Allegations of hazing in softball, volleyball and baseball from attorney press conference

[mshelton33]

 

[mshelton33]

 

[mshelton33]

 

[WildcatWillie]

To be preyed upon would be bad enough, but to be prayed upon is a bit much.

 

[CoralSpringsCat]

Do these allegations mean Drohan and Shane Davis lose their jobs as per the “should have known” decree?

 

[Catdude]

Even expanding that idea further and in order to be logically, legally and ethically consistent, the “should have known” standard should apply to any professor or staff member at NU who has a subordinate such as a TA that commits bad behavior. Schill’s position on this has created a very slippery slope for NU aa a whole (not only the athletic side).

 

[kaTNap]

Even expanding that idea further and in order to be logically, legally and ethically consistent, the “should have known” standard should apply to any professor or staff member at NU who has a subordinate such as a TA that commits bad behavior. Schill’s position on this has created a very slippery slope for NU aa a whole (not only the athletic side).

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the legal doctrine of "agency" says almost exactly that -- that a superior has (civil) liability for a subordinate's bad behavior, if that bad behavior is committed in the context of the subordinate's employment. The reasoning is that the superior either knew, or should have known because it was his job to know.
College athletes are not employees (well, not completely yet) so "agency" may not be legally applicable. However, if assistant coaches knew and did nothing, or worse, if they approved of hazing or participated in it, then "agency" kicks in, and both PF and the university are exposed.
I'd appreciate correction from any attorneys or others who know the law better than I do, if my understanding is off.

 

[Catdude]

Totally agree in culpability IF any coaches knew but I think that part is highly disputed so far. My point is that these anti-athletics NU professors will feel a lot differently when that same standard is used against them for something that one of their underlings did without their (or any staff member’s) knowledge.

 

[Overly_Invested_Cat]

Totally agree in culpability IF any coaches knew but I think that part is highly disputed so far. My point is that these anti-athletics NU professors will feel a lot differently when that same standard is used against them for something that one of their underlings did without their (or any staff member’s knowledge).

I keep hearing folks on this board mentioning "anti-athletics professors." I'm sure there are a few, but in my experience the vast majority of professors are fully supportive of NU athletics and work hard on behalf of student-athletes to accommodate their unique academic needs due to travel, practice times, etc. Even the large number of professors who recently signed a letter asking for an obsbuds-person aren't asking for Northwestern to decrease its investment in college athletics. They're simply asking for basic protections for student athletes.

I also don't see any harm in asking for some oversight when the athletic department has been like a clown car with the cheerleader lawsuit, the attempt coronate Polisky, a decades-long tradition of sexually hazing in football, and apparent hazing in other sports. If nothing else, the athletics department has shown that it cannot be trusted to police itself.