All Things Gopher Players Appeals Process

Donate To GopherHole
Pompous Elitist said:
The point is that the charges are far more serious than say, cheating or plagiarism which are easily proven, and thus a higher level of due process is warranted than is currently given.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
Click to expand...

I would agree for the most part. I have never said this was a perfect process. And I mean that in the way it is designed and in the way it has been executed. I do not think the whole thing needs to be blown up, but there are definitely things that need to change. If some of the things that Lee Hutton said were true then I think adjustments need to be made to the investigative process. For one, I think all interviews should be recorded. I think it would make sense to bring someone from the outside to oversee the appeal hearings. Sort of act as the judge. I wouldn't change the idea of having a panel of students as the "jury." I think they got that part right. I agree with the idea of having a lower burden of proof than a criminal trial. You could maybe up it to the "clear and convincing" standard instead of preponderance of evidence, and I don't think I would complain.

All I have been responding to for my last 5 or 6 posts in this thread was that there is nothing unconstitutional about the Code of Conduct. Just the Code of Conduct as it is written, nothing else about the process. And I stand by that.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
The point is that the charges are far more serious than say, cheating or plagiarism which are easily proven, and thus a higher level of due process is warranted than is currently given.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
Click to expand...


This makes no sense. A job can fire someone for being late. A job can also fire someone for murdering someone. That doesn't mean that they need a higher standard of proof to fire an employee accused of murdering someone than they do an employee who was late. The burden of proof is dictated by the severity of the punishment, not the offense. It takes a higher burden of proof to convict someone of petty theft is a criminal court than it does wrongful death in a civil court.

The University isn't convicting anyone of rape, sexual harassment or any other charge. As they are neither a criminal or civil court, they completely lack the ability to do so. The University is deciding whether the students should remain at the University and if so, under what conditions. There is absolutely no requirement that these allegations are more thoroughly proven than if a student was cheating or smoking pot.
 


GG Allen said:
This makes no sense. A job can fire someone for being late. A job can also fire someone for murdering someone. That doesn't mean that they need a higher standard of proof to fire an employee accused of murdering someone than they do an employee who was late. The burden of proof is dictated by the severity of the punishment, not the offense. It takes a higher burden of proof to convict someone of petty theft is a criminal court than it does wrongful death in a civil court.

The University isn't convicting anyone of rape, sexual harassment or any other charge. As they are neither a criminal or civil court, they completely lack the ability to do so. The University is deciding whether the students should remain at the University and if so, under what conditions. There is absolutely no requirement that these allegations are more thoroughly proven than if a student was cheating or smoking pot.
Click to expand...

You're right. The standard for kicking someone out of the school is if it is more likely than not that the accused committed the infraction. I have no problem with the standard the U is using. I wish they wouldn't call it preponderance of the evidence, because they are just using that term to sound official, it's simply less than that. However, you're right, the due process of the accused is not violated by the standard of review the U is using.
 

GG Allen said:
This makes no sense. A job can fire someone for being late. A job can also fire someone for murdering someone. That doesn't mean that they need a higher standard of proof to fire an employee accused of murdering someone than they do an employee who was late. The burden of proof is dictated by the severity of the punishment, not the offense. It takes a higher burden of proof to convict someone of petty theft is a criminal court than it does wrongful death in a civil court.

The University isn't convicting anyone of rape, sexual harassment or any other charge. As they are neither a criminal or civil court, they completely lack the ability to do so. The University is deciding whether the students should remain at the University and if so, under what conditions. There is absolutely no requirement that these allegations are more thoroughly proven than if a student was cheating or smoking pot.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. Being fired from a job is exponentially less economically and socially damaging than being expelled for sexual assault with a label on one's transcript. The damages are not even in the same zip code. While not all schools currently mark transcripts with reason of expulsion there are movements afoot nationwide to do just that. Equating the two is ludicrous, as ludicrous as having the same "amateur hour"investigatory body and process for the adjudication of cheating as for sexual assault.
 


bizzle22 said:
But specifically what part of the student code of conduct is unconstitutional? If you want to say the execution of discipline for student code of conduct violations is unconstitutional in this case then that is a totally different. Much different than saying the code itself is unconstitutional. That's why most cases like this that were taken to the actual court system have been based on irregularities in the execution of discipline, not the underlying code.

The preponderance of evidence threshold is the same standard as a civil case, which is basically what a code of conduct violation is since there are no criminal charges. It's not a "prove you aren't guilty" situation. Both sides have the same burden. It's a cage match.

Here is the official Student Code of Conduct: http://regents.umn.edu/sites/regents.umn.edu/files/policies/Student_Conduct_Code.pdf Feel free to point out the parts you think are unconstitutional. It's not that long so it shouldn't take too much time.
Click to expand...
Problem for the U would not be the Code but the application of it by the U (if a student brought suit in federal court).
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I understand what you're saying. Being fired from a job is exponentially less economically and socially damaging than being expelled for sexual assault with a label on one's transcript. The damages are not even in the same zip code. While not all schools currently mark transcripts with reason of expulsion there are movements afoot nationwide to do just that. Equating the two is ludicrous, as ludicrous as having the same "amateur hour"investigatory body and process for the adjudication of cheating as for sexual assault.
Click to expand...

And there's potentially 7 who were not part of the alleged assault. She confirmed that the sex was consensual with several of the players. Yet virtually every media outlet has used the pictures of all ten when reporting this incident. The U has a big problem just around the corner...
 

bizzle22 said:
But specifically what part of the student code of conduct is unconstitutional? If you want to say the execution of discipline for student code of conduct violations is unconstitutional in this case then that is a totally different. Much different than saying the code itself is unconstitutional. That's why most cases like this that were taken to the actual court system have been based on irregularities in the execution of discipline, not the underlying code.

The preponderance of evidence threshold is the same standard as a civil case, which is basically what a code of conduct violation is since there are no criminal charges. It's not a "prove you aren't guilty" situation. Both sides have the same burden. It's a cage match.

Here is the official Student Code of Conduct: http://regents.umn.edu/sites/regents.umn.edu/files/policies/Student_Conduct_Code.pdf Feel free to point out the parts you think are unconstitutional. It's not that long so it shouldn't take too much time.
Click to expand...

The investigation, punishment, and appeal process set forth is a direct extension of the enforcement of the Code. Are you arguing that it is not?
 

per Sid:

Decision looms

One big question mark looming over Fleck’s first season will be the University of Minnesota’s decision regarding 10 players who appealed suspensions stemming from a sexual assault investigation. Former coach Tracy Claeys eventually was fired Jan. 3, in the days following the announced suspensions.

“I think the biggest thing with the suspension right now, and again we can’t comment too much because of the privacy laws, but I can say that the biggest thing is we filled holes just in case,” Fleck said.

The Gophers lost 11 seniors from the two-deep depth chart from their final regular-season game. but three of the suspended players were on that chart as well — cornerbacks KiAnte Hardin and Antonio Shenault and safety Antoine Winfield Jr. And on top of those 14 players, starting center Tyler Moore transferred to Oklahoma State. So that’s 15 players out of 44 on the two-deep roster that might need to be replaced this season.

http://www.startribune.com/gophers-p-j-fleck-was-up-to-challenge-of-short-recruiting-time/412500623/

Go Gophers!!
 



PMWinSTP said:
And there's potentially 7 who were not part of the alleged assault. She confirmed that the sex was consensual with several of the players. Yet virtually every media outlet has used the pictures of all ten when reporting this incident. The U has a big problem just around the corner...
Click to expand...

Please correct me if I am wrong. All the U did was announce that ten players were suspended from the bowl game for unspecified reasons.
 

rugger14 said:
Please correct me if I am wrong. All the U did was announce that ten players were suspended from the bowl game for unspecified reasons.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember a couple pressers and multiple media interviews by U leadership, especially the president, characterizing this whole incident. Not once did I hear them try to make any distinction among the ten players. Couple that with the now Swiss cheese EOAA investigation, report and discipline put forth by the U, yes, the U has a big problem just around the corner.
 

rugger14 said:
Please correct me if I am wrong. All the U did was announce that ten players were suspended from the bowl game for unspecified reasons.
Click to expand...

PMWinSTP said:
I seem to remember a couple pressers and multiple media interviews by U leadership, especially the president, characterizing this whole incident. Not once did I hear them try to make any distinction among the ten players. Couple that with the now Swiss cheese EOAA investigation, report and discipline put forth by the U, yes, the U has a big problem just around the corner.
Click to expand...

Not to mention our President referring to the girl as "the victim".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

When will the players receive notification? Late tomorrow to avoid as much media exposure as possible?
 



GG Allen said:
This makes no sense. A job can fire someone for being late. A job can also fire someone for murdering someone. That doesn't mean that they need a higher standard of proof to fire an employee accused of murdering someone than they do an employee who was late. The burden of proof is dictated by the severity of the punishment, not the offense. It takes a higher burden of proof to convict someone of petty theft is a criminal court than it does wrongful death in a civil court.

The University isn't convicting anyone of rape, sexual harassment or any other charge. As they are neither a criminal or civil court, they completely lack the ability to do so. The University is deciding whether the students should remain at the University and if so, under what conditions. There is absolutely no requirement that these allegations are more thoroughly proven than if a student was cheating or smoking pot.
Click to expand...

It's not so much the University doing this, it's the Federal government. At least that's what the EOAA office is saying, their hands are tied! Federal funding at stake! So yes, the university can suspend or expel who they want I suppose, but the Federal government being involved changes things, no? And since Title IX is about equal treatment, why on earth is the treatment here so different for women and men? It seems totally contradictory.
 

This whole thing could be settled peacefully, if the "sentence" is "for the suspension time already served"
 

Rog said:
This whole thing could be settled peacefully, if the "sentence" is "for the suspension time already served"
Click to expand...

Maybe, and I'm no fan of this process, but if the worst of what is thought to happened did... that wouldn't exactly be a good outcome either.

On the other hand for some folks it might have been more fair. Just depends on who it is.
 

rugger14 said:
Please correct me if I am wrong. All the U did was announce that ten players were suspended from the bowl game for unspecified reasons.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, rugger. In accordance with the advice of their legal counsel the U did not give reasons for suspending the players. All they did was provide their names as an explanation for why they wouldn't be playing in the bowl game.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
You are absolutely right, rugger. In accordance with the advice of their legal counsel the U did not give reasons for suspending the players. All they did was provide their names as an explanation for why they wouldn't be playing in the bowl game.
Click to expand...

See post # 701 and 702...
 

Section2 said:
It's not so much the University doing this, it's the Federal government. At least that's what the EOAA office is saying, their hands are tied! Federal funding at stake! So yes, the university can suspend or expel who they want I suppose, but the Federal government being involved changes things, no? And since Title IX is about equal treatment, why on earth is the treatment here so different for women and men? It seems totally contradictory.
Click to expand...

How is the treatment different for women and men? How many men to you know (or even heard of) who have been a victim of sexual assault or harassment by a woman?
 

BleedGopher said:
“I think the biggest thing with the suspension right now, and again we can’t comment too much because of the privacy laws, but I can say that the biggest thing is we filled holes just in case,” Fleck said.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...if I were one of his players (suspended or not) I'd want him to say the most important thing is that the players receive a fair process and we will wait for the outcome. Not "basically I don't care about that, I've got replacements for them!" #thumbsup #RTB
 

Tlsbhansen said:
Hmmm...if I were one of his players (suspended or not) I'd want him to say the most important thing is that the players receive a fair process and we will wait for the outcome. Not "basically I don't care about that, I've got replacements for them!" #thumbsup #RTB
Click to expand...
Good point.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
How is the treatment different for women and men? How many men to you know (or even heard of) who have been a victim of sexual assault or harassment by a woman?
Click to expand...

To start, the investigator didn't threaten the female witness with a record hold to compel her to be interviewed.

Clearly believed the accuser over the accused, so she was seen as more credible based on...what? She now has confirmed the sex with several was consensual, and she was not drunk, i.e. impaired. You decide, is she lying now or was she before?
 

Tlsbhansen said:
Hmmm...if I were one of his players (suspended or not) I'd want him to say the most important thing is that the players receive a fair process and we will wait for the outcome. Not "basically I don't care about that, I've got replacements for them!" #thumbsup #RTB
Click to expand...

Fleck may not want any of the players back on the team. Unlike Claeys, he is not the kind of coach who waits for the results of administrative hearings or criminal trials to decide what to do with players who are not "elite". Last August he kicked two WMU players off his team long before they received their "due process" in the criminal court system or in WMU code of conduct hearings. How long do you think it would have taken Fleck to kick the Gopher players off the team who supplied alcohol to the under-age high school recruit and then got him involved in the gang bang?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two former WMU football players to face judge over robbery

KALAMAZOO, Mich. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) – Monday, a judge was scheduled to decide if there's enough evidence to send two former WMU football players to trial, but their court date was changed.

Freshmen Ronald George and Bryson White are charged with holding up a woman with a gun and knife.

Prosecutors will lay out some of the evidence against them on October 28th.

Both players have been dismissed from the football team as a result of the incident.

Read more at: http://wwmt.com/news/local/two-former-wmu-football-players-to-face-judge-over-robbery
 



Tlsbhansen said:
Hmmm...if I were one of his players (suspended or not) I'd want him to say the most important thing is that the players receive a fair process and we will wait for the outcome. Not "basically I don't care about that, I've got replacements for them!" #thumbsup #RTB
Click to expand...
I didn't take that away from the comment at all. I took it more as Fleck needing to address the situation as a worst case scenario for the team. Due to legal restrictions he can't talk about the players and he has to make sure we have suitably talented players if the are unable to rejoin the team.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Fleck may not want any of the players back on the team. Unlike Claeys, he is not the kind of coach who waits for the results of administrative hearings or criminal trials to decide what to do with players who are not "elite". Last August he kicked two WMU players off his team long before they received their "due process" in the criminal court system or in WMU code of conduct hearings. How long do you think it would have taken Fleck to kick the Gopher players off the team who supplied alcohol to the under-age high school recruit and then got him involved in the gang bang?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two former WMU football players to face judge over robbery

KALAMAZOO, Mich. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) – Monday, a judge was scheduled to decide if there's enough evidence to send two former WMU football players to trial, but their court date was changed.

Freshmen Ronald George and Bryson White are charged with holding up a woman with a gun and knife.

Prosecutors will lay out some of the evidence against them on October 28th.

Both players have been dismissed from the football team as a result of the incident.

Read more at: http://wwmt.com/news/local/two-former-wmu-football-players-to-face-judge-over-robbery
Click to expand...

Yep, and as the article pointed out, one had a long criminal history in his hometown...
 

PMWinSTP said:
Yep, and as the article pointed out, one had a long criminal history in his hometown...
Click to expand...

I just read several articles about that. There is no evidence that Fleck knew anything about it. In fact, there's a long article from a local source that criticizes the high school coach for covering up the discretions of the Bryson White over the years. Here's the link:
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...n-do-enough-sex-offense-allegations/97054440/

Furthermore, White was never charged with any of the alleged sexual assaults.

EDIT: He was apparently charged on at least one occasion, but the case was dropped. Aside from those incidents, White clearly had a lot of issues, but the high school coach overlooked them because he was the star player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
How is the treatment different for women and men? How many men to you know (or even heard of) who have been a victim of sexual assault or harassment by a woman?
Click to expand...
This is one of the most ridiculous comments that I have read. The whole issue, regardless of gender, is not being shamed when coming forward. You have just proven it is less shameful for a woman to make accusations because of a "who ever hears of that" mentality for men. Forty years ago who ever heard of a wife bringing sexual assault charges against her husband because the mentality was they are married and that is their business.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk
 

PitinoFan said:
I just read several articles about that. There is no evidence that Fleck knew anything about it. In fact, there's a long article from a local source that criticizes the high school coach for covering up the discretions of the Bryson White over the years. Here's the link:
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...n-do-enough-sex-offense-allegations/97054440/

Furthermore, White was never charged with any of the alleged sexual assaults.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks. Lots of bad stuff going on with a highly talented player in a relatively small city for his troubles not to be a pretty well known thing. The article makes it sound like it was widely known. His lawyer was even shocked that he was put back on the team.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom