Court revives Gophers football player lawsuit, citing possible sex discrimination in gang-rape punishments

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
62,215
Reaction score
18,800
Points
113
per Josh:

An appeals court panel has brought back to life a discrimination lawsuit filed by former University of Minnesota football players who were punished for an alleged 2016 gang rape.

Three judges for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found the players have made a credible argument that the U punished them because they are male, citing “external pressures” and detailed allegations of “investigator bias and dubious investigative procedures.”

www.twincities.com

Court revives Gophers football player lawsuit, citing possible sex discrimination in gang-rape punishments

An appeals court panel has brought back to life a discrimination lawsuit filed by former University of Minnesota football players who were punished for an alleged 2016 gang rape. Three judges for t…
www.twincities.com www.twincities.com

Go Gophers!!
 

The video told the story. I think they did break some sort of school rule but many many students break them without getting tossed out.
 



In my book, they deserve their day in court.
 


I just thought the process being dorked up to the extent that it was would be room for a lawsuit.

They had testimony was hand written student notes that I believe everyone involved (including the victim) said we're inaccurate, you had a guy punished who wasn't even there, you had a process where nobody is provided any kind of capable representation who understands the process, and if the review done later was accurate, they had appeals where apparently only the person appealing was involved....

I don't know what they are doing now but at the time the system just makes no sense.
 

In hindsight, the school administration overreacted under intense pressure from the public and the media.

It was a horrible thing that happened. There was a rush to judgement. Now, there is a revive lawsuit.
 

Literally all of the players in this are no longer around.

Big test for the current players...both on and off the field.
 

How will they prove that the U acted differently because they are male?

You would have to show that members of the women's rowing team did not receive the same treatment when they were accused of sexually assaulting a male student.
 



I'm not a lawyer and have no idea how this will play out in court, but that whole deal seemed very much like a "guilty until proven innocent" situation in the eyes of the U of M. I personally prefer the innocent until proven guilty system.
 


Word said:
I'm not a lawyer and have no idea how this will play out in court, but that whole deal seemed very much like a "guilty until proven innocent" situation in the eyes of the U of M. I personally prefer the innocent until proven guilty system.
Click to expand...
Yep. If I remember right, the media was describing her as the "victim" rather than "accuser". Not sure if that's the norm but yeah these players never got a fair shake in all of this.
 




MplsGopher said:
How will they prove that the U acted differently because they are male?

You would have to show that members of the women's rowing team did not receive the same treatment when they were accused of sexually assaulting a male student.
Click to expand...
You're back! Now will you tell everyone that I am not you? Seems everyone on this board thinks we're the same person.
 


Tangentially related, the makeup of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is . . . interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit

Only 1 current judge appointed by a Democrat president (Obama), the rest appointed by either Reagan, both Bushes, or Trump.

No matter the outcome, I expect the losing party to appeal to the next higher court available.

EDIT: Most of the appointments ARE due to death, so while I dislike the makeup of the court of appeals personally, it was mostly just bad luck that the previous judges all died during republican presidents.
 

Taji34 said:
Tangentially related, the makeup of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is . . . interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit

Only 1 current judge appointed by a Democrat president (Obama), the rest appointed by either Reagan, both Bushes, or Trump.

No matter the outcome, I expect the losing party to appeal to the next higher court available.

EDIT: Most of the appointments ARE due to death, so while I dislike the makeup of the court of appeals personally, it was mostly just bad luck that the previous judges all died during republican presidents.
Click to expand...
At least as far as the handful of other cases where a college disciplinary process was rejected in some way by a judge, the judges involved were a pretty mixed bag.

Much like SCOTUS's and other judge's actions / inaction during the election, I don't think think any rulings are can be counted on based on political orientation. A judge can generally support the idea of a given thing, but reject when it is done wrong.
 


Taji34 said:
EDIT: Most of the appointments ARE due to death, so while I dislike the makeup of the court of appeals personally, it was mostly just bad luck that the previous judges all died during republican presidents.
Click to expand...
What's sad is that it shouldn't matter. Anything further on the subject should be for the OTB board.
 

Fairly long story about this in the Strib. One of the arguments being presented by the players is that certain administrators at the U already had an antagonistic attitude toward the football program and male athletes in general. There had been previous allegations about football players, and allegedly some of the people at the U had made up their minds that the football program needed to be reined in.

as a result - according to the players - they did not receive fair treatment during the investigation of the allegations, because they were considered guilty until proven innocent.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Fairly long story about this in the Strib. One of the arguments being presented by the players is that certain administrators at the U already had an antagonistic attitude toward the football program and male athletes in general. There had been previous allegations about football players, and allegedly some of the people at the U had made up their minds that the football program needed to be reined in.

as a result - according to the players - they did not receive fair treatment during the investigation of the allegations, because they were considered guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...
A lot of these issues seem to be handled initially (before appeals) by departments where people act as advocates, policy makers, investigator, judge and jury.

The appeals process seemed to end up outside that department in the end but ... it strikes me as a bad idea to have so much run through one department / group of people.
 

Taji34 said:
Tangentially related, the makeup of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is . . . interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit

Only 1 current judge appointed by a Democrat president (Obama), the rest appointed by either Reagan, both Bushes, or Trump.

No matter the outcome, I expect the losing party to appeal to the next higher court available.

EDIT: Most of the appointments ARE due to death, so while I dislike the makeup of the court of appeals personally, it was mostly just bad luck that the previous judges all died during republican presidents.
Click to expand...
I don't love it either, but I think it's a better system than being up for election. The last thing (IMO) we want is for these positions to be more politicized. If judges have to run for re-election, then the people with the money to to help them pay for the elections will hold all of the cards.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't love it either, but I think it's a better system than being up for election. The last thing (IMO) we want is for these positions to be more politicized. If judges have to run for re-election, then the people with the money to to help them pay for the elections will hold all of the cards.
Click to expand...
Definitely an excellent point. I don't want to go into specifics (that's for the OTB board which I have no interest in) but we need to do what we can to make it as close to neutral as possible.
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
At least as far as the handful of other cases where a college disciplinary process was rejected in some way by a judge, the judges involved were a pretty mixed bag.

Much like SCOTUS's and other judge's actions / inaction during the election, I don't think think any rulings are can be counted on based on political orientation. A judge can generally support the idea of a given thing, but reject when it is done wrong.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the college disciplinary cases, specifically Title IX related are really a mixed bag.

In my opinion, I can't envision a scenario, outside of the NCAA where the players would not have a case. The U of MN is a public institution and it is absolutely not just a matter of a private entity kicking people out of a private institution.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't love it either, but I think it's a better system than being up for election. The last thing (IMO) we want is for these positions to be more politicized. If judges have to run for re-election, then the people with the money to to help them pay for the elections will hold all of the cards.
Click to expand...
They should either be for life or be LONG staggered terms like the Federal reserve board of governors.

Like if all Supreme Court judges were for 18 year terms. So every president gets to nominate one per term. And it sits vacant if the person dies if there isn’t a 75% approval in the senate.
 

Some guy said:
They should either be for life or be LONG staggered terms like the Federal reserve board of governors.

Like if all Supreme Court judges were for 18 year terms. So every president gets to nominate one per term. And it sits vacant if the person dies if there isn’t a 75% approval in the senate.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be fair in practice though, as one party flatly rejects every single candidate the other party nominates. So it would force the other party to start the same games.
 

And let's stop or ask the mods to move this to OTB? This is gonna get nuts quickly I fear, and I probably didn't help things.
 

We should hire the head coach from EMC from last chance U and he can bring his team with him.
 

MplsGopher_fan said:
It wouldn't be fair in practice though, as one party flatly rejects every single candidate the other party nominates. So it would force the other party to start the same games.
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t matter because the 18 year term with difficult replacement for a dead judge would lead to picking judges in their early 40s who don’t die in office
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom