Years ago I served as an Expert Witness in a very ugly hazing case here in California. I’m not going to refer to that case, the school, the coaches or student-athletes involved in this article, for the sake of privacy for all involved.
However, there is a lot for coaches, athletic directors and administrators to learn from my experience in this case. It was ugly. At the end of the day, it cost two administrators and two coaches their jobs, coaches who were also teachers. All told, four people lost their careers due to their poor oversight to keep student-athletes safe.
It became very evident to me, very quickly, that hazing was a regular, and ongoing piece of the fabric and culture of that sports program. The Dean of Students agreed with me.
In an email that they sent to the Principal (months before the final incident that blew everything up) said “A fair amount of hazing has become a part of the (sport’s program) culture.”
Here are some of the facts from this case:
- When the Dean of Students learned of a major sexual assault that happened, they had student-athletes fill out a written statement, but never, ever interviewed the Head Coach about the allegations.
- Someone from the District Office’s Personnel department told the Dean to “pursue it as hazing/sexual harassment” in a verbal conversation. However, when the media and the local law enforcement got involved, and the whole thing “blew up” in the community, that person lied about this directive. Under the penalty of perjury, they said that they never gave that directive.
- Three weeks later, the District Office sent folks from Personnel to the site to investigate the allegations, and wrote in an email that “We aren’t very happy with how this whole thing was handled.”
- There ended up being 75 separate incidents of sexual abuse reported by members of this ONE team. This led to 25 reports to law enforcement via their Suspected Child Abuse Report (SCAR) form.
- Even with all of this information that the district office investigation uncovered, the Dean told lawyers in their deposition that the Head Coach was “properly supervising the locker room.”
Let’s take a look at what happened to the victims in this case.
Victim #1
The hazing started “simple enough.” Victim #1 was a freshman. It started with upperclassmen (juniors/seniors) throwing him into the shower four different times. The Head Coach knew that it happened. He was the “teacher of record” for the PE class where this happened.
In fact, the Head Coach saw him being carried into the showers, on multiple occasions.
After one of those times the Head Coach talked to the student-athlete one on one. The Coach said “I saw them take you in there, I heard the screaming, I know what happened. Just keep it between us.”
After the hazing escalated, and came to a head in a sexual harassment hazing fashion, Victim #1 told the Head Coach about a pole being pushed into his rectum. This happened in the showers. He told the Coach about this just 10 minutes after it happened. The Head Coach said “These things happen.”
During the course of the investigation by both district officials and law enforcement, Victim #1 named ten student-athletes who were responsible for what happened in the locker room. He also said that there were two occasions of penetrations of a sexual toy (dildo) into his anus. These instances each lasted a couple of seconds.
Victim #1 also told the investigator that “They would finger me in the butt too (when they penetrated him with the sex toy).”
Victim #1 also reported that “They (student-athletes) put their crotch and penises in my face, they did this with their clothes on. They shoved the metal pole shoved in my rectum area, around my butt cheek. I was cut and bleeding. I never told the coach because I was too scared. I kept playing because I wanted to get looks from colleges.” (This was from the first time a metal pole was used on him.)
After having dealt with enough sexual harassment, abuse and bullying, Victim #1 reported it to the Administration. They told him “If you don’t want to come to school, don’t have to.”
Victim #2
When the investigation opened, Victim #2 told investigators, district officials and the police, that two different teammates “Used a dildo on me by placing it against my rectum, then tried to get it inside of me.” Victim #2 said there was “minor penetration of about 1-2 inches.”
Victim #2 reported that there was “rectum pain” that lasted approximately five days.
He said that he was dragged from the end of the gym to the middle of the gym, and then to the locker room, and then to the showers. Victim #2 claimed that he was yelling “Let go of me, help!”
He reported being held down by 5-6 other teammates when this happened, and 3-4 others were filming it. This means there were approximately 10-12 student-athletes actively involved and or witnessing this sexual assault and hazing.
On at least two different occasions, two of the “ringleaders” who were upperclassmen stuck their fingers into his rectum.
After this incident, he was thrown into the showers, which ended up hurting his knee, elbow and shoulder. The Head Coach called him into the office immediately following the sexual harassment hazing. The Head Coach told him that “It would be better if we don’t tell anyone what happened and that we keep it between ourselves (teammates).”
Victim #2 said “It (this first sexual assault) ruined my social life in high school.”
All told, there were “about ten incidents of hazing” that happened over the course of Victim #2’s first three months of high school. These incidents happened about one month into joining this sports program. All of this sexual harassment hazing happened during the school day, during the PE class, either in the gym or the locker room.
Victim #2 reported that “players regularly were dry humping each other on the court, and in the locker room.” He also reported that “The (Head) Coach would be on the court watching and laughing at the dry humping.” He also reported that six different athletes would “grab my ass, and or spank me.” He told investigators that the Head Coach “saw players grabbing and slapping my but two or three times.”
Victim #2 told investigators that “The Head Coach said ‘You Freshmen, watch out or you guys are going to get raped.’”
Victim #2 explained about a tradition called “Freshman Friday” which was “A stupid tradition that the older kids would abuse and mess with freshmen.” He told investigators that Administration and teachers would even see (sports team) students throw into trash cans on Freshman Fridays, and would laugh and joke about it.
Victim #2 claimed that “I thought it was just normal hazing, it was my first time in high school, and first time on a high school team.”
A Brief Summation of the Police Department’s Investigation
Detective (Name withheld) of the local police department investigated allegations of sexual harassment hazing including the metal pole incident, “teabagging” and pressing fingers into buttocks. The incidents were described as hazing, targeting freshmen as a form of initiation. Several victims reported varying durations of a dildo being held to their buttocks. Victim #1 mentioned 2-4 seconds (of penetration) in the locker room and 4-6 seconds (of penetration) elsewhere, while Victim #2 reported 30-60 seconds (of penetration) in both the shower, and near the lockers. No witnesses saw the coach in the locker room during these events.
A Summation of the Head Coach Interview
The Head Coach reported that he received training on sexual abuse from a district program, and a faculty handbook on bullying and sexual abuse each year that he coached. On the day of the final incident, the sexual harassment hazing in the shower, the Principal spoke with him.
The Head Coach denied awareness of hazing in the (sports team’s) culture, and did not know about the tradition of being thrown into the showers for birthdays. He could hear activities in the locker room while cleaning up nets out in the gym, but avoided going to his office when the locker room was occupied. (The office was in the locker room.)
During a discussion with District Office officials and a vendor about a facility issue he heard banging in the locker room (this was the sexual harassment hazing in the shower), and sent an Assistant Coach to investigate. He was unsure if a dildo was used to violate anyone that day.
An interesting note: the Head Coach hired an Assistant Coach for the program who had previously been suspended for sexual assault at a player.
Asst Coach Summary; Also a Former Player in the program
The Assistant Coach told investigators that he was never instructed not to leave students alone in the locker room. He said that at another high school he coached at, no one supervised the locker room. Hazing occurred spontaneously in the high school programs he had been a part of.
He admitted to jokingly “teabagging” one of the student-athletes while clothed. The Head Coach occasionally entered the locker room but supervision was generally absent. The locker room was left unlocked after class, allowing random hazing incidents to happen.
During one event, someone suggested putting freshmen in the showers, leading to a chaotic chase in the gym, this was Victim #2. Freshmen were carried off to the showers on Fridays. He reported that the Head Coach was in his office during these activities. He reported knowing that one of the students was known for showing his penis to students, and that he once smashed (the student-athlete’s name withheld) head with his penis, and that he was in the room when it happened, and witnessed this happen. The Assistant Coach failed to report this incident to anyone.
5 Takeaways From This Sexual Harassment Hazing Debacle
-
Supervision is Crucial, Supervision is Mandatory, Supervision Is Not An Option
Coaches must actively supervise student-athletes to prevent hazing, injuries, and inappropriate behavior. Lack of supervision is a primary reason for these incidents.
Coaches have a duty to supervise their student-athletes. In many cases that I’ve worked on as an expert, student-athletes are hazed, injured, etc. due to a lack of supervision. This is the number one reason that hazing happens: there is no adult there to stop it.
Chapter 6 of the Physical Education Framework for California Public Schools is titled “Establish A Safe Environment.” It discusses suggestions and ideas for how teachers (and coaches) should both establish and maintain a safe environment.
It reads in part that “Schools and teachers help create a safe learning environment by implementing the following supervision principles:
- Always be in the immediate vicinity (within sight and sound) of the students.
- Constantly scan the area for clues that may indicate a potentially dangerous situation.
- Secure an adequate replacement when it is necessary to leave the area.”
In this despicable sexual harassment hazing scandal, the conduct of the district fell well below the standard of care of providing a safe learning environment for its student-athletes due to the lack of proper supervision and oversight of their student-athletes.
-
The district failed to prioritize “the safety and welfare of its student-athletes” as stated in their Handbook for Coaches Code of Conduct, due to a lack of institutional control over, at least, this specific athletic team/program.
Athletic administrators are responsible for selecting, training, and supervising coaches to ensure they provide safe conditions and follow established protocols. Failure to do so can result in preventable incidents and legal liabilities. This administration had a chance to intervene. They knew that there was a regular and established routine of hazing in the program. However, they failed to step in, address it, educate and warn their coaches and student-athletes, etc. This points to a lack of institutional control.
-
The district was negligent in ensuring the safety of the student-athletes in this athletic program when they failed to enforce their own sexual harassment policy.
School districts have a duty to prioritize student safety by enforcing their own policies and standards of conduct. Negligence in these areas can lead to severe consequences, including failure to prevent sexual harassment and abuse.
The district’s own sexual harassment policy is long, but here are three highlights that apply specifically to this case:
- “Share responsibility for modeling appropriate behavior and creating an environment where students and staff know that sexual harassment and/or sex discrimination will not be tolerated.”
The coaching staff most definitely failed to create an environment where their team members knew that sexual harassment would not be tolerated.
- “Support the District’s efforts to prevent sexual harassment and/or sex discrimination by taking steps to intervene immediately when such actions occur.”
Again, the staff had plenty of chances to intervene on behalf of their student-athletes. They did not. Both victims reported having numerous conversations with the Head Coach. And the whole investigation revealed that at least a dozen players over a three year period spoke with the Head Coach about their concerns of hazing in that program.
- “Encourage anyone alleging that he or she is a target of, has witnessed, or has information about sexual harassment and/or sex discrimination to report such an incident.”
This part was one of the most despicable pieces of this entire case, and it has stuck with me ever since my work with this lawsuit. The Head Coach told one of the victims “I saw them take you in there, I heard the screaming, I know what happened. Just keep it between us.” Horrific for an adult to say this. And get this? In a conversation with the police investigator, he did NOT deny ever saying this. Which means, he said it.
-
Adherence to Safety Standards
The district was negligent in ensuring the safety of their own student-athletes because they failed to enforce their own district policy about safety standards. Their policy speaks to the aforementioned supervision of student-athletes.
-
Early Intervention Did Not Happen
Immediate intervention is necessary when inappropriate behavior, including sexist, heterosexist, or homophobic actions, is observed. This proactive approach helps maintain a respectful and safe environment.
In January 2005, the State Board of Education adopted the physical education model content standards, which serve as the foundation for instruction at all grade and course levels. It is called the “Physical Education Framework for California Public Schools.” In this document, it demands that “It is important for teachers to monitor students for inappropriate behavior and to intervene immediately when there is a problem. Early intervention is especially important for sexist, heterosexist, or homophobic behaviors displayed by students.”
This coaching staff failed to intervene when they could have. Again, the Head Coach told one of the victims “I saw them take you in there, I heard the screaming, I know what happened. Just keep it between us.”
And do you remember the email from the Dean to the Principal several months before this final sexual harassment hazing event happened in the showers? The Dean said “A fair amount of hazing has become a part of the (sport’s program) culture.”
In sum, the sexual harassment and abuse of Victims 1 and 2 were foreseeable and preventable, but for the conduct of the Head Coach, the Assistant Coach, the Dean, the Principal and district personnel, who failed to supervise the coaching staff, and take action when they routinely violated district policies and procedures regarding the supervision of student-athletes, and their own sexual harassment policy.
These student’s lives were dramatically impacted. They were altered in ways that could never be “undone” due to the lack of supervision, due to the lack of coaches doing their jobs.
Please learn from this situation.
Please do not allow this to happen to any student-athletes in your care.
Chris Fore has his Masters degree in Athletic Administration, is a Certified Athletic Administrator and served for 3 years as the President of the California Coaches Association. He coached high school football for 17 years, including 8 years as a Head Coach. He is also a court-certified Expert Witness in athletically based court cases. Fore is the CEO of Eight Laces Consulting which specializes in helping coaches nationwide in their job search process, and provides dynamite resources for coaches. Fore has been named to the Hudl Top 100 Coaches, and the Top 5 Best High School Football Coaches to follow on Twitter by MaxPreps. Follow him!
