The Academic Senate of San Jose State University has drafted a resolution criticizing sports administrators’ handling of a growing sexual abuse scandal, leading to allegations of retaliation against whistleblowers and the emergence of new victims in the case of a former treatment of female athletes Has led sports coach.
The statement, which is due for consideration in Monday’s final Senate session of the academic year, said media reports, such as the Bay Area News Group’s coverage of new allegations last week, have raised concerns that “there is a culture of Retribution, harassment and harassment gives bullying ”in the athletics department of Marie Tuite.
Two sources provided the Bay Area News Group with a copy of the draft on Sunday, entitled “Purpose of the Senate Resolution: To Express Concern about the Athletics Administration at SJSU.”
The draft calls on the San Jose state leadership to take steps to protect student athletes, staff, administrators, and faculty members from retaliation. She called on San Jose President Mary Papazian and her staff to “take concrete action to promote a climate that supports those who report suspected abuse.”
The allegations have caught the attention of the FBI and lawyers from the Department of Civil Rights at the Department of Justice, and sparked legal action by 10 athletes and former employees’ lawsuits involved in the case, including swimming coach Sage Hopkins, who has filed a lawsuit Retaliatory lawsuit against whistleblowers in Santa Clara County last month.
The issue dates back to 2009 when 17 female swimmers complained about inappropriate touch by then director of sports medicine, Scott Shaw, who resigned last year. Research conducted by a staff administrator at the school in 2010 found that the uncomfortable touch was due to Shaw’s use of “pressure point therapy,” which it says is a “real tool for treating muscle injuries.”
Hopkins continued to raise concerns as the sports administration switched staff in response to his complaint. After finding out that Shaw was still treating some of the swimmers, Hopkins sent a 300-page dossier on the case to officials at the National Collegiate Athletic Association and at the headquarters of the Mountain West Conference, of which San Jose State is a member school. The action prompted Papazian to launch a further review of the case in 2019.
The results of the second investigation, announced last month, reversed the results of the original investigation, saying it found no medicinal value in Shaw’s method of treatment that massaged women’s breasts and underwear near her genitals. Investigators also said that two more victims were found after 2017 who were currently college students.
The Bay Area News Group reported a third victim last week who said Shaw started treatment in 2014 and continued until she graduated in 2019.
Last month, the San Jose State Faculties Union requested that Tuite and other executives named in the lawsuits be suspended in a letter to California State University Chancellor Joseph I. Castro.
The Senate Academic draft states that the resolution should be addressed to various bodies of the California State University system, including the Board of Trustees, Castro, and the presidents of the 23 state schools.
Papazian cited due process when, according to the minutes, he was asked about Hopkins’ alleged retaliation during a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate on April 26.
“We want to please the women and give them a voice,” said Papazian. “There are many things that we cannot say. We have very clear guidelines for retaliation. There have been three athletics directors since these allegations. ”
Papazian, one of 15 people who attended the video meeting, also said allegations were not evidence.
“All processes must be in place before anything is done,” she said. “We want a completely independent investigation. We try to be as specific as possible. It is not our job to edit.
“The President is also frustrated that this problem was not resolved in 2009/2010. We will find out what happened and share what we can. The President makes decisions based not on allegations but on evidence. It is obliged to ensure proper procedures on both sides. ”