@Virginia Horse Mom … where did Tamburro claim the school didn’t address her concerns? I mean, obviously they weren’t effective in preventing it from happening in the first place, but I can’t find anything that says they did nothing about it once she came forward. Can you direct me to the part that is putting COTH at risk for a defamation lawsuit?
2 Likes
Uh… I suggest you re-read the article. I’ve done you the favor of copying and pasting EXACTLY what the author says about what happened with the school and the counselor…
[I][B]“Before my 18th birthday, I am required to take the U.S. Equestrian Federation’s SafeSport training. This is a good thing. I am so glad I live in a time where people are encouraged to speak about their experiences and help rid the world of abuse.
I wish a similar resource had been available at my school two years ago when I was forced to drop my engineering class. I could put up with some sexism—it’s pathetic that I’ve learned to do that—but when I found myself crying in my sophomore class counselor’s office several days in a row because of the song the boys made saying that I liked to suck my horse’s … you know, I couldn’t take it any longer. Unfortunately, young women are forced to learn how to face this, and it’s very important that USEF makes our showgrounds safe. I truly believe this program is a step in the right direction.”[/B][/I]
You are correct in that the author doesn’t specifically say the counselor did nothing. She doesn’t specifically say that the school did nothing. She doesn’t specifically say that the school forced her to drop the class. She doesn’t specifically say that the counselor was unhelpful and unsympathetic.
Nope. She implies it though… doesn’t she?
You know what else… I didn’t specifically say that this author was lying. Nope. You and a few other posters seem really focused on taking me to task though… because I “attacked” the author. And even though I didn’t specifically say something… you are positive that I implied it.
Sooo… there you go.
I will go on though, and note, that when I “implied” or straight up said that certain things about the story this author tells in this letter strike me as odd/incomplete/requiring clarification, or perhaps exaggerated (yup - I’m saying it AGAIN) … I was quite clear that this was my OPINION. You are correct… I could have made my pints in a more diplomatic and gentle manner.
The author of this letter however, has “implied” that her school did not support her adequately when these boys subjected her to graphic bullying of a sexual nature.
-
The author specifically says she was FORCED to drop the class. We don’t know what she means by that though - although many people seem to think it’s fine to just ASSUME that the author meant she “felt” forced. Although that isn’t what the author wrote.
-
The author specifically says she cried for several days in a row in a counselors office because she “couldn’t take it anymore” - the sexualized bullying that these boys subjected her to regarding this song that they made up about her performing a sex act on her horse . However… she doesn’t tell us ANYTHING about what the counselor said or did in response. All we know is that the author was “forced” to drop the class. We don’t know if the boys were disciplined or not. It’s implied that the boys were not removed from the class though.
-
The author specifically says within the first few sentences she wishes there was a resource like Safe Sport at her school when she went through bullying (implying she wasn’t supported adequately). She then goes on to make two separate statements regarding having to learn to put up with sexism. These statements are made immediately before, and immediately after, her statements about this sexualized bullying that happened with the boys in the engineering class, saying she was “forced” to drop the class, and saying she cried in a counselors office for days because she “couldn’t take it anymore.” She uses the word “forced” for a second time in this context - “Unfortunately, young women are forced to learn how to face this,” - the implication of which seems to be that young women are being forced to learn how to face sexualized bullying in
their environment. She was speaking about the engineering class at her school immediately prior to this statement, so it is my opinion that it is fair to say she is implying she was forced to learn how to face sexist, graphic, sexualized bullying in that environment.
Soooo… I am of the opinion that there is an obvious element to this story regarding an allegation of a professional dereliction of their responsibility on the part of someone at the school. The counselor was informed of the situation, according to the girl. We do not know if the teacher of the engineering class or the principal were though. We also don’t know if the bullying was actually happening in the class or not. It is implied that it was… because the author is specific about the engineering class.
Others who have posted here who have a background in education have been pretty clear… and I concur… in most of America in the last few years, any professional who has a teaching license or who is a licensed counselor working in a school with minors can and will face professional consequences if they ignore behavior like the boys in this story supposedly engaged in, and “force” a female student to “put up with it” or drop out of a class. If this happened at any public university in this country, the female student could file a Title IX complaint.
There is a real person who does work as a counselor at the author’s high school. There is a real person who did teach that engineering class. We don’t know there names… but we do know the author’s first and last name, and that she rides at a farm in Gilbert, Arizona. It’s not hard to figure out which high school she might have attended, and who these people are.
The author is absolutely entitled to have opinions regarding MAAP policies. I actually am not quite in the same camp as other people in terms of whether or not the author misrepresented these policies. She shared her interpretations of them, and what she thought the potential consequences might be regarding adopting these policies. I actually am not really hung up on that issue with this story… (I know you and a few others don’t believe me… but that’s the truth)
But the author used a personal experience in her letter to the editor to support her argument for relaxing MAAP guidelines. And she represents this experience as something that actually happened. And the way she writes about it, c definitely caused me to conclude that officials at the author’s high school were being accused of not addressing sexualized bullying in a professionally acceptable manner by almost ANY reasonable standard in America in the year 2019. The author also essentially says that a sexist environment existed at her high school when she was a sophomore, inadequate resources existed for her to report the abuse she was dealing with, and that she didn’t get the educational opportunity to take this engineering class because of this.
If you substituted PUBLIC UNIVERSITY for high school in my last sentence, anywhere in America… you are talking about a Title IX investigation and action against the University. The law is quite clear.
These sort of allegations are all actually pretty serious.
So again… was this story fact checked prior to the Chronicle publishing her letter? If not, why not?
6 Likes
For those of you who still don’t understand or don’t believe that I actually am focusing on this recent op ed because I see some issues with it, and get the impression that it wasn’t adequately fact checked or edited prior to publication… please take note. This is a big issue, in and of itself. I do indeed hope that COTH did perform due diligence prior to publication. Tamburro wrote about not only her OPINIONS regarding MAAP policies, she also wrote about a situation that she claims occurred at her high school 2 years ago. She about a situation at a real high school involving abusive conduct by boys that “forced” a 15 year old girl to withdraw from an engineering class. She also wrote about a counselor who worked at that school, and how she cried in their office for days on end because she “couldn’t take it.” We do not know what if anything the counselor did or did not do to support Tamburro . We only know that Tamburro was forced to withdraw.
I brought up Nicole Eramo earlier, and the case involving UVA and Rolling Stone. Because I think it is actually pretty darn relevant. Here is a short report about it that was published in New York Magazine, in a section called “the Cut” back on April 12, 2017. Lisa Ryan was the reporter.
Rolling Stone has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by a former University of Virginia associate dean, Nicole Eramo, who claimed the magazine defamed her in a now-retracted article about an alleged gang rape on campus, the Washington Post reports.
The lawsuit, concerning a debunked 2014 story called “A Rape on Campus,” accused the magazine and journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely of painting Eramo as being unsympathetic to campus sexual assault, according to the New York Times. The confidential settlement, announced on Tuesday, comes months after a federal jury in November awarded Eramo $3 million in damages, which both the magazine and Erdely appealed.
“We are delighted that this dispute is now behind us, as it allows Nicole to move on and focus on doing what she does best, which is supporting victims of sexual assault,” Libby Locke, one of Eramo’s attorneys, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Rolling Stone’s parent company, Wenner Media, called the settlement an “amicable resolution.”
Eramo, who served as UVA’s associate dean of students, sued Rolling Stone and Erdely in May 2015, over her portrayal in their November 2014 cover story, seeking $7.5 million in damages. The administrator was portrayed in the story as indifferent to the narrative’s victim, “Jackie,” and of discouraging her from reporting the alleged gang rape at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house to police. Rolling Stone retracted the story in April 2015, after the Columbia Journalism Review published a 12,000-word report condemning the article as a “journalist failure that was avoidable.”
Thanks for explaining your thought process. I can see how it might be “implied” that the school didn’t do enough after she came forward, even though she doesn’t specify anything about the ultimate outcome other than that she dropped the class with the bullies.
I am still bothered, though, that the initial response on this board was largely “I doubt if that really happened that way … didn’t they fact check this?” rather than “it’s awful that she had that experience … what action did the school take? Does she realize she has a right to education in a safe environment?” especially since I find myself personally relating to a lot of her story.
8 Likes
I’ve already explained twice, but perhaps third time is the charm: she describes a scenario from personal experience in which a group of male peers composed a song which referred to her engaging in bestiality with her own horse; her sophomore counselor was informed of the bullying, and allowed the 15 year old to sob in her office for several days, but whatever the counselor and the school did or didn’t do, they did not intercede in a way that enabled her to continue with the class without having to tolerate the bullying.
If the bullying was ongoing, the school could have expelled the boys from the class, rather than forcing her (literally or figuratively), to drop.
It was clear (to me) all along that VHM was disturbed by what she saw as a mistake by COTH in failing to fact check the article because the way COTH handled it, they put the 17 year in a precarious position. Putting the school counselor in a precarious position is a secondary issue.
I assume your last question is rhetorical. If it is not rhetorical, then, no.
5 Likes
Yup. Thanks.
There’s also an obvious issue with respect to the boys in the story, that the op Ed author conspicuously says nothing about…
Did the school do ANYTHING to follow up with these boys?
When I first read the op Ed, I assumed the boys got to continue on in the engineering class. Upon re-reading it carefully though… it’s unclear. One is inclined to assume so, since the author says she was forced to withdraw and speaks about being forced to learn to put up with sexism… but we don’t really know.
So what if these boys are bullying and harassing other girls in the school? Making multiple girls lives miserable? Causing multiple girls to withdraw from classes?
Many people have spoken about being bullied in high school. I went through my own share of stuff. What most of us who went through crap like this and dealt with teenaged boys who engaged in behavior even REMOTELY similar to what the author describes all know is that they behaved this way with more than 1 girl.
So if the school failed to respond in a meaningful way, the girl was forced to just get over it, etc, the school is pretty darn negligent if another girl comes forward because she felt distraught and needed to withdraw from a class in order to escape abusive behavior.
Perhaps the school did respond and disciplined the boys, and the author just didn’t mention it. But if that’s the case, why was she forced to withdraw from the class?
Perhaps she just was shaken up by the whole thing, and even though they had been disciplined, she didn’t want to return to that class. And that’s her right, and I don’t judge that at all. Actually, that would probably have been my reaction to something like that at her age. Even now as an adult. I wouldn’t want to be in a classroom after a bunch of kids talked or sang about me in those terms. It’s humiliating. I get it.
But then why all this talk about being “forced” to learn to put up with sexism? Why the whole line about wishing their were resources like Safe Sport available to her when she went through this whole thing 2 years ago? I don’t understand that. Frankly, there are more robust resources than a Safe Sport hotline to report something available to high school students. In case anyone hasn’t been following this issue closely… what we all know now is that Safe Sport is incredibly underfunded, and that some complaints apparently have. Even made and follow up has been very very slow, or hadn’t even happened yet. High Schools typically have guidance counselors. And school nurses. And sometimes school resource officers… who actually are very capable of effectively assisting a minor who is suffering abuse and wants to report it. Although I do understand that the school resource officer might not be a 15 year old gir’s first choice when seeking someone she could trust to
confide in… there are also teachers. Lots of teachers. I had two in particular in high school, and one in college who changed my life, because they cared about me when other people didn’t notice at all that I was suffering coping with stuff I wasn’t ready to talk to anyone about. Teachers can be pretty incredible in terms of supporting kids in a caring way when kids need support.
Anyway… just a few things to think about. The sort of things that could have, and should have, been gently explored by a professional who worked for the Chronicle when going over this story with this girl, prior to publishing this op Ed.
I think the way the letter laid out her situation, as written, was problematic. Maybe the school responded HORRIBLY to her situation… but why the line about Safe Sport? How she is supportive of it and wished there were resources like that available when she was being bullied at school?
I’m struggling to understand why this opEd was published as written.
The most innocuous explanation is that there just isn’t enough staff to devote someone to sitting down with this 17 year old girl, helping her edit her work in order to remove hyperbole and several of the vague problematic statements that she made that could cause someone like me to think, “What does she mean by that? Is she accusing her school of negligence or outright discrimination and enabling abuse?” And if there isn’t enough staff to help with editing, there really isn’t enough staff to help with fact checking.
But guess what? We are discussing an op Ed about a really sensitive topic being published nationally by a 17 YEAR OLD. If you don’t have the staff to adequately support handling this responsibly… DON’T PUBLISH THIS.
Publish an op Ed laying out the argument for amending the MAAP guidelines that was written by an adult instead. There are plenty of adults out there who are active in the industry and interested in and concerned about this topic who could write one.
But I guess something written by a 17 year old - a girl who has a compelling story to tell about being bullied and the adult women in her life who mentored her and got her through it, and to whom she was connected because of our sport, well… I guess someone somewhere thought this was likely to be a pretty effective op Ed. A sympathetic one. A powerful one.
Well… for all those who think I am a jerk for questioning this story… what about the person who decided to run this 17 year old’s op Ed without effectively helping her edit her writing? What if they published it without fact checking it first? Why do that? Because this 17 year old is pretty far out on a limb now, given that this has been published NATIONALLY and her first and last name is attached.
6 Likes
I’m sorry, @YankeeDuchess but it is 100% true. Based on typical reading comprehension tests, if someone wrote,
‘I want to go to the movie with my mom.’ you would correctly comprehend that there is only one other person going to the movie, Mom. You wouldn’t need ‘alone’ to be added to the sentence to make sure you understood that the person was going with only mom.
I know you want this teen to be wrong on this piece. She’s not. She wasn’t complete in her statement, but she wasn’t wrong in what she wrote.
You suggested an edit that would have made her statement true: change “ride” to “ride alone, one-on-one”. If so edited, we now have a true statement. This suggests, accurately, that written parental permission might not be necessary if there is another person along, but is still kind of incomplete. Beyond a true statement, I would have liked a fully complete characterization of the rule that says that either a second minor athlete or a second adult would waive the requirement of written parental permission.
No need to edit the statement. It’s true as it stands. And you may have liked it to say more clearly reflect all the options, but the author did not choose to do that.
For people who decide to follow the MAAP rules, when a minor needs to go to the tack shop at short notice, which of the allowable options do you think will be most frequently used: a) ask Susie if she wants to come along, too, b) ask for written parental permission by text, or c) trainer or driving age minor goes alone? I’m guessing a). Not only did she fail to mention a viable alternative to written parental permission, she failed to mention the option most likely to be used.
You are making assumptions to fit your way of thinking. I actually think B is more likely, followed by A.
Remember that the opinion being expressed is that MAAP policies are too restrictive and burdensome and should be relaxed. It is vital that she bases her thesis on an accurate characterization of the rules. The actual rule is not as restrictive nor as burdensome as she represents it to be.
It’s your opinion that MAAP is not too restrictive or burdensome. Others are entitled to a different opinion. I find the rules challenging and I’ll be honest, I’ve broken them numerous times already…all in very innocuous and legitimate ways. As a rule follower, that bothers me A LOT. That I can break rules in ways that are appropriate. I know when I choose to speed, I’m doing something wrong. But when I stay at the barn late to make sure a minor isn’t alone? I’m erring on the side of ‘right’ and MAAP says it’s wrong.
I also believe MAAP will do very little to curtail grooming/predatory behaviour because predators have always figured out how to get what they want. I think educating minors so they understand what to look for and empowering them by believing them when they say someone is acting inappropriately will do much more than MAAP ever will.
7 Likes
Sorry, I didn’t read every word of your posts…it’s just too verbose. but I do want to comment on the above. It’s pertinent to the discussion to hear from minors and get their perspective. Why would you want to silence them when they are the focus of MAAP and a main focus of SS.
Also, you continue to make HUGE assumptions about what the school did or didn’t do. I know it fuels your fire, but the truth is you have NO idea what they did. You also seem to continually miss the point that the school could have done everything right and the author STILL could have chosen to drop the class…and still use the word ‘forced’ to describe the situation. YOU are the one that is on a tear making assumptions about something you know very little about. And honestly, it’s NONE of your business. Since we assume the SS investigators do their jobs well with no bias, why don’t we give the benefit of the doubt to this school?
I know schools mess up. I’ve seen it. I know investigators mess up. Just look up the innocence project or watch ‘When They See Us’ and ‘The Central Park Five.’ for starters.
I’ve also seen people choose to not pursue something. To change course because they don’t want the fight or publicity that comes with the fight.
in the end, [i]YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE SCHOOL/COUNSELOR DID OR DIDN’T DO AND IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS[/I]. Stop trying to take away this girl’s power by trying to take away her voice. You are assuming you know what happened and that you know better than her or her parents how things should have been handled.
12 Likes
Actual MAAP policy:
Trainer can give ride to tack store to a minor if
a) another minor athlete comes along, or
b) another adult comes along, or
c) minor received written parental permission, presumably by text, or
d) it’s an emergency
The author’s statement that she “cannot accept a ride with the trainer to the tack store without written parental permission” is not a true statement, given that there are options that do not require parental permission. If you change the objective from “getting to the tack store” to “getting to the tack store one-on-one with the trainer”, as you suggested, then, yeah, written parental permission is required. But if you just need to get to the tack store to buy a noseband, or whatever, there is no reason that it needs to be one-on-one with the trainer. It’s not a date.
After saying that she “cannot accept a ride with her trainer to the tack store without written parental permission”, she says in the next paragraph “These examples are not extremes. This is the way they are written in the rules.” Explicitly asserting that she has provided an accurate (complete) characterization of the rule.
I took the purpose of the piece to be to present her assessment of the effect of the MAAP rules, but in addition to be informative. For either of those purposes, I am perplexed that she would choose to leave out the available options that do NOT require advance written parental permission.
I think that if an author represents that she is explaining a rule, she has a responsibility to state the rule in its entirety rather than provide just a piece of the rule. Stating just a part of a rule in isolation is misleading and confusing.
BTW, I don’t see the primary purpose of the MAAP rules as “curtailing grooming/predatory behavior”. I think the primary purpose is to protect trainers from false accusations.
Have we gone enough rounds on this? Just agree that other is wrong, and call it a day?
7 Likes
As you said in the beginning… you didn’t read every word of my post/s. I am verbose - yup. If you don’t want to read it, that’s quite alright.
If you can’t follow along, that’s ok too
Blatantly mischaracterizing what I am saying? Please stop.
I have not once tried to SILENCE this girl. Nor have I said anything REMOTELY close to anything like, “I know what the school did! They did nothing wrong.”
Someone from the Chronicle should have done some fact checking about the situation this 17 year old girl claims happened at her school involving a counselor and an engineering class PRIOR to publishing this. If the basic fact checking revealed no red flags, they should have helped her edit her writing for precision and clarity.
It’s obvious that one, or both, things didn’t happen.
The girl is 17 years old and they published this, using her first and last name. She’s out on a limb.
What the school did or didn’t do is not my business… nor yours. But guess what? As soon as this 17 year old penned this op Ed and sent it in to be published in a nationally circulated magazine… even as part of an opinion piece…
VERIFIABLE FACTS NEEDED TO BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO PUBLICATION. BY THE PEOPLE AT COTH WHO PUBLISHED THIS.
Publications CAN and DO get sued for failing to do so. And reputations get trashed. When publishing something written by a MINOR?!?! A responsible magazine needs to be EXTRA careful. Fact checking and editing.
AGAIN. Google “Nicole Eramo” Hint… she’s the Dean from UVA who was portrayed as “insensitive” to a victim in a subsequently debunked story told to a reporter from Rolling Stone. A story the reporter did not adequately fact check prior to publication.
Nicole Eramo has done NUMEROUS interviews about it. How the whole thing impacted her personally. It did. It was harmful. She was awarded $3 million after filing a defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone. And the Colombia School of Journalism published a THOROUGH review of the ENTIRE case and called it “journalism malpractice.”
If you don’t want to read my posts - no problem. Educate yourself and read what the Colombia School of Journalism had to say about this topic.
4 Likes
You quoted one paragraph of VHM’s post, in which she suggests that COTH publish a piece on MAAP by an adult expert and accuse her of “trying to silence”, or even more dramatically, “take away the voice” of Olivia. This is an unfair characterization. Just before the paragraph you quote, VHM says that a viewpoint from a minor is particularly compelling, and the COTH should have strengthened her voice, if you will, by helping her edit it for clarity and accuracy. Since COTH apparently did not do that, VHM’s point is that if COTH did not have the resources to do that, the path of higher journalistic integrity would be to refrain from publishing it. It has been very clear to me from all of VHM’s posts that her criticism is directed at COTH, not Olivia, and that what “fuels her fire” is that by dumping the essay online without factchecking first, COTH has put a minor in a precarious position.
I agree with her.
On what basis could you possibly assert that VHM “is assuming that [she, VHM] knows what happened” with respect to what the school did or didn’t do?
What we do know is 1) she was subjected to very offensive sexualized bullying in a 10th grade high school class 2) she reported the bullying to the proper authorities at the school, and 3) whatever the counselor and school did, it was not enough to enable her to continue in the class. There is a lot we don’t know, but from the elements we do know, it certainly looks like the school and counselor failed to meet their obligation.
BTW, Olivia is a 17 year old university student. I have seen posts refer to her as a “kid”, a “girl”, and even a “child”. Would people refer to a 17 year old male university student as a “kid”, boy, or child? It’s established that she is 17 and a minor, but “child” in particular seems dismissive.
Please be advised that if you or others continue to bash VHM, I will accuse you of “trying to take away this [woman’s] power by trying to take away her voice”.
9 Likes
The problem is that neither YD nor VHM seems to acknowledge that there are other ways to read and interpret the oped. Instead you both are doubling down.
13 Likes
I believe the lack of information regarding fact #3 is incredibly important to the discussion of the article. We don’t know what the guidance counselor did once they were made aware of the bullying. For example, let’s say the school investigated the claims of bullying and found that there were no witnesses to corroborate her story & the boys all denied it. They tell Tamburro that they cannot suspend/sanction the boys without a thorough investigation. She is afraid of facing retaliation if she agrees to a lengthy investigation, so she and her parents decide that it is best to withdraw from the class and steer clear of the bullies. Now, some people may not see the aforementioned scenario as Tamburro being “forced” to leave the class, but given that the boys now know that she reported them and she would have to attend class with them again, I could see many people feeling compelled to make a similar decision.
@Virginia Horse Mom The interesting thing is that I think we are on the exact same page re: the importance of fact-checking. However, I think we have interpreted the article in very different ways. We don’t know if the teacher ever saw any bullying. We don’t know what the school did in reaction to the bullying. We don’t know if she was “forced” to leave the class due to a lack of effort by the school or if she decided that it would be better for her overall emotional health to withdraw.
My high school physics lab took up a three story, warehouse-like wing of the science building. Most of our classes were comprised of group assignments and labs. The teacher would float from group to group, answering any questions they may have or evaluating their assignment. It would be nearly impossible for our teacher to be aware of what was happening with all of the students at any given time. I bring this up to show a scenario in which, if bullying occurred, the teacher may not have even been aware.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I also got the impression from some of your posts that you found Tamburro’s anecdote to be exceptionally strange or somewhat implausible. I found it to be completely plausible. I also found her statement about sexism ("…I could put up with some sexism—it’s pathetic that I’ve learned to do that…") to be very relatable.
14 Likes
I was bullied for a bit by the girls behind me in 7th or 8th grade chorus. The teacher who was in front of the class the entire time never knew. She would admonish the girls for whispering but she never asked them what they were saying. It didn’t really bother me that much because of my personality but I certainly can empathize with someone whom bullying did effect more negatively than me.
I certainly can see what VHM is getting at but this is not an investigative article like the Rolling Stone article. And she is really putting a bunch of emphasis on the word “forced” in her narrative.
I do wish the Chronicle had provided a link and a sidebar.
10 Likes
In a well written OpEd, the piece should be written with sufficient clarity and coherence to avoid the result that there are six different ways to interpret what is written, with a couple of them actionable.
I once was asked to sign a lease, and objected to a particular provision in the lease. The real estate agent tried to assuage me by saying, “Well, everyone can have their own interpretation of that clause.” It’s a legal contract with thousands of dollars on the line, not a poem, mister.
The reason VHM and I are criticizing the COTH, not Olivia, is that we think that by editing for clarity [was she literally forced by the school to drop the course, or did she feel she was forced to drop in the figurative sense, for example] two important things would have happened: 1) her OpEd would have become more clear and therefore more compelling, and 2) the COTH would not be vulnerable to a lawsuit.
For example, I was initially interested in learning her assessment of the effects of the rules, but became considerably less interested when I realized that she had not, apparently and in my opinion, made the effort to convey the rules accurately.
All of us having our own interpretations of poems, novels, movies, and art is splendid. But in, say, a legal contract, the whole objective is to avoid ambiguity, i.e. try to ensure that there is one, clear interpretation. In an OpEd you want to be clear (unambiguous) as to 1) what your opinion is, and 2) the facts that lead to your opinion. I really thought that in order to protect itself against a possible lawsuit, the COTH would have done some due diligence to remove the interpretation that the school failed in its responsibility to Olivia (unless, of course, they had established enough facts to protect themselves from being sued.)
There seems to be something of a new parlor game in which posters try to fill in the blanks or missing pieces of the story such that in the resulting “interpretation”, the counselor is not guilty of dereliction. Suppose you succeed and propose “an interpretation” in which the counselor and school avoid looking bad. So what? Given the incompleteness of what was written, there are still all those other actionable interpretations out there.
VHM and I are not denying that there are multiple interpretations, we are complaining that COTH (not Olivia) screwed up by not editing the piece to REMOVE unintended interpretations which could get people into trouble.
So I very much do acknowledge that there are multiple ways to interpret what was written. Only one those interpretations reflects what actually happened. There are a bunch of other interpretations, some which have serious consequences for Olivia, the counselor and/or the school. We are saying that COTH should have done their due diligence and eliminated at least some the possible interpretations that do not reflect what actually happened in order to protect the counselor, the school, and/or themselves, and, of course, Olivia.
6 Likes
I absolutely would refer to a male 17 year old as a “kid” or “boy”, regardless of his level of schooling.
5 Likes
Well now you are but it certainly didn’t come across that way in the beginning.
4 Likes
Glad I could eliminate the unintended interpretation.
2 Likes
Editing the snark out of your last post helped too.
4 Likes
I appreciate your response and fairness on this topic. And I respect the way you have engaged and pushed me to consider how her situation may have played out in real life, and why you find it both plausible… and relatable.
For the record… I said it earlier, but will reiterate it… I actually totally sympathize with and relate to a situation in which Tamburro possibly reported bullying, no one could substantiate her allegation, and thus the school neither disciplined the boys, nor removed them from the classroom… and then Tamburro was left with no choice other than withdrawing from the class, or going back to it and having these boys. And she and her parents decided together withdrawing was the healthier option for her.
In real life… I’m predisposed to handle MOST conflict like that, frankly. For exactly these reasons. I’m an admitted keyboard warrior - I can own it.
And that actually is part of my skepticism… as such… in this situation… I don’t relate to how her narrative came together. I don’t understand why she didn’t actually state that this was the outcome of her eventual complaint regarding this situation. She did make statements throughout her narrative that indicated she has a significant interest in, and a significant focus on a NUMBER of social issues such as sexism, eliminating abuse for women and girls in sports, and presumably in an educational environment… and sexism in STEM fields is a current social issue many people are well aware of. I am well aware of it, for sure! Additionally, she focused intensely on the importance of female mentors in her life - especially a coach who had taught her to be strong and overcome things, and also another adult at the barn who had climbed the corporate ladder and coped with sexism.
For me, the combination of all of that stuff, plus the parts of her story that were left out or went unexplained, and then the way it all came together to make the argument in favor of…
RELAXING MAAP guidelines ?!?
It completely struck me as odd and didn’t work for me. MAAP guidelines, in my opinion, are mostly about maintaining clear, defined, healthy boundaries.
This is a VERY important issue for woman and girls. My guess is you agree. Especially for teenage girls who are going into a program of study in college or pursuing a career in a male dominated field where sexism and sexual harassment is an ongoing issue. Maintaining clear, healthy boundaries is an essential life skill.
I know this because frankly, I was terrible at it as a young woman during college and in my early career. For all the usual reasons. Many of which involve having been a victim of sexual abuse as a child.
We don’t know what we dont don’t know about Tamburros full story, and why this op Ed was published in the way it was, and what fact checking and editing went into it prior to publication. But my gut reaction was both that there were glaring holes in it, and that there were a number of references and nods to current issues of concern to women and girls and people who advocate for such things, and that it all came together in an odd way to try and persuade a pretty specific audience. An audience who were almost certainly going to be immediately against the idea of relaxing MAAP guidelines, but perhaps with an appealing op Ed like this one, could be lead around by the nose to the other side of the issue, and help provide enough pressure on USEF to get them to amend these guidelines.
I am coming perilously close to accusing the young author of something that will inevitably lead to unproductive dialogue… so I will stop at that.
All I can say is, whether her story is true, or exaggerated to any degree, minor or major, she CERTAINLY would have been better off if someone had worked with her before publishing it. And done an appropriate degree of fact checking and editing. And clarified matters with respect to her high school’s response… because this sort of thing has actually resulted in lawsuits. Clarity and fairness when writing about how an institution did or didn’t respond to an incident involving sexual assault or sexual harassment of female students is actually something that we now know a magazine needs to get correct! You know… because of the Rolling Stone lawsuits and the millions they paid out after the fact.
And it really sticks out to me that this editing and fact checking did not seem to happen in a meaningful way with this story. It also sticks out to me that there was a group of people who were 100% ready to launch into a, “How dare you question a 17 year old girls story! You are a hypocrite! You say you believe all survivors… but if someone has an opinion you don’t like, you attack them!” counterattack on anyone who regarded this strange op Ed with skepticism or criticism. This obviously has happened to me over the course of the last few pages, and it has happened to Yankee Duchess and others who have decided to criticize aspects of the op Ed.
I am admittedly a cynical person… but this whole thing is actually sort of obvious to me. I am 100% willing to agree to disagree with respectful voices who do not concur with me on my incredibly cynical opinion of this though 
And for the record, I do think Tamburro is a real person (haha), I do think she wrote this op Ed, and I do believe some parts of narrative happened in the way she outlines… because typically stuff like this does all revolve around some kernel of truth… but beyond that… I am pretty darn cynical at this point, and disappointed in COTH.
I am of the opinion that this is very possibly mostly about a young person actively showing on the A circuit who is closely affiliated with influential industry figures and coaches, and looks up to them, listens to what they are saying, and wants to curry favor with them, and thus wrote this op Ed. And that it is probably a very sincere effort to make a convincing empassioned persuasive argument for “their side.” Perhaps she knew that her voice as a 17 year old speaking out against MAAP guidelines, in favor of strong relationships with great coaches who are also mentors to young girls, would get some attention… and possibly get published. It seems she’s had one or two other things published via Plaid Horse. She was an “intern” for them previously. Which is sort of interesting, although I have no idea what it means to be an intern as a teenager - probably just a fun quick little opportunity. I also will note that the bio of the writer’s coach on her farm website actually indicates that the coach has a background in journalism… but now has what seems to be a successful professional program breeding and selling very nice hunters and coaching juniors. I also find that interesting. Just little details that I picked up on… and when combined with details in the op Ed… all of which came together in an odd tidy sort of way to me… well, at a certain point it very much feels as though this is about leading people such as myself around by the nose in some way. Anyway, I am of the opinion it is more about that, than it is about a young woman who has a well thought out, coherent argument and voice and important personal insight regarding an important and sensitive topic with VERY real implications for her, and girls who are just a few years younger than her.
And I am left wondering, why didn’t a really ethical, professional person at COTH gently explore this while doing a little bit of work with her on the front end in terms of fact checking and editing her writing prior to publishing this? It seems completely appropriate. Maybe I’m wrong… but in a situation like this, the editor could have actually helped this 17 year old learn an important lesson or two about using her voice effectively and responsibly. After all, they were publishing the 17 year olds voice nationally, and the whole op Ed is about a significant issue, and was going to reach a significant audience… and this is all about making sure we all really hear about the perspective of a young female rider and why she thinks the MAAP guidelines should be relaxed.
Hmmm.
Regardless, if the young writer was currying favor with one side of things by penning this op Ed, I can and do believe it was likely that she was doing that both unconsciously, and sincerely. It seems as though she’s a great rider, and loves her barn, her coach and her horse, and that’s a good thing. Good for her.
But what about the editors who seemed not to do a robust job on the front end of this op Ed prior to publishing it? Maybe it was just a matter of an unfortunate fact of life with respect to today’s media… this sort of thing definitely happens way too frequently and almost always bothers the heck out of me. Hence my intense and immediate focus on it in this case. But additionally, it is quite possible that there was a certain amount of awareness that this particular op Ed would be regarded favorably by a significant portion of the COTH audience… in particular, the hunter jumper community, and anyone who spoke up against it would be treated with the whole, “How dare you question a 17 year old’s story and attempt to silence her voice?!?” reaction.
It’s all just a little too convenient. But I am pretty cynical.
The whole thing is what it is, and I don’t think any of us quite know what it is entirely, and to what extent. But one thing is for sure… COTH should never have published it as written. Because the writer is a 17 year old young lady… and the whole crux of the issue (MAAP guidelines, Safe Sport, etc) is really about protecting young people from exploitation by following guidelines, known best practices, etc.
Ironic.
4 Likes
