paige leech article

socalogo.gif (8739 bytes)
SoCalHoops Recruiting News

LA Times Commentary: Darryl McDonald &
SoCalHoops Message Forum--(Aug. 3, 1999)

Well, the title above is a bit misleading; actually the LA Times article written by Paige Leech this past Sunday in the Valley edition of the Times (it may have also appeared in other editions too, we just got the Valley one), was really a commentary by the ever-insightful and incisive Valley basketball sportswiters on some of SoCalHoops' message board posters' reactions to the Darryl McDonald situation. For those not familiar with Mr. McDonald's story, he was, as of last year, the head coach at Alemany High School. He helped bring that team from last in Mission league to a share of first place and a good playoff run. McDonald had come to Alemany from San Fernando, where he had been an assistant coach. When he came to Alemany, several of his former San Fernando players, who also played for a club team called the CAV's (also coached by McDonald for several years, under the auspices of the North Valley YMCA) followed him, creating a stir and allegations of improper recruiting. No one connected with McDonald however apparently had the slightest inkling that he had previously been convicted of a sex related offense against a minor, nor that he had pleaded guilty to a battery charge against his then-fiance (now his wife).

When the story first hit the newspapers, in the Daily News and then the LA Times, it created a virtual firestorm of postings here on SoCalHoops' Message Forum. McDonald was a popular, or at least a well-known and controversial figure in the basketball world in the San Fernando Valley. The allegations, confirmed by both newspapers, generated highly charged emotions among the posters, both supporter and those who condemned him. The postings ran the gamut from "He's a good man who is being persecuted" to those who wrote things like "See, I told you so, the man was never any good." Much of what was written on the board had to be deleted by us because it lacked any possible socially redeeming value; we missed deleting some stuff that should have been deleted and still other messages which we let stand probably might have been deleted because they were just plain stupid, sexist, or completely without merit.

Still, we have to say that having read all of the messages posted, those who wrote in support of Mr. McDonald were probably engaging in a more than a little wishful thinking, and also suffering from a huge case of denial, believing that he could retain his job and continue to work with children notwithstanding who he was and the things he had done. The issue at first was one of rehabilitation. But as things progressed, and more and more details came to light, it was not so much an issue of a man who was punished for what he had done, a guy who paid the price and was now a model citizen. No, instead it became a morality play about honesty and truth, and disclosure about one's past. McDonald had not only committed the offenses, but then he tried to cover them up and lied about his past. This was no longer about a man who had been rehabilitated, but about a man who didn't want us to know who he really was or where he had come from.

Obviously, as things now stand, as a registered sex offender and felon, he absolutely is prohibited under State law from working at a school or with children. And, as noted in more recent newspaper articles, Mr. McDonald's troubles may not be over, because there are several investigations pending, at least according to published reports concerning (1) the submission of someone else's fingerprints to the YMCA when a background check on McDonald was first performed, thus helping him evade detection; (2) whether he violated the registered sex-offender laws when he didn't disclose that he was working at a school and the YMCA, and (3) whether he violated any terms of probation by doing any of the above.

Paige Leech's Sunday article was not so much about McDonald, or even really about SoCalHoops (which is actually nowhere identified by name in the story) as much as it was about the writers' reaction to those who publicly supported him on the SoCalHoops Message Forum and engaged in some pretty massive denial in those days following the revelations of the charges against him. And it was also about a writer's reaction to the seeming ability of people on the internet to write things that they'd never say in "real life". And as those of you who have followed our own struggle last month with the message board will understand, we've also asked ourselves what real value there is in having a message board where anyone can say anything without revealing their identity.

Having struggled with the issue, we prefer to believe that the concept of a message board, where people can exchange ideas, serves a valuable purpose. Of course, we've also come to the realization that the board must and will be closely monitored, and that any offending message must be deleted. That belief was severely tested in the days following the revelations about McDonald. But we've also come to believe that when the message forum can stimulate newspapers to commentary, which commentary itself has a socially important purpose, even if it's only to criticize those on the internet who may be missing the point of the larger picture, which is the protection of our children and the preservation of law, the rule of reason, and truth and honesty, then for us at least the board has value.

Here's Paige Leech's article from this past Sunday. We hope that those who wrote the messages which are referenced in the story will read the article and come away with a clearer understanding of the issues involved. This is not about whether Mr. McDonald is a "good" guy or a "bad" guy. It's about the law, and what we teach our children about it. It's about the choices we make as adults and the consequences we have to pay for making the wrong decisions. It's about the price McDonald will have to pay, and the price that everyone else will have to pay, including those who believed in him and supported him, as well as those who were his detractors.

McDonald's Backers Overlooking the Law

By PAIGE A. LEECH

Much has been written about Darryl McDonald, boys' basketball coach at Alemany High last season, and his 1989 conviction for having sex with a minor.

But much of what has been written isn't worth reading.

Since it was reported last week that McDonald is a registered sex offender and dodged employee background checks at Alemany and the YMCA by using someone else's fingerprints, there have been numerous internet postings on the subject. Some of the anonymous writers are supportive. Some are outraged. Some are simply out to lunch. If nothing else, it shows many people have strong feelings about McDonald, a popular coach with a dubious past.

And it is clear many do not care that, in April 1988, McDonald was charged with two counts of statutory rape, two counts of oral sex with a minor and two counts of penetration by a foreign object. None of that matters, his supporters say, because:

"He is a good, honest, kind man. . ."

And,

"He is the best coach in the Valley, or California. . ."

And,

"Darryl has done wonders to turn [the Alemany] program around. . ."

And finally, "[The conviction] was over 10 years ago and Darryl is a model
citizen today. . ."

These are the arguments of those who think McDonald should be able to keep his jobs at Alemany and the North Valley YMCA. He has been placed on administrative leave at Alemany pending an investigation by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and was suspended by the YMCA. Losing his jobs is the least of his problems now. Police are investigating whether McDonald committed a crime by using fraudulent fingerprints and false personal information to hide his sex offense conviction from his employers. Furthermore, he might have committed a felony by not disclosing his jobs as a youth director at the YMCA and coach at Alemany when he registered as a sex offender. If convicted of lying on his sex offense registration, McDonald could be imprisoned for up to three years.

Supporters blame everyone from the press to the police for McDonald's predicament.

One even thought McDonald was framed.

Another wrote that the 17-year-old girl who had consensual sex with McDonald was to blame: "Having seen how these girls look with all of their makeup and bare midriffs, short tight skirts and shorts, [buttocks] hanging out and the shameless way they go after the coaches, I can see how it happened."

Clearly, this person can't see.

Another posting, by someone claiming to be Bill Clinton: "Newspapers should consider the fact that they can ruin a person's life, and before they print a story they should determine whether or not it is socially relevant."

If informing the public that a registered sex offender is working with kids isn't socially relevant, what is? Despite varying opinions, one thing is clear: the law. Since 1997, the state requires public and private schools to conduct background checks on any employee who might have contact with children.

Applicants who have been convicted of sex offenses, drug offenses or violent crimes are not employable by a state school.

McDonald knew the law. If he has broken it again, he must pay the penalty.