Bourbon_Meyer's picture


MEMBER SINCE   March 15, 2015

Recent Activity

Comment 21 Nov 2019

Frustration with Drake's and OSU's handling of the Jon Waters matter is hardly "manufactured outrage."  In May 2014, the US Department of Education named OSU as one of several universities under investigation for mishandling sexual violence and harassment complaints.  OSU terminated Waters in July.  By September, the Department of Education announced that it was ending its investigation as to OSU early, and specifically cited the university's action in firing Waters.  OSU needed a scapegoat, and it found one.  If you think OSU's greatest source of sexual harassment and/or misconduct was the marching band, you haven't been watching or reading the news.

The report prepared by the university and touted as containing evidence supporting his termination consisted almost entirely of student-led traditions going back decades.  Jon Waters made strides in a few short years to curb those traditions.  Apparently that wasn't enough, so the university fired Jon and promoted Chris Hoch--who stood alongside Jon in a leadership position for years and witnessed the same traditions which were purportedly grounds for Jon's dismissal.

Is some criticism directed toward Drake unfair?  Certainly.  Is criticizing Drake for his mishandling of TBDBITL and Jon Waters unfair?  Certainly not.

Comment 29 Dec 2018

If you are open to having your assumptions challenged (and many these days are not)

This is my point. In today’s culture, #hottakes aren’t working. I also think they are the product of laziness, and not a desire to challenge others. It just causes people to dig in deeper to their own entrenched opinions. 

Comment 29 Dec 2018

What frustrates me most is the knee-jerk assumption that any support for Meyer is the result of homerism. Sure, there are those who will support Meyer regardless of the evidence against him. But, by the same token, there are those who will always err on the side of victim advocacy because it looks and feels good—particularly in the arena of sexual or domestic abuse—regardless of the facts, the collateral damage caused by mere accusations, or even the non-existence of an identifiable victim.  By no means is victim advocacy bad, but concepts like due process and evidentiary standards exist for a reason: They are the foundation of fairness.

Intelligence is worthless if one cannot communicate without alienating people. 

I wish DJ the best of luck. 

Comment 01 Aug 2018

As university employees (which both Urban and Shelley are), knowledge of another university employee potentially abusing someone else (even if the victim isn't associated with the university) is a Title IX violation.

Curious--do you have legal authority for this position?  It seems like an extraordinarily broad interpretation of Title IX.

Comment 07 Aug 2017

Please read the very first paragraph of my initial post.  There, I explained that defending a transgressor on peripheral issues (like use of the word "brutal," for instance) can be frustrating, because others will accuse you of being a rape apologist.  I don't think that's what you are doing, but I want to reiterate that I tried to lay the foundation that I am in no way suggesting what Richmond did wasn't that bad--I called it despicable.

I have worked on several rape cases, and I don't think I need to provide too much detail or insight into the number of ways the victim's rape could have been much, much worse.  I try not to be jaded as a result of my work, but the possibilities are evident even from reading the news.

You are entitled to describe the rape as brutal.  Personally, I am used to seeing that word associated with acts of violence associated with rape by force, and not used in the context of an unconscious victim.  And, at the end of the day, it is an adjective used by the author of the petition to further his or her argument.

I too have close family that lives within five minutes of YSU as well.  Frankly, I think Richmond is the least of their concerns.

Comment 07 Aug 2017

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't necessarily agree.  Any person convicted of a felony is "followed" by the conviction--felons forfeit their right to vote and possess any kind of firearm, ever.  In the sexual assault context, convicts must register as sex offenders.  I believe Richmond is a tier-1 sex offender, and must register every year for the next decade.

I'm genuinely curious what you (and others) mean when saying that a crime should "follow" the criminal?  What are your criteria?  Does it matter here that Richmond was a minor, i.e. incompetent as a matter of law, when he committed his offense?  What are the "some crimes" to which you refer? Is it limited to rape and murder?  What about the fraudsters who prey on the elderly?  What about the Madoffs of the world?  These are not rhetorical questions, and I'm not being facetious.

At the end of the day, I look at it like this: The United States convicts and incarcerates a higher percentage of its citizens than any other civilized country.  There are far too many people, and far too many different accounts of each offense, to create policy which draws strict lines which exclude murderers and sex offenders from rehabilitation opportunities.

And, because this discussion is occurring within the context of participation in collegiate programs, I'll add this: My undergraduate studies were the single most transformative four years of my life.  I left my small town in Ohio and was immersed in a learning environment with people of every race and religion.  I learned different perspectives, and to question my opinions and impulses.  I also learned that with no parents looking over my shoulder, I alone was responsible for my success.  That was empowering.

It seems to me that this is EXACTLY the type of experience we should be giving to those who commit heinous crimes.

Comment 07 Aug 2017

I'll bite.

This petition frustrates me for several reasons.  And, it's also frustrating that in the context of sexual assault, any attempt to defend the transgressor on peripheral issues is perceived as rape apology.  So, to nip that in the bud, here's my obligatory preface: What Richmond did was despicable, and he deserved to be punished.  Now, for my frustrations:

The petition starts by saying the victim was "brutally raped by two high school football players," one of which is Richmond.  The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that Richmond and others had digitally penetrated, i.e., fingered, the victim while she was unconscious.  That constitutes rape in Ohio.  But to call it a "brutal rape" is hyperbole, and whoever drafted this petition should be a prosecutor.

The petition also states that, "[f]or many years, athletes have constantly been given additional chances because they are athletes."  It continues: "Does he deserve a second chance? Yes, he does, and he is receiving that second chance by furthering his education on YSU's campus.  Does he deserve the privilege of playing on a football team and representing a university?  Absolutely not.  Education is a right, whereas playing on a sports team is not."

This is ridiculous.  First, how has Richmond received an "additional chance?" By serving time, meeting expectations for early release and seeking to turn his life around?  So, do all released inmates who have paid their debt receive unfair "additional chances" merely by trying to enjoy their freedom?  This argument is less about reasonable sentencing policy and more about baggage resulting from perceived benefits received by "jocks."

Second, on what reasonable basis can the author distinguish playing football for YSU and receiving a degree from the same?  The former is representing the university, but the latter is not?  Richmond can put YSU on his resume, join an alumni organization, network, etc., but he cannot play football?  Is it just because the latter is fun? Because he'll enjoy himself? I've never had to argue that one of my clients should be allowed to have fun after serving time, because that would be silly.

Finally, and this is less important, but how is a college education a right?  It absolutely is not, and this just further exposes the poor logic on which this petition is based.

Richmond could learn valuable lessons playing college football: accountability, discipline, etc.  But, because he committed sexual assault in high school, some would rather he be deprived of these lessons, because he might have fun in the process.  That's not only counter-productive, but dangerous.  When offenders feel they have no opportunities upon release, it is just encouragement to go "back to the system."

My two cents.

Comment 15 Mar 2017

Thanks! It could very well be something with my phone. It just only happens with 11W so I thought I'd check with others here. Not too many others seem to have the same problem though...