Massimo LaRosa

[Doug Elliott]

...is in the news.

[greenbean]

And very much related to the time he was in the news last year...

[Burgerbob]

About damn time.

[Schlitz]

Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped.......

[BGuttman]

Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped.......

Is that what they are claiming he did? I'm especially concerned about the cattle raping

I'm waiting for the details. Innocent until at least credibly charged.

[SwissTbone]

[/quote]
Innocent until at least credibly charged.
[/quote]

[Slideorama]

Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped.......

The Cleveland SO must have good reason to put La Rosa on “administrative leave”, right? Surely it is not just a PR move to wait till the dust settles.

He could always move into politics, perhaps end up as a Supreme Court Judge...

On a serious note, cattle raping is no joke. Dairy is scary.

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsa ... shock-you/

[GabrielRice]

Details of one incident are accounted here: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... professors

Scroll down a bit.

[chromebone]

With all due respect, this is not a laughing matter. Rape jokes are simply beyond the pale in this situation, or any situation for that matter, even if it’s about cattle. The charges are serious and none of us are in a position to know the full story. The victims don’t always want to press charges because of fear of retribution, humiliation or jokes on the internet at their expense. Even if this gets resolved in his favor and he is able to return to work, it’s nothing to laugh at, for the sake of all of the parties involved and our own self respect.

[Davetall]

One victim went public last year, giving her name and details of her attack. I understand that La Rosa is permanently banned from the campus where this attack took place.

[JohnL]

I don't see a link to a report regarding the current situation, so here it is:
https://fox8.com/2018/09/15/cleveland-o ... o-la-rosa/

I expect this thread will likely get locked down pretty soon. There's a discussion that needs to take place, but this may not be the place for it.

[robcat2075]

I go to a festival that is run by a Cleveland Orchestra player who, on the one hand, is quite the social justice proponent but, on the other hand, has spoken enthusiastically to me his friendship with Massimo LaRosa. I will be curious to see how that plays out.

One victim went public last year, giving her name and details of her attack. I understand that La Rosa is permanently banned from the campus where this attack took place.

I dimly recall that the "banned from the campus" aspect was not substantiated. I've only seen it in an anonymous comment on slippedisc. Can anyone find any on-the-record reporting about it?

There is a long paper trail of La Rosa's libel/slander lawsuit against Abbe Conant and Jonathan Allen online but a subscription is required to read the various installments.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... llen_et_al

The number of court filings suggests a lot of expensive attorney bills on both sides. I count nine attorneys involved. Ouch.

Judging from the brief summaries, the case has been dismissed "after extensive negotiation" but there is little clue about what was agreed to.

"After extensive negotiations, the parties have reached a resolution of all matters of dispute. Parties shall execute the final settlement agreements within 14 days of today's date..."

Something had to be "execute[d]" after that court meeting. I'm going to guess someone had to pay someone money.

The press release from the Cleveland Orchestra quoted on Slippedisc implies this new allegation is separate from the U of Iowa story so it must be some new incident.

[Doug Elliott]

Concerning whether this thread will be locked...
As a moderator, I decided to post it to allow and encourage discussion. This should not get swept under the rug.
We'll see if the others agree.

[BGuttman]

If true, LaRosa should be censured, just as James Levine was. Genius is no excuse for boorish behavior.

[BassBoneFL]

No, this should not get swept under the rug. However I don't think this subject or anyone involved in it will benefit from hearsay or idle speculation. Most everyone here and even in the media is going off at best 3rd hand or worse information.

From a point of news, yes it's going on. But nobody benefits from a trial in the court of public opinion. Let the investigators, do their thing and let the process play out. If the charge is legitimate, he will pay. If not, all the bystanders hurling accusations could find themselves liable for a civil suit.

Even if he is exonerated, you can't "un-ring a bell", his name will be tarnished, and potential harm done to his family. No one benefits by us treating this unfortunate situation, either way, as anything other than a news item and moving on. Let the process play out and limit speculation.

[Davetall]

Thanks for the clarification concerning the campus ban. I don’t want to spread false information.

[JohnL]

Concerning whether this thread will be locked...
As a moderator, I decided to post it to allow and encourage discussion. This should not get swept under the rug.

Perhaps a more general discussion rather than a specific case? Even at that, I fear it may be too volatile.

You've got two separate but inextricably related issues here. The simpler one is whether what was done was within the realm of acceptable behavior. I think the vast majority of people can agree on what is or is not OK in the vast majority of situations. But that leads us to the much thornier question of guilt or innocence. Sure, we agree that the alleged act is unacceptable (possibly criminal), but we can't seem to agree on a standard of proof. Sure, if they haul someone into court and there's a verdict (criminal or civil) against them, that's pretty clear (please, let's not get off on a tangent about the legal system). But we don't always get that. We get confidential, out-of-court settlements. Investigations wither away as the accuser tries to move on. As Harold mention, cases get tried in the court of public opinion.

If true, LaRosa should be censured, just as James Levine was. Genius is no excuse for boorish behavior.

Would that it were merely boorish.

[LeTromboniste]

If the charge is legitimate, he will pay.

Except that has been proven wrong time and time again. Sexual abuse accusations very rarely lead to prosecution, let alone conviction.

[BGuttman]

One of the thorny issues of sexual misconduct is that it becomes difficult to determine who is really "at fault". Was it the man imposing himself of the woman who did not want the attention? Or was there a consensual act that woman decided was not consensual after the fact (or even worse as a form of revenge).

There are men who feel that all women are sexual objects to be exploited. There are women who feel that sex is something to be used as a form of extortion. Neither is to be admired or copied.

[Redthunder]

No, this should not get swept under the rug. However I don't think this subject or anyone involved in it will benefit from hearsay or idle speculation. Most everyone here and even in the media is going off at best 3rd hand or worse information.

From a point of news, yes it's going on. But nobody benefits from a trial in the court of public opinion. Let the investigators, do their thing and let the process play out. If the charge is legitimate, he will pay. If not, all the bystanders hurling accusations could find themselves liable for a civil suit.

Even if he is exonerated, you can't "un-ring a bell", his name will be tarnished, and potential harm done to his family. No one benefits by us treating this unfortunate situation, either way, as anything other than a news item and moving on. Let the process play out and limit speculation.

Sorry, but the whole "think of his reputation" argument is tattered and full of holes. When a highly visible member of our profession, and an educator, no less, is consistently the subject of rumors, accusations, and in this case a campus ban, we can and SHOULD discuss it openly and honestly. I reserve the right to "speculate" as you call it.

There's a reason there's so many "mandated reporter" laws on the books for educators, because of how often this "don't rock the boat" mentality prevails.

[Schlitz]

Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped.......

Is that what they are claiming he did? I'm especially concerned about the cattle raping

I'm waiting for the details. Innocent until at least credibly charged.

Nah, just a nice line from a Richard Pryor Western adventure in cinema... Now give the Governor a HRUMPFH.....

[robcat2075]

It is telling that La Rosa sued Conant/Allen for online comments but did not sue Colleen Flaherty or "Inside Higher Ed" for their online article of 2013 (which is pretty damning).

Why not both? I can only guess that there was some element of Conant/Allen's comments that was inaccurate enough to be deemed actionable by La Rosa's attorney and that there was not an actionable inaccuracy in Flaherty's.

[JasonDonnelly]

There are men who feel that all women are sexual objects to be exploited. There are women who feel that sex is something to be used as a form of extortion. Neither is to be admired or copied.

I hope that, in placing these two statements next to one another, you did not intend to imply that these two are equivalent problems.

Sexual assault in this country is an epidemic, especially within academic institutions. False claims of sexual assault are rare - numerous studies have proven this. However, the courts are also historically bad at convicting people of sexual assault.

For this reason, if something comes out into the public eye and accuses someone of sexual assault, I, with few exceptions, believe them wholeheartedly.

[Schlitz]

Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped.......

The Cleveland SO must have good reason to put La Rosa on “administrative leave”, right? Surely it is not just a PR move to wait till the dust settles.

It's far cheaper. Put him on leave for the duration of the year, particularly if he's up for contract renewal. Who's is his sub, a previous candidate?

Publish results and allow for the appeal takes you through the Fall and Winter. Set him to non-renewal, and make a claim on the liability insurance policy. That's done everyday at educational institutions everywhere.

Could he be innocent? Yes he could.

There was a case out here. It wasn't settled pretty, wasn't a music position. But the Dean, and accuser got fired.The HR that took the complaint got canned. And that one is claiming that a Trustee pressured her. The Trustee has left the board. It's been going on for 3 years.

And please stop calling me Shirley.....

[BassBoneFL]

…. I can only guess....

Exactly

[Redthunder]

Exactly

So we should all "trust the process" and not have a conversation about this?

[BassBoneFL]

No, this should not get swept under the rug. However I don't think this subject or anyone involved in it will benefit from hearsay or idle speculation. Most everyone here and even in the media is going off at best 3rd hand or worse information.

From a point of news, yes it's going on. But nobody benefits from a trial in the court of public opinion. Let the investigators, do their thing and let the process play out. If the charge is legitimate, he will pay. If not, all the bystanders hurling accusations could find themselves liable for a civil suit.

Even if he is exonerated, you can't "un-ring a bell", his name will be tarnished, and potential harm done to his family. No one benefits by us treating this unfortunate situation, either way, as anything other than a news item and moving on. Let the process play out and limit speculation.

Sorry, but the whole "think of his reputation" argument is tattered and full of holes. When a highly visible member of our profession, and an educator, no less, is consistently the subject of rumors, accusations, and in this case a campus ban, we can and SHOULD discuss it openly and honestly. I reserve the right to "speculate" as you call it.

There's a reason there's so many "mandated reporter" laws on the books for educators, because of how often this "don't rock the boat" mentality prevails.

I'm not saying "don't rock the boat". I am saying that you, I, or anyone here who has any business doing it. There has been a charge, and an investigation by an outside source has been started. That is where it should be left.

Yes he is highly visable, that does not mean he should be denied due process or "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Just because there has been "rumor and inuendo" does not mean it is true. Anyone can say anything about anyone. The more celebrated the individual, the more likely it is to spread and become percieved as "true" via repetition. Just because someone has "heard things" doesn't make it so.

[Redthunder]

I'm not saying "don't rock the boat". I am saying that you, I, or anyone here who has any business doing it. There has been a charge, and an investigation by an outside source has been started. That is where it should be left.

Yes he is highly visable, that does not mean he should be denied due process or "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Just because there has been "rumor and inuendo" does not mean it is true. Anyone can say anything about anyone. The more celebrated the individual, the more likely it is to spread and become percieved as "true" via repetition. Just because someone has "heard things" doesn't make it so.

Nothing about a discussion about investigations that are ongoing and written about in papers like the Washington Post denies him due process. I hardly the see the "rumor and innuendo".

[BassBoneFL]

Exactly

So we should all "trust the process" and not have a conversation about this?

Yes, especially an uninformed conversation when it involves and individual's life. If you want to have a general conversation about general issues of sexual harrasment or inequality in education or the workplace, fine. But as for idle speculation, rumor, or innuendo about an individual who may very well be innocent, then no. Unless any of us were in the room.....

[Redthunder]

Yes, especially an uninformed conversation when it involves and individual's life. If you want to have a general conversation about general issues of sexual harrasment or inequality in education or the workpalce, fine. But as for idle speculation, rumor, or innuendo about an individual who may very well be innocent, then no. Unless any of us were in the room.....

And how has that worked out for the dozens of individuals that ended up escaping any kind retribution when the "system" failed, often intentionally, for so many innocent victims of serial predators?

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean bury your head in the sand and play dumb.

[Schlitz]

Yes he is highly visable, that does not mean he should be denied due process or "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Just because there has been "rumor and inuendo" does not mean it is true. Anyone can say anything about anyone. The more celebrated the individual, the more likely it is to spread and become percieved as "true" via repetition. Just because someone has "heard things" doesn't make it so.

Except in the process, he's only going to be found not guilty, not innocent, if it's dismissed.

[BassBoneFL]

Yes, especially an uninformed conversation when it involves and individual's life. If you want to have a general conversation about general issues of sexual harrasment or inequality in education or the workpalce, fine. But as for idle speculation, rumor, or innuendo about an individual who may very well be innocent, then no. Unless any of us were in the room.....

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean bury your head in the sand and play dumb.

No, but it does mean unless you know for sure, don't trash anyone based on "well I heard".

[Redthunder]

No, but it does mean unless you know for sure, don't trash anyone based on "well I heard".

This isn't a water cooler story and this isn't teenage gossip. This is a serious issue that has affected many people, and this isn't new either. La Rosa has popped up time and time again.

You say "don't spread rumor". I'm saying this isn't "rumor". We're discussing something that's happening in the world. No body here has said anything that has "harmed his reputation" or affected his livelihood.

You say "trust the process and don't form judgements until the verdict is delivered". I'm saying that every process, just like every public official or organization we trust for something this country, is run by individuals who may or may not be impartial, may or may not have the integrity of the investigation in their best interests, or have their own agendas. Do you trust every politician? Do you trust the "process" when it comes to congress? I hope not. My point is that collectively we share a responsibility to follow these investigations actively and discuss it, to keep pressure on "the process" and those who administrate it to do their job responsibly. This benefits both the accusers and the accused, and I'm sorry if you don't see that. I'm not talking about rumor and gossip. I'm talking about transparency and how we as individuals can help maintain it, by being informed. Part of being informed is open discussion.

[Redthunder]

.

[JohnL]

One takeaway from the Cleveland Orchestra's actions is that institutions are becoming less likely to try to sweep such things under the rug. It still happens, but at least it's happening less often.

As long as institutions keep covering up, we will never be able to make real progress toward dealing with assault of this type.

There's a school district near me that's dealing with a firestorm. The current investigation isn't a looking at the assaults (there were guilty pleas in two cases and a baby born in one) or even into what the district knew when and whether appropriate action was taken in a timely manner, but into allegations of shredded documents, deleted computer files, and instructing employees to lawyer up rather than talking to authorities. There might just be some criminal charges levied. If that happens, and there are convictions for obstruction, a lot of people will stand up and take notice.

[BassBoneFL]

No, but it does mean unless you know for sure, don't trash anyone based on "well I heard".

This isn't a water cooler story and this isn't teenage gossip. This is a serious issue that has affected many people, and this isn't new either. La Rosa has popped up time and time again.

You say "don't spread rumor". I'm saying this isn't "rumor". We're discussing something that's happening in the world. No body here has said anything that has "harmed his reputation" or affected his livelihood.

You say "trust the process and don't form judgements until the verdict is delivered". I'm saying that every process, just like every public official or organization we trust for something this country, is run by individuals who may or may not be impartial, may or may not have the integrity of the investigation in their best interests, or have their own agendas. Do you trust every politician? Do you trust the "process" when it comes to congress? I hope not. My point is that collectively we share a responsibility to follow these investigations actively and discuss it, to keep pressure on "the process" and those who administrate it to do their job responsibly. I'm not talking about rumor and gossip. I'm talking about transparency and how we as individuals can help maintain it, by being informed. Part of being informed is open discussion.

Well, a bunch of ill informed tromboninsts posting half-baked opinions on a forum about a colleage won't solve the problems of the world. Just will make us look like a bunch of people reveling in the chance to pull someone down in an attempt to somehow elevate ourselves.


As for "high school gossip", we're skirting the line. And lets not kid ourselves that this will somehow enlighten us on the larger issue.

[Redthunder]

Well, a bunch of ill informed tromboninsts posting half-baked opinions on a forum about a colleage won't solve the problems of the world. Just will make us look like a bunch of people reveling in the chance to pull someone down in an attempt to somehow elevate ourselves.


As for "high school gossip", we're skirting the line. And lets not kid ourselves that this will somehow enlighten us on the larger issue.

You want us to abstain from discussing the specifics of this to avoid drawing premature conclusions, but it's obvious you've already drawn your own by throwing all of the members of this community, full of respected and and highly accomplished musicians, not to mention thoughtful and intelligent people, into one basket by calling them "ill-informed" and their opinions "half-baked".

Maybe you should do some self-reflection and see if those same descriptors could possibly apply to your own thinking.

Do you really think the people interested in this are just trying to "pull down" someone? You should examine your worldview.

[Schlitz]

Skirting the line is exactly what got him into trouble, allegedly, in the first place.

There’s also a lot of trombone players that have day jobs in HR.

And the horn an viola people, where one group complains about how they’re held, and the other is oblivious to just about everything....

[BassBoneFL]

Well, a bunch of ill informed tromboninsts posting half-baked opinions on a forum about a colleage won't solve the problems of the world. Just will make us look like a bunch of people reveling in the chance to pull someone down in an attempt to somehow elevate ourselves.


As for "high school gossip", we're skirting the line. And lets not kid ourselves that this will somehow enlighten us on the larger issue.

You want us to abstain from discussing the specifics of this to avoid drawing premature conclusions, but it's obvious you've already drawn your own by throwing all of the members of this community, full of respected and and highly accomplished musicians, not to mention thoughtful and intelligent people, into one basket by calling them "ill-informed" and their opinions "half-baked".

Maybe you should do some self-reflection and see if those same descriptors could possibly apply to your own thinking.

Do you really think the people interested in this are just trying to "pull down" someone? You should examine your worldview.

Thank you but my world view is fine. I just don't think it is healthy for our profession to engage in ill informed speculation based on hearsay to judge a colleage in a public forum. TCO has opened an investigation. All we will do here is potentially harm an individual if in fact they are innocent, as we should percieve them to be until proved otherwise.

[norbie2018]

If the charge is legitimate, he will pay.

Except that has been proven wrong time and time again. Sexual abuse accusations very rarely lead to prosecution, let alone conviction.

Can you back up this ascertain with stats, because I don't think you're correct.

[norbie2018]

There are men who feel that all women are sexual objects to be exploited. There are women who feel that sex is something to be used as a form of extortion. Neither is to be admired or copied.

I hope that, in placing these two statements next to one another, you did not intend to imply that these two are equivalent problems.

Sexual assault in this country is an epidemic, especially within academic institutions. False claims of sexual assault are rare - numerous studies have proven this. However, the courts are also historically bad at convicting people of sexual assault.

For this reason, if something comes out into the public eye and accuses someone of sexual assault, I, with few exceptions, believe them wholeheartedly.

Epidemic? Based on what facts? What criminal stats can you site that back up your statement? What studies show there are few false accusers? What historical record shows courts don't convict sexual crimes?

[Redthunder]

Epidemic? Based on what facts? What criminal stats can you site that back up your statement? What studies show there are few false accusers? What historical record shows courts don't convict sexual crimes?

I'm a little surprised that you're this aggressively questioning the existence of a widely acknowledged problem.

Statistics on sexual assault:
https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

False reporting:
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/fil ... orting.pdf

Perpetrator stats:
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/crimin ... ice-system

[blast]

I would like remind everyone , in my role as a moderator, that this forum is a public place and individuals could find themselves open to legal action, depending upon the laws of the country in which they live, for statements considered to be libel by parties concerned.
Also, there are rules of behaviour here that are close to being breached, both in terms of content and treatment of fellow forum members.
There is no back door to the old TTF.

Chris

[norbie2018]

Epidemic? Based on what facts? What criminal stats can you site that back up your statement? What studies show there are few false accusers? What historical record shows courts don't convict sexual crimes?

I'm a little surprised that you're this aggressively questioning the existence of a widely acknowledged problem.

Statistics on sexual assault:
https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

False reporting:
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/fil ... orting.pdf

Perpetrator stats:
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/crimin ... ice-system

Again, what criminal stats back up this view?

[LeTromboniste]

Except that has been proven wrong time and time again. Sexual abuse accusations very rarely lead to prosecution, let alone conviction.

Can you back up this ascertain with stats, because I don't think you're correct.

I don't know stats from pan-american studies, but I'm sure there are some. There are certainly state or county level studies, and there are countless studies from countries all around the globe - the shortcomings of the criminal justice system in dealing with sexual assault cases are not an American phenomenon, but rather a global one.

I do know there was a recent study back home produced by Statistics Canada that found that less than half of reported sexual assaults led to charges being laid, half of those actually went to court, slightly more than half of those in turn led to convictions, out of which only again about half led to custody sentences.

That's a ~11% conviction rate and only half of those get prison time - and we're only talking about reported/substantiated claims. Other studies found that a staggeringly low percentage of sexual assaults get reported to the police at all, as low as 5-10%.

Or maybe just google "Sexual assault conviction rate" and read basically any of the results on the first few dozen pages?

[norbie2018]

Thank you for presenting an opinion based on facts. It sounds like a serious conversation should be had (and likely is already occurring) regarding why so few cases are prosecuted and what can be done to improve conviction rates. But your figures are based on a Canadian-based study. I wonder what is like in the U.S.?

[Redthunder]

Again, what criminal stats back up this view?

Sorry, did you even bother to examine the citations? Are you going to bother to define what research is acceptable enough, or are you going to keep moving goalposts?

Much of the information cited in those links comes from the DOJ, CDC, and other public institutions.

[Kbiggs]

One of the thorny issues of sexual misconduct is that it becomes difficult to determine who is really "at fault". Was it the man imposing himself of the woman who did not want the attention? Or was there a consensual act that woman decided was not consensual after the fact (or even worse as a form of revenge).

There are men who feel that all women are sexual objects to be exploited. There are women who feel that sex is something to be used as a form of extortion. Neither is to be admired or copied.

Yes, that is one of the traditional ways of looking at cases of sexual harassment, rape, and the like. However, the “fault” argument in thses kinds of cases usually becomes a “he said, she said” situation, which all too often becomes pointless. In the past, the burden of proof was often placed on the victim, often a female, who usually fared poorly in a male dominated, mysogynistic culture (law and society).

Since post-structural philosophy and the “deconstructionist” movement (Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, etc.), and the feminist academic and legal movement, legal problems are coming to be seen as power struggles in addition to whatever legal standard or regulation might apply in that instance. This has started to shift the burden of proof from victims to the alleged perpetrator. This doesn’t mean that the alleged perpetrator—in this case, Massimo LaRosa—has to prove he didn’t do it. Rather, it means that by virtue of the position—a respected teacher in a prestigious institution—teachers know they are in a position of power over all students they come in contact with. Because they are in a position of power, they are morally and ethically obliged, even commanded, to hold the highest ethical standards. To exploit that position for monetary, sexual, personal, or other non-professional gains is morally and ethically wrong.

There’s also the fact that the teacher serves the student, not the other way around. Teachers—counselors, therapists, nurses, doctors, etc.— are all in professions to help others. Teachers who engage in monetary, sexual, etc. gains become self-serving. It’s a betrayal of trust.

Of course, this says nothing specific towards the current accusations against Massimo LaRosa.

[norbie2018]

Again, what criminal stats back up this view?

Sorry, did you even bother to examine the citations? Are you going to bother to define what research is acceptable enough, or are you going to keep moving goalposts?

Much of the information cited in those links comes from the DOJ, CDC, and other public institutions.

The very first citation for your first reference is for the assertion that one in five women experience rape in their lifetime. The study is based on a survey not on crime statistics. The goalposts have not been moved I ask again what crime statistics can you cite to prove your assertions?

[Redthunder]

The very first citation for your first reference is for the assertion that one in five women experience rape in their lifetime. The study is based on a survey not on crime statistics. The goalposts have not been moved I ask again what crime statistics can you cite to prove your assertions?

Okay, well to start, none of these assertions are mine, nor was I the person that made the original post that you challenged. I have not conducted or authored any of these.

Did you see the part about how the vast majority of rapes and assaults go unreported? Do you dispute that claim? If so, can you cite anything that disproves that? You want a hard "crime stat", but part of the problem is that a crime stat isn't going to represent the number of assaults that actually occur. You're asking for crime statistics about crimes that are unreported to the police.