NOW Rebuttal
Last week, the California chapter of the National Organization for Women sent a letter to USC that accused the university of ignoring ``gender-based crimes'' and also claimed the crimes were ``swept under the rug by local law enforcement.''
A particularly inflammatory part of the letter said, ``In most cases, alumni lawyers have cleared players of crimes, with help of friends in the DA’s office.''
That was a not-so-subtle shot lofted at attorney Carmen Trutanich, who represented USC football players Hershel Dennis, Eric Wright and Rey Maualuga, but does not represent Mark Sanchez, who was arrested last month on suspicion of sexual assault.
Trutanich responded to NOW's statement: ``There's absolutely no truth to what they are even insinuating. This is trial by innuendo and allegation. Do they want to do away with the judicial system and have trial by angry woman?
``Are we going to do away with the judicial system? Rape is serious allegation and should be taken serious by all sides. We should sit back and let judicial system run its course. The facts are the facts. The police are not biased and neither does the district attorney. They want to push the district attorney. Justice is blind.''
It is interesting to hear that NOW has anointed itself judge and jury on these matters. NOW's position seems to be if it is alleged - it is true. Not so.
If you read the NOW letter in full, and if you read the letter that the crazy, topless prof Dr. Blaine wrote last year regarding the Eric Wright incident (go to either the Cardinal Martini website or Doc Blaine's personal site), you will find an uncanny similarity of language and accusations. With Dr. Blaine being in the news (and if you read her website it is a position she clearly relishes), methinks Doc Blaine's fingerprints are all over that letter.
Scott:
Glad to see that someone followed up on that letter (I'm assuming that it was you) and questioned motive and intent. Guess NOW wasn't returning phone calls. Glad Trutanich called them out.
Political reporters are used to seeing this stuff, and they usually understand the sub-text of these letter, "studies", press conferences, etc., and they know what follow-up questions to ask, who to call, etc., though, of course, they don't always do so because many maybe sympathietic to one side or another.
I think that NOW hoped that sportswriters would simply cover their letter free of any subtext, which is what happened with the LAT (not sure if Klein didn't know what to ask, if the staff writer who shared a byline and/or, most likely, editor overseeing the story was sympathetic to NOW: with the LAT always question who is writing what and who is the reporter's editor), and which is also ironic because post-modern feminist theory is all about subtext (in fact, text is almost completely irrelevant, for many post-modern thinkers).
Sorry, am I getting too theoretical for this board?
Anyway, this blog is great in that actual reporting is done here.