Gophers Football

[Mr. Brooks]

Proof beyond a doubt is really missing the point. You are still focused on if the sexual assault happened, and not on the process of decision making the university used. If she had a civil case, she should have filed it. You keep bringing that up but fail to account for the charges being dropped or civil case being pursued. This is not satisfactory for due process any way you look at it.

Sorry, it's probably my fault but I don't know what you are saying here.

This is not a criminal case. This is a university investigation into policy violations.

The university is REQUIRED to investigate by title 9. The lack of criminal charges doesn't free them from that requirement.

[USAFChief]

Don't know about them. Here's my agenda:

 

http://regents.umn.edu/sites/regents.umn.edu/files/policies/Mission_Statement.pdf

 

What's yours?

My agenda would be to ensure the Regents demand those standards from all parties. Students, whether or not they are male athletes, employees, and offices such as the EOAA.

 

I don't believe any of those groups are in compliance in this case.

[Mr. Brooks]

You clearly didn't do your reading.

 

I think they should have more proof than he said/they said to lump a guy in with a bunch of other players when they do a release on suspensions. And he certainly shouldn't be lumped with them as if he committed the same crime. I think they should have more than "We think you're lying" to suspend a kid from playing. "We think you're lying because there are conflicting reports" is a pretty ****ty way to decide anything.

 

I do think they think they are using the preponderance of evidence. But when your evidence amounts to he said/she said then shouldn't the accused go free? Yet, time and again, the opposite is happening. Again, to use your analogy, you gave me permission to take a dollar. I took a dollar. Now you say I didn't have permission. All we have is you saying I took it without permission, I say you gave me permission, the University suspends me. That's what is happening here based on this tribunal deciding the accuser has more credibility.

 

And, again, as I showed you in the link, the University is under pressure to appear to be tough on sexual assault crimes. So they have reason to lean towards finding the accuser more credible.

 

I hope the U does what it says it's going to do and gives these guys a fair hearing. The police report is in no uncertain terms saying the visual evidence available indicates a consensual encounter.

They do have more proof.

They have evidence that some of the accused deleted messages and videos.

The have statements from accused players that aren't consistent with video evidence.

They have conflicting stories from accused partieside.

 

In instances where there is insufficient evidence, they cleared some of the accused. You didn't answer how that jives with your accusation that they are going off her word only.

 

The video only covers 100 seconds of the incident.

The encounter could have began as consentual and changed at a moment not captured by video.

It's also possible that she was scared so she didn't resist.

I don't bring those points up to imply that possibilities equal evidence, just that the video is likely not of much use.

[Squirrel]

 

Personally, considering the makeup of the EOAA office, I would want to make sure a man is on the panel.

Personally, it shouldn't matter.

 

And I wonder if this would be talked about as much as it has if it weren't players on the football team involved.

[TheLeviathan]

 

They do have more proof.
They have evidence that some of the accused deleted messages and videos.
The have statements from accused players that aren't consistent with video evidence.
They have conflicting stories from accused partieside.

The video only covers 100 seconds of the incident.
The encounter could have began as consentual and changed at a moment not captured by video.
It's also possible that she was scared so she didn't resist.
I don't bring those points up to imply that possibilities equal evidence, just that the video is likely not of much use.

 

The video IS evidence.  It's 100 seconds of evidence that the police clearly stated indicated a consensual act.  

 

For some of these players, conjecture beat out actual evidence.  That is very troubling.

[Badsmerf]

I don't think we would know about it otherwise. I think it would still be a topic of conversation, at least in this forum.

[drjim]

 

Personally, it shouldn't matter.

 

And I wonder if this would be talked about as much as it has if it weren't players on the football team involved.

 

Of course it wouldn't be talked about it if it weren't players on the football team. There are probably situations like this often on campuses that we never hear about.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Boycott over, but suspended players not likely to be reinstated (at least not quickly):

 

http://m.startribune.com/gophers-players-u-leaders-working-toward-ending-boycott-of-football/407201426/?section=%2F

[Squirrel]

Boycott over, but suspended players not likely to be reinstated (at least not quickly):

http://m.startribune.com/gophers-players-u-leaders-working-toward-ending-boycott-of-football/407201426/?section=%2F

Wow. I wonder what details of the event that were in that report that broke the team's resolve on the boycott. Must have been something.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The video IS evidence.  It's 100 seconds of evidence that the police clearly stated indicated a consensual act.  

 

For some of these players, conjecture beat out actual evidence.  That is very troubling.

How so? The burden of proof for suspension from a university is not and should not be the same as a criminal case.

 

Whether the sex was consensual or not, a bunch of football players - who are representatives of the university itself, whether they want to be or not - videotaped going one after another on a lone drunk girl.

 

That in itself should be enough to get them the boot from the football team. Whether the girl consented or not is a police matter. Whether the students did something abominable - legal or not - is a university matter.

[TheLeviathan]

That's fine, but shouldn't they still get a chance to dispute the accusations? It sounds like they were questioned, but there was no opportunity to present a different version of events.

 

It is also important to note their punishments were not due to lewd behavior but sexual harassment and assault. That determination was made through questioning and not through much of any direct evidence gathering. So this is not merely "you behaved inappropriately", it was much more than that.

 

I believe a charge like that deserves more of a process than thus far indicated.

[twinsnorth49]

So once the players actually read the report, they abandoned blind loyalty to the brotherhood for actual independent thought.

 

I'd consider that to be a positive step.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That's fine, but shouldn't they still get a chance to dispute the accusations? It sounds like they were questioned, but there was no opportunity to present a different version of events.

It is also important to note their punishments were not due to lewd behavior but sexual harassment and assault. That determination was made through questioning and not through much of any direct evidence gathering. So this is not merely "you behaved inappropriately", it was much more than that.

I believe a charge like that deserves more of a process than thus far indicated.

Well, the university published an 80 page examination of the incident. It appears they did their due diligence on the matter. My wife read about half of it but no way do I want to subject myself to that read.

 

From the reactions I've heard of people who read the examination - or at least parts of it - the university was well within their rights to suspend the players involved.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, the university published an 80 page examination of the incident. It appears they did their due diligence on the matter. My wife read about half of it but no way do I want to subject myself to that read.

 

From the reactions I've heard of people who read the examination - or at least parts of it - the university was well within their rights to suspend the players involved.

 

They published 80 pages summarizing their interviews and subsequent findings.   That's pretty much all it was.  They were also, technically, within their rights.  The problem is that what they have the right to do is some kind of quasi-judicial system and I'm not sure I agree with that method of determining sexual assault.

 

In my opinion, there is a reason we turn crimes over to law enforcement and the justice system rather than letting institutions hold their own inquiries into these things.  It's within the rights of the institution to make their own decision to fire or suspend someone, of course, but they can also face ramifications for doing so in an unfair way.  (And many universities have)

 

What happened that night may be repulsive to many of us, but that doesn't make it sexual assault either.  And the police pretty decisively determined it wasn't. 

[Bark's Lounge]

Looking at this situation, not taking law into consideration. If I was in my late teens, early twenties, as a man, I would never get myself into a group sex situation. Nothing good is going to come from it and at that age it will only be a disaster... hell, it is probably a disaster for most adults 30+ who partake in Swinger lifestyles or other kind of affairs.

 

Maybe legally, a couple of the players did not break any laws, but I guarantee that the other ones did, and the ones who did not fundamentally break the laws are morally guilty.

 

It's a shame, jock *******s making a stand to protect their comrades who were definitely acting in ways that were against the law and of the worst judgement of all time.

 

This is coming from a guy with regrets, who had a lot of fun in that time of my life. I never let alcohol or narcotics get the best of me in those situations and I treated women with the greatest respect. Self control is a problem, and if you can't exercise that ability, you deserve the worst.

 

This is coming from a person who is irreligious, who is not influenced by boring theocracies or worthless superstitions.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

They published 80 pages summarizing their interviews and subsequent findings.   That's pretty much all it was.  They were also, technically, within their rights.  The problem is that what they have the right to do is some kind of quasi-judicial system and I'm not sure I agree with that method of determining sexual assault.

 

In my opinion, there is a reason we turn crimes over to law enforcement and the justice system rather than letting institutions hold their own inquiries into these things.  It's within the rights of the institution to make their own decision to fire or suspend someone, of course, but they can also face ramifications for doing so in an unfair way.  (And many universities have)

 

What happened that night may be repulsive to many of us, but that doesn't make it sexual assault either.  And the police pretty decisively determined it wasn't. 

It may not make it sexual assault but the players haven't been imprisoned. They haven't even been expelled (yet, anyway). They were suspended from a university. Their life is hardly over.

 

This is a societal shift and it's going to be painful for awhile. For too long (since recorded history, really), women who have been assaulted have been the ones on trial. Yes, I understand the presumption of innocence and all of that - very important traits - but this kind of **** simply cannot continue to happen.

 

There were plenty of opportunities for just one of these players to stand up and do the right thing while all this was going down. No one did, at least as far as I know.

 

My problem with your opinion on this situation is that you're equating felony charges with expectations of a university. They shouldn't even be in the same ballpark and given the problematic history of sexual assault on university campuses, something had to be done to scream from the rooftops "THIS IS NOT OKAY".

 

And if the students aren't even expelled, I'd say that's a quite mild lesson learned, far less than they probably deserve.

[TheLeviathan]

 

My problem with your opinion on this situation is that you're equating felony charges with expectations of a university. They shouldn't even be in the same ballpark and given the problematic history of sexual assault on university campuses, something had to be done to scream from the rooftops "THIS IS NOT OKAY".

 

And if the students aren't even expelled, I'd say that's a quite mild lesson learned, far less than they probably deserve.

 

No, I just think this particular accusation is especially devastating when laid out.  Look at what happened with the Minnesota St. coach a few years back.  

 

I also disagree with throwing out basic principles of fairness and justice just because an issue is serious.  Rarely does this sort of tactic effect change, it tends to be far more effective at creating a backlash.

[Mr. Brooks]

It may not make it sexual assault but the players haven't been imprisoned. They haven't even been expelled (yet, anyway). They were suspended from a university. Their life is hardly over.

 

This is a societal shift and it's going to be painful for awhile. For too long (since recorded history, really), women who have been assaulted have been the ones on trial. Yes, I understand the presumption of innocence and all of that - very important traits - but this kind of **** simply cannot continue to happen.

 

There were plenty of opportunities for just one of these players to stand up and do the right thing while all this was going down. No one did, at least as far as I know.

 

My problem with your opinion on this situation is that you're equating felony charges with expectations of a university. They shouldn't even be in the same ballpark and given the problematic history of sexual assault on university campuses, something had to be done to scream from the rooftops "THIS IS NOT OKAY".

 

And if the students aren't even expelled, I'd say that's a quite mild lesson learned, far less than they probably deserve.

Well said Brock.

We are up to 4 in 10 female college students being sexually assaulted.

The status quo of leaving it to law enforcement isn't working, and if that doesn't improve quickly, I'm not sure I'll be comfortable sending my daughter to college in 5 years.

[TheLeviathan]

We had this discussion the last time this issue came up, but since when did the "tough on crime" methodology ever work?  Since when did "scare them out of doing it" ever work?

 

We'll be compromising on very valuable principles for a strategy with a terrible rate of efficacy.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't view it as tough on crime, I view it as part of the societal discussion that is long overdue on the "hunter" aspect of male sexuality and the "prey" aspect of female sexuality.

 

At some point, we need to take a stance that this **** is not okay, particularly in higher learning establishments.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't view it as tough on crime, I view it as part of the societal discussion that is long overdue on the "hunter" aspect of male sexuality and the "prey" aspect of female sexuality.

At some point, we need to take a stance that this **** is not okay, particularly in higher learning establishments.

 

I agree 100% with your goal.  I strongly disagree this is the way to do so.

[USAFChief]

 

It may not make it sexual assault but the players haven't been imprisoned. They haven't even been expelled (yet, anyway). They were suspended from a university. Their life is hardly over.

 

This is a societal shift and it's going to be painful for awhile. For too long (since recorded history, really), women who have been assaulted have been the ones on trial. Yes, I understand the presumption of innocence and all of that - very important traits - but this kind of **** simply cannot continue to happen.

 

There were plenty of opportunities for just one of these players to stand up and do the right thing while all this was going down. No one did, at least as far as I know.

 

My problem with your opinion on this situation is that you're equating felony charges with expectations of a university. They shouldn't even be in the same ballpark and given the problematic history of sexual assault on university campuses, something had to be done to scream from the rooftops "THIS IS NOT OKAY".

 

And if the students aren't even expelled, I'd say that's a quite mild lesson learned, far less than they probably deserve.

Actually, 5 of the players were recommended for expulsion.  

 

From the available copy:  

Effective immediately your University of Minnesota studentship will be ended with resultant loss of
all student rights and privileges. A disciplinary hold will be placed on your record. The hold will prevent you from registering at the University and from obtaining your records through routine channels.

 

 

 

[nicksaviking]

 

We had this discussion the last time this issue came up, but since when did the "tough on crime" methodology ever work?  Since when did "scare them out of doing it" ever work?

 

We'll be compromising on very valuable principles for a strategy with a terrible rate of efficacy.

 

It doesn't have to be a "tough on crime" push, too many men of all ages don't realize that this garbage is illegal/immoral.

 

I loved the movie Animal House and most of the other teen sexual romp comedies back in the day. Many are still held up as classics despite the fact that nearly every one of them portrays sexual assault as a hilarious game. Suspensions don't have to be a tough on crime situation, they need to be an eye-opening situation. I'd wager there have been more than one young men who have read the report and thought to themselves, "that could have been me" who now would have second thoughts seeing this situation from the victim's perspective.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It doesn't have to be a "tough on crime" push, too many men of all ages don't realize that this garbage is illegal/immoral.

 

I loved the movie Animal House and most of the other teen sexual romp comedies back in the day. Many are still held up as classics despite the fact that nearly every one of them portrays sexual assault as a hilarious game. Suspensions don't have to be a tough on crime situation, they need to be an eye-opening situation. I'd wager there have been more than one young men who have read the report and thought to themselves, "that could have been me" who now would have second thoughts seeing this situation from the victim's perspective.

 

Nothing about what you said is crazy.   The line of reasoning and conclusion you draw SEEM reasonable.  I get the allure.

 

Except we know the idea of "punish someone harshly to make others think twice" is generally a failed strategy.  It just plain doesn't work.  So while I appreciate and agree with your sentiment, I'm going to be the nagging voice of reason for doing something that will actually work rather than something that makes us feel good about ourselves because we're horrified by what is happening.  Drugs, guns, etc. are similar issues.  Punishing offenders rarely stops the next one from offending and usually comes with a host of unintended, crappy side effects.  

 

The problem, like so many serious issues, is that the real answers are hard and they take a long time to implement and see success.  But we should want to get it right even if it takes time, not just feel good about ourselves that we did "something" and we did it "now".

[nicksaviking]

 

 

The problem, like so many serious issues, is that the real answers are hard and they take a long time to implement and see success.  But we should want to get it right even if it takes time, not just feel good about ourselves that we did "something" and we did it "now".

 

Speaking as a father of both a boy and a girl, both of whom I would like to go to college, doing "something" and doing it "now" is something I am 100% absolutely in support of.

 

Why should something like preventing sexual assault take a long time to implement? As a society we were at fault for not doing more earlier, we could even say that we didn't know any better as deluded as that sounds. We do know better now and people are acting. And that's great. I don't know why you don't think what is happening now isn't working. With cases like this making the news we are miles ahead of where we were even ten years ago when it comes to recognizing sexual assault. Even last decade, much of this stuff would have been shrugged off and dismissed. It is working and it needs to continue.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Speaking as a father of both a boy and a girl, both of whom I would like to go to college, doing "something" and doing it "now" is something I am 100% absolutely in support of.

 

Why should something like preventing sexual assault take a long time to implement? As a society we were at fault for not doing more earlier, we could even say that we didn't know any better as deluded as that sounds. We do know better now and people are acting. And that's great. I don't know why you don't think what is happening now isn't working. With cases like this making the news we are miles ahead of where we were even ten years ago when it comes to recognizing sexual assault. Even last decade, much of this stuff would have been shrugged off and dismissed. It is working and it needs to continue.

 

What's winning is our changed attitudes, not practices like this.  We should continue to say the right things and change the mindset of young men.  

 

But what about the young men, as in the link above, that were expelled from their school, sued the universities, and are winning?  Judges that are grilling the universities for their complete lack of basic common sense and due process?  I posted about a feminist law professor who feels this is a travesty of justice in the name of the right thing.

 

Look, I'm all about making the world safer for women.  College campuses especially.  I too work with kids every day and try to instill a sense of value for one another.  But kneejerk, do something!, type approaches (especially when they undercut basic values of justice we have) are incredibly dangerous.  

Is it really so hard to think of laws that have been passed, with good intentions, that wanted to fix something now, that undermined basic beliefs we have about justice - that have totally backfired?  Mandatory sentences comes to mind.  We know added punishment is a poor deterrent.  That's all this really is.

[nicksaviking]

But we're just back to the differences between legal punishment and punishment by the school. These guys are getting the benefit of the doubt by the legal system.

 

I would agree that names shouldn't be named publically if the school is going to act without the backing of a legal ruling, but as far as I can tell the school didn't disclose the identities of anyone, that would be on the Star Tribune. If these were band members no one would know these names, but they're football players which makes them local celebrities and the public has ALWAYS known the suspected misbehavior of celebrities even while not knowing what their own neighbor is up to. That's not on the school.

 

As for the school punishments, I'm just fine if the school gets rid of students they feel are a threat to the safety of the other students. Just like in the criminal justice system, wrong verdicts will be made from time to time, just like at times employees get fired unjustly and parents punish their children unjustly that's unfortunate but it's never going to be entirely preventable.

[TheLeviathan]

 

But we're just back to the differences between legal punishment and punishment by the school. These guys are getting the benefit of the doubt by the legal system.

 

As for the school punishments, I'm just fine if the school gets rid of students they feel are a threat to the safety of the other students. Just like in the criminal justice system, wrong verdicts will be made from time to time, just like at times employees get fired unjustly and parents punish their children unjustly that's unfortunate but it's never going to be entirely preventable.

 

No, but I don't like the government (who puts money on the line) telling the schools to be tougher or else lose funding.  That's creating a bad mix of motives.

 

My caution to you is that you're also somewhat arguing the "we need to make sure people understand this isn't ok!", which implies that those doing these heinous things are just unaware that they aren't ok.  That education or added punishments will deter them.  I'd argue it's a lot like all criminal behavior, it has less to do with ignorance and more to do with defiance.  

 

This is a centuries old power dynamic we have to fix, but it starts with role modeling and the way we talk about the issue, not with the punishments we dole out.  It's easy to hide behind the strategy of "no justice for the accused" because they are, after all, accused of something heinous.  But I find that notion so damned important for society that any dent in that armor is something I'll always fight.

 

So if you want a quick fix, here you go: ban all alcohol.  

Edited December 19, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[nicksaviking]

No one here has argued against justice for the accused, no one. Schools getting rid of students they fear may cause or have caused safety issues is the price of doing business. If the student who was accused takes action against the school, that's also the price of doing business.

 

The government doesn't have ulterior motives when they tell schools to crack down on this non-sense, they know from decades of experiences that schools tend to cover this stuff up as a way of self preservation. The schools needed to be motivated to act against their instincts to sweep this stuff under the rug, it's not some grand government conspiracy.

 

I agree that many of these crimes are likely born of ignorance, no better way to fight ignorance than a case as in-your-face as this. I agree, the punishments likely won't prevent this kind of action, hearing everyone in near agreement talking about how wrong it is will, and that's what's happening. Your arguments for role-modeling and talking about the issues are taking place due to direct causation of cases like this.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No one here has argued against justice for the accused, no one. Schools getting rid of students they fear may cause or have caused safety issues is the price of doing business. If the student who was accused takes action against the school, that's also the price of doing business.

 

The government doesn't have ulterior motives when they tell schools to crack down on this non-sense, they know from decades of experiences that schools tend to cover this stuff up as a way of self preservation. The schools needed to be motivated to act against their instincts to sweep this stuff under the rug, it's not some grand government conspiracy.

 

I agree that many of these crimes are likely born of ignorance, no better way to fight ignorance than a case as in-your-face as this. I agree, the punishments likely won't prevent this kind of action, hearing everyone in near agreement talking about how wrong it is will, and that's what's happening. Your arguments for role-modeling and talking about the issues are taking place due to direct causation of cases like this.

 

We can all talk about how wrong it is without creating a system that has, many times now, basically resulted in: if you're accused, you're gone.  And, again, this isn't the kind of accusation that just goes away.  There are few crimes as serious to be found guilty of.  So while you may not be talking directly about injustice for the accused, you are supporting a method of intervention on this issue that is working out that way in practice.  Frankly, I care a lot more about how it works in practice than what you want it to work like.  If in practice it's no longer a fair process, that's all I care about.  It should be a fair process for both parties.

 

And I wasn't suggesting a conspiracy, I was suggesting that money has a way of making things less about what is right and just and more about what is most lucrative.  All we've done is shift the focus for schools to be about over-punishing the accused rather than covering things up.  That isn't justice.  Turning their investigative outcomes into a financial incentive pretty much guarantees the process is rigged.  Just as it was rigged before.

Edited December 19, 2016 by TheLeviathan