Fire Mark Coyle

[50PoundHead]

You mean like the immediate suspensions that came directly after the incident, until the police declared they would not prosecute?

What do the cops have to do with this? I mean no reinstatement for Djam. Just because the police couldn't find reason to prosecute doesn't mean that there wasn't cause for a permanent suspension. There's the law, the U student code of conduct, and whatever rules that Claeys has to govern the behavior of the football team. He can suspend any player he wants for conduct detrimental to the team and those rules can, and my guess often are, more strict that both the law and the U student code of conduct.

 

[MennoSota]

What do the cops have to do with this? I mean no reinstatement for Djam. Just because the police couldn't find reason to prosecute doesn't mean that there wasn't cause for a permanent suspension. There's the law, the U student code of conduct, and whatever rules that Claeys has to govern the behavior of the football team. He can suspend any player he wants for conduct detrimental to the team and those rules can, and my guess often are, more strict that both the law and the U student code of conduct.

Claeys followed the book in every situation. The only thing he did out of script was to tweet support for his players who boycotted for due process rights. He didn't tweet support of rape or rape culture. He just tweeted support for the other 130 guys who stood united in calling for due process.

Claeys is clean on this issue and runs a good program. Fault a few kids for a dumb decision and sexual act, but don't blame Claeys for one 90 minute moment of stupidity by a handful of people in his football program. That is like blaming the CEO of a company for the actions of mail room clerks while they are on their own private time. I wouldn't blame the CEO.
The police found no reason to prosecute. Claeys followed the book by the letter in this situation. He doesn't deserve the blame.

 

[WorkingMyTailOff]

Claeys followed the book in every situation. The only thing he did out of script was to tweet support for his players who boycotted for due process rights. He didn't tweet support of rape or rape culture. He just tweeted support for the other 130 guys who stood united in calling for due process.

Claeys is clean on this issue and runs a good program. Fault a few kids for a dumb decision and sexual act, but don't blame Claeys for one 90 minute moment of stupidity by a handful of people in his football program. That is like blaming the CEO of a company for the actions of mail room clerks while they are on their own private time. I wouldn't blame the CEO.
The police found no reason to prosecute. Claeys followed the book by the letter in this situation. He doesn't deserve the blame.

Just taking exception with your last paragraph as we have seen a few CEO's recently take the fall because of things going on way down below them (Target and their cyber security breach come to mind).

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

What do the cops have to do with this? I mean no reinstatement for Djam. Just because the police couldn't find reason to prosecute doesn't mean that there wasn't cause for a permanent suspension. There's the law, the U student code of conduct, and whatever rules that Claeys has to govern the behavior of the football team. He can suspend any player he wants for conduct detrimental to the team and those rules can, and my guess often are, more strict that both the law and the U student code of conduct.

The cops don't have anything to do with whether or not Claeys can punish a football player but it does get a little tricky though because we are a public university. Our team rules cannot violate the Constitution. For the sake of making this a little clearer, instead of group sex, let's say that we tried to pass a team rule barring pre-marital sex (or homosexual sex). Those players would have an extremely strong Constitutional argument against the rule.

There is balancing test involved with whether or not regulating (team rule) consensual sexual activity is a legitimate state interest (it could even be a legitimate team interest in this circumstance). The Supreme Court has already said there isn't one.

So even if they are being kicked out per the student code of conduct, the real key here is consent.

 

[GoodasGold]

The cops don't have anything to do with whether or not Claeys can punish a football player but it does get a little tricky though because we are a public university. Our team rules cannot violate the Constitution. For the sake of making this a little clearer, instead of group sex, let's say that we tried to pass a team rule barring pre-marital sex (or homosexual sex). Those players would have an extremely strong Constitutional argument against the rule.

There is balancing test involved with whether or not regulating (team rule) consensual sexual activity is a legitimate state interest (it could even be a legitimate team interest in this circumstance). The Supreme Court has already said there isn't one.

So even if they are being kicked out per the student code of conduct, the real key here is consent.

Spot on! Where do people think those future recruits come from anyway.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I wouldn't fire Coyle.

I would tell the dude to get in the damn game.... of being an AD.

He doesn't have to give Tracy a bear hug or anything, but represent the athletic department and the teams they run and do some **** to make them look GOOD rather than what seems to be finger waving and/or ... nothing.

 

[50PoundHead]

The cops don't have anything to do with whether or not Claeys can punish a football player but it does get a little tricky though because we are a public university. Our team rules cannot violate the Constitution. For the sake of making this a little clearer, instead of group sex, let's say that we tried to pass a team rule barring pre-marital sex (or homosexual sex). Those players would have an extremely strong Constitutional argument against the rule.

There is balancing test involved with whether or not regulating (team rule) consensual sexual activity is a legitimate state interest (it could even be a legitimate team interest in this circumstance). The Supreme Court has already said there isn't one.

So even if they are being kicked out per the student code of conduct, the real key here is consent.

We've been through this Bob. Claeys could institute a lot of rules that go beyond Constitutional guarantees. Claeys can dismiss a guy from the team for skipping class and a player has every right under the Constitution to skip as many classes as he wants. And I don't necessarily want to make this about the sexual activities. Although that is getting the most attention, I am trying to steer away from that because I think it misses the point. As far as I'm concerned, whoever was hosting the recruit could have been run from the team for bad judgment, i.e. ye olde "actions detrimental to the team" line.

And Mennosota, nowhere do I say that Claeys runs a dirty program or supports rape culture, so you can stop trying to tar me with that brush. My only question is whether he got ahead of the whole issue, which gets to what has always been my primary concern with Claeys. He is a superb X and O guy, but there's more to running a big-time program than simply worrying about what happens for three-plus hours on a bunch of Saturday afternoons in the fall. He may have done everything right, but I just see a lot of shoulder-shrugging. The tweet doesn't mean anything to me except it shows that Claeys was a math major who has trouble with the English language. And I don't think Coyle and Kaler are blameless.

 

[Gofer]

Claeys followed the book in every situation. The only thing he did out of script was to tweet support for his players who boycotted for due process rights. He didn't tweet support of rape or rape culture. He just tweeted support for the other 130 guys who stood united in calling for due process.

His tweet followed the players' demand that the suspensions for all involved be lifted.

Those 10 suspended players stood directly behind seniors Drew Wolitarsky, Mitch Leidner and Duke Anyanwu — with the rest of the team arrayed behind them in support — as Wolitarsky read from a typed, two-page statement, laying out the players’ demands.

“The boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed and the suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted,” Wolitarsky said.

That was written down...on a piece of paper...agreed to by the players...read out loud....in front of tv cameras. Then the head coach decided....boy, these guys really are trying to make a better world.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

We've been through this Bob. Claeys could institute a lot of rules that go beyond Constitutional guarantees. Claeys can dismiss a guy from the team for skipping class and a player has every right under the Constitution to skip as many classes as he wants. And I don't necessarily want to make this about the sexual activities. Although that is getting the most attention, I am trying to steer away from that because I think it misses the point. As far as I'm concerned, whoever was hosting the recruit could have been run from the team for bad judgment, i.e. ye olde "actions detrimental to the team" line.

You're missing the point.

You do not have a Constitutional right to skip class or cheat on an exam. You do not have a Constitutional right to do a variety of things. However, your sexual preferences are protected by the Constitution.

A public university cannot regulate anything "beyond Constitutional guarantees". They cannot get around it by calling it "conduct detrimental to the team". The Constitution only protects an individual from certain state actions.

As far the host for the recruit. Sure, the U could certainly pass a rule punishing him (that might get dicey in this case, but certainly going forward). As far as the sexual stuff, it is protected by the Constitution. There is no way to get around it (student code, "conduct detrimental to the team", etc.).

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

His tweet followed the players' demand that the suspensions for all involved be lifted.

Those 10 suspended players stood directly behind seniors Drew Wolitarsky, Mitch Leidner and Duke Anyanwu — with the rest of the team arrayed behind them in support — as Wolitarsky read from a typed, two-page statement, laying out the players’ demands.

“The boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed and the suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted,” Wolitarsky said.

That was written down...on a piece of paper...agreed to by the players...read out loud....in front of tv cameras. Then the head coach decided....boy, these guys really are trying to make a better world.

Yeah. I think they were and I think it's completely reasonable for Claeys to think they were trying to make a better world. People fought long and hard to live in a society with due process.

You may disagree with Claeys. But that certainly does not make him pro-rape or insensitive to sexual assaults. Claeys biggest issue was giving the public too much credit, he didn't think he had to state the obvious before making his point (rape is bad).

 

[MennoSota]

His tweet followed the players' demand that the suspensions for all involved be lifted.

Those 10 suspended players stood directly behind seniors Drew Wolitarsky, Mitch Leidner and Duke Anyanwu — with the rest of the team arrayed behind them in support — as Wolitarsky read from a typed, two-page statement, laying out the players’ demands.

“The boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed and the suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted,” Wolitarsky said.

That was written down...on a piece of paper...agreed to by the players...read out loud....in front of tv cameras. Then the head coach decided....boy, these guys really are trying to make a better world.

Where is the problem? I'm not seeing the validity for a witch hunt on Claeys.
As you point out the issue was and is about due process.
Claeys has acted appropriately in every part of this situation. He does not deserve the vilification he's being given.

 

[50PoundHead]

You're missing the point.

You do not have a Constitutional right to skip class or cheat on an exam. You do not have a Constitutional right to do a variety of things. However, your sexual preferences are protected by the Constitution.

A public university cannot regulate anything "beyond Constitutional guarantees". They cannot get around it by calling it "conduct detrimental to the team". The Constitution only protects an individual from certain state actions.

As far the host for the recruit. Sure, the U could certainly pass a rule punishing him (that might get dicey in this case, but certainly going forward). As far as the sexual stuff, it is protected by the Constitution. There is no way to get around it (student code, "conduct detrimental to the team", etc.).

It depends on whether one subscribes to negative or positive liberty, but you are making my point for me. When a student enrolls at a university, they enter a contract relationship. When a football player accepts a scholarship to play at a given university, they agree to an even higher level of scrutiny. Universities and football teams cannot violate the 14th amendment, but they can certainly limit speech and association. While the sexual angle here is the seamy side of the story, to me it's merely the action that rips opens up the whole disciplinary argument. I don't think the whole EOAA issue will be solved by this case, but there will certainly be reforms across-the-board coming in the years ahead.

And I agree that one can't change the rules ex post facto to suspend Djam. I guess my point is I wonder if Claeys had his expectations clearly laid out for the team and prospective recruits. To me, that is my biggest issue as it pertains to Claeys.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

It depends on whether one subscribes to negative or positive liberty, but you are making my point for me. When a student enrolls at a university, they enter a contract relationship. When a football player accepts a scholarship to play at a given university, they agree to an even higher level of scrutiny. Universities and football teams cannot violate the 14th amendment, but they can certainly limit speech and association. While the sexual angle here is the seamy side of the story, to me it's merely the action that rips opens up the whole disciplinary argument. I don't think the whole EOAA issue will be solved by this case, but there will certainly be reforms across-the-board coming in the years ahead.

All of this is true, it does not change the fact that a University cannot regulate consensual sexual activity. The Supreme Court held that a state does not have ANY legitimate interest in regulating consensual sexual activity. The rule would not pass any level of scrutiny. It's pretty cut and dry. It really isn't even an EoAA issue, the state simply can't do it.

It's really not a matter of positive liberty vs. negative liberty. You are talking about a potential state action. You are literally talking about a scenario the Constitution is protecting the individual FROM state action (negative liberty). I don't think you or I have talked about this scenario under the concept of a positive liberty.

As far as limiting speech and association, yes. The state can always limit freedoms, but they need to have a legitimate state interest. For example, the state has an interest in stopping people from yelling fire in a crowded theater. Once you find the state interest, you can get into the scrutiny and the level of scrutiny needed to justify a state action which limits Constitutional rights. I am well aware that you can limit freedoms. Some people might argue the state has an interest but as of now (and it would be shocking if it ever changes), the Supreme Court has held that the state does not have any legitimate interest in regulating sexual consensual sexual conduct.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. But this is a pretty cut and dry case. It isn't even really debated in the legal community. Until this happened, I had never heard anyone try to make a legal argument that the state can regulate consensual sexual activity. I've heard arguments they should be able to (there are people who think Lawrence v. Texas should be overturned).

 

[50PoundHead]

All of this is true, it does not change the fact that a University cannot regulate consensual sexual activity. The Supreme Court held that a state does not have ANY legitimate interest in regulating consensual sexual activity. The rule would not pass any level of scrutiny. It's pretty cut and dry. It really isn't even an EoAA issue, the state simply can't do it.

It's really not a matter of positive liberty vs. negative liberty. You are talking about a potential state action. You are literally talking about a scenario the Constitution is protecting the individual FROM state action (negative liberty). I don't think you or I have talked about this scenario under the concept of a positive liberty.

As far as limiting speech and association, yes. The state can always limit freedoms, but they need to have a legitimate state interest. For example, the state has an interest in stopping people from yelling fire in a crowded theater. Once you find the state interest, you can get into the scrutiny and the level of scrutiny needed to justify a state action which limits Constitutional rights. I am well aware that you can limit freedoms. Some people might argue the state has an interest but as of now (and it would be shocking if it ever changes), the Supreme Court has held that the state does not have any legitimate interest in regulating sexual consensual sexual conduct.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. But this is a pretty cut and dry case. It isn't even really debated in the legal community. Until this happened, I had never heard anyone try to make a legal argument that the state can regulate consensual sexual activity. I've heard arguments they should be able to (there are people who think Lawrence v. Texas should be overturned).

I don't think you're trying to be a jerk. My only point here is that there is a social contract aspect to student behavior in that the student surrenders some rights when entering into an agreement to participate in a university setting. Football players enter yet another more restrictive social contract. The rights of the individuals in each case cannot be subject to indiscriminate enforcement by the governing body, but there are instances where the governing body may act comfortably to limit certain actions as long as the initial directive is clear and the sanctions are applied consistently. To me, this isn't about sex at all. That's how it is being played, but I think that's because sex, drugs, and murder sells papers. And my only beef with Claeys here is that he hasn't spelled out exactly what, if any, team policies exist vis-a-vis his expectations for his players' behavior.