Thank you, Constrained and Hunter, for the more measured responses. IMO, the lets-tear-our-clothing-and-immolate-ourselves kind of responses were rather unproductive and diminished credibility (again, just my opinion). Of course, if any of those responses are from an actual victim, then in that case I would understand.
That's an interesting parallel drawn with Cosby and Weinstein. On the one hand, I can see (definitely) how the cancellation due to public opinion was warranted. On the other hand, both of those took many years (spanning decades, even) with so many victims with credible and backed-up stories. I wonder if those situations created good outcomes (empowerment, courage for victims, etc), but also some societal negative unintended consequences (always believe all women mentality (which doesn't square when 2 or more are saying opposite things), overly emotionally-driven responses, etc)? A little guardrail-to-guardrail perhaps.
Needless to say (but I'm saying it anyway), everything sounds awful, and the apparent past histories of the Johnsons undoubtedly furthers the notion that they could be up to the task to do these types of things. But, as it sits right now, the only thing I see at this point (with the current civil suit) are accusations. There is such a thing as false accusations, right? So, while I might be criticized for "hiding behind the legal process" (I'm not Johnson, btw), I would prefer that the judgement (both in public opinion and legally) are done correctly (actually true). It is a lot like the "Does Kipchoge Dope" threads... some believe that he must because he is just too good and some think he's clean bc he's such good guy and hard worker, and most just say "I don't know!" But, I don't think you can incarcerate / disqualify / cancel him based on accusations that can not be substantiated, can you? But, if I am not seeing something, by all means let me know! I am open to being corrected and changing my mind.
Are the plaintiffs still on the cross country team? Or, are they now making the accusations after the fact, so-to-speak? This is not to say that they aren't brave or that they are lying, but of course it would have been much better to take action right away. If they delayed because it may have made a disparate effect on their schooling, then a significant amount of reasonable doubt enters the picture, imo.
As for David Woods (the reporter), if this is all true, then good for him for his help in exposing it. My only beef is that he would just report and stick to the facts. His pontificating that it is his biggest story in 50 years of reporting smacks of sensationalism (diminishing credibility), and it actually takes the focus off of the actual story when he makes it about himself and his reporting. Of course, people's opinions may vary.
As for the those thinking that we must protect the children. Yes, I think just about every school needs to beef up in that regard! For Huntington, I think it would be warranted to suspend the Johnsons until guilt / innocence is determined. Otherwise, I think this is out in the open now so that everyone will have their eyes on it, right? Children are probably relatively safe their now (at least on par with, if not moreso, than any other place they'd be).