ADVERTISEMENT

Antagonistic narcissism and psychopathic tendencies predict left-wing antihierarchical aggression, study finds

I think we are on to something here.


by Eric W. Dolan
May 20, 2023
in Authoritarianism

raised-fist-at-a-political-protest-750x375.jpg


Narcissistic individuals and those with psychopathic tendencies are more likely to strongly endorse left-wing antihierarchical aggression, according to new research published in Current Psychology. Antihierarchical aggression refers to a specific type of hostility aimed at challenging or opposing hierarchical power structures or authority figures. The new findings shed light on psychological mechanisms that motivate some individuals to participate in violent political activism.
The majority of research on authoritarianism has focused on individuals with right-wing political ideologies. This focus has resulted in a gap in understanding authoritarianism among individuals who support left-wing political ideologies, which the authors behind the new work sought to address.
“We were interested in the psychological factors behind authoritarianism,” explained study authors Ann Krispenz, a postdoctoral associate, and Alex Bertrams, the head of the Educational Psychology Lab at the University of Bern. “There is a wide range of literature and research in the field of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). However, research on authoritarianism observed in individuals who are supportive of left-wing political ideologies are still rare.”
“By many researchers, the notion of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) is even been met with skepticism. Thus, we wanted to investigate LWA and its personality correlates using a recently published measure for LWA by Costello and colleagues (2022).”
Costello and colleagues conceptualized LWA as a tripartite construct consisting of three correlated dimensions: anticonventionalism, top-down censorship, and antihierarchical aggression.
“Authoritarianism can be found on both sides of the political spectrum,” Krispenz and Bertrams said. “Indicators of authoritarianism on the political left are anticonventionalism (i.e., the absolute endorsement of progressive moral values), top-down censorship (i.e., the preference for the use of governmental and institutional authority to suppress any speech that is considered as offensive and intolerant), and antihierarchical aggression (i.e., the motivation to use force and aggression to overthrow established hierarchies).”
“For example, an individual high in LWA might declare anyone to be ‘old fashioned’ who is opposing their own ‘progressive values,’ strive to suppress free speech to regulate the expression of right-wing beliefs in educational institutions, and even endorse the use of violence to reach their own political goals.”
Krispenz and Bertrams investigated the relationship between narcissism and left-wing authoritarianism in two studies, and utilized the online research platform Prolific to recruit samples of U.S. participants.

Their first study included 391 individuals with an average age of 46 years. The participants completed various online assessments using the Qualtrics software.
To measure narcissism, the researchers used the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory, a self-report measure with 60 items. The FFNI assesses narcissism on three subdimensions: antagonism, agentic extraversion, and neuroticism. Altruism was measured using the Self-Report Altruism Scale, which consisted of twenty items assessing prosocial behaviors (e.g., “I have given money to a charity”). Participants rated how often they had engaged in these behaviors in the past on a 5-point scale ranging from “never” to “very often.”
To assess proneness to socially desirable responding, the researchers used the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Socially desirable responding, also known as social desirability bias, refers to a tendency of individuals to respond to surveys or questionnaires in a way that presents themselves in a more favorable or socially acceptable light.
Left-wing authoritarianism was measured using the Left-Wing Authoritarian Index, a self-report measure with 39 items. Finally, the participants’ political orientation was assessed with a single item asking them to place themselves on a 7-point scale ranging from “extremely left-wing/far-left” to “extremely right-wing/far-right.”
The researchers found that individuals high in LWA tended to have high levels of neurotic narcissism, which means they cared strongly about what others thought of them, experienced high levels of shame, and had a strong need for admiration. Surprisingly, the researchers did not find a relationship between LWA and altruism, indicating that LWA and altruism are not strongly linked.
However, after accounting for other factors like age, gender, and socially desirable responding, the relationship between LWA and neurotic narcissism became less significant. On the other hand, a robust relationship between antagonistic narcissism and the LWA subfacet of antihierarchical aggression emerged.
This suggests that individuals who endorse aggressive actions to overthrow those in power are more likely to exhibit traits of exploiting others for their own gain, lacking empathy, feeling entitled, being arrogant and manipulative, showing reactive anger, distrusting others, and seeking thrill.
In Study 2, the researchers further examined the relationship between narcissism and LWA, focusing specifically on the subfacet of antihierarchical aggression. They recruited a sample of 377 participants with an average age of 46 years. They measured the dark triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy), social justice commitment, virtue signaling, and political orientation.
The results initially indicated that antihierarchical aggression was predicted by social justice commitment but not narcissism. However, when controlling for other factors, such as the other dark triad traits, age, gender, and virtue signaling, a different pattern emerged. Antihierarchical aggression was found to be related to psychopathy rather than narcissism. This suggests that individuals endorsing violent actions to challenge hierarchy are more likely to exhibit psychopathic tendencies.
“Based on previous research, we had expected that LWA would be correlated to prosocial motives (e.g., altruism and social justice commitment) and ego-focussed traits (e.g., narcissism and psychopathy),” Krispenz and Bertrams told PsyPost.
“We found antagonistic narcissism (Study 1) as well as psychopathy (Study 2) to predict antihierarchical aggression above and beyond the respective prosocial traits. However, the prosocial traits were no longer predictive when the ego-focussed traits were included in the analyses.”
The study suggests that people with dark personality traits, like narcissism and psychopathy, are drawn to certain antagonistic ideologies and political activities. However, their motivation is not necessarily driven by a genuine desire for social justice and equality. Instead, they use these ideologies and activities as a way to fulfill their own ego-centered needs. The researchers call this phenomenon the “dark-ego-vehicle principle.”
“Based on our results, we introduced a new contribution to the literature on dark personality traits, coining the term dark-ego-vehicle principle (DEVP),” Krispenz and Bertrams explained. “According to this principle, individuals with dark personalities – such as high narcissistic and psychopathic traits – are attracted to certain forms of political and social activism which they can use as a vehicle to satisfy their own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social justice and equality.”
“In particular, certain forms of activism might provide them with opportunities for positive self-presentation and displays of moral superiority, to gain social status, to dominate others, and to engage in social conflicts and aggression to satisfy their need for thrill seeking.”
“Most importantly, the dark-ego-vehicle principle does not mean that activism is per se narcissistic/psychopathic,” Krispenz and Bertrams told PsyPost. “It rather says that some forms of political activism can be attractive for narcissist/psychopaths; however, people also get involved in political activism due to their altruistic motives.”
“Secondly, the dark-ego-vehicle principle means that involvement in (violent) political activism is not solely attributable to political orientation but rather to personality traits manifesting in individuals on the (radical) left and right of the political spectrum. Accordingly, some individuals with high levels of antagonistic narcissism may be motivated to endorse either right- or left-wing ideological attitudes depending on which of these attitudes seems to be more opportune to them given a specific situation. Thus, it is necessary to argue very carefully in each case for what reason a specific dark personality should be attracted to particular forms of activism.”
The findings are in line with previous research examining the opposite side of the political divide, which has linked RWA to heightened psychopathic tendencies.
Krispenz and Bertrams said that their new findings have important practical implications for activist groups.
“Assuming that the DEVP is valid, minority groups should be made aware of the narcissistic ‘enemies’ from within their activist movement, as these individuals could hijack the cause thereby reducing the success of the activism in many ways,” they explained. “As grandiose narcissists typically desire fame, distinction, elevated social status, and high social importance, they can be assumed to strive for influential positions that involve social visibility and outreach as well as access to financial and other resources.”
“While pretending to be prosocial, narcissists tend to have low empathy and to be primarily interested in satisfying their self-centered needs. Therefore, instead of striving for reasonable solutions, narcissistic individuals will rather be interested in keeping the perception of problems going to maintain their highlighted position.”
“Also, narcissistic individuals might use the resources of the activist movements for their own private purposes, thereby causing irreparable financial and reputational harm to the activist movement,” Krispenz and Bertrams told PsyPost. “The perception of such narcissistic behaviors within an activist movement might then lead to dwindling support for the activist movement by the public and – in the worst case – could even be wielded against the respective movement.”
Previous research found a large overlap in personality traits, cognitive styles, and beliefs among those who scored high on left-wing authoritarianism and those who scored high on right-wing authoritarianism. Both groups had heightened levels of psychopathic meanness and boldness, dogmatism, disinhibition, need for closure, fatalistic determinism beliefs, belief in conspiracy theories, and belief in a dangerous world.
But Krispenz and Bertrams noted that more research is still needed to better understand LWA and DEVP.
“At present, the DEVP is not an elaborated theory as it is yet unclear whether it refers to a robust, stable, and reproducible empirical phenomenon,” they told PsyPost. “Therefore, we are currently investigating the validity of the DEVP in the context of different forms of activism (e.g., anti-sexual assault activism, feminist activism, LGBQ activism, etc.)”
“Future research should also empirically address the nomological network of the dark personality–activism relationship. Furthermore, future research is necessary to help our understanding of the boundary conditions of the DEVP by examining possible moderating influences.”
“We do not believe that every kind of activism is equally usable as a dark-ego vehicle,” Krispenz and Bertrams added. “As a minimum requirement, the activism must provide benefits that narcissists can repurpose to satisfy their dark personalities’ needs. For example, activistic causes receiving little to no public interest may attract narcissists less than activism which is widely noticed.”
The study, “Understanding left-wing authoritarianism: Relations to the dark personality traits, altruism, and social justice commitment,” was published online March 20, 2023.

Marketing 101 - More Vets then Tuckers

The guy in the video has a valid point if the Target really has no celebratory section for our military and vets. The military 🪖 preserves our freedoms, rights and liberties🗽, they ones that let us be who we want. Pride politics aside, Target loses me if it isn't giving equal space for our military holidays.

  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

Weak demand for fuel pushes down gasoline pump prices for Memorial Day

Weak demand for fuel pushes down gasoline pump prices for Memorial Day

By: Carl Surran - SA Editor

Gasoline at the pump this Memorial Day weekend will cost U.S. consumers ~$1.00 per gallon less than at the same time last year, driven by weak demand for fuel and low oil prices.

Nationally, a gallon of gas averaged $3.57 on Friday, down from $4.59 a year ago, according to AAA, which also forecasts 42.3M people will be traveling this weekend by car, plane, bus or train, nearly 3M more than last year.

AAA predicts this will be the third-busiest Memorial Day weekend for auto travel since 2000.

Because of the weak demand and accompanying recession worries, U.S. motorists likely will not see significant price changes any time soon, unlike many summers.

"It's very difficult for oil to rally if the majority of folks in the financial community - speculators, investors - think there is going to be a recession," OPIS head of energy analysis Tom Kloza said.

Crude oil rose for the second straight week, with front-month Nymex crude oil (CL1:COM) for July delivery settling +1.3% to $72.67/bbl, and July Brent crude (CO1:COM) closed +1.8% to $76.95/bbl.

Crude had found support earlier in the week after the Saudi energy minister warned oil short sellers to "watch out," which analysts saw as a threat that OPEC+ could add more production cuts.

But Russia's deputy prime minister poured cold water on the gains by expressing doubts about further reductions.

In other news this week, Baker Hughes reported a fourth straight weekly drop in the number of active U.S. drilling rigs, indicating a coming decline in domestic production.
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

The Mann With A Plan Podcast: Bakich's brand of baseball + Can The Boston Celtics make history?

For those who don't know, when I'm not at work for TI or at school, I run a podcast with nearly 20,000 thousand listeners that have featured Larry Williams multiple times, who you all may be familiar with!

In my hotel from Durham, I recorded a new episode!
It covers:
- Clemson Baseball's incredible run
- Erik Bakich's brand of baseball
- Can the Boston Celtics make history?

Let me know what you guys think! Enjoy!

Login to view embedded media

**** Paul Finebaum

----

By: Nick Shepkowski - Yahoo! Sports

Paul Finebaum joined “McElroy and Cubelic in the Morning” on Thursday and shared thoughts on potential landing spots for a few of the ACC’s biggest names.

Finebaum on Clemson:

“Clemson, to me, quite frankly, doesn’t bring that much,” Finebaum said. “I know it brings a national championship program from a couple of years ago. Clemson won twice, but from a geographical standpoint, I don’t think they add anything. I think South Carolina already covers the area in that part of the world very well.”

Finebaum on Florida State:

“I think Florida State is similar. I don’t think they’re nearly as attractive as they think they are…besides, Florida already covers that part of the world and so I think Miami, to me, would be next. I think it’s an important part of the country. It’s a very populated part of the country too.”

Finebaum on ACC Contracts:

“It’s so difficult to get out of these agreements, as you know,” Finebaum remarked. “I think if everyone had a free get out of jail card, we would see activity that would resemble the skies over Atlanta right now, but we don’t. I firmly believe at least 40 percent of the ACC would leave tomorrow, maybe more. I think these contracts like the ACC, like others, just do not allow anyone to get out without paying a fortune.”

WTF is this shat

So next thing you know a classroom assignment will consist of actual intercourse with a 4-legged creature....

SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY IS NOT A REAL CRIME

This will become more important as I strongly feel this is what they will charge Trump with. The proud boys cases were just to set the table for Trump.


SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY IS NOT A REAL CRIME​

tarrio

Seditious Conspiracy Is Not a Real Crime Comments for Seditious Conspiracy Is Not a Real Crime Print Seditious Conspiracy Is Not a Real Crime
HistoryPolitics

Seditious Conspiracy Is Not a Real Crime

9 HOURS AGORyan McMaken
Last Thursday, Enrique Tarrio, a reputed national leader of the Proud Boys organization was convicted in federal court of seditious conspiracy along with three-co-defendants. This conviction in a District of Columbia court represents a victory for the Justice Department which has now charged more than a thousand people with "crimes" related to the January 6 riot at the US capitol. Most of the charges related to the riot have been for small-time offenses that amount to vandalism and trespassing. A handful of those allegedly involved in the riot, however, have been convicted of seditious conspiracy.
Notably, Tarrio wasn't even in Washington, DC on the day of the riot, and thus could not have engaged in any violent acts against Capitol personnel. Yet, he has nonetheless been convicted on grounds that he was involved in some sort of "agreement" to "hinder" federal laws, and thus is guilty of saying things that allegedly led to the riot. The Tarrio case is an excellent example of how federal "crimes" can be spun by federal prosecutors from actions that are neither violence, nor fraud, nor any other act that a normal person would recognize as a real crime.

Seditious Conspiracy Was Invented to Get Around Limitations on Treason Prosecutions

Seditious conspiracy must not be confused with the act of treason legally defined in the US Constitution, however. Generally speaking, while treason requires an overt act of some kind, seditious conspiracy is a charge that a person has said things designed to undermine government authority. In other words, it is a “crime” of intent as interpreted by state authorities. This is fundamentally different from picking up a weapon and using it against agents of a government.
Of course, as we’ve noted here at mises.org before, the very idea of treason is itself problematic, since it assumes that violence against a government agent is somehow worse than a crime against a private citizen. Governments love this double standard because it reinforces the idea that the regime is more important than the voluntary private sector. Ultimately, however, violence against a person or property should be prosecuted as exactly that, and not as some separate category of crime against the “special” human beings who work for a regime.
Seditious conspiracy suffers from this same problem but is even more problematic because it relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to “prove” that a person was saying things in favor of obstructing or overthrowing a government. Indeed, the supposed necessity of such a “crime” is belied by the fact that no such crime existed even in federal law between the repeal of the hated Alien and Sedition Acts and the advent of the Civil War. Nor did seditious conspiracy laws play an important role in the US regime’s military success against the Southern secessionists.
Instead, what we find is that seditious conspiracy is a crime that is both prone to abuse by state authorities and unnecessary in terms of preventing violence to life and property. In cases such as the January 6 riot, crimes against persons and property ought to simply be considered violent crimes and property crimes of the usual sort. Seditious conspiracy, in contrast, is merely a type of “thought crime.”

The Origins of Seditious Conspiracy

The framers of the Constitution defined treason in very specific and limiting terms:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Note the use of the word “only” to specify that the definition of treason shall not be construed as something more broad than what is in the text. As with much of what we now find in the Bill of Rights, this language stems from fears that the US federal government would indulge in some of the same abuses that had occurred under the English crown, especially in the days of the Stuart monarchs. Kings had often construed “treason” to mean acts, thoughts, and “conspiracies” far beyond the act of actually taking up arms against the state. By contrast, in the US Constitution, the only flexibility given to Congress is in determining the punishment for treason.
Naturally, those who favored greater federal power chafed at these limitations and sought more federal laws that would punish alleged crimes against the state. It only took the Federalists ten years to come up with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which stated:
That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.
Note the references to “intent,” “counsel,” and “advise” as criminal acts so long as these types of speech are employed in a presumed effort to obstruct government officials. This part of the act, however, was never used by the regime. Those prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition Acts were charged under the section on seditious libel, which was heartily opposed for being obviously and blatantly against basic rights of free expression. Nonetheless, the Sedition Act was allowed to expire, thanks to the election of Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans (later known as Democrats).
For sixty years, the United States government had no laws addressing sedition on the books. But the heart of the 1798 Sedition Act would be revived. As passed on July 1861, the new Seditious Conspiracy statute stated
that if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States; or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States against the will or contrary to the authority of the United States; or by force, or intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office, or trust, or place of confidence, under the United States. . . . Shall be guilty of a high crime.
Given the timing of the legislation—i.e., in 1861, following the secession of several Southern states—it is assumed that the legislation originated to address alleged Confederate treason. This is not quite the case. The legislation did enjoy considerable support from those who were especially militant in their opposition to the Confederacy. For example, Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio—who would later be exiled to the Confederacy for opposing the war—supported the bill precisely because he thought it would help punish those engaged in “conspiracies to resist the fugitive slave law.” But the Congress had initially become serious about punishing “conspiracies” not in response to Southern secession, but in response to John Brown’s 1859 raid at Harper’s Ferry.
Southern secession and fears of rebellion helped enlarge the coalition in favor of a new sedition law. The new sedition law represented a significant expansion of the idea of “crimes against the state” in that the sedition law did not require overt acts against the government, but merely “conspiring,” vaguely defined. Stephen Douglas understood this perfectly well, explaining the benefits of his bill as such:
You must punish the conspiracy, the combination with intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. There is no principle more familiar to the legal profession than that whenever it is proper to declare an act to be a crime, it is proper to punish a conspiracy or combination with intent to perpetrate the act. . . . If it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run off fugitive slaves, why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in the several States with intent to do the act?
Others were more suspicious of expanding federal power in this way, however. Sen. Lazarus Powell and eight other Democrats presented a statement opposing the passage of the bill. Specifically, Powell and his allies believed the new seditious conspiracy law would be a de facto move in the direction of allowing the federal government to effectively expand the definition of treason offered by the federal constitution. The statement read:
The creation of an offense, resting in intention alone, without overt act, would render nugatory the provision last quoted, [i.e., the treason definition in the Constitution] and the door would be opened for those similar oppressions and cruelties which, under the excitement of political struggles, have so often disgraced the past history of the world.
Even worse, the new legislation would provide to the federal government “the utmost latitude to prosecutions founded on personal enmity and political animosity and the suspicions as to intention which they inevitably engender.”
Seditious conspiracy legislation gives the federal government far greater leeway to punish political opponents. Certainly, such legislation could have been used against opponents of the fugitive slave acts, as well as against opponents of federal conscription. After all, opponents of both the Civil War draft and the Vietnam War draft “conspired” to destroy government property—as with the heroic draft-card burnings of the Catonsville Nine, for example. It would be far harder to prove in court that such acts constituted treason. Unfortunately, the new legislation was ultimately approved in 1861, and the United States government had its first permanent laws against seditious conspiracy.
We now have the same reasons to fear seditious conspiracy laws as Powell did in 1861. Such measures allow the federal government to construct laws addressing intent, thoughts, and words, rather than overt acts. This greatly expands federal power and allows for prosecution of mere inflammatory rhetoric against the federal government.
As a practical matter, seditious conspiracy laws are simply unnecessary. A commonsense foundation for addressing violence in the Capitol building would be to simply prosecute those who engaged in actual violence and trespass. It is clear, however, that gaining convictions for seditious conspiracy has been an important goal for the administration because it furthers the narrative that Donald Trump’s supporters attempted some sort of coup.
Unfortunately, these sorts of political prosecutions are just the sort of thing we’ve come to expect from the Justice Department. The FBI can’t be bothered with investigating sex criminals such as Larry Nassar, but they’ll pull out all the stops to prosecute hundreds of those who entered the Capitol on January 6, many of whom simply stood around gawking at the scenery. But when Congress gives the FBI a near carte blanche, as it has done with seditious conspiracy laws, we should expect as much.

Ex-USC AD's dirty laundry being aired out

Ex-USC AD Mike Bohn was reportedly under investigation for workplace misconduct before leaving Cincinnati

By: Jack Baer - Yahoo! Sports

Mike Bohn is out as USC athletic director and the accompanying dirty laundry isn't coming from only USC.

The longtime administrator's previous stint as athletic director at the University of Cincinnati ended with a pair of investigations against him by the Office of Equal Opportunity and Access Office of Gender, Equity & Inclusion, according to The Athletic.

The investigations were reportedly opened on Oct. 29, 2019, three days before Bohn's hire at USC was first reported to be in the works and five years after he was hired following a stint at Colorado.

Several staffers reportedly complained about Mike Bohn at Cincinnati

The first came from a formalized complaint made by executive senior associate athletic director Karen Hatcher, who reportedly accused Bohn of “discriminatory and other professional misconduct.” Hatcher reportedly claimed Bohn told her, "I'd be careful with the diverse pools" while hiring for a development position and said she "pulled the race card" during a conversation with another executive after she complained about a lack of promotion for minority employees.

Hatcher also reportedly claimed Bohn told former Cincinnati CFO Omar Banks that she was “only successful in athletics because she is an African American woman.” Banks also reportedly told investigators that Bohn made him feel "devalued" before he left the school in early 2017.

The investigation reportedly ended six months later with a memo stating it found evidence of university policy violations, but had little reason to proceed:

“While the allegations may have constituted evidence of a violation of university policy, there is no opportunity for [Bohn] to answer as he departed before there was an opportunity for OEOA to address the concerns with him.”

The second investigation reportedly conducted a review into "the climate and culture of the athletics department as a whole," and found athletic staffers who described a "toxic atmosphere" with an "in crowd" that saw easier promotions. Staffers also reportedly complained about “a lack of diversity in senior leadership positions and no recruitment of minorities for those positions.”

That investigation also reportedly found "sufficient evidence" of a violation.

The findings of both investigations came after Bohn's hire at USC, but The Athletic reports there was a notice letter that would have been available via the Freedom of Information Act before he left. Former Cincinnati associate athletic director Kim McGraw reportedly complained to a Title IX coordinator about a pay disparity between herself and two male colleagues.

McGraw spoke with the Los Angeles Times after Bohn's ouster and also claimed she saw him make unwanted physical contact with women, including squeezing their shoulders and putting his arm around them.

More on Mike Bohn's time at USC

While the investigations at Cincinnati painted a troubling picture given the power Bohn was given to wield at USC, there were apparently rumblings about his management in Los Angeles as well.

The Athletic reports Bohn was known to spend much of his time in his hometown of Boulder, Colorado, during his time with Cincinnati and worked remotely from there for "the better part of his first two years on the job at USC, and sporadically still over the ensuing 18 months."

This, as you might imagine, was apparently a problem when it came to forging connections with USC athletic staff. Former USC football captain and popular Los Angeles radio host Petros Papadakis told a quite illustrative story:

Papadakis had a memorable first meeting with Bohn when he was working the USC-Cal game as an analyst for Fox Sports a few weeks after Bohn took the job in 2019. Papadakis was on the field pregame talking to former teammates Keary Colbert and Lenny Vandermade.
“Bohn came up and he introduced himself,” Papadakis said. “I said, ‘You know Keary and Lenny,’ and he shook their hands and said, ‘I want you alums to be around the program a lot.’”
“They’re on your staff,” Papadakis replied, pointing out that both were currently assistant coaches for the Trojans. “I introduced him to guys that he was on the plane with. They kinda rolled their eyes at me.”

Bohn's tenure as athletic director saw one notable win, the hire of football coach Lincoln Riley, who brought last year's Heisman Trophy winner Caleb Williams with him from Oklahoma. His tenure, however, also saw the departure of national championship-winning coaches Caryl Smith-Gilbert (track) and Keidane McAlpine (women's soccer).

And now, his exit means USC is in a familiar position of administrative chaos, even though it has the headwind of Williams and the additions of highly touted basketball recruits Isaiah Collier, Judea Watkins and Bronny James. It can only hope its next hire goes better than Bohn's, or his predecessors Lynn Swann and Pat Haden.
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT