I caveat the following on my presumption that a qualified, independent, and impartial team had access to and considered all of the relevant factual evidence including the alegations in the bombshell Daily story and delivered its findings in an unbiased way.
I also question the timing and motives of yesterday’s Daily article (and holy hell, how does Fitz ever again take a question from a Daily reporter - especially after he has gone out of his way at many press conferences over the years to give student sports reporters the chance to gain the experience of asking a sports celebrity a question).
There are so many things that are unknown, unknowable and open for interpretation with regard to the specific activities in question (the phrases “dry humping” and “Shrek clap” in particular). I would love to hear Fitz’s response, from his mouth, to what the “Shrek clap” actually was and meant in the context of his use during practice. Also, the characterization of “running” by apparently one former player as an abusive activity has apparently been discredited by many player witnesses.
Further, anonymity is appropriate in any sexual abuse case, but the side effect is that neither Fitz nor the public can look the accuser in the eye and question motive or bias (or confirm that neither exists).
Separately, there is a fine line - especially in this day and age - between what most people would consider childish/juvenile/typical annd appropriate college football activities and what most people would find abusive. There are many missing details, and many allegations that have been called into question, that could push interpretation of what actually happened over the line in either direction. However, it seems that the outrage comes from one particular player’s interpretation of events while legions of other players have seemingly characterized this interpretation quite differently using words such as “twisted” and “lies.” With what has been disclosed, and the subsequent response of apparently hundreds of potential witnesses challenging the factual characterization of the conduct, it is difficult to assess with certainty that conduct amounts to normal and non-abusive horseplay or true sexual abuse.
Nobody should ever take any serious allegation of sexual abuse lightly. But everyone likewise should be very aware that mis-characterization of conduct as sexual abuse that the vast majority of college aged football players would not find abusive risks the marginalization of true victims. Too many statements have been called into question by potentially hundreds of witnesses for a definitive conclusion to be drawn of what actually happened. The tradition in our society is to presume innocence until guilt is proven.
While Fitz as the head coach has a responsibility for institutional control and ultimate accountability - and clearly he has some culpability for his shortcomings in this matter to some extent - it is possible that he had no chance to moderate or inject himself into a situation to prevent the alleged activities. It is possible that reasonable people could have characterized the allegedly abusive activities (and apparently many actually did) as not rising to the level of abuse. In such a circumstance, I believe that it is appropriate to consider Fitz’s conduct as a whole during the tenure of his time leading the program, which I would argue has been exceptionally positive.
While Fitz certainly deserves to shoulder accountability for some lack of supervision for which corrective action is warranted, Fitz also deserves significant leniency and presumption of innocence from any intentional action. I for one believe that Northwestern is best served for Fitz to continue as coach for a very long time.
Finally, as the administrative leader, the university president bears some accountability in this matter as well. I expect that it would be appropriate that any further punishment levied on Fitz would likewise be allocated to the university president.
I also question the timing and motives of yesterday’s Daily article (and holy hell, how does Fitz ever again take a question from a Daily reporter - especially after he has gone out of his way at many press conferences over the years to give student sports reporters the chance to gain the experience of asking a sports celebrity a question).
There are so many things that are unknown, unknowable and open for interpretation with regard to the specific activities in question (the phrases “dry humping” and “Shrek clap” in particular). I would love to hear Fitz’s response, from his mouth, to what the “Shrek clap” actually was and meant in the context of his use during practice. Also, the characterization of “running” by apparently one former player as an abusive activity has apparently been discredited by many player witnesses.
Further, anonymity is appropriate in any sexual abuse case, but the side effect is that neither Fitz nor the public can look the accuser in the eye and question motive or bias (or confirm that neither exists).
Separately, there is a fine line - especially in this day and age - between what most people would consider childish/juvenile/typical annd appropriate college football activities and what most people would find abusive. There are many missing details, and many allegations that have been called into question, that could push interpretation of what actually happened over the line in either direction. However, it seems that the outrage comes from one particular player’s interpretation of events while legions of other players have seemingly characterized this interpretation quite differently using words such as “twisted” and “lies.” With what has been disclosed, and the subsequent response of apparently hundreds of potential witnesses challenging the factual characterization of the conduct, it is difficult to assess with certainty that conduct amounts to normal and non-abusive horseplay or true sexual abuse.
Nobody should ever take any serious allegation of sexual abuse lightly. But everyone likewise should be very aware that mis-characterization of conduct as sexual abuse that the vast majority of college aged football players would not find abusive risks the marginalization of true victims. Too many statements have been called into question by potentially hundreds of witnesses for a definitive conclusion to be drawn of what actually happened. The tradition in our society is to presume innocence until guilt is proven.
While Fitz as the head coach has a responsibility for institutional control and ultimate accountability - and clearly he has some culpability for his shortcomings in this matter to some extent - it is possible that he had no chance to moderate or inject himself into a situation to prevent the alleged activities. It is possible that reasonable people could have characterized the allegedly abusive activities (and apparently many actually did) as not rising to the level of abuse. In such a circumstance, I believe that it is appropriate to consider Fitz’s conduct as a whole during the tenure of his time leading the program, which I would argue has been exceptionally positive.
While Fitz certainly deserves to shoulder accountability for some lack of supervision for which corrective action is warranted, Fitz also deserves significant leniency and presumption of innocence from any intentional action. I for one believe that Northwestern is best served for Fitz to continue as coach for a very long time.
Finally, as the administrative leader, the university president bears some accountability in this matter as well. I expect that it would be appropriate that any further punishment levied on Fitz would likewise be allocated to the university president.
