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.

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.

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.

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.

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/.

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.

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.

I think you're getting caught in the weeds here a bit. They don't have to stand up for the act to stand up for what they think is right. The ACLU has stood up for the KKK because they thought their rights were being violated. And there are many similar examples. The players made it clear that what they take issue with is the fact that their teammates basically had their fates decided by a tribunal with no ability to defend themselves. We can assume they are rapists and still think that's a bad idea that we might want to speak out about. Sometimes you side with someone you despise, or who did something you despise, because allowing unfair treatment to them opens a door that might mean you're next. Just like ignoring violations of the KKK's first amendment rights jeopardizes all first amendment rights, allowing the University to be judge, jury, and executioner without any kind of fair process also jeopardizes all college students. We're going to have to let this thing play out, but I don't think they are necessarily wrong at this point given what we know.

It's possible that video prevented criminal charges but also emboldened the university. Depending on the content of it. It seems to be the case at this point. Affirmative consent sort of encourages filming as a defense. However unsettLing as that may be.

Well, that boycott threat basically guaranteed there is a lot more coming. Those that feel they are being wronged are going to air whatever they've been told publicly. The players threatening to boycott probably are hearing one side of the story and feeling justified standing up for their teammates. The video is going to be central to a lot of this too as it seems to contradict her statements. (At least enough so that criminal prosecution wasn't pursued) But it may be enough to justify the University's actions. This is only getting started.

I wonder if this is going to tie back into the affirmative consent issue. I appreciate that the school has remained tight lipped about the whats and the whys. I worry it won't stay that way and what we find behind all this will be even uglier.

I'd be curious if anyone had information about this. I did a quick search but everything was very shallow in what they presented. This story is really crappy, I hope due process and justice is available for all involved. Whatever that might mean for each individual involved.