TheLeviathan

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.

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.

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".

That winning the prospect list doesn't do much for brightening the Twins rotation for awhile. I get your intention, it just seems a bit forced.

Even tempered enthusiasm might be a reach. I hope all of these guys are good players and contributors, but we may be waiting awhile before we can even legitimately be enthused.

I feel like asking Nick if he hurt himself reaching during this article....

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

I'll help you with your research: Here

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.