Stew’s Views: Referring to Kobe Bryant as a “rapist” is a technical foul

Referring to Kobe Bryant as a “rapist” is a technical foul By Stewart Sallo

My immediate response to the tragic death of Los Angeles Lakers legend Kobe Bryant was almost as shocking to me as the incident itself. In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a Lakers fan since the early ’70s as a high school student in Anaheim, California. The Lakers have been “my team” through the ensuing decades, including 11 championships, the last five of which were shared with my wife, Mari, who joined me as a Lakers fan after we married in 1999. So, it follows that the death of one of my Lakers heroes would affect me on an emotional level, but the depth of my reaction was startling.

After hearing the news, and in a state of disbelief, I walked into the kitchen to tell Mari what I had just learned. My introductory sentence came out just fine: “I don’t even know how to tell you this,” I began. Not wanting her to fantasize excessively about what would come next, I tried to continue. “Kobe Bryant… (pause, unable to speak)... was killed… (longer pause, becoming increasingly emotional)... in a helicopter... (head in hands, struggling to force the final word out)... crash.”

I was immediately struck by the powerful reaction I was having. After all, I didn’t know Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant was not a close friend or family member. He was just a basketball player I had admired. Why was I this upset? I pondered this for the rest of the day as I followed the story, thirsting for details, unable to turn my attention elsewhere.

As I sat in front of the TV, switching from one channel to the next, it was striking to me that this story was so big that the mainstream media had finally found something more compelling to cover than the Trump impeachment. Shortly thereafter, like a punch in the gut, the news arrived that Kobe Bryant’s 13-year-old daughter, Gianna, had been with him at the time of the crash, along with seven others, on their way to a youth basketball tournament. As the story unfolded, it was clear that I was hardly alone in struggling to process the devastating details.

My day had been hijacked, and my thoughts were fixated on one particular theme: Why do we ascribe such significance to certain sports heroes that they occupy the status of a beloved central figure in our lives? As I was contemplating this, I became aware of an equally disproportionate but opposite reaction to Kobe Bryant’s death.

Switching back and forth from TV to social media, I noticed a post that simply read: “Kobe Bryant,” followed by a series of “sad face” emojis. About three comments down the thread, the following appeared: “Are we supposed to feel sad that a rapist died?” Upon reading this I became incensed, and my outrage — and the subsequent rare comment that I posted in response — raised a fundamental question: “Do we have the right to refer to someone, anyone, who has been accused of rape as a ‘rapist?’” The question of whether we should make any mention of the incident, no matter how we refer to it, within hours of the individual’s tragic death is valid, but diminished to the point of irrelevant within the context of this larger question.

As disturbing as this first example was, I was able to write it off as one of the many inappropriate things people post on social media. But the next example was an article written by a professional journalist who has written for the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time and Cosmopolitan . In an 1,800-word article on her personal website, Jill Filipovic opines about Bryant’s “complicated” legacy, stating, “...Kobe Bryant raped a woman.” A one-sentence comment on someone’s Facebook page is one thing; an article by a recognized journalist is an entirely different matter. Now the issue of whether it is proper to refer to someone who has been accused of rape as a “rapist” morphs into another, possibly even more compelling question: Is it irresponsible for a professional writer to forego proper journalistic protocol and represent her opinion as fact in order to make a point? There are many who have done so in the wake of this tragedy, and we must stand up to it.

It is critical to acknowledge that, while there are millions of admirers who consider Kobe Bryant to have been the embodiment of human athletic perfection — physical strength and beauty, superstar-like talent, unparalleled work ethic, indomitable commitment to success — there is also a substantial group of people for whom Kobe Bryant represents something completely different. For many, Kobe Bryant is the “poster boy” for the Is it irresponsible for a professional writer to forego proper journalistic protocol and represent her opinion as fact in order to make a point?

pampered, privileged, overpaid athlete who can misbehave at will and maneuver his way out of a jam with his wealth and celebrity status. It is undeniable that many celebrities, and particularly sports figures, have done just that, and we are all understandably fed up with the multi-tiered justice system of our culture.

Nevertheless, there are certain principles — both legal and ethical — that must be considered here. The long overdue #MeToo movement is a powerful and necessary social justice campaign which condemns sexual harassment and sexual assault, and provides support for victims. But how do we reconcile our desire to prevent and punish sexual assault with the need to uphold the presumption of innocence — aka, innocent until proven guilty — principle that is a fundamental precept of our judicial system? The many who have interjected their dissent into this story by claiming as a fact that Kobe Bryant committed rape have failed to find the balancing point between these two vital principles. Indeed, they have abandoned one for the other.

There are only two people who know exactly what transpired in that Edwards, Colorado, hotel room some 17 years ago. What we do know is that Kobe Bryant had a sexual encounter with a member of the hotel staff and was accused of rape the next day, that the evidence that was subsequently collected remains ambiguous, that the charge was dismissed before going to trial because his accuser refused to testify, and that Bryant and his accuser resolved the matter in civil court. We also know that Bryant has never since been accused of sexual impropriety (with the possible exception of extra-marital affairs, which is between his wife and him, and none of our business).

If there are some among us who feel compelled to apply a Cancel

Culture approach to the life and times of Kobe Bryant, so be it. Whether the 2003 encounter was consensual or not, at a minimum Bryant cheated on his wife and admitted that he had done so on other occasions. He also infamously had strained relationships with some of his fellow NBA players, most notably Shaquille O’Neal, who left the Lakers after the 2004 season as a result, and Lakers coach Phil Jackson, who referred to Bryant as “uncoachable,” in his book, The Last Season. And in 2011, Bryant directed an anti-gay slur at a (non-gay) referee during a game. All worthy of criticism.

However, to refer to Kobe Bryant as a “rapist” is not supported by the facts as we know them, as he was never tried or convicted of rape, nor did he confess or acknowledge having committed a sex crime. To do so is to place Kobe Bryant in the same category as Bill Cosby, who was accused of various forms of sexual misconduct by more than 60 women, convicted of the same in three cases and currently incarcerated; Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State football coach who was found guilty of 45 of 52 counts of rape and sexual abuse and currently serving a de facto life sentence; and even Louis C.K., who acknowledged (“these stories are all true”) multiple acts of sexual misconduct; and many others. There is a reason that millions of people worldwide are grieving over the death of someone who they didn’t personally know. Kobe Bryant was more than a mere basketball player; he was a true champion, worthy of our admiration for the way that he battled through and overcame adversity — on the basketball court and in his private life. His example is a source of inspiration that we too could meet and conquer the challenges in our lives. And he did so not only in spite of his human imperfections but because of them.

It is appropriate to allow Kobe Bryant his well-earned legacy as a legendary, even iconic athlete who represented his sport, his community, and the human race through dedication, commitment, discipline and an unparalleled work ethic. To do otherwise delegitimizes the very real grief felt by the millions he touched. And far from mutually exclusive is the way his story underscores the need to continue to double down on our commitment to condemn sexual assault and protect the weak from the powerful, in all walks of life, and under all circumstances.

Finally, we need to hold journalists — even “citizen journalists” — accountable for the accuracy of what they write and post. Our profession is under siege at this time like never before, at least among free societies.

And when we post or otherwise publish accounts of current events or other information that has not been verified for accuracy, we throw another log on the fire of “fake news,” thereby creating a smoke screen that serves to obfuscate truth and empower those with a deceptive agenda.

W I N A T R I P T O

the edge of the GaLAxy the edge of the GaLAxy

S C R A T C H & W I N COLLECT CARDS TO SPELL

LOTS OF OTHER INSTANT PRIZES TOO!

Rollbacks on federal regs imperil Colorado waters by Matt Cortina

On Jan. 23, the Trump administration finalized a rule that would remove protections for waterways throughout the country, and as much as 70% of Colorado’s water, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment.

Framed as Trump “fulfill[ing] yet another promise,” the Navigable Waters Protection Rule strips environmental safeguards previously covered by the Clean Water Act and the Waters of the United States rule.

“Basically it takes protection away from intermittent and perennial streams, anything that doesn’t flow yearround,” says Gary Wockner, director of Save the Colorado. “If this goes through, we will no longer be protecting a lot of streams in the mountains that don’t flow year-round. “That’s extremely bad news, there’s no other way to look at it,” he says.

The new Navigable Waters rule specifies four protected types of waterways: territorial seas and large

10 I rivers and lakes; tributaries that flow year-round; lakes and ponds that are connected to larger bodies; and adjacent wetlands. In the West, where many tributaries don’t flow in warm months, and are being drained and diverted due to infrastructure projects, the amount of impacted waterways is likely to be large.

Wockner places blame on multinational agriculture corporations, the national chamber of commerce and industries like oil and gas for supporting the move — or, at least, they’ll be the greatest beneficiaries. “Depending on the possible impacts for the proposal of a housing development or ski area expansion or anything they’d propose to do where they’d formally need a Clean Water Act permit, it will completely negate protection,” Wockner says. “It will completely negate the entire public process required by the Clean Water Act, and it will negate any kind of watchdog effort. If you were a developer and applied for a permit in the past, the public could challenge that permit and appeal to court.”

It’s another blow to public input on projects that could harm the environment, as the bedrock environmental law, the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) is also on the chopping block. On Feb. 11, the federal Council of Environmental Quality will hold one of three public hearings on rollbacks of NEPA, which will shorten periods for environmental review and lessen the standards that operators need to meet in order to build large projects.

Sam Gilchrist, Western campaigns director at the National Resources Defence Council, says the move to curb NEPA’s scope “seems political” and will severely restrict public input that, in the past, has largely made projects better, and not, as the Trump administration claims, hampered them. For instance, Gilchrist says, the NEPA process prevented extensive mountain blasting and rerouting of the Colorado River during I-70 work.

“Anytime you limit public input, then you have worse-off projects, and NEPA in Colorado has really shown good results on almost every project on which it’s been implemented,” Gilchrist says. “It’s funny because there really are not that many NEPA cases filed annually. To say this is going to help push through big projects is speculative on the administration’s part, or that it will help them happen faster, because they don’t take as long as the administration is claiming.”

In the face of the Navigable Waters rule and the NEPA rollbacks, it will be up to Western states to ensure appropriate environmental protections are enacted to mitigate the new rules’ impact.

“In the absence of federal leadership, we are going to do everything possible to protect streams and wetlands in Colorado,” said Patrick Pfaltzgraff, director of the state Water Quality Control Division, in a statement. “It’s sad that we have to step up in contrast with our federal government on something so basic as protecting our water, but we must.”

Wockner said the state legislature, as in California, can enact stringent water protection laws that restore the water regulations, and that Attorney General Phil Weiser can sue the federal government for the changes, independent of support from the governor or legislature.

But state action can only go so far, he adds.

“This is the kind of law you want at a federal level not a state level,” Wockner says. “Local control might make sense on certain things, but it does not make sense on water, because water doesn’t know a boundary. Colorado is a headwater state, so the state of Colorado can do a lot. Every other state downstream of our water is not protected. They’re going to get the pollution.”

Resource brokers Peer support professionals have become integral for Colorado’s behavioral health workforce. But will they get the support they need to keep going? by Angela K. Evans

Victor King applied for his job at Mental Health Partners (MHP) on a handwritten note from the Boulder County Jail. He was in the transitions program at the time, taking classes and seeing counselors to help him prepare to reenter the community. One of the counselors told him about a job opening at MHP for a peer support professional, someone with a history of mental health issues or substance abuse who uses their experience to help support and mentor others.

“Peer support is going to meet someone where they’re at with respect and dignity,” King says. “Being able to connect with someone and really sit down and listen to them and be authentic, you know, creates a connection, which is important. It also shows people that hope is possible.”

King first came to Boulder in 1993 as a college student at the University of Colorado, but he quickly got into the party scene and eventually dropped out. When he experienced a loss in his family, he didn’t have the appropriate coping skills, he says, which led to substance abuse and bouts of homelessness, almost entirely in Boulder. The longest stretch was from 2010 to 2014, and he eventually landed in jail.

King wasn’t initially hired by MHP. He still had to go through the drug court program and finish his probation. Plus, he wanted to get his son out of foster care. In the meantime, he completed a five-day peer support training and eventually applied for the job again.

“When I first started working here, I was working with people from my past,” he says. “It was good for them to see my progress. Like, ‘Oh Victor is not selling meth anymore, he’s in here handing out bus tickets.’ Literally that’s the transition that I made.”

That was five years ago, and a lot has changed in the peer support field since King started. There’s increased attention for the role around the country, as research has shown it decreases psychotic episodes, substance abuse and depression, as well as reducing hospital admission rates, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Peer support is also shown to increase self-esteem and provides a sense of empowerment. In Colorado, a state-wide certification process for peer support specialists was introduced in 2016 and training for peer support professionals has become much more rigorous.

For the most part, Colorado health providers, health care agencies and lawmakers see the benefits of peer support, especially since 70% of the state’s mental health care needs aren’t being met, earning a Health Professional Shortage Area designation from the Kaiser Family Foundation. New bipartisan legislation, which passed in the House Public Health Care and Human Services committee on Wednesday, Feb. 5, seeks to expand the settings where peers can serve. The bill also provides tax incentives for peer support professionals to continue their education both in and outside of the ANGELA K. EVANS

BOULDER COUNTY’S INDEPENDENT VOICE I behavioral health field.

But peer support roles remain mostly entry-level positions with little room for professional development outside of getting an advanced degree. The cost of training and con tinuing education can often be a barrier for many who qualify for the role having experienced mental health issues and substance abuse.

The proposed legislation (H.B. 1139) would allow newly defined recovery support service organizations to be reimbursed for the work of peer support professionals through Medicaid. Currently, alternative services, like peer support, qualify for Medicaid reimbursement but only if provided by hospitals and community mental health centers like MHP. “This bill would broaden the scope of those settings so that somebody providing care services can be reimbursed in a whole variety of different settings for which they are not currently qualified,” says Vincent Atchity, with Mental Health Colorado, one of the main proponents of the bill.

For example, Atchity says, a peer support specialist could be instrumental in an OBGYN’s office for perinatal mental health, or in primary care offices, or jails and prisons. But, currently Medicaid doesn’t cover those services. The legislation also includes a tax incentive for peers who want to continue their education both in and outside of the behavioral health field.

“It’s not really the [type] of job that’s going to give anybody a whole lot of professional development opportunities,” Atchity says. “So the tax credit would incentivize people to pursue professional development and give them a tax credit. It’s basically workforce development.”

The Colorado Behavioral Health Council (CBHC), the state-wide membership organization for community behavioral health providers like MHP, hasn’t officially taken a position on the bill.

“We’re still monitoring it,” says Frank Cornelia, deputy director of CBHC.

“For our organization, we’re trying to understand the fiscal impact and the cost of the bill, and then we’re trying to figure out what the new definitions for the peer support professional and the recovery support organization mean for the Medicaid program and for our existing peer workforce,” he says.

The bill limits tax credits to $100,000 per year, but, Cornelia says, there isn’t good state-wide data on how many peer support professionals would be eligible for it. Plus, CBHC wants to know how accountability will be built into the expanded services, and how it might impact the current peer workforce.

“How do we ensure quality and accountability both for Medicaid members but also for peers?” Cornelia says. “They want to expand types of settings ... they talk about wanting to put peers in libraries or jails or primary care offices and that’s all wellintentioned. But they just need the right types of support and that’s peer supervision and clinical supervision as well.”

“I don’t think anybody’s advocating for unattached peers being reimbursed,” Atchity says, acknowledging the importance of a well-rounded care team when it comes to mental health and recovery. And the bill still has to go through both the Colorado House appropriations and finance committees to fully understand the fiscal impact. If the legislation continues to move forward, it’s going to take coordination between the Office of Behavioral Health, which will develop the criteria for recovery support organizations, and the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which runs the state Medicaid program, to implement. As Atchity says, that’s all just part of the process.

But the bottom line? “We need more peers, we need more certified peers,” says King, who is now certified peer navigator supervisor at MHP. He also travels as a see RESOURCE Page 13