Federal judge tosses former football players' lawsuit against University of Minnesota

[Spoofin]

Probably correct.

Regardless, that the private internal info was leaked and was then published, is not he fault of the U.

What if leaked by a U employee?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotAFanOfBecky]

Regardless of your opinion on this whole deal the Title IX process needs to be reevaluated.

 

[GopherVotary]

Cash grab fail.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Regardless of your opinion on this whole deal the Title IX process needs to be reevaluated.

The U did a review. They had some recommendations that seemed reasonable, albeit a bit surprising that some of the recommendations were needed at all.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Knowing what we know about the U/EOAA process:

-Sole investigator model
-preponderance standard
-interviews not recorded
-interviewees/witnesses not informed they are at risk or advised to seek legal advice
-affirmative consent -- impossible to prove/disprove without media evidence
-disallowal of any evidence the accuser finds psychologically traumatic, eg videos
-university funding/allowance of visit by an outside expert in psychological quackery
-appeals panel indoctrination in fringe science/psychological quackery
-lack of appeal panel diversity/disinterested parties
-lack of cross examination
-lack of discovery
-expedited timeline
-conflict of interest between school/EOAA
-involvement of public figures in "private" proceedings -- no allowance for players to stay on team/practice/play while appeals process plays out
-expulsion may be noted on transcript; in some states (coming soon to a state near you) reason for expulsion indicated on transcript effectively ending any hope of further education/professional opportunities.

Would any of you be comfortable having your son/daughter participate in this process or have faith in its outcome?

 

[Mulligan]

What if leaked by a U employee?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, the leading member of the Truth Squad that pounces on every dumbass exaggeration by PJ has no problem grabbing something out of thin air when it fits his agenda.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Ah, the leading member of the Truth Squad that pounces on every dumbass exaggeration by PJ has no problem grabbing something out of thin air when it fits his agenda.

Nobody knows who leaked the document - but it certainly makes more sense for the school or EOAA to do it to try and force the hand of the boycotting team with a publicity crusade (even if based on nothing more than hearsay) as it was salacious and disturbing if taken at face value and a lot of people did. One can almost see the school counsel and Kaler rubbing their fingers together while they discuss it.

It's less clear why a player would leak it unless one of the guys that wasn't expelled was trying to save their own behind somehow in the court of public opinion. At that point nobody really knew who did what or had been cleared by the appeals panel. This makes less sense to me but who knows?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Speaking of EOAA leaks...wasn't there a million+ dollar investigation into why the assistant AD's (IIRC) finding was released (purportedly by a regent) to the media? This was particularly interesting since public employee disciplinary findings are public record as opposed to student investigation findings which are protected data (usually). Is the lack of action/silence signifiant? Not?

 

[Cruze]

Knowing what we know about the U/EOAA process:

-Sole investigator model
-preponderance standard
-interviews not recorded
-interviewees/witnesses not informed they are at risk or advised to seek legal advice
-affirmative consent -- impossible to prove/disprove without media evidence
-disallowal of any evidence the accuser finds psychologically traumatic, eg videos
-university funding/allowance of visit by an outside expert in psychological quackery
-appeals panel indoctrination in fringe science/psychological quackery
-lack of appeal panel diversity/disinterested parties
-lack of cross examination
-lack of discovery
-expedited timeline
-conflict of interest between school/EOAA
-involvement of public figures in "private" proceedings -- no allowance for players to stay on team/practice/play while appeals process plays out
-expulsion may be noted on transcript; in some states (coming soon to a state near you) reason for expulsion indicated on transcript effectively ending any hope of further education/professional opportunities.

Would any of you be comfortable having your son/daughter participate in this process or have faith in its outcome?

Better check your source for this post because much of it is wrong. For starters, the attorneys for both sides can cross examine adverse witnesses. Based on that error alone your source has lost all credibility. If your goal is to convince us the U ran roughshod over the rights of the accused football players you're failing miserably.

Student Sexual Misconduct Subcommittee Hearings (SSMS):

"At the hearing, the University [of Minnesota] and accused student each offer witnesses, information, documents, films, or other materials to the panel, and they both may object to the information presented by the other party. The SSMS panel Chair has discretion to determine what information is presented in the hearing. Audio recordings are made of the hearings. The University and the accused students may provide opening statements, submit written materials, and present and cross-examine witnesses. There are typically pre-established time limits for the University and the accused student to present their cases."

Cross-examination:

"The University allows cross-examination of witnesses by both the reporting party and the accused student. Based on the policies available for review, direct cross-examination is rare. For example, Purdue and Northwestern do not allow for cross-examination. Indiana and Nebraska allow for cross-examination, but questions must be submitted for prior review."

"The attorney for the accused student is allowed to actively participate throughout the process. No other Big 10 institution takes this approach in all conduct code matters. The most common model is to allow students to have advisors of their choice, but the advisors cannot speak or ask questions on the students’ behalf."

Burden of Proof:

"As to the process generally, some witnesses suggested higher burdens of proof (clear and convincing evidence vs. preponderance of the evidence). As of now, this suggestion is not consistent with OCR guidance on Title IX. Moreover, the use of a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof (applicable in almost all civil lawsuits) recognizes the differences between campus disciplinary procedures and criminal proceedings, and it demonstrates compliance with the “the principle of fairness at the heart of Title IX.”

Special Oversight Committee Findings:

"The University, including the Athletics Department, complied with applicable law and policy with respect to the athletic discipline of the student-athletes in Fall 2016. Privacy laws restrict what may be disclosed regarding the reason for suspension decisions (including a decision to suspend or a decision to lift a suspension). Under the University’s current Student-Athlete Code of Conduct process, suspension decisions may be based on a number of factors, including but not limited to the following: a pending criminal investigation, a decision to charge or not charge by a county attorney’s office, a pending EOAA investigation, EOAA findings, SSMS findings, and the Provost’s ultimate decision. Dorsey & Whitney concluded that the suspension decisions of Fall 2016—the initial decisions to suspend, then to lift suspensions, and then later to impose new suspensions—were consistent with University policy and the law."

http://regents.umn.edu/sites/regents.umn.edu/files/AUG_2017_-_Special_Oversight_Docket.pdf

 

[Pompous Elitist]

The report specifically notes witnesses are able to be cross-examined by the university and accused, not the reporting party.

The fact you as a champion of the EOAA linked a report on all the failings of the EOAA process is interesting and I did find it enlightening. Some of it is worded very carefully. Obviously they did not go far enough in their recommendations and further changes should happen. I guess MN is no longer the thought leader we used to be. If MN is aligned with or slightly better than most of the Big Ten that’s good enough...





Some of the more interesting parts



ii. Recommendations
 ...Some witnesses suggested incorporating additional protections, including recording interviews, higher burdens of proof (clear and convincing evidence vs. preponderance of the evidence), greater independence of panel members from the Office for Community Standards or EOAA, and notification to reporting and responding students of preliminary EOAA findings to allow those students an opportunity to provide additional information before an EOAA decision is finalized. While Title IX proceedings are not required to contain all the due process protections inherent in criminal or civil proceedings, some procedures could be incorporated in Title IX proceedings at little additional burden or cost.

 Consider instituting a periodic peer review or audit of the EOAA program by persons with substantial experience and knowledge of the changing landscape of Title IX and university student disciplinary processes in Big 10 universities. Historically, EOAA has been subject to ad hoc, case-specific review (and criticism) derived from concern over one particular case after conducting investigations receiving substantial University or public attention.

 Consider characterizing EOAA’s conclusions as to whether students have violated the Student Conduct Code or other University rules as “Charges” instead of “Findings.” (EOAA would continue to make factual findings.) Several witnesses commented that EOAA acted as both investigator and adjudicator, and that in doing so EOAA denied the student-athletes of due process.

A clear description more consistent with EOAA’s function in the Student Conduct disciplinary process would be to characterize EOAA “Findings” as “Charges” alleging violations of specific University rules. “Charges” would then be considered by the Office for Community Standards, and, if a student requests, adjudicated before a SSMS panel.


....


d. Evaluate the role of University presenter
(1) Some perceive the presence of a University presenter as favoring the reporting party. Consider whether the process should forego a University presenter, recognizing additional process changes would be required.

iv. Evaluate the decision makers in the panel and the appeal process
a. Most units opined that an all-student panel is not an ideal deciding body for SSMS matters. Consider what composition of students, faculty, and staff would best serve decision making for matters like this, with a recognition of what each constituency brings to the process.


...

Students, faculty, and staff may apply to be SSMS members. Members are selected and appointed by the University’s Title IX Working Group...SSMS members are required to attend 10 hours of training before serving on a panel. The Office for Community Standards and EEOA personnel provide some of the training. Topics include Title IX, EOAA role and process, the Office for Community Standards’s role and process, credibility determinations, implicit bias, and sexual violence

 

[Spoofin]

Ah, the leading member of the Truth Squad that pounces on every dumbass exaggeration by PJ has no problem grabbing something out of thin air when it fits his agenda.

Try following along Mully. Pathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gophers_4life]

This is intentionally misleading to paint Winfield and Green as guilty of sexual assault.

Doesn’t read that way to me in the slightest.

Seems to me you’re a bit deranged ...

 

[Gophers_4life]

What if leaked by a U employee?

I guess (not a legal expert), it would depend if you could prove that the individual acted on behalf of the University.

My guess is that even if the person was employed or affiliated (student), they did so purely as an individual because of their own desire, moral code, whatever.


If you could prove (email, text, recording) that Kaler and Coyle conspired to do it because they thought it would benefit the U, following PE’s idea for example, then you’d have something.


Sans that, the U is not at fault (again in my layman’s opinion).

 

[Gophers_4life]

Knowing what we know about the U/EOAA process:

-Sole investigator model
-preponderance standard
-interviews not recorded
-interviewees/witnesses not informed they are at risk or advised to seek legal advice
-affirmative consent -- impossible to prove/disprove without media evidence
-disallowal of any evidence the accuser finds psychologically traumatic, eg videos
-university funding/allowance of visit by an outside expert in psychological quackery
-appeals panel indoctrination in fringe science/psychological quackery
-lack of appeal panel diversity/disinterested parties
-lack of cross examination
-lack of discovery
-expedited timeline
-conflict of interest between school/EOAA
-involvement of public figures in "private" proceedings -- no allowance for players to stay on team/practice/play while appeals process plays out
-expulsion may be noted on transcript; in some states (coming soon to a state near you) reason for expulsion indicated on transcript effectively ending any hope of further education/professional opportunities.

Would any of you be comfortable having your son/daughter participate in this process or have faith in its outcome?

This is the bottom line, which you can never talk your way out of: no one’s freedom is on the line, nor any civil award/penalty.

All that can happen, at worst, is you might no longer get to be a student at the U.

That’s relatively nothing. So, the process that the U uses can and should skew to favor the victims.

The punishment fits the crime.

 

[Spoofin]

I guess (not a legal expert), it would depend if you could prove that the individual acted on behalf of the University.

My guess is that even if the person was employed or affiliated (student), they did so purely as an individual because of their own desire, moral code, whatever.


If you could prove (email, text, recording) that Kaler and Coyle conspired to do it because they thought it would benefit the U, following PE’s idea for example, then you’d have something.


Sans that, the U is not at fault (again in my layman’s opinion).

I don’t know either. I was honestly interested in examining that question based on your post. Even if acting as an individual, I suspect one could try and prove the U didn’t have proper measures in place to stop/prevent it??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gophers_4life]

Probably could, if so motivated. I think you can always try, with the law. Might get thrown out, but doesn’t stop someone from testing the hypothesis.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

This is the bottom line, which you can never talk your way out of: no one’s freedom is on the line, nor any civil award/penalty.

All that can happen, at worst, is you might no longer get to be a student at the U.

That’s relatively nothing. So, the process that the U uses can and should skew to favor the victims.

The punishment fits the crime.

There is little standing in the way of improving the process. Processes everywhere are continually being fine tuned because that’s the right thing to do even if it’s the hard thing to do.

I don’t consider getting fired from a job, losing access to education, etc “relatively nothing” if the process isn’t thorough or fair. And, this is something that has the potential to follow for a very long time and effect a great many things down the line particularly if activists succeed in notating transcripts on the reason for expulsion.

 

[Gophers_4life]

If a frat bro sexually assaults a student and gets expelled for it, I think that should be on the transcript. That’s my opinion.


As to your blanket general statement, sure all processes have room for improvement. To the specific suggest that the U’s process must implement a harder burden of proof as an “improvement”, I disagree.

 

[Spoofin]

If a frat bro sexually assaults a student and gets expelled for it, I think that should be on the transcript. That’s my opinion.

Sexual Assault is a criminal charge. Letting schools make that determination is against the basic rights of America. If you want to argue they should put “violated school code of conduct” on the transcript, there may be some merit. To suggest that it would be acceptable for the U to determine and publish “sexual assault” is absurd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[short ornery norwegian]

If a frat bro sexually assaults a student and gets expelled for it, I think that should be on the transcript. That’s my opinion.


As to your blanket general statement, sure all processes have room for improvement. To the specific suggest that the U’s process must implement a harder burden of proof as an “improvement”, I disagree.

Imagine that, for the rest of your life, anytime someone googles your name for any reason - job background, whatever - one of the things that pops up is "was accused of participating in a sexual assault and was expelled from college."

Let's remember, no criminal charges were filed here. for all the noise, it still comes down to a "he said, she said" case.

if you believe that your side of the story was not heard - or not believed; If you believe that your accuser did not tell the whole truth about the incident, and your reputation was forever impacted by these events, I think you might not be happy about the deal.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Sexual Assault is a criminal charge. Letting schools make that determination is against the basic rights of America. If you want to argue they should put “violated school code of conduct” on the transcript, there may be some merit. To suggest that it would be acceptable for the U to determine and publish “sexual assault” is absurd.

Yes, you are correct here, and I was wrong.

I like your suggest as a much more reasonable, something like “violated student code”.

 

[Some guy]

These students lawsuit against the University was never going to take off or have grounds that would allow the case to proceed.
If anything they might have had a civil case against President Kaler because he went public with a statement he should have not made that Saturday night of the Boycott.
The only other angle was to pursue defamation cases against the head of the EEOC lady, who violated due process in the investigation, and Hubbard the parent company of KSTP and the journalist that heavily reported on the story for the release of private data. The only other angle would have been against the accuser which would have opened up a whole other can of worms.
I never thought they would get any money from the University but I thought they had opportunity to go after KSTP for some possible data privacy violations. Problem is one of the students that was part of the group leaked documents to reporters there so that was likely the only one the other's might have had a grievance against, the player Bufford that leaked the documents.

Yeah. The statements by Kaler would be very problematic at the k-12 level of education. I don’t know the law well for post secondary.

 

[Deleted_User]

Rochelle, you are a terrible journalist.

Factual errors and omissions on my first read through:

She accused up to 20 of assault, not 12.
The SMSS hearing did not allow presentation of the most important evidence of all - the videos.
The hearing process did not allow each player their own time, rather lumping then together in a block format - a violation of their own procedure.

Take some time and learn about the pros and cons of the U’s process.

The lawsuit was a long shot from the beginning as short of hard evidence one cannot prove racism or discrimination and as far as the defamation too soon to gauge long term issues/damages. Besides, this wasn’t a racism issue - a dumb angle to take. Discrimination...probably but again hard to prove. Their best bet was probably to find the U didn’t follow their own procedure to the letter in terms of the appeal, panel makeup, etc. Plenty to take issue with....

More speculation from the usual suspects to cover their failed earlier theories of how awful the U was to the players. First came the cry of discrimination and poor process. Now, what will come of this line of argument is a quite thud when it fails to catch the attention of the appellate courts. If recent rulings from SCOTUS matter, administrative process is determined by the administrators. That is the view from the highest court of the land on more than one recent ruling. So, if they deviated from the "procedure" it is a matter of administrative prerogative.

Carry on.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

More speculation from the usual suspects to cover their failed earlier theories of how awful the U was to the players. First came the cry of discrimination and poor process. Now, what will come of this line of argument is a quite thud when it fails to catch the attention of the appellate courts. If recent rulings from SCOTUS matter, administrative process is determined by the administrators. That is the view from the highest court of the land on more than one recent ruling. So, if they deviated from the "procedure" it is a matter of administrative prerogative.

Carry on.

Good to know humanity has reached its apogee of law and civilization. Nothing more to to do here in Nirvana. Carry on. Pass the pipe.

 

[Deleted_User]

Stretch Baby, Stretch!

Good to know humanity has reached its apogee of law and civilization. Nothing more to to do here in Nirvana. Carry on. Pass the pipe.

Apogee of law and civilization. You missed the mark entirely. The phrase "to form a more perfect union" comes to mind. The objective is not perfection. The objective is to muddle along as close to the mark of perfection as possible. And, let us define perfection. One man's oven is a toaster, another a Viking gas range. Both are perfect for their own function. Your reply was simply dusty logic. Whimper, obfuscate and more whimper from Pompous Elitist.

I do admire your moniker of "Pompous Elitist". No other moniker could suit you better. Pompous - definitely. Elitist - matches your desire to be superior to all. Now that is an aim that no real America loving soul would want to be known as. But, you apparently did.

The court dismissed the case because the "brilliant" attorney had no merit to his argument. Nothing elite about it. Complete fail.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I think they were hoping for a sympathetic judge.

No idea how judges are assigned cases in this court, or how this particular judge was assigned to this particular case, but I suppose that can be a conspiracy theory.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Apogee of law and civilization. You missed the mark entirely. The phrase "to form a more perfect union" comes to mind. The objective is not perfection. The objective is to muddle along as close to the mark of perfection as possible. And, let us define perfection. One man's oven is a toaster, another a Viking gas range. Both are perfect for their own function. Your reply was simply dusty logic. Whimper, obfuscate and more whimper from Pompous Elitist.

I do admire your moniker of "Pompous Elitist". No other moniker could suit you better. Pompous - definitely. Elitist - matches your desire to be superior to all. Now that is an aim that no real America loving soul would want to be known as. But, you apparently did.

The court dismissed the case because the "brilliant" attorney had no merit to his argument. Nothing elite about it. Complete fail.

Your argument fails to address a single point about this issue, and you fail to understand my moniker. Too perfect.

If you want to make an actual argument, then do so. Can you?

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I think they were hoping for a sympathetic judge.

No idea how judges are assigned cases in this court, or how this particular judge was assigned to this particular case, but I suppose that can be a conspiracy theory.

Isn’t this always the case? Bias, prejudice and country club connections are more important than we think at times.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Sometimes, life just isn't fair.

I still believe that some of the players involved in the investigation were not treated fairly. "fairly" in the broader sense of the word - not about the specifics of the U's policies and procedures.

But, legally, they probably have no recourse. And they will have to live with this for the rest of their lives.

Make no mistake - the players who were involved in this case are paying a penalty. Some may think they weren't punished enough. some may think they were punished too severely.

Just be glad you don't have to walk in their shoes.

 

[Gophers_4life]

And they will have to live with this for the rest of their lives.

Here's an idea and a thought: what IF, the players acknowledged that they did, something, wrong. Maybe not exactly what was claimed, but they did not act appropriately, and representative of their status as a U of MN student and a football player, a position of privilege.

What IF they issued a public apology, and asked the U to only give them 6 month suspensions.

What IF they were granted that, and agreed to spend that time working very hard to re-establish their status, in all aspects. Agreed to make public appearances to talk about sexual assault. Agreed to get good grads. Agreed to workout on their own (not part of the team), but the keep busting their butts to stay in shape.

What IF they had completed all of that work, to the T, and were allowed to be students again and apart of the team again. No scholarship to start out, they could be walk-ons. But IF they worked hard enough and performed well enough, they could earn their scholarships back.

What IF they did that. Regained their status and respect on the team, and went on to have great careers here.

And what IF that led to try-outs with NFL teams. Perhaps one or two even catches on?



What IF .....




That's all gone, now. Down the drain. They pinned their hopes on the easy way out. A quick settlement paycheck, without having to work hard for it. And it backfired.