Gogogopher
Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2015
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
http://www.espn.com/espnw/voices/ar...istration-takes-strong-stance-campus-violence
The question of due process is an important one, especially in the NCAA, which affords little power to players to fight for their rights in a meaningful way. (Of course, concerns over players' rights were hardly found when a group of black Missouri players threatened to protest the school's handling of racial intimidation on campus.)
Yet it's perfectly within "due process" of university discipline, which exists separate from the legal system, to suspend players after an investigation has been conducted pending an appeal. Looking through the rest of Wolitarsky's statement, it's clear many players are conflating constitutional rights with rights under the student code, which carries a much lower burden of proof for punishment. So too, it seems, is head coach Tracy Claeys, who tweeted in support of the boycott Thursday night, breaking with the administration. But the university has remained consistent; Claeys himself suspended four players pending the criminal investigation, and now the administration has suspended them and six others following the Title IX investigation.
Due process is also important as we look toward navigating a future in a post-Baylor world. Last year's bombshell report exposing the rampant sexual assault and coverup in Baylor University athletics seemed to show those who were otherwise not paying attention just how widespread these crimes are in college football, and how thick the cloak of silence around them can be. Baylor served as a telescope for how things have always been done when players are accused of sexual violence, often marked by systemic protectionism by school administrators.
Put that in context of Baylor. We have to see this as an improvement, if nothing else.
Jessica Luther
What's remarkable about the action at Minnesota is that it came from the top, with the administration getting out in front with sanctions immediately following the investigation, rather than reacting to fan and media outrage over inaction. It was swift and impactful without being heavy handed (though probably not to those who are used to seeing such accusations go unanswered).
"I can't find fault with what the administration has done. Which is ... weird," said Jessica Luther, a freelance journalist who broke the Baylor story last year and whose book "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" exhaustively covers sexual assault in college football.
Baylor could be seen as a turning point relative to how schools, including Minnesota, failed to handle such cases in the past.
In October 2015, the Star Tribune obtained an email from the school's EOAA director to then-athletic director Norwood Teague that cited multiple complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment by players as well as concerns of retaliation by "a group of football players" during the 2014-15 academic year.
The question of due process is an important one, especially in the NCAA, which affords little power to players to fight for their rights in a meaningful way. (Of course, concerns over players' rights were hardly found when a group of black Missouri players threatened to protest the school's handling of racial intimidation on campus.)
Yet it's perfectly within "due process" of university discipline, which exists separate from the legal system, to suspend players after an investigation has been conducted pending an appeal. Looking through the rest of Wolitarsky's statement, it's clear many players are conflating constitutional rights with rights under the student code, which carries a much lower burden of proof for punishment. So too, it seems, is head coach Tracy Claeys, who tweeted in support of the boycott Thursday night, breaking with the administration. But the university has remained consistent; Claeys himself suspended four players pending the criminal investigation, and now the administration has suspended them and six others following the Title IX investigation.
Due process is also important as we look toward navigating a future in a post-Baylor world. Last year's bombshell report exposing the rampant sexual assault and coverup in Baylor University athletics seemed to show those who were otherwise not paying attention just how widespread these crimes are in college football, and how thick the cloak of silence around them can be. Baylor served as a telescope for how things have always been done when players are accused of sexual violence, often marked by systemic protectionism by school administrators.
Put that in context of Baylor. We have to see this as an improvement, if nothing else.
Jessica Luther
What's remarkable about the action at Minnesota is that it came from the top, with the administration getting out in front with sanctions immediately following the investigation, rather than reacting to fan and media outrage over inaction. It was swift and impactful without being heavy handed (though probably not to those who are used to seeing such accusations go unanswered).
"I can't find fault with what the administration has done. Which is ... weird," said Jessica Luther, a freelance journalist who broke the Baylor story last year and whose book "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" exhaustively covers sexual assault in college football.
Baylor could be seen as a turning point relative to how schools, including Minnesota, failed to handle such cases in the past.
In October 2015, the Star Tribune obtained an email from the school's EOAA director to then-athletic director Norwood Teague that cited multiple complaints of sexual assault and sexual harassment by players as well as concerns of retaliation by "a group of football players" during the 2014-15 academic year.
