Courtney Smith is a victim. She is a victim of spousal abuse, both physical and sexual. She is a victim of a law enforcement system that arguably did not do enough to protect her from persistent abuse both in Florida and in the state of Ohio. But has Ms. Smith herself behaved in an ethical manner throughout her ordeal? Let’s examine.
During her years of abuse, Ms. Smith notified law enforcement in Florida and Ohio of Zach Smith’s alleged crimes. At what appears to have been the breaking point in their troubled marriage in 2015, Ms. Smith filed multiple police reports detailing actual and threatened abuse by Zach Smith before ultimately filing for divorce in November. Yet the affidavits she filed during divorce proceedings were sealed at her request in order to, according to court documents, “protect certain personal interests which, if published, may negatively affect [Zach Smith’s] occupation, the parties’ financial circumstances and the children’s well-being.”
It is relatively clear that Ms. Smith did not want Zach Smith to be fired because it would negatively impact both the terms of the divorce settlement and the amount of alimony and/or child support she would receive in the future. She wanted to maximize her revenue. Is this ethical? To be sure, any of us in her situation would likely do the same. After years of sustained abuse and with an imperative to meet the immediate and long-term needs of her children (and herself), Ms. Smith did what any rational being would do. On the question of if her behavior during and just after divorce proceedings was ethical, I posit that by choosing to do everything she could to create a secure financial future for herself and her children she did indeed act ethically.
However, a lingering question persists: why did Ms. Smith go public with her allegations only after Zach had been fired? One could plausibly argue that with her ability to maximize revenue through Zach Smith’s employment (via beefy alimony and child support payments) now moot, she was faced with the prospect of an uncertain financial future for her children and herself. She had to devise a new plan, even if it raised questions about the purity of her campaign for justice.
By going public immediately after Zach Smith’s firing—via interviews with Stadium and Brett McMurphy—Ms. Smith, ostensibly with guidance from her lawyer, has been intimating that Urban Meyer, the OSU football program writ large, and the Ohio State University as an institution should have investigated earlier abuse allegations more strenuously and taken decisive action (i.e. fired Zach Smith). But if that had been her belief all along, why wait to go public with her allegations until after Zach Smith’s firing? Why not move to unseal the divorce documents detailing years of abuse to push for Zach Smith’s ouster much earlier? Why seal them in the first place? As stated, she did none of this because she, rationally, felt the best situation for her children and herself was to maintain the financial security offered by Zach Smith’s continued employment. It was probably not the scenario she wanted to be in, but felt there were no better alternatives.
But what does Ms. Smith have to gain by going public now? Is it spite toward Zach Smith? Doubtful. His bed is made. Is it to bring about Urban Meyer’s firing? Also doubtful. Ms. Smith seems genuinely appreciative of the support offered through the years by Shelley Meyer and has little to gain by Urban Meyer’s ouster.
By publicizing the abuse allegations after her revenue source was eliminated, she and her legal representation are “preparing the battlefield,” so to speak. They are positioning Ms. Smith to pursue legal recourse against The Ohio State University. The exact nature of the lawsuit pursued will likely depend on what facts surface during the course of the internal OSU investigation and likely concurrent investigations conducted by Ms. Smith’s legal team as well as investigative journalists.
Is seeking legal recourse against Ohio State ethical given that Ms. Smith could have shared her story publicly while Zach Smith was still employed, thereby seemingly preserving the purity of her pursuit of justice? The answer this time seems a bit more nuanced, but I still posit that her behavior seems ethical when one takes into account the need to continue to provide for the financial well-being of her children and her own self.
Ms. Smith is acting in accordance with her own best interest and in the best interest of her children. She is not acting in the best interest of the Meyer family, the OSU football program, or The Ohio State University. The Meyers are grown, financially secure adults, and the latter two entities are established institutions that can and will pursue and protect their own best interests. Ms. Smith is essentially alone in her pursuit. Why would she behave in any other manner than what will provide her and her children with future financial security? Expecting her to keep quiet and not pursue her best interests would be self-defeating, a form of self-victimization even.
As much as we fans loathe what continues to unfold with the football program, each party will continue to pursue their best interest despite what collateral damage this may engender. I do not believe Ms. Smith wants Urban Meyer fired, but that may well be a second-order effect of her pursuit of justice.
As odd as it may seem, Urban Meyer may have behaved altruistically by keeping the events of 2015 quiet. By not firing Zach Smith in 2015—which would have blown the lid off of Zach Smith’s years of abuse—Meyer was (or thought he was) doing what was in Ms. Smith’s best interest: keeping Zach Smith employed and the alimony and child support checks flowing. This part is, of course, speculative. But it is clear to even the casual OSU fan that Urban Meyer didn’t keep quiet in 2015 because he was adamant about keeping Zach Smith on staff, Earle Bruce be damned. Smith was a good recruiter, but not a great position coach. There is a reason he was the lowest-paid assistant coach each year he was employed at OSU.
In the end, Ms. Smith has acted and continues to act in a manner consistent with her own best interests and the best interests of her children. One can only deem a mother doing so as ethical.
The Meyers have in the past acted in what they likely viewed as the best interests of the Smith family as a whole, but will now need to circle the wagons and pursue their own best interests exclusively, whatever that may entail. The Ohio State University will, as always, pursue its best interests, even if that means cleaning house. Each person, each institution is behaving rationally and in their own best interest.
Finger-pointing and blame is pointless at this juncture, although sensationalist media desperate to attract clicks will persist (I do not place 11W in this category). There is but one person to blame for this tragedy. Each entity will now pursue their interests and we will have stages of closure to this terrible story.
Has Ms. Smith behaved ethically? I will simply say that were I in her shoes, I’m not sure I would have handled anything any differently. Any other course of action than the one she has pursued would likely not have been in her best interest or that of her children.
