College wrestling coach battles publicly on behalf of accused son
Story here. Excerpt:
'In the aftermath of a sexual assault accusation against his son Corey, [University of] North Carolina [at Chapel Hill] head wrestling coach C.D. Mock created a website to discredit the accuser and speak out against the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga’s [link added] actions.
A disclaimer on the website — coreymock.net — says it’s run by Barbara Mock, C.D. Mock’s mother and Corey Mock’s grandmother, but the writing is done from C.D. Mock’s perspective throughout.
In the ‘About’ section of the website, Mock writes that he is using the website as a vehicle not to defend his son’s actions, but as a way to inform other parents about the ‘danger’ of the so-called hookup culture on college campuses and what he calls the aggressive nature of women.
...
“If a woman accuses you of sexual assault at a univeristy(sic), you will immediately be removed from the campus prior to any investigation or determination of guilt. YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN COLLEGE. The University or College will do everything in its power to prosecute you and kick you out of school regardless of the evidence and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, and they know it. You can sue the school and the alleged victim as we are doing, but the minimum cost to sue is $50,000 and the NCAA isn’t going to give you your year back if you win.”
...
When Corey, who began his wrestling career at UNC, was accused in spring 2014, he was indefinitely suspended from the wrestling team.
UTC used a campus judicial officer, also a full time accounting professor with a law degree, to evaluate the case. In the first hearing, Corey was found not responsible by the campus judicial officer. But a week after the university and accuser petitioned the officer to reconsider the ruling, the decision was reversed.
Corey was expelled from the university after the second finding, but was granted a stay by the campus judicial officer and allowed to attend classes while UTC Chancellor Steven Angle reviewed the case.
On Dec. 6, the day after the university received notice of a Title IX complaint from the accuser for the handling of the case, Angle concluded his review and upheld the expulsion.
Criminal charges were never filed in the case.
The story of the sexual assault accusation was elevated to national attention when Vice Magazine published an article on the case on Dec. 15.
It was that article that spurred the creation of Mock’s website to speak out against the university’s handling of the case.
In subsequent posts on his website, Mock writes that Chattanooga’s consent policy, ‘yes means yes,’ is unrealistic.
“Let’s all acknowledge this ‘yes means yes’ idea sucks,” he writes. “The idea that college kids are going to whip out cell phones and record their partner saying ‘yes’ just before sex is just stupid. It’s only a matter of time before guys figure this out and just start arguing that ‘the girl said yes,’ even if she didn’t. Now what? Now we just assume all men are lying? It’s a totally stupid idea and it will never last and until it changes many more of us will be the carnage of “falsely accused”.”'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
To state he's 'not defending...' isn't necessary
After reading the article, I don't even know why he's saying on his blog site: "I am not writing this to defend my son; the truth is, no one really cares - that’s life." Really, that statement perplexes me. First, everywhere else, he sounds like he doesn't think his son is guilty of anything. Second, it seems neither did the UNC hearing officer until pressure got put on him by his bosses to throw the kid under the bus, which it seems he did. (Can't beat those cushy jobs in academe, what with their banker's hours and oodles of bennies the likes of which few others see -- pension, full medical and dental, great 401(k), etc. Who'd want to stand up for a defenseless kid and lose his job and trade all that in? Heck, decision's a no-brainer!)
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what he's written, though; maybe it's just to say, "This isn't about defending my son; he didn't do anything requiring a defense. It's about him being railroaded without recourse." That'd be a lot clearer a statement to me.
But he is also wrong about the "no one cares" line. Definitely wrong. There are literally hundreds of thousands (who knows, can we say millions? -- hmm, maybe!) of MRAs and people sympathetic to those getting man-trapped by unis who do indeed care.