Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.
Editor’s Note: This story contains details of sexual abuse.
Since New York state passed the Child Victims Act in 2019, at least five men have sued Syracuse University for its role in their sexual abuse by Conrad Mainwaring, a former graduate student, employee and coach.
The legislation, which extended the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse, opened a two-year window that afforded survivors the opportunity to seek civil justice from the institutions involved in their abuse.
In each of the four lawsuits brought by the five men, the university has denied all responsibility. Among its defenses is the notion that Mainwaring, who survivors say used his status at the university to abuse them, was never formally involved in its athletics program.
A review of archival materials, university records and court documents, as well as interviews with former coaches and athletes, showed Mainwaring maintained a close relationship with SU’s cross country and track and field teams — a relationship the university repeatedly downplayed or omitted in public statements and litigation.
That relationship — one that records and interviews suggest was likely sanctioned by university officials and well known by some students and employees — is what enabled Mainwaring to abuse minors and young adults for years at SU unchecked, survivors and experts told The Daily Orange.
The allegations involving Mainwaring and SU became public in August 2019 when ESPN published an investigation detailing decades of abuse by the former Olympian and coach at colleges, camps and tracks across two continents. Mainwaring was arrested in February 2021 on charges related to abuse at a Massachusetts camp where he worked prior to SU.
Maya Goosmann | Digital Design Director
In a statement shortly after ESPN published its investigation, Chancellor Kent Syverud acknowledged that Mainwaring had earned a graduate degree from SU and worked in a residence hall in the early 1980s. The university first learned of an allegation against Mainwaring from the 1980s in February 2019 and immediately contacted police, Syverud wrote. The university also hired an external law firm to conduct a review of the allegation, he said.
Absent from Syverud’s university-wide communication was any mention of Mainwaring’s ties to the university’s athletics program — ties survivors say were fundamental in Mainwaring luring young people to classrooms and dorms where he molested and assaulted them.
One lawsuit alleges that Mainwaring used his Brewster, Boland and Brockway halls dorm room to rub, fondle and masturbate one survivor from the age of 17 until he graduated from the university. Another survivor claims Mainwaring invited him to his dorm and sexually assaulted him as a 16- and 17-year-old. In both cases, Mainwaring met with the survivors under the guise of physical therapy and mental training sessions, the lawsuits claim.
Mainwaring, another survivor claims, molested him in an empty university classroom during a campus tour in 1981. Mainwaring told the then 17-year-old that he could introduce the plaintiff to SU’s track and basketball teams and make him a better athlete by demonstrating various training techniques.
Another lawsuit alleges that Mainwaring used his employment at SU “to engage in a pattern and practice of sexually abusing minor students” under the guise of mental training, counseling and hypnosis. SU failed to supervise its students, faculty, staff and coaches — including Mainwaring — and failed to protect students from foreseeable harm, the lawsuit claims.
Maya Goosmann | Digital Design Director
“Syracuse wasn’t prepared for Conrad,” said Andrew Roberts, a former cross country and track and field coach who arrived at SU in 1984. Roberts described an “infantile” program, where local club teams and university students practiced in the same chaotic space. Throwers almost hit runners. Access to buildings was unrestricted. Outside teams regularly interrupted practices.
“There is no other college that would’ve allowed that,” Roberts said. “That wouldn’t exist anywhere, but it existed at Syracuse University.”
By the time Roberts arrived at SU, Mainwaring was largely on the outskirts, seemingly more involved with other athletic activities occurring in Manley Field House than with SU’s own teams, Roberts said. It was clear that Mainwaring previously worked with SU’s teams and was well known to SU employees, he said.
Mike Woicik, an assistant track coach in the 1980s, recalled that Mainwaring offered to assist with coaching. At the time, just three people coached both the men’s and women’s teams, and the coaching staff was happy to have help, Woicik said.
Mainwaring, who had competed at the 1976 Olympics as a hurdler, was knowledgeable and helped officiate at meets, he said. Woicik didn’t recall first meeting Mainwaring or details about how Mainwaring became involved with the teams.
Roberts didn’t recall any formal application process for volunteers.
Shantel Guzman | Asst. Digital Editor
Newspaper archives and university photo collections also showcase Mainwaring’s involvement with SU’s athletics program. An April 1981 edition of The Daily Orange notes that Mainwaring would be assisting Jan Vilbert Samuelson, a then-newly appointed assistant track and field and cross country coach, in the upcoming season. A 1983 track and field team photograph shows Mainwaring standing just one person over from head coach Andrew Jugan. At least one of the athletes Mainwaring allegedly abused is also in the photo.
But in court, SU repeatedly challenged survivors of abuse who said they met Mainwaring through his connections with the university’s athletics program.
“Although the conduct alleged to have been committed by Mainwaring is reprehensible, the complaint is bereft of any facts indicating that SU was responsible for it,” the university’s lawyers wrote in response to one of the lawsuits.
On multiple occasions, the university’s lawyers argued that survivors haven’t provided enough evidence to prove that Mainwaring abused boys and young men via any formal connection to the university. Such arguments appear more than a dozen times across various documents filed in the four lawsuits, a review of the dockets shows.
In two of the four lawsuits against SU, a judge struck down those arguments for now. The survivors provided enough evidence that Mainwaring used his role at SU to commit his crimes for the lawsuits to proceed, the judge decided.
“The plaintiffs did allege, at least for the purpose of being able to overcome the motion to defend at this point, that the opportunity to commit the offenses was based on Mainwaring’s association with the defendant university,” the judge said in a virtual meeting in June.
In April, the university appealed that decision to the state supreme court.
SU used other legal arguments to dodge responsibility for Mainwaring’s abuse. In one lawsuit, the university argued that it didn’t owe survivors of abuse who were unaffiliated with the university protection.
“Neither plaintiff pleads a connection to SU beyond their alleged presence on SU’s campus at the time of the alleged assaults,” the university’s lawyers wrote in arguments to dismiss one of the lawsuits. Merely being present on campus — even if invited there by Mainwaring — is not enough to hold SU responsible for the resulting conduct, they claimed.
The university argued in some cases that survivors who were 17 at the time of their abuse cannot sustain their claim under the Child Victims Act because they were of the legal age of consent in New York when it occurred.
“Plaintiffs plead themselves out of this definition because the conduct at issue occurred when they were at least 17 years old — the legal age of consent — and plaintiffs fail to allege, using any specific facts, that Mainwaring forced or coerced or threatened to engage in sexual activity,” SU lawyers wrote in attempts to dismiss one of the lawsuits.
The argument has puzzled survivors and experts on abuse who say sexual abuse inherently involves force, coercion and threats. The survivors’ lawyers responded similarly, reaffirming that Mainwaring used his power and position at SU to access and abuse their clients.
Sarah Scalese, the senior associate vice president for university communications, said the university will not comment on litigation or litigation strategy related to the cases involving Mainwaring.
Maya Goosmann | Digital Design Director
“Every lawsuit the institution faces is unique, and the university’s legal response is driven by the law and the particular facts of each case,” she said in an email statement. “Syracuse University condemns sexual misconduct, assault and harassment and has clear policies and procedures in place to support the reporting, investigation and adjudication of allegations. We work aggressively, along with our community members, to create a campus environment dedicated to the prevention of sexual violence and that is supportive of survivors who come forward to report any act of sexual misconduct.”
Survivors and some experts said that the kinds of legal arguments SU has utilized can undermine an institution’s supposed support for survivors. Some worry that SU’s reluctance to share complete information about Mainwaring’s time at the university and its responses to survivors in court could discourage other members of the campus community from reporting abuse — especially on a campus where only 5% of those sexually abused report it to the university.
Civil recourse is often the clearest path to legal accountability for survivors of sexual abuse, said Laura Palumbo, the communications director at the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. The way institutions respond in court can have serious implications for survivors of abuse — both those involved in the lawsuits and those who aren’t, she said.
“It’s a really important option for us to have because, so often, a lack of action on behalf of institutions and issues with addressing sexual harassment, assault and abuse has to do with institutions really trying to protect themselves against liability,” Palumbo said. “And by trying to protect themselves against liability, being complicit in the patterns of abuse and assault.”
The university declined The D.O.’s requests to speak to university officials about the impact its arguments in the courtroom could have on survivors of abuse or reporting of abuse at SU, citing pending litigation.
The university retained the Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan law firm to conduct a “confidential and privileged external review” of the allegations against Mainwaring, Scalese said. The university declined to provide any information about the review itself and would not answer questions about the firm’s goals, any potential timelines for the review’s completion or whether any of its results will be made public.
SU also declined interview requests related to hiring, background checks and the retention of employment and volunteer records. Emails and calls to the Office of Athletic Compliance, which is responsible for overseeing related policies in the university’s athletics program, were not returned.
Maya Goosmann | Digital Design Director
“Honesty with your community is one of the most important ways that an institution can be accountable,” Palumbo said. “What that looks like is publicly owning the areas where there have been missteps and also helping the community to understand how things have changed. Unless an institution has owned the ways that they have been harmful and contributed to abuse and assault, it is very difficult for people to have confidence in the institution in today’s context, even if there’s been a significant changeover in administration.”
Institutions have compelling legal and financial interests that can explain their reluctance to speak openly about legal matters, said Donald Palmer, a professor at University of California, Davis who studies child sexual abuse in youth-serving organizations and organizational wrongdoing. But protecting those interests has repercussions, he said.
“While we might like the world to be different, the reality is the heads of institutions are going to protect the institution, the lawyers are contractually obligated, professionally obligated to do so, and they’re going to do things that are first and foremost not in the best interests of the members, the students,” Palmer said. “That’s just the reality. Now, what’s the consequence of that? The consequence is a lack of trust.”
Photo Illustration by Meghan Hendricks, photo courtesy of Syracuse University Archives, Special Collections Research Center
Published on December 6, 2021 at 12:41 am
Contact Michael: msessa@syr.edu | @MichaelSessa3
