This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

You'll notice I didn't come to any conclusions in my post. by harmonica

But it greatly aggrieves me if your response is commonplace among Notre Dame alumni.

To me at least, the core questions are What did Swarbrick know? and What did he do in response to that knowledge?

This man was the head lawyer for - at the bare minimum - an abhorrently negligent institution that allowed the molestation of (conservatively) dozens of young women. He consulted with the leaders of this institution on how to handle sexual misconduct. He seemingly wrote their policy on it. He was aware of sexual misconduct as a major issue.

None of these facts makes him inherently guilty, but they make it necessary to answer those core questions. And they certainly make him more central than the accountants - a comparison that leads me to question the faith in which you are approaching this topic. And as far as I've seen, no one has said to fire him (for this issue) based on the facts as we know them.

As for your points:

1) This makes me question your grasp of the facts of this issue. "How to Keep Your Children Safe" isn't a book "directly attributed to him." It's included to show that he wrote the code of ethics on sexual misconduct. I don't understand how that shows he was "actually trying to get tougher about abuse."

2) It appears to me that Swarbrick is lauding the misconduct procedure employed by USA Gymnastics in 1998. Do you think USA Gymnastics had an effective misconduct procedure in 1998?

3) I agree that this action does not necessarily reflect poorly on Swarbrick, but it shows how involved he was in the sexual misconduct policies of USA Gymnastics. This may help to answer the What did he know? question.

4) Again, I'm not sure that Swarbrick trying to prevent a "grave threat to the organization" indicates that he was "trying to get tougher on abuse." Nothing that occurred after the conversation between Swarbrick and Wielgus provides evidence that USA Swimming made circumstances better for victims.

I'm trying to be careful to leap to judgments, but to look at these facts in tandem with what we know about the history of USA Gymnastics and conclude that Swarbrick was trying to get tougher on abuse does not compute for me. It looks like an institution trying to protect itself.