Thanks for the polite reply.
by austindomer (2018-03-10 02:25:55)

In reply to: I think you miss the point or don't understand what  posted by jt


"Scienter" means that a person has prior intent or knowledge of wrongdoing, criminal or otherwise. I simply don't think such knowledge on the part of JS is A) easily proven, therefore making it a slam-dunk case where ND should automatically treat him like a pariah*, or B) knowable by anyone on this board.

My point is that there's no evidence (as of now) that Swarbrick had knowledge of the abuse. I neither think it likely that it could be proven in court that the sexual assault policy Jack crafted for the USAG was done with the INTENT to allow Nassar to operate with impunity (NB: I haven't read the policy; I'm making a reasonable assumption of basic competence here). The reason I made my initial post was because it seems like some folks are already assuming Jack is a terrible human being who enabled a pedophile, when it's not at all clear how much he actually knew. Perhaps I'm wrong to assume this, but that's my impression.

*With regard to your final point about how bad this looks for the man professionally and his employer...I completely agree. And for that reason, plus the near 100% chance of a very public lawsuit with a potentially embarrassing discovery process, I think that his days at ND are numbered.


Replies: