DC Response to Students

Leadership’s response revealed their priorities. Rather than reflect on why they lost an entire student unit over sexual assault concerns, they attacked the messengers.

Jo minimized the students’ concerns, reducing a principled stand against protecting predators to a procedural issue. They suggested the students hadn’t been “taught how to conduct criticism correctly”—as if there’s a proper technique for opposing sexual assault cover-ups. Jo claimed FRSO handles abuse well, citing their own subjective experience while ignoring the documented pattern.

Xavi opened with “The truth is,” then proceeded to lie. He claimed the Center “bent over backwards” to address our concerns. In reality, Andy came to scold us for asking questions. Mick spent ninety minutes denying documented facts and refusing to provide evidence. Xavi wasn’t even in those meetings, yet declared our concerns addressed.

Kyra dismissed the Dustin Ponder evidence as “speculation” based on “old videos”—as if video testimony and firsthand accounts expire. When I pointed out that the same leaders who protected Dustin remain in power, she deployed the survivor shield, noting leadership includes survivors. Using survivors to defend leaders who protect predators is particularly vile. She then claimed they’ve “expelled people for much less,” an absurd statement given Dan’s extensive misconduct. When I pointed out the Center’s hostile response to my questions, Kyra defended it by validating their paranoid theory that I’d intentionally left the video on the office TV.

Kai falsely claimed “very few people” from that time remain in leadership. This is demonstrably untrue. The current Political Secretary, Organizational Secretary, and multiple Central Committee members all played roles in the Dustin Ponder case. Those who defended him on the ground have since been promoted.

The district committee chat was worse. Kyra complained we weren’t “open to other possible explanations for the facts at hand.” We were extremely open. The Center had two meetings to provide explanations. They chose insults and stonewalling instead.

No one asked why half the district left over sexual assault. They immediately labeled us “wreckers”—the same label applied to those who raised concerns about Dustin Ponder in Tampa 2014. Yet Jo, who quit in solidarity with someone expelled for dating a neo-Nazi, was never called a wrecker. Dan, who sent a vindictive letter attacking everyone except Jo, wasn’t a wrecker. The “wrecker” label is reserved for those who ask questions about sexual assault.