Gophers Football

[TheLeviathan]

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?

Care to post MN's policy or are you just guessing it is different?

 

The Harvard policy, like Cali, and MN are a result of national pressure. But please, prove your case. I've given multiple sources. Your turn.

[Mr. Brooks]

Care to post MN's policy or are you just guessing it is different?

 

The Harvard policy, like Cali, and MN are a result of national pressure. But please, prove your case. I've given multiple sources. Your turn.

https://policy.umn.edu/operations/sexualassault-appa

[Mr. Brooks]

And this article stating that the due process policy was unchanged by this.

 

http://m.startribune.com/u-to-roll-out-revised-affirmative-consent-policy/322896321/

[TheLeviathan]

And this article stating that the due process policy was unchanged by this.

http://m.startribune.com/u-to-roll-out-revised-affirmative-consent-policy/322896321/

Let's be clear about what you cited. The first is a link showing what the policy is (same as Harvard).

 

The second is someone inside the U speculating on how it will be enforced.

 

We know, from other places with this same policy, that how it is enforced is a reversal of the presumption of guilt.

 

Nothing you posted shows the U is not enforcing it the same way as the other institutions with the same policy.

[Mr. Brooks]

Let's be clear about what you cited. The first is a link showing what the policy is (same as Harvard).

 

The second is someone inside the U speculating on how it will be enforced.

 

We know, from other places with this same policy, that how it is enforced is a reversal of the presumption of guilt.

 

Nothing you posted shows the U is not enforcing it the same way as the other institutions with the same policy.

So you make the assumption that the U is lying when they say that they follow the preponderance of evidence standard, and guarantee the accused a hearing and appeal, and I'm supposed to somehow be able to refute your purely speculative assumption?

OK. I can't do that. You got me.

[drjim]

 

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."

 

I 100% agree with this, but I find it important not to mix this opinion with what should be the consequence against the football players should be.

 

I also wouldn't want my son expelled if he didn't engage in a criminal act. It also seems possible/likely some of the players suspended didn't even engage in the act but were only in the same room. I really wouldn't want my son suspended/expelled for that.

[Mr. Brooks]

Let's be clear about what you cited. The first is a link showing what the policy is (same as Harvard).

 

The second is someone inside the U speculating on how it will be enforced.

 

We know, from other places with this same policy, that how it is enforced is a reversal of the presumption of guilt.

 

Nothing you posted shows the U is not enforcing it the same way as the other institutions with the same policy.

We don't know that reverses the presumption of guilt. You gave one article showing 2 examples that only gave one side of the story.

The preponderance of evidence standard does not reverse presumption of guilt. The accuser still has to prove that the violation is more likely than not to have occured.

[TheLeviathan]

So you make the assumption that the U is lying when they say that they follow the preponderance of evidence standard, and guarantee the accused a hearing and appeal, and I'm supposed to somehow be able to refute your purely speculative assumption?

OK. I can't do that. You got me.

I make the assumption based on the opinion of 28 Harvard Law professors and the on going due process issues this standard, combined with university self interests, has caused.

 

You are going off...what? One quote by someone in the university with a pretty clear self interest?

[Mr. Brooks]

I 100% agree with this, but I find it important not to mix this opinion with what should be the consequence against the football players should be.

 

I also wouldn't want my son expelled if he didn't engage in a criminal act. It also seems possible/likely some of the players suspended didn't even engage in the act but were only in the same room. I really wouldn't want my son suspended/expelled for that.

Schools can't have a code of conduct covering things that are not a crime? So they can't punish students for cheating on a test or plagiarizing a paper?

 

We'll likely never know the details due to privacy laws, but one of the ten only received probation. That tells me that the school likely determined he wasn't involved in the sex act while the other 9 were. And yes that is just speculation on my part.

[TheLeviathan]

We don't know that reverses the presumption of guilt. You gave one article showing 2 examples that only gave one side of the story.

The preponderance of evidence standard does not reverse presumption of guilt. The accuser still has to prove that the violation is more likely than not to have occured.

I know that given he said/she said, the university has an overwhelming self interest in finding the preponderance of evidence for the accuser.

[Mr. Brooks]

I make the assumption based on the opinion of 28 Harvard Law professors and the on going due process issues this standard, combined with university self interests, has caused.

 

You are going off...what? One quote by someone in the university with a pretty clear self interest?

The article you linked states that Harvard's policy goes beyond what title 9 requires.

 

The Strib is reporting that the university of Minnesota uses the preponderance of evidence standard.

They are a reputable newspaper. I am going off their reporting.

[TheLeviathan]

The article you linked states that Harvard's policy goes beyond what title 9 requires.

The Strib is reporting that the university of Minnesota uses the preponderance of evidence standard.

They are a reputable newspaper. I am going off their reporting.

Cali uses preponderance of evidence too. Doesn't change the issue. When it comes down to he said, she said...it has the same effect as reversal of presumption.

[Mr. Brooks]

I know that given he said/she said, the university has an overwhelming self interest in finding the preponderance of evidence for the accuser.

You know that huh? OK.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? And I don't mean one sided anecdotal evidence. Do you have any figures showing how often the decision goes against the accused? Any hearing transcripts that we can compare against the decisions?

And the burden is on you here because you are claiming a conspiracy that deviates from their stated standard.

[drjim]

 

Schools can't have a code of conduct covering things that are not a crime? So they can't punish students for cheating on a test or plagiarizing a paper?

We'll likely never know the details due to privacy laws, but one of the ten only received probation. That tells me that the school likely determined he wasn't involved in the sex act while the other 9 were. And yes that is just speculation on my part.

 

This strikes me as a dangerous precedent, but perhaps this will be a one off event. Again, I'm only going on the full report that I read, which may be missing a few details, but seemed pretty thorough (graphically thorough).

[Mr. Brooks]

Levi- nobody has a right to attend a certain school. So why should guilty beyond a reasonable doubt be the standard here?

In a criminal case, yes it absolutely should be, because the government is attempting to take away a right or freedom.

But when the stakes are suspension/expulsion it's more akin to a civil case.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Levi- nobody has a right to attend a certain school. So why should guilty beyond a reasonable doubt be the standard here?
In a criminal case, yes it absolutely should be, because the government is attempting to take away a right or freedom.
But when the stakes are suspension/expulsion it's more akin to a civil case.

 

So now you're backing off on your claim?  

 

My problem with it is the severity of the charge.  Something that severe shouldn't be subject to anything but the most firm of standards.  The University should default to law enforcement, not create it's own standard where it has clear self interest.

 

Do some research.  Please.  And no more phony, BS responses about anecdotal evidence please.  I'm providing you reams of evidence about how colleges enforce this and your response, so far, has been "yeah, but the University says they aren't doing that".  Sure.  I have a bridge I'd like to sell you if that's enough evidence for you of anything.  Because I'm sure they are totally on the up and up and not under any pressure at all.

 

It really isn't hard to find the presumption of guilt being flipped and the courts reacting to it.  And, going back to your earlier point, the courts are having to intercede because students are being forced out of school based not on whether a violation occurred, but merely on the basis of an accusation of a violation occurred.  

 

When Cali passed their law the author, when asked how the accused could ever prove consent, said "that's up to the courts to decide", even as her legislation was addressing colleges, not law enforcement and the courts.  So the universities are doing whatever they want and now the courts are trying to correct that injustice.  And it's hardly in isolated cases.  

 

Go read up on this.  This is an issue that liberals, conservatives, feminist law professors, and a whole host of people are questioning as an assault on our idea of justice. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[TheLeviathan]

To really hammer the point home, you're arguing something that even the proponents of this law/thinking don't even deny!

[biggentleben]

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?

How do you read that assumption into my comments? That's absolutely adding in more than was there. I'm stating that her possible role in a group that actively attempt to get pregnant by football players could skew how other players perceive her claims. I never once said that excluded her from being able to prosecute for a rape if it occurred.

 

I didn't even say she was one of those women, just that a rape allegation has been a tactic of that group of women many times in the past, so if she was part of that group, her claim could appear contrived to teammates of the players choosing to boycott right now.

 

I'm by no means making any assumptions on her. I'm simply stating one aspect of life as a Gopher athlete that could skew their view of these proceedings.

[drjim]

Reusse weighs in, adds a few more layers.

 

http://m.startribune.com/clash-of-powerful-social-forces-or-maybe-a-feud-roil-u-waters/407164706/

 

I didn't really think too much about the optics of 10 black players and one white girl, but I imagine that's a thing too.

[drjim]

Another thing I heard today that I didn't realize is that all the players freely and fully cooperates from day one with the police and the university. I don't think that happens very often.

 

I think it is wrong to look at the players behavior merely as supporting teammates who assaulted someone or even condoning the behavior. Seems it goes much deeper and there is a real sense of betrayal from the football team. All of which is of course unimportant if there was an assault, but from what I've gleaned I'm a little skeptical.

 

Also fascinating to me that Claeys and the staff are so public in their support of the players. I think there's little chance they survive this. Perhaps they read the writing on the wall.

[USAFChief]

KSTP has one copy of the EOAA report, and the police report, here:

 

http://kstp.com/sports/university-of-minnesota-eoaa-investigative-report-gophers-football-players/4347059/?cat=1

 

Ugly. But it bothers me the report finds her inconsisteies make her more credible, while the players inconsistencies make them less credible.

 

No agenda there, right?

[Craig Arko]

 

KSTP has one copy of the EOAA report, and the police report, here:

http://kstp.com/sports/university-of-minnesota-eoaa-investigative-report-gophers-football-players/4347059/?cat=1

Ugly. But it bothers me the report finds her inconsisteies make her more credible, while the players inconsistencies make them less credible.

No agenda there, right?

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?

[TheLeviathan]

 

KSTP has one copy of the EOAA report, and the police report, here:

http://kstp.com/sports/university-of-minnesota-eoaa-investigative-report-gophers-football-players/4347059/?cat=1

Ugly. But it bothers me the report finds her inconsisteies make her more credible, while the players inconsistencies make them less credible.

No agenda there, right?

 

It also appears as though the U didn't have access to the videos that the police department had.  Those videos, according to that report, were indicative of a consensual encounter.  

 

I'm also confused how A9 got suspended.  The report says based on his "name" and the accuser looking at his "football profile" that she thinks he was there.  Based on that and a few other conflicting reports, they apparently decided he was lying to them about where he was and when he went home to bed. 

 

And that was enough for them to suspend him even though everyone agrees he didn't take any part in the sexual encounter.  Yeesh.

Edited December 17, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[Mr. Brooks]

It also appears as though the U didn't have access to the videos that the police department had. Those videos, according to that report, were indicative of a consensual encounter.

 

I'm also confused how A9 got suspended. The report says based on his "name" and the accuser looking at his "football profile" that she thinks he was there. Based on that and a few other conflicting reports, they apparently decided he was lying to them about where he was and when he went home to bed.

 

And that was enough for them to suspend him even though everyone agrees he didn't take any part in the sexual encounter. Yeesh.

A9 claimed to be playing video games at A3's apartment. A3 told investigators that he wasn't.

A9 was disciplined for lying to investigators, not for any sexual conduct.

 

Also, I think A9 was only given probation, not suspended. I don't know that for sure though.

[Craig Arko]

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18297065/minnesota-golden-gophers-football-team-ends-boycott-prepare-holiday-bowl

 

There'd better be some women represented on that 'diverse review panel.'

[drjim]

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18297065/minnesota-golden-gophers-football-team-ends-boycott-prepare-holiday-bowl

 

There'd better be some women represented on that 'diverse review panel.'

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

[TheLeviathan]

 

A9 claimed to be playing video games at A3's apartment. A3 told investigators that he wasn't.
A9 was disciplined for lying to investigators, not for any sexual conduct.

Also, I think A9 was only given probation, not suspended. I don't know that for sure though.

 

A3 didn't recall playing video games with him.  At best there was a bunch of conjecture about where he was.  

 

That conjecture lead to the conclusion he was lying.  I would like to think if you know he wasn't part of the elicit acts and the best you can say is that he might be lying or confused about where he was two months ago....shouldn't it just end there?

 

Still want to argue the burden of proof isn't being flipped?  Conflicting reports about his whereabouts, with full acceptance he DID nothing wrong, led to discipline simply because they THOUGHT he was lying.  That's ridiculous.  

Edited December 17, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[Mr. Brooks]

A3 didn't recall playing video games with him. At best there was a bunch of conjecture about where he was.

 

That conjecture lead to the conclusion he was lying. I would like to think if you know he wasn't part of the elicit acts and the best you can say is that he might be lying or confused about where he was two months ago....shouldn't it just end there?

 

Still want to argue the burden of proof isn't being flipped? Conflicting reports about his whereabouts, with full acceptance he DID nothing wrong, led to discipline simply because they THOUGHT he was lying. That's ridiculous.

I think we have reached an impasse.

You clearly think that the university should be required to have proof beyond almost all doubt.

You think anything less than that is flipping the burden of proof.

Do you care to address the students that were not disciplined due to lack of evidence? For some reason the university didn't have an agenda against those students?

 

You seem to think that the university is lying when they say that they use the preponderance of evidence standard. You seem to suggest that an accusation alone, with no evidence is enough. But that doesn't really jive with the players who were cleared in this report.

 

By taking the stance that the university has an agenda based conspiracy going on, you move the goalposts to a place where nobody can argue with you because in a conspiracy anything is possible.

[Badsmerf]

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.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think we have reached an impasse.
You clearly think that the university should be required to have proof beyond almost all doubt.
You think anything less than that is flipping the burden of proof.
Do you care to address the students that were not disciplined due to lack of evidence? For some reason the university didn't have an agenda against those students?

You seem to think that the university is lying when they say that they use the preponderance of evidence standard. You seem to suggest that an accusation alone, with no evidence is enough. But that doesn't really jive with the players who were cleared in this report.

By taking the stance that the university has an agenda based conspiracy going on, you move the goalposts to a place where nobody can argue with you because in a conspiracy anything is possible.

 

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.  I think something may have turned for the worse and, given that, there probably are some suspensions that are worthwhile to hand out.  But this isn't the way to do it.

 

The process matters.  It needs to matter.

Edited December 17, 2016 by TheLeviathan