editor and they asked her to expand it into an article.

In my opinion, it’s time for you all to wipe the froth from your mouths and holster your pitchforks on this article. It’s an OpEd. If you read OpEds, you’re going to find yourself disagreeing with and maybe even angered by them on a regular basis.

[ohmyheck]

del

[YankeeDuchess]

@Tiramit

The review is for the new movie that opened this weekend, not the animated version from decades ago.

I’m not going to bother quoting from the entire Post’s OpEd but will include this snippet since it connects with your bolded line above where he presented his opinion as a fact: [INDENT]“the explicit Nazi iconography serves primarily to distract us from the heroes’ own fascism.”[/INDENT]

He doesn’t say I think or I feel first, he states it as fact. In case you need it, the definition of explicit is, “stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.” He’s stating–as a fact–that Disney used Nazi iconography in the movie. Furthermore, he claims that they used said obvious iconography to drive home a white supremacy mission.

I’m not defending the COTH’s 17 year old OpEd author’s message as I disagree with her. Rather, I’m defending her right to voice her opinion and the COTH’s for publishing it. OpEds are part of just about every media outlet’s lineup and the girl herself is still a teenager. Far from a seasoned news reporter. She could have just as easily written a letter to the editor. For all we know, it started as a letter to the Editor and they asked her to expand it into an article.

In my opinion, it’s time for you all to wipe the froth from your mouths and holster your pitchforks on this article. It’s an OpEd. If you read OpEds, you’re going to find yourself disagreeing with and maybe even angered by them on a regular basis.

1.  Please read Peggy’s post for a useful example of an opinion and a fact in the context of the review of the Lion King. 
 2. I understand the definition of “explicit.”
 3. Whether a statement includes the words “in fact”, “in truth”, or “verily” as opposed to “In my opinion”, “I think”, or “I feel” is not the criterion that separates opinions from facts. I gave you an example of an opinion you stated, accompanied with the phrase “in fact”, in my previous post. 
 4. The statement you quote from the WaPo review is the reviewer’s interpretation or opinion. 
  5. WRT “disagreeing” with an OpEd:  I may or may not disagree with the opinion expressed in an OpEd. That’s fine.  But what I am disagreeing with you about is the issue of whether it is acceptable, in any OpEd written to a journalistic standard higher than the Facebook standard, to misrepresent facts up to and including stating that “the sky is red, when actually it is blue.” 
   6.  In the write up of the review, I saw no misrepresentations of facts, only the reviewer’s interpretation, which is an opinion. 
   7. While I do not agree with the review, it is not quite as stupid as you portray it. Darwinism, in the natural world, is often described as “the survival of the fittest”. There is an ideology known as “social Darwinism” which promotes the idea that instead of providing a social safety net for those struggling, one just lets them be weeded out in a social “survival of the fittest”.  Not sure about the relationship between social Darwinism and fascism, but is seems to fit well with white supremacy. 
   8.  I would defend Olivia’s, and the COTH’s right to publish her opinion on the effect of MAAP if she refrained from misrepresenting facts, and refrained from “embellishing” the anecdote, “recreating and adding-on” to the truth, etc. I don’t know if she did embellish the anecdote, but I do know that she misrepresented the facts of the rules. Misrepresented them in a way that made her opinion that the rules are onerous seem more compelling. 
   9.  If her understanding of the distinction between opinion and fact is the same as yours, i.e. there isn’t one, it seems entirely conceivable that in response to her being bullied, she may have, for example, gone to the counselor, or to her parents, but decided that if she “embellished” or “dramatized” the story by saying she went to her AA friend it supported her message better. I have no way of knowing whether she “embellished” or not. But if you are so convinced that such misrepresentation of facts (that is, a school counselor is not an AA at the barn) is OK in an OpEd, why did you fail to defend Virginia Horse Mom, when she said she found that the story was problematic?  That is, “problematic” may be VHM’s way of asking whether the anecdote was possibly “embellished” or “made more dramatic”, which in your view is acceptable. 
  10.  If the COTH had known before publication that facts were misrepresented, either what you would consider “embellishments” to the anecdote or misstatement of the rules, they would not have published it. As others have pointed out, the sophomore counselor at Olivia’s school two years ago is a real person who could be fired if the anecdote is strictly accurate, and could sue the COTH for defamation if the anecdote is not true or not accurate. 
     11. Please don’t accuse me of frothing at the mouth because I disagree with Olivia’s opinion that MAAP is burdensome and restrictive. I am criticizing, but not frothing over, Olivia’s significant misrepresentation of the MAAP rules. I am frothing at the mouth, on the other hand, at your insistence that when an opinion is expressed in an OpEd, it is acceptable to misrepresent facts. 
     12.  And thanks again for letting me know what “explicitly” means.

[YankeeDuchess]

@ohmyheck

Brutal…absolutely brutal.

I’ve read every post you’ve written about this kid’s op piece. Dismantling her story line by line, including her graphic and horrifying description of the sexualized bullying perpetrated against her, is the very essence of calling her a liar without using the word ‘liar’. It’s the gold standard used to discredit survivors of abuse.

I don’t care anymore about how she may have misinterpreted MAAP. After all the good informative stuff on here this thread has just taken a deep dive.

Brutal

In my opinion, you have misunderstood why VHM was so disturbed by the fact that COTH published the OpEd without fact checking it, or at least asking the high school to comment.
The 17 year old author is now on record in a national publication, and identified by name, as reporting events in which her sophomore counselor failed to address a “graphic” and “horrifying” incident of “sexualized bullying”, but failed to intercede in a way that enabled her to stay in the class. If the anecdote is strictly accurate, the counselor could lose her job; if it’s not strictly accurate, the counselor could sue for defamation.
In my opinion, VHM is disturbed that by publishing the essay without fact checking it, COTH has put the author in a precarious position.
An editor/poster up thread stated that she also thought that the COTH should have fact checked the piece, but said that unfortunately some outlets skip the fact checking, post the content, and just “let the chips fall where they may.”
In my opinion, you should apologize to VHM. Unlike the COTH, she is (in my opinion) concerned about the possible consequences for the counselor and the author.

[YankeeDuchess]

@BeeHoney

For me, it’s more about what the Chronicle DIDN’T publish. So far, the Chronicle’s pieces on Safe Sport have been based on waffling and speculation and given little concrete information. No offense to the junior author in question, but I’d much rather hear from an expert in the field. For example, an article written by someone with real life professional experience handling abuse of minor athletes. I think that would really help people process why Safe Sport (or any other program intending to prevent sex abuse) has to work the way it works.

Right now there is still so much misinformation out there. Every day I run into people who are parroting back misinformation and straw man arguments that have been spread by BN and others who are either ignorant or on a crusade to discredit Safe Sport in order to protect themselves. Even some normally very reputable people are being taken in by the rumors.

What the equestrian community really needs is an article by someone who can help us all take a step back and process the factual truth of how the system works. It would be helpful to have an explanation by a credible, informed person as to why the SS system NEEDS to work the way it does, and if there are issues, how we can solve them–or why we might consider accepting them when the benefit is children being protected from abuse. There are a lot of people out there who don’t understand grooming, power imbalances in relationships, or why relying on law enforcement is ineffective. We need to be hearing from experts who can discuss the policies, discuss how trainers and clients both can improve the professionalism of their interactions, and how we can all work towards creating an environment that protects our minor athletes from abuse.

I can tell you why the Chronicle is refusing to take a stand on this issue. Because important people in the industry don’t want Safe Sport telling them what to do and don’t want to be at risk for being punished for past misdeeds. Only in the horse industry would a magazine be at risk for losing readership due to standing up against the sexual abuse of minors.

@FiSk123 would be an excellent person to write such an article.

[ohmyheck]

del

[Sticky_Situation]

I am wondering if some posters read a different version of Tamburro’s piece than I did. I didn’t see anything that indicated that the school counselor was negligent or even unhelpful (maybe Tamburro was crying in their office for a few days because they were trying to help her decide if she should continue taking the class with the bullies, or withdraw) … just that the barn friends were people she felt more comfortable approaching to tell them what’s going on. Nowhere did it say the school “did nothing” … maybe they DID discipline the bullies, but she still felt uncomfortable facing them in the class. Her Op-Ed is not getting anyone fired.

I doubt if COTH really could do much fact-checking of her story beyond maybe confirming that she had been in an engineering class and subsequently dropped it. I’m going to assume that those questioning her story have confirmed that they didn’t do this. But would schools really be allowed to release specifics about a child who has been bullied by peers to the media?

It’s true that she has some misunderstanding of the exact specifics of MAAP, and I wish that COTH would have addressed that before publication, but it’s a big jump from misinterpreting a fairly complicated policy to deliberately fabricating a story. It really bothers me that people who are claiming to be “all about protecting the children” are so quick to call a kid a liar (even if you didn’t use that word … that is what you’re doing when you try to find all the reasons their story can’t possibly be true) because that kid has expressed an opinion they disagree with.

[YankeeDuchess]

@ohmyheck

I didn’t misunderstand a thing. VHM has written some eloquent, thoughtful pieces on this thread and I’ve read her stuff with a lot of interest.

This new, dark tangent of dissecting a kid’s written experience, particularly the abuse, with the dubious explanation that people we don’t even know need to be protected, is painful irony at its best. The transparent goal was to find holes in the girl’s knowledge of MAAP, which like I said I don’t care about any more after seeing the tactics used.

No apologies from me

 You called the posts of VHM “brutal” when she was explaining in detail why she feared that the piece had not been  fact checked, and because of the lack of fact checking could jeopardize the high school counselor (who is identifiable even though we don’t know her name), and jeopardize the author. 

VHM was not particularly concerned about the “holes in the girl’s knowledge of MAAP “. That was me. The “tactic” I used to expose the “holes” in her knowledge of MAAP was comparing her statements to the actual rules. Brutal. 

Let me remind you that you accused VHM (and me, presumably) of resorting to, in your words, “the dubious explanation that people we don’t even know need to be protected.”  Isn’t that the entire purpose of SafeSport and MAAP, “protecting people we don’t even know”?

[ohmyheck]

del

[FiSk123]

@YankeeDuchess

@FiSk123 would be an excellent person to write such an article.

You’re too kind. Interestingly enough, my project is very similar to what BeeHoney described except it is a series of 10-12 articles. I was supposed to release the first few articles several weeks ago, but a few different factors have pushed back my schedule (mainly, I became swamped with work at my day job & I have to edit my posts to conform to some of the revised SafeSport guidelines re: disclosing evidence related to SS investigations).

[YankeeDuchess]

@FiSk123

You’re too kind. Interestingly enough, my project is very similar to what BeeHoney described except it is a series of 10-12 articles. I was supposed to release the first few articles several weeks ago, but a few different factors have pushed back my schedule (mainly, I became swamped with work at my day job & I have to edit my posts to conform to some of the revised SafeSport guidelines re: disclosing evidence related to SS investigations).

Not sure whether your articles will be anonymous or not, but I hope you will point us toward them when they appear. I think I am not alone in considering your posts to this fairly raucous forum as among the most well thought out and informative. I assume you come from figure skating, and it might dial down the heat to have a non-equestrian who is knowledgeable in SafeSport discuss these issues.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@YankeeDuchess

In my opinion, you have misunderstood why VHM was so disturbed by the fact that COTH published the OpEd without fact checking it, or at least asking the high school to comment.
The 17 year old author is now on record in a national publication, and identified by name, as reporting events in which her sophomore counselor failed to address a “graphic” and “horrifying” incident of “sexualized bullying”, but failed to intercede in a way that enabled her to stay in the class. If the anecdote is strictly accurate, the counselor could lose her job; if it’s not strictly accurate, the counselor could sue for defamation.
In my opinion, VHM is disturbed that by publishing the essay without fact checking it, COTH has put the author in a precarious position.
An editor/poster up thread stated that she also thought that the COTH should have fact checked the piece, but said that unfortunately some outlets skip the fact checking, post the content, and just “let the chips fall where they may.”
In my opinion, you should apologize to VHM. Unlike the COTH, she is (in my opinion) concerned about the possible consequences for the counselor and the author.

Thanks!

Exactly.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Sticky Situation

I am wondering if some posters read a different version of Tamburro’s piece than I did. I didn’t see anything that indicated that the school counselor was negligent or even unhelpful (maybe Tamburro was crying in their office for a few days because they were trying to help her decide if she should continue taking the class with the bullies, or withdraw) … just that the barn friends were people she felt more comfortable approaching to tell them what’s going on. Nowhere did it say the school “did nothing” … maybe they DID discipline the bullies, but she still felt uncomfortable facing them in the class. Her Op-Ed is not getting anyone fired.

I doubt if COTH really could do much fact-checking of her story beyond maybe confirming that she had been in an engineering class and subsequently dropped it. I’m going to assume that those questioning her story have confirmed that they didn’t do this. But would schools really be allowed to release specifics about a child who has been bullied by peers to the media?

It’s true that she has some misunderstanding of the exact specifics of MAAP, and I wish that COTH would have addressed that before publication, but it’s a big jump from misinterpreting a fairly complicated policy to deliberately fabricating a story. It really bothers me that people who are claiming to be “all about protecting the children” are so quick to call a kid a liar (even if you didn’t use that word … that is what you’re doing when you try to find all the reasons their story can’t possibly be true) because that kid has expressed an opinion they disagree with.

As several posters have said, the school and school counselor may have been negligent in failing to deal with the bullying in a way that allowed her to remain in the class without enduring ongoing bullying. I doubt the counselor would be fulfilling her job description if her response was to say, “Well, you can put up with it or drop the class but we can’t do anything about it. But feel free to sob in my office for a few days.” The concern is that, due to the lack of fact checking, someone could be fired (the counselor) or sued (COTH). I wish you would reread the posts and notice that the angst about this is primarily directed at the COTH, not the author.

The point of the fact checking is not to have the school release further details, but to let the school and counselor respond to the allegation of inadequate response to bullying. The author alleges that she was forced to drop the class due to bullying, so it is an “allegation”. Doesn’t matter much if by “forced” she means she decided to drop.

None of the posts that are expressing angst that the story was not fact checked are doing so because “that kid has expressed an opinion they disagree with.” Seriously?

 I disagree with her opinion because her opinion is based on a straw man (misrepresented) version of the rules. Fortunately,  I can fact check her representation of the rules myself, and don’t need COTH to fact check that part of it. However, since they obviously didn’t check the rules part, it seems unlikely they fact checked the anecdote part.

[Sticky_Situation]

Can someone point me to this statement in Tamburro’s article where she says anything bad about the school counselor or how they handled the situation? Because I sure can’t find it.

Even if you don’t believe that she was bullied and as a result felt forced to drop her engineering class … can you quote for me which part of the article is going to get the guidance counselor in trouble?

First it was, “this can’t be true! High schools don’t have engineering classes!”

Then it was, “this can’t be true … if it was there would certainly be a law suit!”

Now it is “well, I’m just concerned that she might have embellished her story and the school counselor might get in trouble.”

This seems more and more to me like certain posters are upset that COTH published something critical of (certain aspects of) MAAP in light of all the SafeSport furor out there, and are looking for any possible way to discredit the author. And in the process, misconstruing her story to a much greater degree than she did with the MAAP policies.

Why not express your disagreement with her opinions about MAAP and where she is mistaken about what is actually prohibited, and maybe point out why you think MAAP will not affect her ability to go to her adult barnmates for support in a tough situation?

Or do we only believe victims when their agenda aligns with ours?

[Sticky_Situation]

@YankeeDuchess … that’s just it, though. She doesn’t say that the school did nothing about the bullying.

From personal experience, kids who are bullies don’t just stop bullying because they get into trouble for it a time or two. They get sneakier about it, though, so they can hide it from teachers and authority figures in school … instead of mocking you openly, they come up with “inside jokes” they can claim don’t mean anything if confronted, or just snicker at what you say or do behind the teacher’s back. I never personally dropped a class due to it … but I find it very believable that even if the school did address it, she may have felt that it was better to drop. That’s why bullying is still such a major issue in schools … it doesn’t magically go away just because it gets addressed. Nowhere does she say the school did nothing, or that the school forced her to drop the class, or that the guidance counselor was unhelpful or unsympathetic.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@ohmyheck

I didn’t misunderstand a thing. VHM has written some eloquent, thoughtful pieces on this thread and I’ve read her stuff with a lot of interest.

This new, dark tangent of dissecting a kid’s written experience, particularly the abuse, with the dubious explanation that people we don’t even know need to be protected, is painful irony at its best. The transparent goal was to find holes in the girl’s knowledge of MAAP, which like I said I don’t care about any more after seeing the tactics used.

No apologies from me

You have every right to decide that you are unhappy with my dissection of that letter. My first post was too harsh, and I should have read, and re read her letter before posting.

But as to what my goal was in deciding to “go there”and give an HONEST reaction to the letter that COTH published? You are 100% INCORRECT in the assertion that it was about attacking Tamburro’s knowledge regarding MAAP guidelines.

It actually was 100% because when I read that op ed, and was pretty sure it was published without going through an appropriate process with respect to simple fact checking and editing. A previous poster who actually works in journalism laid out several different ways in which professionals handle this when dealing with op Ed’s.

That’s a serious issue. The author is a 17 year old. The topic of Safe Sport in youth sports is a really important one. Equestrian sports are struggling with adopting the rules in the context of how many professionals have worked with juniors so far. Additionally, dealing with abuse in our sport (past abuse by major figures) is an ongoing, painful challenge.

As far as you scoffing about my concern regarding the VERY REAL problem of publishing something that alleges professionals who work in a school somehow failed in their duty to protect a student (a MINOR) from abusive bullying in an educational environment…

Google “Nicole Eramo UVA”

She was awarded $3 million following a defamation lawsuit. And was devastated over how she was portrayed in the discredited Rolling Stone article that was not properly fact checked prior to publication.