nddulac
Doh! mer
Not only was that the right thing to do, it is what is required by Law. The tennis coach was obligated to report because he/she is an employee of the university - it has nothing whatsoever to do with the capacity in which the individual is employed.That would be incorrect. The Boermeester incident. Was reported to the tennis coach by witnesses. The SC tennis coach in turn followed procedure and reported through the proper channels. And it went Title IX.
I will concede this point - to an extent. When a student athlete is involved in any sort of an "incident", the coach should make some decisions about 1) how to counsel the kid (that's what coaches do, after all) and b) are there any implications toward the student's scholarship or privileges to compete on the team.[/quote]I find it hard to believe one would say a coach and program should not be involved in a DV case involving student athletes. Because its not related to athletics.
But - that's not what I was talking about a year ago. In the Boermeester case (if I recall correctly - and that is a big if) I was arguing that the coach should not be interjecting into the title IX investigation. That has to happen completely blind of any implications on athletics. Then, after the investigation/proceedings (if any) have concluded, then you figure out the implications on athletics - and that is where the coach should be involved.
In some respects, the Meyer/Smith situation in 2015 is similar. Meyer should not be interjecting himself into the criminal investigations in any way. However, he does have to make a decision about whether the situation has any ramifications on Smith's continued employment. Those decisions may or may not depend on the outcomes of any criminal investigations.
TLDR: interfering with an investigation = bad. Working with a person who is being/has been investigated to figure out what comes next = good.