DoubleAlum
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
- Messages
- 803
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
I love Gopher football as much as many of you do. I plan to remain a fan and will be just as excited for every future game as I was before this incident. I don't really care who gets fired or stays because there's not much, if anything I can do about it. Besides, most Presidents, AD's and coaches don't seem very effective, rarely make people happy or will do really dumb things to hurt the University. It seems to be the nature of the game.
Anyhow, after much thought and after reading countless posts on Gopherhole, had I been the EEO committee, or some other student conduct committee at the "U", below is what I would have said. After issuing my report, I would've told Hutton to go ahead and sue the University. If a judge or jury ruled that the University breached its contract or didn't have grounds to suspend the players, so be it. I would be okay with that. I wouldn't care whether my decision was supported well enough by EEO guidelines or student code of conduct guidelines. I don't think the damages from such a lawsuit would amount to much anyways, especially since I am not concluding that the players assaulted the woman. So, here it is: in it's ineloquent, unsophisticated and perhaps poorly reasoned form.
"There exists significant conflicting information in this case, but here is what we do know:
1. Several members (at least 4 for certain, and more likely than not in our opinion at least 7) of the UofM football team admittedly had vaginal or oral sex with one female student in one 60 minute sexual encounter. That is not disputed.
2. Present at the encounter was a 17 year old football recruit. There is nothing in evidence to suggest that the female or the football players knew or should've known the recruit was aged 17.
3. One or more of the football players were responsible for hosting/entertaining the recruit for the evening.
4. One or more football players sent texts summoning more players to have sex with the female. We do not know whether the female requested this.
5. There was a video showing the female and the recruit and one football player having sex that appears to be consensual.
6. One football player stated to us that the female "wasn't into it" at some point during the incident and believes he heard her say she didn't want to continue. In addition, one or more players testified that the female complained of pain during the sexual encounters.
7. No one that we are aware of attempted to stop the sexual activity.
8. The female and one football player had made previous contact through Tinder.
9. The female stated she removed her tampon in the bathroom prior to the first sexual encounter.
10. One or more players made contact with the woman via text or social media after the incident.
11. The female pursued a TRO against football players and testified that she felt scared/unsafe on campus.
12. The female plead the 5th amendment in the TRO hearing when being asked a question regarding the recruit.
13. The female agreed to a revised, less restrictive TRO and agreed that she would not sue the players and the players could not sue her.
14. The female's lawyer stated after the TRO that the TRO request was never about "punishment".
15. The female underwent a rape examination, the results of which we do not know.
16. A week passed after the night in question before the police began to contact/interview players about the sexual encounters and inspect the apartment where the sex took place. The players were notified that the police were looking into the events of the night in question several days before the police made contact.
17. The county prosecutor determined there wasn't enough evidence to convict the football players of committing a crime.
18. The testimony to our committee of both the female and the players seems inconsistent and contradictory.
19. After the incident the female contacted friends via text about the incident.
Based upon the above facts:
1. We cannot determine whether sex without consent took place between the female and the football players or the female and the recruit. Nor we can say it is more likely than not that such sex took place without consent. In fact, we respect the fact the police did not even arrest the players.
2. We determine that certain football players attempted to cover up the incident and obstruct the investigation.
3. We cannot determine if any of the parties lied in the investigation.
4. We determine a,b,c,d,e.......football players engaged in conduct extremely detrimental to the football team and to the University.
5. We hereby recommend two year suspensions for each and every football player directly involved in, or present and aware of, the sexual activities that took place.
Reasoning
Due to their unique visibility to our institution and the community, our committee believes that members of the football team have a higher level of responsibility to the University to ensure that their conduct and behavior does not tarnish or bring shame upon the University. Moreover, we also believe that because of the unique benefits bestowed upon the football players (scholarships, meals, housing, tutors, clothing, medical, etc), they have a higher burden of responsibility to protect the integrity and reputation of the University and one of its biggest assets, the Golden Gopher football team.
We believe the players' overall conduct with respect to this incident will have severe, negative repercussions to the University including, but not limited to, its overall reputation, student applications, fundraising hardships, attracting professors and recruiting.
We believe the obstruction by the players of our investigation and the destruction of evidence was tantamount to a crime had this investigation been conducted by law enforcement.
We believe the players showed an utter disregard to their brethren teammates, the coaches, the students and the University as a whole by allowing a recruit to be involved in this incident.
We believe the texts we read by members of the football team showed an utter disregard for the respect and dignity of our female student body, faculty and the administration. Such texts seem indicative of the overall way these men behaved that night. The mere fact that none of the players had the decency to try to stop the encounters when the female stated she was experiencing pain, or was not enjoying herself as stated by one of the players, is sufficient to conclude that these players require punishment, rehabilitation and time away from the University to seriously reflect upon their behaviors that evening/morning. Their behavior that evening is even more egregious given the amount of time and energy spent by the University and the athletic department educating these players on how to conduct themselves and the situations in which to avoid or be careful. These players demonstrated an utter disregard of this information, an utter disregard of their teammates, coaches, parents, the community and the University.
Our recommendation relies heavily on the testimony of one player who stated he believed he heard the female say she wanted to stop the sex, and the absence of any evidence that a player attempted to intervene to stop it. Even if the female, for some unexplainable reason, wanted the encounter to continue, we believe the players had an obligation to intervene and stop the encounter if it appeared that something did not seem right. And we've come to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that one or more players knew this did not seem right. So, even if no crime took place (which we can not determine and are not trained to determine), we believe the players should've taken it upon themselves to stop and should've done so for many reasons.
We have not relied upon the statements of the female in arriving at our recommendations. In fact, we believe the statements and actions of the female hurt her contention that nonconsensual sex took place, although, again, we are simply unable to determine whether or not it did.
It is extremely important to make clear that we are not judging the sexual choices people in society make. We recognize that women and men exist in society who choose to have sex with numerous partners in one long encounter. We are not here to judge or decide the morality of such choices. Such a choice may provide great satisfaction and happiness for those people. In fact, we recognize that the incident in question may have begun as a result of such choice by the female. However, even if that were the case, we believe it is more likely than not that the encounter eventually changed course and the players should've stopped even if they felt the female had not made it clear that she wanted to stop."
Anyhow, after much thought and after reading countless posts on Gopherhole, had I been the EEO committee, or some other student conduct committee at the "U", below is what I would have said. After issuing my report, I would've told Hutton to go ahead and sue the University. If a judge or jury ruled that the University breached its contract or didn't have grounds to suspend the players, so be it. I would be okay with that. I wouldn't care whether my decision was supported well enough by EEO guidelines or student code of conduct guidelines. I don't think the damages from such a lawsuit would amount to much anyways, especially since I am not concluding that the players assaulted the woman. So, here it is: in it's ineloquent, unsophisticated and perhaps poorly reasoned form.
"There exists significant conflicting information in this case, but here is what we do know:
1. Several members (at least 4 for certain, and more likely than not in our opinion at least 7) of the UofM football team admittedly had vaginal or oral sex with one female student in one 60 minute sexual encounter. That is not disputed.
2. Present at the encounter was a 17 year old football recruit. There is nothing in evidence to suggest that the female or the football players knew or should've known the recruit was aged 17.
3. One or more of the football players were responsible for hosting/entertaining the recruit for the evening.
4. One or more football players sent texts summoning more players to have sex with the female. We do not know whether the female requested this.
5. There was a video showing the female and the recruit and one football player having sex that appears to be consensual.
6. One football player stated to us that the female "wasn't into it" at some point during the incident and believes he heard her say she didn't want to continue. In addition, one or more players testified that the female complained of pain during the sexual encounters.
7. No one that we are aware of attempted to stop the sexual activity.
8. The female and one football player had made previous contact through Tinder.
9. The female stated she removed her tampon in the bathroom prior to the first sexual encounter.
10. One or more players made contact with the woman via text or social media after the incident.
11. The female pursued a TRO against football players and testified that she felt scared/unsafe on campus.
12. The female plead the 5th amendment in the TRO hearing when being asked a question regarding the recruit.
13. The female agreed to a revised, less restrictive TRO and agreed that she would not sue the players and the players could not sue her.
14. The female's lawyer stated after the TRO that the TRO request was never about "punishment".
15. The female underwent a rape examination, the results of which we do not know.
16. A week passed after the night in question before the police began to contact/interview players about the sexual encounters and inspect the apartment where the sex took place. The players were notified that the police were looking into the events of the night in question several days before the police made contact.
17. The county prosecutor determined there wasn't enough evidence to convict the football players of committing a crime.
18. The testimony to our committee of both the female and the players seems inconsistent and contradictory.
19. After the incident the female contacted friends via text about the incident.
Based upon the above facts:
1. We cannot determine whether sex without consent took place between the female and the football players or the female and the recruit. Nor we can say it is more likely than not that such sex took place without consent. In fact, we respect the fact the police did not even arrest the players.
2. We determine that certain football players attempted to cover up the incident and obstruct the investigation.
3. We cannot determine if any of the parties lied in the investigation.
4. We determine a,b,c,d,e.......football players engaged in conduct extremely detrimental to the football team and to the University.
5. We hereby recommend two year suspensions for each and every football player directly involved in, or present and aware of, the sexual activities that took place.
Reasoning
Due to their unique visibility to our institution and the community, our committee believes that members of the football team have a higher level of responsibility to the University to ensure that their conduct and behavior does not tarnish or bring shame upon the University. Moreover, we also believe that because of the unique benefits bestowed upon the football players (scholarships, meals, housing, tutors, clothing, medical, etc), they have a higher burden of responsibility to protect the integrity and reputation of the University and one of its biggest assets, the Golden Gopher football team.
We believe the players' overall conduct with respect to this incident will have severe, negative repercussions to the University including, but not limited to, its overall reputation, student applications, fundraising hardships, attracting professors and recruiting.
We believe the obstruction by the players of our investigation and the destruction of evidence was tantamount to a crime had this investigation been conducted by law enforcement.
We believe the players showed an utter disregard to their brethren teammates, the coaches, the students and the University as a whole by allowing a recruit to be involved in this incident.
We believe the texts we read by members of the football team showed an utter disregard for the respect and dignity of our female student body, faculty and the administration. Such texts seem indicative of the overall way these men behaved that night. The mere fact that none of the players had the decency to try to stop the encounters when the female stated she was experiencing pain, or was not enjoying herself as stated by one of the players, is sufficient to conclude that these players require punishment, rehabilitation and time away from the University to seriously reflect upon their behaviors that evening/morning. Their behavior that evening is even more egregious given the amount of time and energy spent by the University and the athletic department educating these players on how to conduct themselves and the situations in which to avoid or be careful. These players demonstrated an utter disregard of this information, an utter disregard of their teammates, coaches, parents, the community and the University.
Our recommendation relies heavily on the testimony of one player who stated he believed he heard the female say she wanted to stop the sex, and the absence of any evidence that a player attempted to intervene to stop it. Even if the female, for some unexplainable reason, wanted the encounter to continue, we believe the players had an obligation to intervene and stop the encounter if it appeared that something did not seem right. And we've come to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that one or more players knew this did not seem right. So, even if no crime took place (which we can not determine and are not trained to determine), we believe the players should've taken it upon themselves to stop and should've done so for many reasons.
We have not relied upon the statements of the female in arriving at our recommendations. In fact, we believe the statements and actions of the female hurt her contention that nonconsensual sex took place, although, again, we are simply unable to determine whether or not it did.
It is extremely important to make clear that we are not judging the sexual choices people in society make. We recognize that women and men exist in society who choose to have sex with numerous partners in one long encounter. We are not here to judge or decide the morality of such choices. Such a choice may provide great satisfaction and happiness for those people. In fact, we recognize that the incident in question may have begun as a result of such choice by the female. However, even if that were the case, we believe it is more likely than not that the encounter eventually changed course and the players should've stopped even if they felt the female had not made it clear that she wanted to stop."