Former Gophers football players' lawsuit against University of Minnesota is dismissed

[Bob_Loblaw]

Agree 100% that a loss of a scholarship is a loss. So would be the loss of employment, as a student who was employed by the school in some job function. Sure, agree.

Setting those cases aside, there are still plenty of students outside those who get accused of sexual discrimination/harassment/misconduct.

I had them moreso in mind. What is their tangible loss from being expelled?

They can go to a new school and transfer the credits they've completed.


But what about civil?


You can say that public schools are like "the government" taking it away, but what about private schools then?

(1) It doesn't need to be even the same process as a civil litigation, it just needs to be "due process", it's up to the courts to determine what that means.

(2) Private schools are a slippery wicket legally because of the amount of public funds they receive. I would argue that it wouldn't apply to private schools but many people would probably disagree with me.

 

[Gophers_4life]

(1) It doesn't need to be even the same process as a civil litigation, it just needs to be "due process", it's up to the courts to determine what that means.

Sure. I was just saying, arbitrary society could decide to "fix this" by making a law requiring college and university expulsion investigations/hearings to follow the process/protocol used for civil litigation.

I'm fine if that is determined to not be necessary.


Has a court weighed in on it?


Where do you feel, for example with the U's EOAA process, that fails to meet due process?

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

The U's handling of the cases looked like "due process" to most people. The EOAA investigated the claims and the U Administration held individual hearings in which the football players could have an attorney present. Ten players where accused of violating the Student Code of Conduct and four were fully cleared after the hearings and remained on the football team.

Outside Review: University of Minnesota properly handled football suspensions​

The University of Minnesota followed law and policy properly when it suspended 10 football players last fall following an accusation of sexual assault, according to an external review commissioned by the university's Board of Regents. The review released Wednesday blamed "weak leadership" by the coaching staff for a threat by remaining players to boycott the Holiday Bowl. The Dorsey and Whitney law firm's review also said administrators and regents could have done a better job managing the threatened boycott.

The university contends it acted properly under federal Title IX guidelines, which require campuses to investigate reports of sexual misconduct. "We are pleased with the conclusion that the University's actions were consistent with University policies and federal law," its statement read Wednesday. The Board of Regents commissioned the outside review in May. The review was presented Wednesday to a special oversight committee of the board.

Minneapolis attorney John Marti, who conducted the review along with attorney Jillian Kornblatt, told the oversight committee that critics of the player suspensions failed to understand that the university is obligated to investigate sexual assault complaints, even when prosecutors decline to file charges. "The university did not have a choice," Marti said. "You were required by law to do so." The report found that the threatened boycott resulted from "weak leadership by the football coaching staff" and "impaired communications and a breakdown in trust" between university leadership and the football team "due in part to the University leadership's inability to share private student information." The review also concluded that the boycott may have been managed better "had the Board of Regents collectively, individual Regents, and University administration, the Athletics Department, and football team coaches responded in a more coordinated and unified manner."

The woman alleged that she was pressured into having sex with multiple Gopher football players after a season-opening win over Oregon State. The players who acknowledged having sex with her called it consensual. A report by the university's Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action department determined the 10 players, including several who did not have sex with the woman, violated the student conduct code. Of the 10 suspended players, four were fully cleared by the EOAA report and remain on the roster: quarterback Seth Green, running back Kobe McCrary, cornerback Antonio Shenault and safety Antoine Winfield Jr.

Review: Minnesota properly handled football suspensions

The University of Minnesota followed law and policy properly when it suspended 10 football players last fall following an accusation of sexual assault, according to an external review commissioned by…

www.sj-r.com

No offense, but this article does not mention the standard of the process at all. It's completely absent that discussion, it essentially just says the U thinks that it was handled properly. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you're quoting the U quoting that everything was done right.

If you notice, the article does not really mention the players who would have the most standing with this issue.

What happened to the other 6 players?
If they were not "cleared by the EOAA", what were the violations specifically and what standard was used to determine that they violated the student code of conduct?
How is the punishment determined?

That is the kind of analysis that would be needed to determine whether there was due process or not. Reasonably people could disagree on those questions, but those are the questions.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Sure. I was just saying, arbitrary society could decide to "fix this" by making a law requiring college and university expulsion investigations/hearings to follow the process/protocol used for civil litigation.

I'm fine if that is determined to not be necessary.


Has a court weighed in on it?


Where do you feel, for example with the U's EOAA process, that fails to meet due process?

We could pass a law to answer the question but that law would still be bound by the 14th Amendment (due process). So, hypothetically, if they passed a federal law, it could still be found to have violated the Constitution.

Yes, due process arguments are heavily litigated.

For me, I think it's less about the U than it is about these EOAA super-judicial offices. I don't think the U's is any different than every other school's office.

I'm sure I'm forgetting things and maybe misremembering portions of different incidents, so I'm just talking about how these offices often violate due process in these kinds of matters (not necessarily specifically to our case):
(1) The accused usually go through an incredibly detrimental process during the "interim" while they are trying to sort out the information - this could include being suspended from school indefinitely, kicked off a team, removed from student housing, etc. This is beyond disruptive to the accused.

(2) EOAA offices are not impartialby design. Having the EOAA office assign the investigation would be like if the AD's office got to decide whether recruiting violations occurred. They write the initial report, which essentially works like the trial court conviction that is then reviewed by the panel of three people (how they pick that panel is also not right, IMO). By the time the panel is involved, the accused have been punished and the EOAA office has already written their finding. When these panels were blasted, Kim Hewitt didn't argue that the panels were best positioned to address these allegations, she said something like "they bring a unique lens" to the process. Wouldn't you feel super comfortable with the group with the unique lens deciding your fate?

(3) Standard of proof is the lowest possible standard in most places "preponderance of evidence". This technically just means "more likely than not". This standard is not used in the US for anything similar to sexual assault accusations. Even things like paternity, probate, child custody have significantly higher standards of proof.


I remember there was this disgusting MPR article celebrating how college campuses got it right when it came to sexual assault. The article was essentially saying that it's great the EOAA has their practices because now they can finally punished the accused when they know their guilty but they just can't prove it.

Can you imagine that being considered fair in any other context?

The good thing about these types of nut jobs is that they usually show their cards. This article sort of proves my point. They love it because it doesn't give the accused their due process, they'd rather people get punished when they know their guilty, with or without evidence.