If it hasn't happened by now I don't think any of the players are going to sue the U. But if they do sue, they probably are going to lose. A large percentage of due process cases that have been won by college students during the last few years have have relied on the fact that their schools did not follow their own student disciplinary procedures. That did not happen at the U. They followed their investigation/hearing/appeal procedures exactly as written.
Did they follow the process? The Regents didn't seem to think so.
I agree on the suits. The only thing that would change that is if someone who has authority to release items on behalf of the U is the one that released the report. That will come out of the internal investigation. My guess is it was either the victim or one of the accused who released it, but who knows? It could have been a U employee who does not have authority to release things on behalf of the U, then they would be the subject of the suit (the U would likely be named but the judge would likely drop them).
All ten players were given an opportunity to challenge the rulings against them. Four of them won their appeals and one had his punishment reduced. To most reasonable people this was due process. Every one of the players received a hearing that allowed him to challenge the charges against him with the opportunity to appeal any adverse rulings. Many of the charges against the players were student code of conduct violations that had nothing to do with having sex with the girl involved. Lack of due process does not relate to whether or not some of players were cleared after the hearings and appeals were completed. Defendants are found innocent in the civil and criminal court systems all the time and very few of them claim they did not receive due process. I assume most of them believe the system worked for them. It should be no different for student disciplinary cases.
Actually, your description is inaccurate. The EOAA gave non-binding recommendations, the review board cleared four players, one would have their punishment reduced (Djam), and five would have their punishment upheld. All five whose punishments were upheld appealed and only one won their appeal to remove their punishment (Williams). The problem is they didn't receive due process when the report was released or when they were linked to the event in the first place.
Because of the prior criminal investigation that was extensively covered by the local and national news media it was all but impossible for the U to prevent the players names from becoming public during the football season. If the U chose not proceed with the student disciplinary hearings after the EOAA investigation they would have been clobbered by the local and national news media, demonstrated against by every women's rights organization in Minnesota, and subject to sanctions by the U.S. Department of Education and NCAA.
Their names shouldn't have come out during the criminal investigation. Journalistic integrity says you should not reveal the names of individuals who have not been charged with a crime. The problem was the crime was reported and five people were suspended. Everyone did the math. Had they just held the players out without announcement or explanation (which they could have), people would never have known who was involved other than maybe Buford and Hardin. By reporting the suspension at the same time the charges came out they associated the two.
Admittedly, things got more complex when the restraining order was filed. That is public knowledge and being it barred them from being at the home stadium, had to come out. So regardless yes, they would have been revealed, but it didn't have to happen the way it did. The other five also should have at best been quietly held out of the Bowl game. This isn't the NFL, there isn't an obligation to disclose the same amount of information.
Finally, the question of whether they should have even been suspended (the other five, not the first five) is still there. The EOAA report was beyond sketchy with what they claimed about them. Especially since multiple players had alibis. Coyle could have made a judgment call to not suspend them pending the hearing. He chose to suspend them (guilt by association). Not saying it was wrong, but it didn't HAVE to happen as some have speculated.
Kaler and Coyle did absolutely nothing wrong in this matter. They followed the student disciplinary process exactly as it is written. The player boycott was the result of bad advice from their families and attorneys, and poor leadership by Claeys and the football staff. We know Coyle met with Clayes and the players but none of them wanted to hear that there was absolutely nothing he could do to prevent the suspensions and student disciplinary process from going forward. Since the disciplinary process is described in great detail on the U's website there is no rational way anyone can claim the U was being arbitrary and unfair by the way the matter was being handled. And once the EOAA Report was leaked (probably by a player or family member) the players finally understood how bad the boycott made them look.
I would highly disagree with this. Coyle and Kaler openly lied about whether the players were meeting with them, they lied about how Claeys was on board with the punishment, they also didn't give adequate explanation to the players about the process.