Harvard suspends men's soccer team over sexual ranking of women's recruits

[booradley]

It's going public with this that doomed them. Now, I remember in my college days a friend confided to me that I had been ranked favorably in a sorority's ranking of "guys they know." I know - sounds like a shameless boast and I'm sorry for that - but my point is this goes on in college and always will. By BOTH sexes. Frankly I'd be surprised if the women's soccer team didn't have their own set of rankings ...

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And as I mentioned before, the other thing that irks me is the hypocrisy by some. Zuckerberg created Facemash, a site that literally had students at Harvard rate the hotness of each other to culminate in an overall ranking. This wasn't private either, but something that was passed around the campus. He is welcomed on to the campus to this day with open arms.

Karen Owen who created the "Duke Fuck List" was praised in many progressive circles as a feminist who empowered women. The same circles that are trashing the Harvard soccer team. There was no talk of a Title IX investigation from what I can find. Heck, some of these media outlets gleefully posted the unredacted thesis.

And these soccer players will still be welcomed on campus. They didn't expel them.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

As molson suggested, that's just not how Title IX works. It uses the same sexual harassment standard and burden-shifting legal analysis as a Title VII hostile work environment case. Schools can be subject to loss of funding and civil lawsuits under a hostile enviornment theory. If it would be a Title VII case in employment (which this scenario would be) then it would be a Title IX case against the school.

So comments made on a non school/work affiliated web page can be part of hostile work environment? I'm no legal expert but this does seem like an extreme overreach and helps explain why I lean Libertarian.

Would the hot or not threads on this site or the hot female child molester thread get a few FOFCers fired/sued?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So comments made on a non school/work affiliated web page can be part of hostile work environment? I'm no legal expert but this does seem like an extreme overreach and helps explain why I lean Libertarian.

Would the hot or not threads on this site or the hot female child molester thread get a few FOFCers fired/sued?

If they were composed of co-workers ranking other co-workers, possibly. Certainly if management of this fictional company found out they would be obligated to shut it down or face future legal consequences.

Again, this isn't two guys talking about who they think is hot. This is an organized and systemic. It's very clearly at odds with current interpretations of Title IX.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's very clearly at odds with current interpretations of Title IX.

Another example of why that overwrought overreach might be one of the worst pieces of legislation in U.S. history.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They are students who pay to attend a school. They are not employees no matter how bad the NCAA wants to have it both ways.

It's a private school and they can make the code of conduct how they want for their students. But it should be consistent from here on out. I think it's weird that if someone posts something on their personal Facebook wall about how attractive someone is in their class, they'll have to be disciplined for it.

Students have even fewer rights than employers.

But in neither environment is this cool. You keep sanitizing it, framing it as people talking about "how attractive someone is". I think it was more than that. If you talk on facebook about how you like someone's sweater, that's one thing. If you talk on facebook about how you want to fuck your co-worker or fellow student in the ass, that's going to be addressed by HR or the school, if they find out about it, or if the recipient of your "compliment" complains about it.

If nobody finds out about it, fine. But obviously these communications weren't private, or we wouldn't know about them. That's what makes it hostile, when you have organized lists objectifying young women, in an environment that is already ripe with sexual harassment and hostility.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Another example of why that overwrought overreach might be one of the worst pieces of legislation in U.S. history.

I understand some of your causes, but why is THAT one so important? Why is it so important for you that students be allowed to publicly rank women in a sexually vulgar way? I mean, that doesn't seem like your style at all, I think you actually have much more respect for women than that.

And shit, if you had a daughter, I bet your perspective on this would be different - I can see you on being on her side 100% and bringing hell and fury upon those who crudely disrespect her or create an uncomfortable or unsafe environment for her.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I understand some of your causes, but why is THAT one so important? Why is it so important for you that students be allowed to publicly rank women in a sexually vulgar way? I mean, that doesn't seem like your style at all, I think you actually have much more respect for women than that.

It's Title IX in general, I did say it's another example of how/why, not that it's some sudden reaction to it based on this one incident.

Humans, hell a lot of animals, "rate" members of the opposite sex in terms of attractiveness. The whole mating instinct, survival of the species, etc etc.

That anybody has gotten bent over this -- which, as I understand it, is entirely people bullshitting about HotOrNot/HotterAorB, no allegations of physical misconduct or anything of that nature -- is a fucking indictment of what an absurdly sensitive society we've created.

[dawgfan]

Guys are going to talk in private conversations with other guys about girls they find hot. They might even take it in more crude directions and speculate what positions they might like or how willing they are to go for casual sex. Girls are going to do the same in private conversations. That's natural, and while things can get a little too crude at times, it's generally not out of line.

When those activities become more organized, where it's a regular thing that a team engages in and these "ratings" are recorded in a way that can be accessed by others, that's a different thing as it starts implicating that team as a group rather than some individuals talking among themselves. And when it's men doing this, it's a different thing than women doing so given that sexual assault is orders of magnitude more common by men against women then vice versa.

We have some ugly statistics of how frequent rape and sexual assault is in our country, and in the interests of trying to reduce that frequency we have to start facing up to certain behaviors that cross a line from normal "hot or not" to "objectification" that increases the potential for sexual assault to happen.

If happen to tell a good buddy at work in private that I think one of our female co-workers is hot, that's one thing. If there was a regular gathering of men in our department to rank hotness, assign sexual positions and other crude remarks about our female co-workers and record those results, that's quite another thing, one that changes the atmosphere within the workplace and makes it easier to think of the women at work less as people and more as targets of potentially unwanted sexual advances.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's Title IX in general, I did say it's another example of how/why, not that it's some sudden reaction to it based on this one incident.

Humans, hell a lot of animals, "rate" members of the opposite sex in terms of attractiveness. The whole mating instinct, survival of the species, etc etc.

That anybody has gotten bent over this -- which, as I understand it, is entirely people bullshitting about HotOrNot/HotterAorB, no allegations of physical misconduct or anything of that nature -- is a fucking indictment of what an absurdly sensitive society we've created.

With me the indictment is not just the absurdly insensitive, it's also the hypocrisy. I bet many of those complaining have "rated" members of the opposite sex (and maybe of the same sex) and have imagined what they would be like in the sack.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Would the hot or not threads on this site or the hot female child molester thread get a few FOFCers fired/sued?

If I named co-workers there, talked about them in a sexually vulgar manner, identified myself, and my office found out about it, I'd absolutely be fired.

Where do you work that this would be OK to do? Are you willing to do it here to prove your point that this is no big deal? Identify yourself by name, where you work, and tell us what co-workers you'd like to fuck, and specifically in what positions (and which co-workers you find disgusting and don't want to fuck)?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by digamma

There's a lot of backdrop to this with the Harvard administration, going back to the sexual assault on campus study a year or so ago and several things that have happened on campus. The dean of students is really sensitive to gender issues, in some cases rightly so and in some cases not. I don't know enough about the facts to know which one he is here.

I agree there is a heightened campus climate regarding "sexual assault", but I don't think that played any role. Scalise is not a dilettante who would bow to pressure, and even a dozen years ago when a state school kid like me rated girls we weren't dumb enough to leave evidence lying around.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's a private school and they can make the code of conduct how they want for their students. But it should be consistent from here on out. I think it's weird that if someone posts something on their personal Facebook wall about how attractive someone is in their class, they'll have to be disciplined for it.

When was Harvard not consistent? They weren't searching this out, they didn't officially approve Zuckerberg's private activity, and there is a difference between a student and a representative of the university who is allowed to play on a sports team. I tell every kid I coach that if they're wearing our gear they represent more than themselves & they'll be held to a higher standard. There's are also things we know our kids do (like rating girls here, although I hope not as explicitly (PS what's a triple lindy?), or drinking), but we're not actively searching for or punishing them for unless it becomes public knowledge and then we have to.

I hate overly sensitive PC culture, I think there is a double standard like when Deadspin et al published names & photos in the Karen Owen incident, but she wasn't an athlete and I think this suspension makes complete sense. It's a private university & part of the reason for sports teams is to bring positive publicity to the University. Start bringing negative publicity and you'll be punished. If you don't like it, go to Baylor not Harvard.

[wustin]

Student athletes represent the university and his/her fellow students. These boys were given a warning to cut it out the first time, I don't see how this is even a discussion. If the school/administration never found out about this and the google doc leaked and went viral around the campus, school social media, and local news outlet, that would be a PR shitstorm to take care of.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

With me the indictment is not just the absurdly insensitive, it's also the hypocrisy. I bet many of those complaining have "rated" members of the opposite sex (and maybe of the same sex) and have imagined what they would be like in the sack.

Victim culture produces "victims" -- with the imaginary ones outnumbering the real ones by far these days -- but that seems to be our #1 industry in what's left of this country at this point.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by wustin

Student athletes represent the university and his/her fellow students. These boys were given a warning to cut it out the first time, I don't see how this is even a discussion. If the school/administration never found out about this and the google doc leaked and went viral around the campus, school social media, and local news outlet, that would be a PR shitstorm to take care of.

When? I have seen nothing anywhere that says this. I only see speculation from those in this thread who are supporting the ban that there was a warning. They seem to have made that up to support their belief from what I can tell.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

When? I have seen nothing anywhere that says this. I only see speculation from those in this thread who are supporting the ban that there was a warning. They seem to have made that up to support their belief from what I can tell.

The very first story on it mentioned they were told to stop in 2012.

[wustin]

Yeah it said initial group in 2012 which I guess implies that it seemed to be a thing the upperclassmen shares with the freshman every year. This is a thing fratboys do in their frathouses, you don't want this kind of culture to be persistent with your soccer team year in and year out.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

The very first story on it mentioned they were told to stop in 2012.

Does it? I'm reading straight from The Crimson and it seems like they found this "scouting report" a week or so ago and then noticed that people were still doing stuff years later and it wasn't an isolated incident. Doesn't sound like they were told to stop and continued doing it. Not questioning you, just can't find that aspect anywhere.

[EagleFan]

It never says anything about them being told to stop in 2012. Just that a report came out that was from 2012.

[wustin]

The initial group did this in 2012, and the suspension happened when it was found out that they continued to do so up until the present day..

Well I just read this part and assumed...made it seem like administration knew in 2012 and the group continued with the behavior.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by stevew

And here I thought that creating a systematic ranking system for harvard coeds was a good path to becoming a multi billionaire

winner

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So comments made on a non school/work affiliated web page can be part of hostile work environment?

Yep. I had to discipline someone who posted a lengthy, public, profanity-laden rant about a co-worker on Facebook, in which she also named the company we all worked for and the location where they worked.

It was damaging to the work environment, damaging to the brand, clearly unprofessional, clearly violated our workplace policy, and, most importantly ( ) made me waste a whole ton of my time dealing with it.

This kind of policy, by the way, is pretty much universally present in corporate America.

Contrary to the beliefs of some of you here, these policies don't exist to make the workplace a happy-happy kumbaya political correctness haven of sunshine.

These policies exist because at best this behavior is a childish waste of time (in a workplace context, especially a corporate workplace context) and at worst a real a long-lasting drain on productivity, a way to end up damaging the brand and even, if things really go off the rails, a start to litigation and potentially even press or government (LEO or regulatory, or both) involvement.

It's far better to nip this shit in the bud then to end up having to waste a ton of your time (not to mention the other potential damage listed above), just because a few dipshits couldn't be bothered to act professional in a workplace setting.

[TroyF]

1 - The guys were IDIOTS. Seriously, you can't write down a list of sexual positions, what women are like in bed and have it written down. It's just stupid and inappropriate. Cmon, I would have felt uncomfortable doing that when I was in college 25 years ago.

2 - Anyone who thinks women (and men) aren't rated on their looks, are living in a dreamland of epic proportions. We are all rated by our looks and these things are talked about by both men and women. I have a 19 year old niece who I am sure is talked about. I understand it and I'm not bothered by it. I would think it highly inappropriate for that talk to hit a written document with opinions on how she likes sex and what positions she likes it in.

3 - Yeah, reverse discrimination is discussed when these things happen and a huge reason is because there IS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION and people are sick of it. A huge problem is we don't see cases of reverse discrimination because they are usually buried. That said, just because it isn't treated equally doesn't mean that the situation was handled wrong. In this case, I think Harvard was right in what they did.

[Edward64]

FWIW, I was looking through my college yearbooks this past weekend and a couple pieces of papers slipped out. Our club sponsored (e.g. supplied the labor to pull it together) the Miss "University" contest and it was an internal club ranking of the contestants. As you can imagine, adolescence at work. Pure coincidence that I found them this weekend, I had forgotten about it.