RSS
Home › Columns › Guest Columns
Coach Tommy Bowden's silence a concern
STORY TOOLS
Share and Enjoy
More Guest Columns
- On My Mind: Blinded by the Light
- On My Mind: The toll of Clemson's coaching change
- Guest column: An indomitable spirit will live on
Rate this Article
In 2005 Clemson University head Football coach Tommy Bowden graciously agreed to act as a spokesperson for the first ever statewide public awareness campaign on domestic violence in South Carolina.
“There is No Excuse for Domestic Abuse”, a project of The South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Assault, was generously supported by Verizon Wireless. Coach Bowden joined with University of South Carolina head coach Steve Spurrier and South Carolina State head coach Buddy Pough to send a powerful message denouncing domestic violence in all its dreadful forms.
Coach Bowden’s face appeared on billboards and signs across South Carolina, and in numerous commercials that were run during prime football viewing time-slots. The campaign was intended to reach out to men and boys with the message that there is indeed “no excuse for domestic abuse.”
On June 21, Clemson University linebacker DeAndre McDaniel was arrested after his girlfriend accused him of choking and punching her, then pushing her down a flight of stairs. McDaniel was charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and was accepted into a pretrial intervention program on Friday, Aug. 21.
It was reported in The State newspaper on Thursday, Aug. 28, that Clemson University president James Barker and athletics director Terry Don Phillips have signed off on a recommendation by Clemson’s head football coach Tommy Bowden not to suspend McDaniel. Coach Bowden has deferred to the university’s statement for comments about the situation.
SCCADVASA is genuinely dismayed and disappointed that Coach Bowden has not responded publicly to bring attention to the inexcusable crime of domestic violence, especially considering his involvement as a spokesperson for the “There is No Excuse” campaign. While SCCADVASA understands the need for diplomacy and a careful examination of the facts before reacting to such a situation, it appears that Coach Bowden and Clemson University have missed a perfect opportunity to address the unacceptable, violent and illegal behavior that accompanies abuse of a partner or loved one.
We expected Coach Bowden to take a more visible and vocal stance in opposition to violence against women in connection with the McDaniel case, reinforcing his message that such violence cannot and will not be tolerated.
According to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, more incidences of interpersonal violence were reported among 16- to 24-year-olds in 2007 than any other age group. In that same year, South Carolina ranked seventh in the nation for the number of women killed by men.
These statistics reveal the need for strong role models to stand up and speak out against interpersonal violence. By their silence, Coach Bowden and Clemson University may have reinforced the widely held view that athletes who perform well are excused from unacceptable, and in this case, criminal behavior. The key to ending domestic violence is to involve the entire community in efforts to educate and raise awareness.
Our hope is that Coach Bowden will address the behavior of DeAndre McDaniel in a way that reflects the message of the public awareness campaign he so valiantly championed — regardless of how well Mr. McDaniel performs on the field.
Rebecca Wiilliams is the communications coordinator and Vicki Bourus the executive director of the South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.
Comments
There are 11 responses to this article.
Comments are meant to offer our readers a forum for thoughtful, robust debate about local issues.
Comments are moderated, but you may find the content of the conversations offensive, objectionable or factually disputable.
IndependentMail.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post or respond to every suggestion for a comment to be removed.
Before you post, consider this:
Please read our official user-contributions policy.
"Our hope is that Coach Bowden will address the behavior of DeAndre McDaniel..."
What behavior is being referred to?
"By their silence, Coach Bowden and Clemson University may have reinforced the widely held view that athletes who perform well are excused from unacceptable, and in this case, criminal behavior."
Operative phrase: "may have"
I understand that you stopped just as short as you possibly could have from coming right out and saying that McDaniel is guilty, but the implications, innuendo, whatever you want to call it from your article are clear.
Two things I would like to submit:
First, and this is directly from South Carolina statute, anyone admitted to Pretrial Intervention presumably "has [had] no significant history of prior delinquency or criminal activity."
Furthermore, it has been stated and documented in numerous articles and elsewhere that McDaniel has had no prior instances of disciplinary problems.
I, for one, do not think that you can state, conclusively and fairly, that McDaniel is guilty of anything related to the complaint that was filed against him. Furthermore, I firmly believe that it is an even further stretch to assume that Bowden has not responded appropriately. Lastly, I find the scant, and some times altogether absent, participation by the complainant to be very curious--never mind the fact that she agreed to the method of disposition for the case.
Given the obscurity of the circumstances, it might just be that the incident was resolved as judiciously as it should have been.
I could not agree more! It's time to see Tommy Bowden put some action behind “There is No Excuse for Domestic Abuse” project that he was apart of. It's time for Clemson and Tommy Bowden to end their Silence.
She said he did....he said he didn't. Which do you believe? There were witnesses that say both ways as well. So which do you believe?
How many of you out there would be willing to bet your freedom in this case that a jury would find in your favor on your word and the word of your witnesses? Not only would you lose your freedom....you'd have a felony conviction on your record. Want to take that chance? As for me.....I take the deal! PTI is much better than a prison cell and a felony conviction.
I could not agree more! It's time to see Tommy Bowden put some action behind “There is No Excuse for Domestic Abuse” project that he was apart of. It's time for Clemson and Tommy Bowden to end their Silence.
When football supercede the rights and safety of students, something is very wrong. My daughter did her graduate work at Clemson. I would now think twice about her attending Clemson based on the administration's actions in this case. How can a university error on the side that seems to promote domestic violence. When did football become so important??
It's pretty obvious just how committed Tommy Bowden was to his campaign message against domestic violence. To let this young man play football in the light of the charges against him is insulting to victims. But, of course, Bowden and Clemson need to win games. Compromise your values for football - what a great message that is for youth.
in response to stanggt5pt0
Stanggt5pt0,
Thanks for expressing your thoughts respectfully and coherently. My response will be in two parts, owing to limits on the length of posts.
(1) When it comes to "McDaniel's behavior," are you being willfully obtuse? I think we both know that the behavior the authors are referring to is the alleged assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature for which he was charged.
(2) The operative phrase, "may have," is no doubt being used because the authors aren't willing to make a bald assertion that condoning McDaniel's alleged actions is shoring up the notion that athletes get a pass if they perform well on the field. If they said "does reinforce" rather than "may have reinforced," then they run the risk of getting blasted all the worse for making an unqualified statement that technically can't be proven. By using "may have," I think the authors rightfully suggested that Bowden's action (or inaction) will likely, but not absolutely, make people think that a successful athlete can get away with unacceptable or criminal behavior.
(3) I am not an attorney. Having acknowledged that, I must say that if one reads SC state law on pre-trial intervention (S.C. Code Title 17 Chapter 22) it is not explicitly stated whether such individuals participating in approved PTI programs have thereby been deemed guilty of the law that was supposedly broken, as one is found guilty in a trial; however, individuals admitted to a PTI program must make restitution to the victim of the "crime" (as stated in the code), if any victim is to be found, and satisfy any additional criteria of the PTI program as approved by a solicitor or judge. McDaniel is, per a previous Independent-Mail article, being required to make restitution to the victim (in the form of paying medical bills) for the incident in June and also a previous incident in February for which charges were not filed. Taking all of this into account, the authors of the column wouldn't seem to be wholly out of bounds even if some of their statements did lead one to believe that McDaniel might have committed the crime in question. Don't you think?
in response to stanggt5pt0
(4) Yes, it would appear that McDaniel has no record of previous disciplinary problems or criminal offenses; however, I don't see the point in mentioning this. While having no previous record might make some think that McDaniel didn't do anything wrong this time, I think the solicitor would not proffer PTI as an option unless the accuracy of a fair number of the victim's claims could be verified. Admittedly, I don't know all the facts since I was not part of the investigation, but the fact that McDaniel has no previous record proves nothing in particular for the purposes of your argument.
(5) I think the authors of the column expected Bowden to respond differently in this situation primarily on the basis of his past participation in the "There Is No Excuse" domestic violence awareness campaign (www.thereisnoexcuse.org). Given his past public statements on domestic abuse, it seems reasonable to expect Bowden to reaffirm that such behavior is not acceptable. McDaniel's arrest and charges presented an opportunity for Bowden to speak up, and he didn't.
(6) You find the "scant" participation of the victim to be curious. What do you mean by "scant, and sometimes altogether absent, participation?" Even if a (hypothetical) victim is, say, reluctant at times to proceed in an investigation like this, why might that be? Fear? A counterintuitive but wholly felt attachment to the defendant, despite having possibly been at the receiving end of abuse? In this (hypothetical) scenario, any number of reasons might account for a victim's (or, as you put it, "complainant's") behavior.
Ultimately, I think that the authors are fair to expect Bowden to "make good" on his published remarks that he made during the "There Is No Excuse" campaign; that is to say, I think it's fair to expect Bowden to be vocal that domestic abuse or violence against women cannot and will not be tolerated.
Dear Rhetoricus:
To sum up my point:
No way, no how, can anyone, given the facts that have been released, make an accurate assesment as to the quality of the disposition and the reaction of those surrounding the case...period.
My conclusion was based on the following premise, which was an extension of what the author of the article was writing: the author wanted Bowden to use the incident to speak out against domestic violence. I will cede the point that Bowden could have made a blanket statement that he and the university do not condone domestic violence. However, given the statements of the author, it does not seem that this would have been sufficient--especially given the passage where it discusses that being an athlete gives you a pass. My response to this is simple: what if he is not guilty?
That is why I structured my comments as I did: what if he is not guilty? At this point, I refer back to my previous comments about the lack of facts that have been released, but I will also add to this point by including a fact that the author agrees with: the facts appear to be contradictory--one thing says this, one thing says that; one person says this, one person says that. That illustrates my statement on the obscurity of the facts.
Now, to take it a step further and address the disposition of the case. Suppose he is, in fact, not guilty, yet he is suffereing some kind of punishment. Can you consider PTI or any other form of punishment judicious? On the other hand, suppose that he is guilty of something, just not something of the severity of the felony that he was alleged to have committed. Would PTI then be judicious? My opinion yes. That is why I condlude by saying that maybe, just maybe, things were handled as they should have been.
Now comes the importance of his record. In the sentencing phase of cases, records and character assesments are critical. This is apparently a young man who has played by the rules and finds himself in an unfortunate situation--he would not be the first. This is apparently a young man who deserves the benefit of the doubt, hence the importance of his past behavior.
Now to address your points one-at-a-time:
1) I was not being "wilfully obtuse" in asking about McDaniel's behavior. I'm just curious what it is that he did. Can you answer that question? This brings me back to the questions that I have surrounding the facts of the case: what exactly is the truth of the alleged incident? Furthermore, as I alluded to earlier, what if there is no behavior to admonish?
2) I understand and agree. That's why I said what I said the first time.
3) The authors are out of bounds if their intent is to convince people, even without expressly writing so, that McDaniel is guilty. Just look at everything else I have said: what if he is not quilty?
4) See my earlier statements concerning McDaniel's record.
5) I understand this point--see my earlier statements.
6) I understand your point here. However, one additional fact that raised a flag for me is that the victim lawyered-up. A victim has no reason to request the assistance of an attorney--they're a victim. They aren't the ones being accused of any wrong-doing, and should have no need for help in protecting themselves from anything through the use of an attorney. They're attorney, in matters like this, is the solicitor.
Hopefully, I have provided insight as to why I believe that you cannot treat the case as open and shut. Nor, do I believe that you should use the case as a launching pad, the implications of which would conclude that McDaniel is guilty.
Now, having bloviated on all of this, let me say this: where a crime has been committed--no matter the crime, no matter the offender--the guilty party needs to be prosecuted, with due respect to the offense and the offender's history.
Allow me to add one comment that might clear up some water that would understandably be muddied:
I asked the question: what if he is not guilty?
To some, PTI might be seen as an admission of guilt. However, I contend that PTI might have been the most efficient way for McDaniel to dispose of the charges against him. What does he have to lose? Resolution is brought to the situation, the charges are expunged from his record, and he gets to focus on moving forward with his life. It might have been explained to him that drawing it out with a trial, etc., would have been more costly to him in terms of money, school, football, and whatever else he has going on in his life.
To sum everything up another way: it cannot be said that McDaniel is guilty. Based on this, it also cannot be said, fairly, that Bowden should have exploited McDaniel's situation, at McDaniel's expense, to illustrate that domestic violence is a problem.
Now, I don't know what Bowden has done as a spokesperson, or THE spokesperson, against domestic violence, but I do know that Bowden doesn't need an incident to perform in the role as spokesperson--he simply needs to speak. So, if Bowden has not been doing that sufficiently, that's a whole other issue altogether.
(Requires free registration.)