Gophers Football

[Mr. Brooks]

They're protesting the manner of the suspensions being handed out as well.

 

“Effective immediately, we will boycott all football activities,” Wolitarsky said to a large media throng in the University of Minnesota’s indoor practice facility. “The boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed, and the suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted.”

 

And just because the University isn't bound by the same process as the courts doesn't mean it's in the right. I would hope, for something this serious, that there would be something more akin to the process of the courts than some unchecked, on-high tribunal making the calls. If the University is going to declare their behavior inappropriate and suspend them because that's their right to do without a better process in place, the athletes can use what rights they have (boycotting) to send the message that they don't approve of the process.

 

And, depending upon how this went down, I'm not so sure I disagree with them.

The key word after your bolded part is "and". They want due process AND the suspensions lifted. Not "or".

That word matters. It matters a lot because it implies they want the suspensions lifted no matter the process or the facts of the case.

And again, with the privacy laws that the University is bound by, how do you propose the process be handled? Perhaps they have evidence that they can't legally share.

[Mr. Brooks]

The reason due process is so important in the legal system is because the government is attempting to take rights and/or freedoms from a person.

The university isn't attempting to do that. There is no right to play in a football game.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I guess I don't understand what they are protesting.

I would guess the players are protesting because they had every reason to believe this issue was settled when the "I'm glad this is over" comment was made, and now they feel betrayed by the coach/AD/president or some combination thereof.

[Mr. Brooks]

I would guess the players are protesting because they had every reason to believe this issue was settled when the "I'm glad this is over" comment was made, and now they feel betrayed by the coach/AD/president or some combination thereof.

The University investigation wasn't complete at that point.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The University investigation wasn't complete at that point.

And maybe the players weren't aware of that or were told it wouldn't matter.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The key word after your bolded part is "and". They want due process AND the suspensions lifted. Not "or".
That word matters. It matters a lot because it implies they want the suspensions lifted no matter the process or the facts of the case.
And again, with the privacy laws that the University is bound by, how do you propose the process be handled? Perhaps they have evidence that they can't legally share.

 

So you're going to parse his words that closely? C'mon man.  I think Chief already addressed with you how absurd that is.  He's saying that the suspensions aren't fair because the process wasn't fair.  

 

I would hope that the University had done more in the investigation to listen to all sides.  It certainly doesn't sound like these guys were part of hte investigation.  It sounds like they got blindsided by this two months after they thought they had served their punishment.

 

That seems, to me, like a crappy process.

[biggentleben]

 

They're protesting the manner of the suspensions being handed out as well.  

 

“Effective immediately, we will boycott all football activities,” Wolitarsky said to a large media throng in the University of Minnesota’s indoor practice facility. “The boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed, and the suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted.”

 

And just because the University isn't bound by the same process as the courts doesn't mean it's in the right.  I would hope, for something this serious, that there would be something more akin to the process of the courts than some unchecked, on-high tribunal making the calls.  If the University is going to declare their behavior inappropriate and suspend them because that's their right to do without a better process in place, the athletes can use what rights they have (boycotting) to send the message that they don't approve of the process.  

 

And, depending upon how this went down, I'm not so sure I disagree with them. 

 

 

There is a due process at the U for such things. I was part of them on both sides many times during my college years. If that due process was not followed to the letter, the U is in huge violation, and guilty or not, rape or murder or theft of $5 from the vending machine, everyone is entitled to that due process as a student.

[biggentleben]

 

So you're going to parse his words that closely? C'mon man.  I think Chief already addressed with you how absurd that is.  He's saying that the suspensions aren't fair because the process wasn't fair.  

 

I would hope that the University had done more in the investigation to listen to all sides.  It certainly doesn't sound like these guys were part of hte investigation.  It sounds like they got blindsided by this two months after they thought they had served their punishment.

 

That seems, to me, like a crappy process.

 

...and there could be good reason for them to expect both/and right now UNTIL due process has run its course. From my experience, anything the PD had, the university had in hand, so for their investigation to take two months longer than the official investigation raises some major questions from my involvement in college in these procedures. Almost always, the U finished their investigation before the legal one was done.

[TheLeviathan]

Thanks for adding that Ben, I think you have as much or more insight into this than any of us.  

 

This "process", whatever it was that got us here, stinks of politics and appearances.  I think the players are right to demand to know how it got to this point.  None of the comments so far seem to indicate this was anything other than a blindside.  Which should never happen if a sound process for this is followed/.

[biggentleben]

As a former Gopher and a former CA in the residence halls, I've been on both sides of issues just like this one. A few things this raises to question in my head after reading pertinent articles...

 

First, is this woman one of the girls that frequents the opposite side of the street from the Nagurski Center? There were as many as a dozen women ranging in age from illegal to cougar outside the practice facility on a nearly daily basis, waiting on players to finish practice or workouts (and trust me, they knew the schedules), and they wanted to find a guy looking for a quick hook up in order to get pregnant with a future NFLer's kid. There were also plenty of your typical jersey chasers there who were just wanting to hook up with players, but there were absolutely those who had nefarious reasons for wanting sexual relations, and they would bend basically all rules to get someone into the sack with them - two guys, two girls, more than that, various other kinks, all sorts of horrid things you would never share with your daughter for sure.

 

This could lead to many of the players having issue believing her story from the get-go, even if they weren't present. If she was a recognizable female that was consistently outside of the facility, that could be something that the rest of the team would know and remember.

 

Second, there is a due process, and it does apply for all students, athlete or not. If there is ever an accusation of one student against another, that is absolutely the route that is pursued. It is swift, intense, and decisive, which is why taking 3+ months to come to resolution tells me that the proper due process spelled out in the student handbook was not followed for these athletes. That would apply regardless of the settlement reached in a legal sense.

 

Third, as far as "representing the University", I will never, ever excuse the behavior of these young men. Not once. However, the majority of these players are NOT on full scholarship. The majority of all football players aren't, let alone the majority of athletes in general. These players frequently work a part-time job that they have to go through 2-3 layers of approval just to make minimum wage due to the restrictions placed on them by the team, who isn't even giving them full money to cover their education.

 

They represent the University no more and no less than any student on the campus would represent the University that is involved with an extra-curricular activity on campus. Public perception of their standing should not determine forcing them into a different level of behavior while they're also forced to limit the number of classes they can take (frequently forcing them to take a year of schooling on their own dime in order to graduate), forcing a schedule onto their lives (while most students are free to schedule their classes as they'd like), and already put to a different level of rules through their coaches on top of University official policy.

 

Last, those who want athletics separated from the University are welcome to do just that, however, our schools would then require significantly more funding, meaning significantly more taxes or significantly more tuition (though there's plenty to say that tuition is not at a level of true cost as it is, but that's another discussion altogether). The U of M receives significant finances from athletics, from medical research, and from agricultural research that come in as income to the University and SHOULD keep costs lower for students. Uncoupling the school from one and not the others (when a place like Monsanto pays for that agricultural research or a drug company is paying for the medical research) seems like a vendetta-based decision. I don't argue that reform in education financing needs to happen, but starting with such a drastic measure is short-sighted in that there is plenty tied in that may not be surface level to the naked eye.

[drjim]

Thanks for that perspective. There is an awful lot to wrap our heads around with this story.

 

I wonder if this is a case of the EOAA overstepping, turning a sad situation into a complete clustermess.

[Badsmerf]

Just would like to point out this discussion is why I love this forum. We can talk about things like this in an open and respectful manner.

 

Great insight Ben. I do have one comment about your posts. To me, any prior history with this woman is irrelevant. All we should be basing our opinion on is the facts of the case and how it was handled by the university. I believe the university is wrong, simply based on the things I've read so far. I do think this could get messy.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Thanks for that perspective. There is an awful lot to wrap our heads around with this story.

 

I wonder if this is a case of the EOAA overstepping, turning a sad situation into a complete clustermess.

 

I think what we might be seeing is the culmination of the EOAA overstepping a few years ago with the pressure to put affirmative consent practices in place on campuses.  Back when it happened there were a lot of people arguing that it was basically subverting due process.

[biggentleben]

 

Just would like to point out this discussion is why I love this forum. We can talk about things like this in an open and respectful manner.

Great insight Ben. I do have one comment about your posts. To me, any prior history with this woman is irrelevant. All we should be basing our opinion on is the facts of the case and how it was handled by the university. I believe the university is wrong, simply based on the things I've read so far. I do think this could get messy.

 

I don't disagree about prior history being irrelevant to the process, but to players, her claims could hold little water based on her previous position seeking players. There's also the very real possibility that many of the players have seen the video that was used as evidence in the case as well.

[USAFChief]

a little perspective on "affirmative consent," courtesy of the head of the UofM EoAA Office:

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/group-distributes-sexual-consent-contracts/article/2567726

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't disagree about prior history being irrelevant to the process, but to players, her claims could hold little water based on her previous position seeking players. There's also the very real possibility that many of the players have seen the video that was used as evidence in the case as well.

Her previously trying to hook up with a football player (which is pure speculating on your part) makes it impossible to be raped?

This is a disgusting double standard in our society. When men actively pursue sex it is normal and in fact something of an accomplishment. But when women do it they are sluts,and must have nefarious reasons for it.

I suppose when men are attracted to, and try to have sex with a beautiful woman, the only possible reason is that they are hoping to get a future supermodel pregnant? Of course that would be silly to suggest.

 

As for the videos, they cover a combined 90 seconds. Isn't it possible that her attempts to stop them occurred during a time frame that wasn't recorded?

[Mr. Brooks]

a little perspective on "affirmative consent," courtesy of the head of the UofM EoAA Office:

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/group-distributes-sexual-consent-contracts/article/2567726

That article is full of misinformation.

Affirmative consent policies do not shift the burden of proof to the accused. They simply clarify what consent is.

The contract shown in this article is a gimmick. A lack of one of these contacts isn't proof that rape occurred.

Everything covered in affirmative consent is already common sense human decency, this just puts it into policy.

This is just more fear mongering. (Not from you, but some media outlets). Affirmative consent is not some outrageous thing that turns everyone into a rapist. It's basic human decency. One simple analogy to explain the policies, in fact the way I explained them to my children, is with money.

 

You ask to borrow a dollar. I say yes and give it to you. The next day you take a dollar from me without asking. That isn't OK.

 

You ask to borrow a dollar. I say sure, grab one from my wallet. You go into my wallet and take five dollars. That isn't OK.

 

These are pretty simple, basic, non controversial principles. Somehow when we try to apply them to sex people freak out.

[DaveW]

Her previously trying to hook up with a football player (which is pure speculating on your part) makes it impossible to be raped?

This is a disgusting double standard in our society. When men actively pursue sex it is normal and in fact something of an accomplishment. But when women do it they are sluts,and must have nefarious reasons for it.

I suppose when men are attracted to, and try to have sex with a beautiful woman, the only possible reason is that they are hoping to get a future supermodel pregnant? Of course that would be silly to suggest.

 

As for the videos, they cover a combined 90 seconds. Isn't it possible that her attempts to stop them occurred during a time frame that wasn't recorded?

Nobody is saying any of the things you are claiming they are saying...

[Mr. Brooks]

Nobody is saying any of the things you are claiming they are saying...

You must have missed ben's post where he said the players might not take her claims seriously because she wanted to hook up with a football player.

[drjim]

Man, just read parts of that report. That is hard reading and truly terrible behavior.

 

That said, I can see why no charges were filed. Even with the a favorable reading towards the young woman, it's not exactly clear that she ever was clear that she didn't want to engage in the acts, at least as the law would be concerned. I do appreciate that the university might have a different standard though.

[Mr. Brooks]

I just want to state unequivocally that I don't presume to know what happened. And the accused players absolutely have the right to defend themselves.

I want to make it clear that I'm not assuming they are guilty.

My issue is with the rest of the players, who like me don't know what happened.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That article is full of misinformation.
Affirmative consent policies do not shift the burden of proof to the accused. They simply clarify what consent is.
The contract shown in this article is a gimmick. A lack of one of these contacts isn't proof that rape occurred.
Everything covered in affirmative consent is already common sense human decency, this just puts it into policy.
This is just more fear mongering. (Not from you, but some media outlets). Affirmative consent is not some outrageous thing that turns everyone into a rapist. It's basic human decency. One simple analogy to explain the policies, in fact the way I explained them to my children, is with money.

You ask to borrow a dollar. I say yes and give it to you. The next day you take a dollar from me without asking. That isn't OK.

You ask to borrow a dollar. I say sure, grab one from my wallet. You go into my wallet and take five dollars. That isn't OK.

These are pretty simple, basic, non controversial principles. Somehow when we try to apply them to sex people freak out.

 

Except you used the easy examples.  What about when I ask to borrow a dollar, you say yes, and then the next day there are police at my door saying I took a dollar without your permission?

 

Now, as these policies are being enforced, I now have to (somehow) prove that you indeed gave me permission verbally after the fact despite the fact that you are adamantly claiming that you did not.  

 

I don't believe you've really looked at the full ramifications of these laws.  They are, essentially, a reversal of the cornerstone of our justice system.  

 

I'm all about the more important shifting of how we view sex and consent.  But these sorts of mandates and laws are not helpful.

[Mr. Brooks]

Except you used the easy examples. What about when I ask to borrow a dollar, you say yes, and then the next day there are police at my door saying I took a dollar without your permission?

 

Now, as these policies are being enforced, I now have to (somehow) prove that you indeed gave me permission verbally after the fact despite the fact that you are adamantly claiming that you did not.

 

I don't believe you've really looked at the full ramifications of these laws. They are, essentially, a reversal of the cornerstone of our justice system.

 

I'm all about the more important shifting of how we view sex and consent. But these sorts of mandates and laws are not helpful.

Again, that isn't true. The burden of proof is still on the accuser.

That article you linked was nothing but hypotheticals.

I still have to prove you took that dollar without my permission.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Again, that isn't true. The burden of proof is still on the accuser.
That article you linked was nothing but hypotheticals.
I still have to prove you took that dollar without my permission.

 

No, you do not.  And the second link has actual examples to the contrary.  And you'll find more if you do a little research.  You merely have to accuse me of taking the dollar.  I then have to prove you consented to it or face repercussions if the preponderance of the evidence (which favors the accuser) goes against me.

 

It absolutely reverses the presumption of guilt.  

[TheLeviathan]

I'll help you with your research:

 

Here

 

[USAFChief]

 

Except you used the easy examples.  What about when I ask to borrow a dollar, you say yes, and then the next day there are police at my door saying I took a dollar without your permission?

 

Now, as these policies are being enforced, I now have to (somehow) prove that you indeed gave me permission verbally after the fact despite the fact that you are adamantly claiming that you did not.  

 

I don't believe you've really looked at the full ramifications of these laws.  They are, essentially, a reversal of the cornerstone of our justice system.  

 

I'm all about the more important shifting of how we view sex and consent.  But these sorts of mandates and laws are not helpful.

Precisely.

[Mr. Brooks]

No, you do not. And the second link has actual examples to the contrary. And you'll find more if you do a little research. You merely have to accuse me of taking the dollar. I then have to prove you consented to it or face repercussions if the preponderance of the evidence (which favors the accuser) goes against me.

 

It absolutely reverses the presumption of guilt.

 

No, the preponderance of evidence standard does not favor the accuser. What are you basing that opinion on?

The examples in the second article only appear to give the accused side of the story. That is not objective journalism.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No, the preponderance of evidence standard does not favor the accuser. What are you basing that opinion on?
The examples in the second article only appear to give the accused side of the story. That is not objective journalism.

 

Read the article by the Harvard law professors.  I'm not sure you've really dug into how these are being enforced on campuses. 

[Mr. Brooks]

I'll help you with your research:

 

Here

That is not the same policy that the University of Minnesota uses.

The article clearly states that Harvard's policy goes far beyond what title 9 requires.

Because one private school went too far with their policy that means they are all bad?

[Mr. Brooks]

Regardless of what happened that night, and the outcome of this, I sure hope that I've raised a son that will have the moral compass to say, "you know what guys. If she really wants to have sex with ten guys then she will still want it tomorrow when she's sober."