LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So based on the evidence it sounds like the school board and superintendent should be held responsible for relocating this student. But trying to make it a transgender issue sounds like an attempt to influence the upcoming governor election.

The point is because the kid wore skirts, the administration perceived him as potentially transgender, which seems to be why they lied.

No

I'm sorry, can we at least admit if it was a teenager not wearing a skirt (and especially if he were Black) this would have been handled very differently top to bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So based on the evidence it sounds like the school board and superintendent should be held responsible for relocating this student. But trying to make it a transgender issue sounds like an attempt to influence the upcoming governor election.

The point is because the kid wore skirts, the administration perceived him as potentially transgender, which seems to be why they lied.

No

I'm sorry, can we at least admit if it was a teenager not wearing a skirt (and especially if he were Black) this would have been handled very differently top to bottom.

I can’t agree. I think it was handled at the school level how it was due to the students’ prior consensual sex in the bathrooms (meaning, school couldn’t immediately know this wasn’t another consensual encounter) and it was handled by the district because a) title ix regulations, b) policy on not compromising LCSO investigation and c) protecting the privacy of minors and allowing due process. LCPS had to pass policy 8040 no matter what, it was a state mandate. It would have been passed if the student was wearing a skirt or not. The procedures here failed : the students should have been on home bound/virtual and not in another building until he was found guilty or not guilty. But otherwise I don’t think things would have been different absent some skirt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The attempts to downplay and cover up this event - - from the principal, the school board, parents who tried to get Mr. Smith to shut up at the meeting, the media, even the moderator of this very website - - is astounding.

Or, look at it from this point...

The SB tried to silence Mr. Smith because they had received NO record of any assaults taking place. Why? Because the school had yet to investigate. Why? Because the school investigation can only take place AFTER the police investigation. Why? So as not to taint any evidence or cause any issues for the police & prosecutors in the case.

To the SB, a man shouting about his DD being raped by a boy in a skirt looks like just another angry anti-trans parent. And that's exactly the narrative that was taken and portrayed in the news. Had Loudoun not have had loads of anti-trans bigots bussed in for each SB meeting, maybe the outcome would have been different. Maybe when an angry parent started shouting at the meeting, the SB could have made inquiries instead of just writing him off as a nutso. But no, you had a rightfully angry parent shouting about a "boy in a skirt" among hundreds of other anti-trans and pro-trans parents (most of whom had NO kids in LCPS).

I think the laws/rules should be changed so that as soon as an accusation is made by one student against another, the SB and Superintendent are notified along with the parents who have other kids at that school. I understand why no school investigation can take place until after the police have concluded theirs, but at the very least, notification needs to happen ASAP.

When my one kid, who was back to in-person schooling in May 2020, told me what happened that day, he said that a girl had been raped a bathroom. I asked where he heard that. He said so-and-so told me. I told him not to believe teenage gossip because the notification from the principal stated that it was an incident between a parent and school staff that caused the SRO to call in additional support units. Things died down. When Mr. Smith was arrested, my son saw it on the news later and said, "that's ____ dad. You know, the girl who was raped." I still didn't believe a rape had occurred until he told me that and I watched a video on Twitter of what Mr. Smith had been saying... and at that point, school was over for LCPS. I didn't know what to do because I had teenage gossip on one had and media coverage on the other telling us that he was a right-wing nutso.

I'm upset there was a lack of transparency. Being transparent doesn't mean you give the student's names or even grades. Being transparent means you send a notification to the school community that an allegation of X, Y, Z happened on this date and appropriate action is being taken.

The latest FOIA release shows that the superintendent notified the SB the afternoon the rape allegation was made about what happened. The lies, half truths, and technicalities need to stop. It's just making everything worse. At this point, I have flipped and DO think that the superintendent and SB members need to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The attempts to downplay and cover up this event - - from the principal, the school board, parents who tried to get Mr. Smith to shut up at the meeting, the media, even the moderator of this very website - - is astounding.

Or, look at it from this point...

The SB tried to silence Mr. Smith because they had received NO record of any assaults taking place. Why? Because the school had yet to investigate. Why? Because the school investigation can only take place AFTER the police investigation. Why? So as not to taint any evidence or cause any issues for the police & prosecutors in the case.

To the SB, a man shouting about his DD being raped by a boy in a skirt looks like just another angry anti-trans parent. And that's exactly the narrative that was taken and portrayed in the news. Had Loudoun not have had loads of anti-trans bigots bussed in for each SB meeting, maybe the outcome would have been different. Maybe when an angry parent started shouting at the meeting, the SB could have made inquiries instead of just writing him off as a nutso. But no, you had a rightfully angry parent shouting about a "boy in a skirt" among hundreds of other anti-trans and pro-trans parents (most of whom had NO kids in LCPS).

I think the laws/rules should be changed so that as soon as an accusation is made by one student against another, the SB and Superintendent are notified along with the parents who have other kids at that school. I understand why no school investigation can take place until after the police have concluded theirs, but at the very least, notification needs to happen ASAP.

When my one kid, who was back to in-person schooling in May 2020, told me what happened that day, he said that a girl had been raped a bathroom. I asked where he heard that. He said so-and-so told me. I told him not to believe teenage gossip because the notification from the principal stated that it was an incident between a parent and school staff that caused the SRO to call in additional support units. Things died down. When Mr. Smith was arrested, my son saw it on the news later and said, "that's ____ dad. You know, the girl who was raped." I still didn't believe a rape had occurred until he told me that and I watched a video on Twitter of what Mr. Smith had been saying... and at that point, school was over for LCPS. I didn't know what to do because I had teenage gossip on one had and media coverage on the other telling us that he was a right-wing nutso.

I'm upset there was a lack of transparency. Being transparent doesn't mean you give the student's names or even grades. Being transparent means you send a notification to the school community that an allegation of X, Y, Z happened on this date and appropriate action is being taken.

The latest FOIA release shows that the superintendent notified the SB the afternoon the rape allegation was made about what happened. The lies, half truths, and technicalities need to stop. It's just making everything worse. At this point, I have flipped and DO think that the superintendent and SB members need to go.

I agree. When asked the question he should have said that Title IX would not allow him to answer the question instead of leading everyone to believe it never happened. This reminds me of a Title IX incident years ago at JMU: https://www.breezejmu.org/news/jmu-faces-title-ix-lawsuit/article_343eb2b6-cd9d-11e4-a937-d79eaab8b6de.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The attempts to downplay and cover up this event - - from the principal, the school board, parents who tried to get Mr. Smith to shut up at the meeting, the media, even the moderator of this very website - - is astounding.

Or, look at it from this point...

The SB tried to silence Mr. Smith because they had received NO record of any assaults taking place. Why? Because the school had yet to investigate. Why? Because the school investigation can only take place AFTER the police investigation. Why? So as not to taint any evidence or cause any issues for the police & prosecutors in the case.

To the SB, a man shouting about his DD being raped by a boy in a skirt looks like just another angry anti-trans parent. And that's exactly the narrative that was taken and portrayed in the news. Had Loudoun not have had loads of anti-trans bigots bussed in for each SB meeting, maybe the outcome would have been different. Maybe when an angry parent started shouting at the meeting, the SB could have made inquiries instead of just writing him off as a nutso. But no, you had a rightfully angry parent shouting about a "boy in a skirt" among hundreds of other anti-trans and pro-trans parents (most of whom had NO kids in LCPS).

I think the laws/rules should be changed so that as soon as an accusation is made by one student against another, the SB and Superintendent are notified along with the parents who have other kids at that school. I understand why no school investigation can take place until after the police have concluded theirs, but at the very least, notification needs to happen ASAP.

When my one kid, who was back to in-person schooling in May 2020, told me what happened that day, he said that a girl had been raped a bathroom. I asked where he heard that. He said so-and-so told me. I told him not to believe teenage gossip because the notification from the principal stated that it was an incident between a parent and school staff that caused the SRO to call in additional support units. Things died down. When Mr. Smith was arrested, my son saw it on the news later and said, "that's ____ dad. You know, the girl who was raped." I still didn't believe a rape had occurred until he told me that and I watched a video on Twitter of what Mr. Smith had been saying... and at that point, school was over for LCPS. I didn't know what to do because I had teenage gossip on one had and media coverage on the other telling us that he was a right-wing nutso.

I'm upset there was a lack of transparency. Being transparent doesn't mean you give the student's names or even grades. Being transparent means you send a notification to the school community that an allegation of X, Y, Z happened on this date and appropriate action is being taken.

The latest FOIA release shows that the superintendent notified the SB the afternoon the rape allegation was made about what happened. The lies, half truths, and technicalities need to stop. It's just making everything worse. At this point, I have flipped and DO think that the superintendent and SB members need to go.

Wow, way to blame the victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only person who did anything wrong here was the perpetrator and Betsy Davos for changing the Title IX regulations. The conservative mob fails again.

Bullshit. Even this rapist deserves due process. The people in wrong are the rapist, the school for transferring the offending student without any heads up to the next school thus allowing him to prey on another student and the SB for flat out lying about this attack when asked at the June meeting if there had been any history of bathroom attacks. [/quote

No one knows if the new school had a heads up. They could not send a student to a new school and announce to the student body that this new kid has been accused of rape, but we don't know anything other than the police and courts are invovled. I would hope the admin at the new school new and that they put in place some protection. Obviously not enough, but that was their responsibility.

The DeVos regs did make it impossible for LCPS to do anything more then send the student to another regular high school during the process, which likely won't be completed for several more months. The process is slow and cumbersome as designed by the us dept of ed. The boy seems to be detained so LCPS does not have that problem now, but the regs tied the system's hands, as did the police by telling the school they were not allowed to do any investigating, and led to his placement at school #2..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The attempts to downplay and cover up this event - - from the principal, the school board, parents who tried to get Mr. Smith to shut up at the meeting, the media, even the moderator of this very website - - is astounding.

Or, look at it from this point...

The SB tried to silence Mr. Smith because they had received NO record of any assaults taking place. Why? Because the school had yet to investigate. Why? Because the school investigation can only take place AFTER the police investigation. Why? So as not to taint any evidence or cause any issues for the police & prosecutors in the case.

To the SB, a man shouting about his DD being raped by a boy in a skirt looks like just another angry anti-trans parent. And that's exactly the narrative that was taken and portrayed in the news. Had Loudoun not have had loads of anti-trans bigots bussed in for each SB meeting, maybe the outcome would have been different. Maybe when an angry parent started shouting at the meeting, the SB could have made inquiries instead of just writing him off as a nutso. But no, you had a rightfully angry parent shouting about a "boy in a skirt" among hundreds of other anti-trans and pro-trans parents (most of whom had NO kids in LCPS).

I think the laws/rules should be changed so that as soon as an accusation is made by one student against another, the SB and Superintendent are notified along with the parents who have other kids at that school. I understand why no school investigation can take place until after the police have concluded theirs, but at the very least, notification needs to happen ASAP.

When my one kid, who was back to in-person schooling in May 2020, told me what happened that day, he said that a girl had been raped a bathroom. I asked where he heard that. He said so-and-so told me. I told him not to believe teenage gossip because the notification from the principal stated that it was an incident between a parent and school staff that caused the SRO to call in additional support units. Things died down. When Mr. Smith was arrested, my son saw it on the news later and said, "that's ____ dad. You know, the girl who was raped." I still didn't believe a rape had occurred until he told me that and I watched a video on Twitter of what Mr. Smith had been saying... and at that point, school was over for LCPS. I didn't know what to do because I had teenage gossip on one had and media coverage on the other telling us that he was a right-wing nutso.

I'm upset there was a lack of transparency. Being transparent doesn't mean you give the student's names or even grades. Being transparent means you send a notification to the school community that an allegation of X, Y, Z happened on this date and appropriate action is being taken.

The latest FOIA release shows that the superintendent notified the SB the afternoon the rape allegation was made about what happened. The lies, half truths, and technicalities need to stop. It's just making everything worse. At this point, I have flipped and DO think that the superintendent and SB members need to go.

Wow, way to blame the victim.

This post doesn’t in any way blame the victim. You’re just responding that to any post that actually tries to put all of this together in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So based on the evidence it sounds like the school board and superintendent should be held responsible for relocating this student. But trying to make it a transgender issue sounds like an attempt to influence the upcoming governor election.

Correct.

And the victim met the boy in the bathroom for consensual sex on previous occasions so it wasn’t about the skirt or transgender issue at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So based on the evidence it sounds like the school board and superintendent should be held responsible for relocating this student. But trying to make it a transgender issue sounds like an attempt to influence the upcoming governor election.

Correct.

And the victim met the boy in the bathroom for consensual sex on previous occasions so it wasn’t about the skirt or transgender issue at all.

The reality is that fact did complicate things. It’s a complicating factor. Understandably school admin were unsure what truly happened given the context and the he said she said (common in rape cases) and it wasn’t their job to find out- that was LCSO and the state’s job. Luckily both received due process so that his guilty charge can’t be thrown out on some technicality. I hope the girl can receive help and peace. Unfortunately given her parents very visible presence in the media plenty of people know who she is and her privacy isn’t well protected. I find that really terrible for her. She’s a child and now lots of people know what happened to her because her identity was compromised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So based on the evidence it sounds like the school board and superintendent should be held responsible for relocating this student. But trying to make it a transgender issue sounds like an attempt to influence the upcoming governor election.

The point is because the kid wore skirts, the administration perceived him as potentially transgender, which seems to be why they lied.

No

I'm sorry, can we at least admit if it was a teenager not wearing a skirt (and especially if he were Black) this would have been handled very differently top to bottom.

I can’t agree. I think it was handled at the school level how it was due to the students’ prior consensual sex in the bathrooms (meaning, school couldn’t immediately know this wasn’t another consensual encounter) and it was handled by the district because a) title ix regulations, b) policy on not compromising LCSO investigation and c) protecting the privacy of minors and allowing due process. LCPS had to pass policy 8040 no matter what, it was a state mandate. It would have been passed if the student was wearing a skirt or not. The procedures here failed : the students should have been on home bound/virtual and not in another building until he was found guilty or not guilty. But otherwise I don’t think things would have been different absent some skirt.

Title IX does not allow that. They would have been in direct violation of the federal regulation. The regulation needs to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So based on the evidence it sounds like the school board and superintendent should be held responsible for relocating this student. But trying to make it a transgender issue sounds like an attempt to influence the upcoming governor election.

The point is because the kid wore skirts, the administration perceived him as potentially transgender, which seems to be why they lied.

No

I'm sorry, can we at least admit if it was a teenager not wearing a skirt (and especially if he were Black) this would have been handled very differently top to bottom.

I can’t agree. I think it was handled at the school level how it was due to the students’ prior consensual sex in the bathrooms (meaning, school couldn’t immediately know this wasn’t another consensual encounter) and it was handled by the district because a) title ix regulations, b) policy on not compromising LCSO investigation and c) protecting the privacy of minors and allowing due process. LCPS had to pass policy 8040 no matter what, it was a state mandate. It would have been passed if the student was wearing a skirt or not. The procedures here failed : the students should have been on home bound/virtual and not in another building until he was found guilty or not guilty. But otherwise I don’t think things would have been different absent some skirt.

Title IX does not allow that. They would have been in direct violation of the federal regulation. The regulation needs to change.

I see. Then yes. ziegler is correct in stating their hands were bound by title IX and that particular procedure needs revision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ziegler was asked if their had been any transgender bathroom attacks and he said no because there hasn’t been (and still haven’t been.) The boy in question is not transgender. Words matter. The question was specific.

Words do matter, but you're wrong on the qualifiers. There were none....the school board member asked.... "...Do we have assaults, in our bathrooms, in our locker rooms?...." And he replied "...To my knowledge, we do not have any records of assaults occurring in our restrooms..."

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-...inia-high-schools/2831314/?amp

[Anonymous]

Title IX does not allow that. They would have been in direct violation of the federal regulation. The regulation needs to change.


I see. Then yes. ziegler is correct in stating their hands were bound by title IX and that particular procedure needs revision.

I believe the question to Zeigler was were there any reports of sexual assaults in the bathrooms. His answer was "no." He could have said that there is currently one report under investigation.

Also, by this time, the prosecution could have gone forward. There was enough evidence to keep him out of the next school. The prosecutor knew this, but went forward with the prosecution of the dad who was arrested in June--asking for jail time. Even though she knew the circumstances.

Certainly, by the time school started, the boy could have been kept out of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Title IX does not allow that. They would have been in direct violation of the federal regulation. The regulation needs to change.


I see. Then yes. ziegler is correct in stating their hands were bound by title IX and that particular procedure needs revision.

I believe the question to Zeigler was were there any reports of sexual assaults in the bathrooms. His answer was "no." He could have said that there is currently one report under investigation.

Also, by this time, the prosecution could have gone forward. There was enough evidence to keep him out of the next school. The prosecutor knew this, but went forward with the prosecution of the dad who was arrested in June--asking for jail time. Even though she knew the circumstances.

Certainly, by the time school started, the boy could have been kept out of school.

Actually no, if the school could not investigate and go through the Title IX process. There is a conflict in that Virginia Code woudl allow for the removal to an smaller setting if there was a charge, but the federal regulations trump the Code, so the schools have to follow the regulation. A student cannot be disciplined, to include suspension or assignment to an alternaitve school or expulsion, until the entire Title IX process is complete. This is a major, but not the only, problem with the regulation. Assigning the student to another school seems like it can be done, but that is it. My guess is even that will be litigated at some point on another case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So based on the evidence it sounds like the school board and superintendent should be held responsible for relocating this student. But trying to make it a transgender issue sounds like an attempt to influence the upcoming governor election.

Correct.

And the victim met the boy in the bathroom for consensual sex on previous occasions so it wasn’t about the skirt or transgender issue at all.

Correct.