Gopher football boycott spoof video

Donate To GopherHole


Not what I was expecting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I expected another Hitler video.
 

Am I the only one that thinks this isn't funny? At all.
 


Wow. That was really poorly thought out.

I suspect some of the stage one imbeciles that watch that will think it is serious in the same way some of the less intelligent activists watched the team boycott and came away with the they approve of rape.
 

Well, I was already annoyed at how the University has seemingly moved on from the goal of education to social justice causes and this now puts me over the top. Not that Stanford needs my money but I feel more comfortable donating to my grad school than my undergrad at this point if this is how the money is going to be spent 'educating' students. If I could guarantee my money could be funneled directly to logic classes, I would donate again. But as for now, you are on your own funding this crap. I will watch the football team for entertainment but I will not recruit the U campus. I will vote with my feet/money and hopefully that will finally help restore sanity.
 

It shows you a natural constituency for this product find it an embarrassing joke.
 

Stanford mishandling sexual assault complaints against alleged serial abuser -

Class_of_99 said:
Well, I was already annoyed at how the University has seemingly moved on from the goal of education to social justice causes and this now puts me over the top. Not that Stanford needs my money but I feel more comfortable donating to my grad school than my undergrad at this point if this is how the money is going to be spent 'educating' students. If I could guarantee my money could be funneled directly to logic classes, I would donate again. But as for now, you are on your own funding this crap. I will watch the football team for entertainment but I will not recruit the U campus. I will vote with my feet/money and hopefully that will finally help restore sanity.
Click to expand...

As long as the money doesn't go to the Stanford Men's Swimming team right?

Or maybe you should reconsider donating to Stanford at all.

STANFORD — An explosive new lawsuit alleges that Stanford University’s lax responses to reports of physical and sexual abuse permitted the same student to victimize at least four young women during his undergraduate years.

The university’s failure to promptly investigate and discipline the young man jeopardized the safety of women across campus, violating federal anti-discrimination law, alleges the suit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

Instead of triggering an investigation into one student’s disturbing allegations that the man she had once dated strangled and raped her after she began losing consciousness in 2011, an academic adviser suggested she drive to the beach to take care of her mental health, the suit says.

A campus counselor disapproved of the shoulder-baring sweater the young woman wore to a counseling session, the complaint adds, asking if she put herself in risky situations to appear “sexually available.” Residence hall staff to whom she later reported her concerns promised to tell the male student that assaulting women was “not okay,” the suit says.

The plaintiff, a different student identified in the complaint as “Ms. Doe,” said the man violently assaulted her in 2014 when she refused to engage in oral sex – an allegation that was confirmed by a Stanford investigation later that year, the complaint says.

“Women will not have an equal opportunity to succeed academically until the epidemic of sexual violence on campus ends,” said Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, an attorney for Equal Rights Advocates, a San Francisco-based civil rights organization that filed the complaint. “Institutions like Stanford need to be held accountable for their failure to recognize the severity of these crimes and to comply with Title IX” of the Civil Rights Act.

Already under close scrutiny — and federal investigation — for its handling of its sexual assault problem, Stanford issued a statement Monday saying that it felt “deep sympathy” for the plaintiff in the case and that it was cooperating with a federal Office for Civil Rights investigation into the matter.

“Sexual assault and sexual misconduct is abhorrent and antithetical to the values of our campus — we take these matters very seriously and have zero tolerance for such violence,” the Stanford statement said.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/...ult-complaints-against-alleged-serial-abuser/
 




The players said they would only end the boycott "when the suspensions of all 10 player are lifted". Obviously either they think rape is okay or the woman is a liar because she alleges that half of the 10 raped her. So they said they wouldn't end the boycott until the guys who allegedly raped her had their suspensions lifted...lifted even though they are guilty of rape or because the victim lied. Clearly they didn't believe the victim. I support this video as it shows how ridiculous the entire football team's attitude is towards women.
 

CoMn said:
The players said they would only end the boycott "when the suspensions of all 10 player are lifted". Obviously either they think rape is okay or the woman is a liar because she alleges that half of the 10 raped her. So they said they wouldn't end the boycott until the guys who allegedly raped her had their suspensions lifted...lifted even though they are guilty of rape or because the victim lied. Clearly they didn't believe the victim. I support this video as it shows how ridiculous the entire football team's attitude is towards women.
Click to expand...

It is clear many of them don't believe her. Perhaps they know this girl or details of the situation that you do not. It doesn't mean they are pro-rape. Virtually everyone is against rape and sexual harassment. You need to separate this issue from your other issues. Serious allegations require serious evidence. Your feelings have nothing to do with it.

The fact that you are functionally unable to even consider the slight or perhaps 10% possibility she is lying, exaggerating, or mis-remembering is frankly a frightening thought.
 

This is why people question your sanity when you say you're majoring in the "arts". That was incredibly stupid
 



really by saying they would only resume football when the consequences of all 10 guys were lifted...they backed themselves in a corner. It is true that I don't know the woman and she may have lied. I do know a line of guys screwed a drunk woman an the only video produced has her saying nooooo. The players texts were offensive and at a minimum displayed an extreme disrespect of women generally. They players didn't say they were going to boycott until the accused players got their due process....which would sort out the credibility of the alleged victim....they were going to boycott until they were ALL back on the team. For that to happen, either the alleged victim was lying or the players think rape is okay. I prefer to think they aren't okay with rape and think the woman is lying. The video their fellow students made reflects this...they think the alleged victim is lying....all of them. Not one member of the team didn't join this boycott. If this was the first time a Minnesota football player had been accused of rape, I might see their point. But clearly that is not the case. it also seems that there is at least one group of students who don't think the team respects women and doesn't take rape allegations seriously. They also involved a recruit and apparently the team thought this was okay and shouldn't be punished (again...the boycott was to last until all the members were back one the team)....which makes me think that there might be a culture on the team that needs fixing. The vast majority of rape victims do no lie about rape....anywhere from 90-98% are estimated to be telling the truth. So without knowing the woman but having seen the players tweets, I feel pretty confident...somewhere in the 90%'s that she is credible and rapes occurred.
 

The only thing that video had in common with the actual boycott is that both of them were embarrassing and not well thought out.
 


Honest question for CoMn: I have heard this somewhere else as well (can't remember where) and am curious where this number came from. Where did you read or hear about the percentage of victims telling the truth about rape?
 

Minibeaver: Google it...you will see the accepted percentage is about 10% of the women report rape and 2% is commonly cited as the percent of reported rapes that lies...which is on par with other crimes. So 2% of 10% lie...very, very, very few women lie about rape. But, although this might be the accepted number in some circles. there really isn't a way to prove it. IMO, I believe most of the guys didn't think they raped a woman when they did. They just aren't taught how to ask for consent. Alcohol doesn't help the situation. But if you ask women years later, you will find many were raped but you will have a tough time finding someone who reported it. According to wikipedia...which must be right as it said on the internet...the rate is 8% in the US, 1.5% in Denmark and 10% in Canada. David Lisak did a study and determined the number to be 5.9%. Some of the studies that cite figures in the 40s say it was a lie if the alleged victim chooses not to prosecute. However, there is much evidence that usually women do this to avoid trauma so saying they did it because they lied...in addition, some of the smaller studies, ie. the one that came up with 41% was done in one small town where if the women didn't prosecute and withdrew they were classified as lying. There are also some old studies that were done in the time when women were accused of asking for a rape because they were wearing something sexy and the like. I have trouble taking anything seriously concerning rape from that time period as we have made significant advances in defining what is acceptable behavior and what is rape.
 

CoMn said:
The players said they would only end the boycott "when the suspensions of all 10 player are lifted". Obviously either they think rape is okay or the woman is a liar because she alleges that half of the 10 raped her. So they said they wouldn't end the boycott until the guys who allegedly raped her had their suspensions lifted...lifted even though they are guilty of rape or because the victim lied. Clearly they didn't believe the victim. I support this video as it shows how ridiculous the entire football team's attitude is towards women.
Click to expand...

You should probably read this from the viewpoint of being the accused in the process, as yourself or, say, your son or daughter...read the due process section real carefully, as that was the focus of the boycott.

http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2016/12/19/14013744/longform-inside-the-star-chamber
 

Lot of mentions of "Constitutional protections" in there. Which of the players Constitutional rights were violated? It says, "He or she can be dismissed, and be deprived of an implied constitutional right of education." There's no such right. Millions of people in the US go without a college education. Almost no one gets a free college education.
 

justthefacts said:
Lot of mentions of "Constitutional protections" in there. Which of the players Constitutional rights were violated? It says, "He or she can be dismissed, and be deprived of an implied constitutional right of education." There's no such right. Millions of people in the US go without a college education. Almost no one gets a free college education.
Click to expand...

You must have skimmed it or missed the couple of paragraghs above that part.

From the article...

The constitution provides for two forms of due process, procedural and substantive -- and Title IX proceedings violate both to a shameful extent.

Procedural due process is a very easy threshold to meet. To be procedurally fair, all that is required is to give the respondent a notice that a tribunal is being held, and then provide the respondent with a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The "meaningful opportunity to be heard" encompasses substantive due process -- that is, what we think of as a fundamentally fair hearing: whether the tribunal followed its own rules, whether constitutional protections are in place, whether there is a chance to have the respondent's evidence considered, and whether or not the decision of the tribunal can be appealed to a final or higher authority.

But, as we've seen above, there is often not a meaningful opportunity to be heard by the tribunal. Constitutional safeguards are not in place, not all relevant evidence is considered, there is not a right to confront the accuser, there is not a right to be represented, there is not a right to have witnesses, there is not a right to even know what the charges are against an accused student, and, worse, in many cases, the mere fact that there is an allegation against the student is used as evidence that the allegation is true.

This is the very definition of a kangaroo court.
 

Courts have repeatedly found that the definition of due process is much different in academic settings, even in disciplinary situations, than in legal/judicial settings. This is sensible given that the 14th amendment provides for due process before deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Which of those is being deprived? I don't think it's been dealt with explicitly, but I'm certain the standard drops precipitously when moving down from expulsion to missing football.

An example: http://www.stetson.edu/law/faculty/bickel/civilrights/media/case-digest-dixon-v-alabama.pdf

The Fifth Circuit concluded that precedent cases, as well as fundamental constitutional principle s support
the decision that due process requires notice and some opportunity for hearing before a student at a tax
supported college is expelled for misconduct. The notice should contain a statement of the specific charges and
grounds which, if proven, would justify expulsion under the regulations of the Board of Education. The nature
of the hearing should vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular case, but in a case such as this,
due process requires more than an informal interview with an administrative authority of the college. In such
circumstances, a hearing which gives the Board or other administrators of the college an opportunity to hear
both sides in considerable detail is best suited to protect the rights of the student(s) and the college. The court
stopped short of requiring a quasi judicial hearing, with the right to cross‐examine witnesses, but suggested
that the student should be given the names of the witnesses against him and an oral or written report on the
facts to which each witness testifies. He should also be given the opportunity to present to the Board, or an
administrative official of the college, his own defense, including oral testimony or written affidavits of
witnesses in his behalf. If the hearing is not before the Board, the results of the hearing should be presented in
a report open to the student’s inspection
 

justthefacts said:
Courts have repeatedly found that the definition of due process is much different in academic settings, even in disciplinary situations, than in legal/judicial settings. I don't think it's been dealt with explicitly, but I'm certain the standard drops precipitously when moving down from expulsion to missing football.

An example: http://www.stetson.edu/law/faculty/bickel/civilrights/media/case-digest-dixon-v-alabama.pdf

The Fifth Circuit concluded that precedent cases, as well as fundamental constitutional principle s support
the decision that due process requires notice and some opportunity for hearing before a student at a tax
supported college is expelled for misconduct. The notice should contain a statement of the specific charges and
grounds which, if proven, would justify expulsion under the regulations of the Board of Education. The nature
of the hearing should vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular case, but in a case such as this,
due process requires more than an informal interview with an administrative authority of the college. In such
circumstances, a hearing which gives the Board or other administrators of the college an opportunity to hear
both sides in considerable detail is best suited to protect the rights of the student(s) and the college. The court
stopped short of requiring a quasi judicial hearing, with the right to cross‐examine witnesses, but suggested
that the student should be given the names of the witnesses against him and an oral or written report on the
facts to which each witness testifies. He should also be given the opportunity to present to the Board, or an
administrative official of the college, his own defense, including oral testimony or written affidavits of
witnesses in his behalf. If the hearing is not before the Board, the results of the hearing should be presented in
a report open to the student’s inspection
Click to expand...

You can't be serious...did you read this? This is a case from 1960 involving students protesting separate but equal laws in Alabama by sitting at a public restaurant.
 


PMWinSTP said:
You can't be serious...did you read this? This is a case from 1960 involving students protesting separate but equal laws in Alabama by sitting at a public restaurant.
Click to expand...

It's a case about what due process is required for a public university to expel students. Which case law do you find to be most germane? The fact is that there isn't that much. Neither Goss vs Lopez or Horowitz vs The Univ of Missouri applies very well. SCOTUS has ruled that there's a difference in academic vs disciplinary cases, and has indicated that expulsions may require more process than suspensions, but hasn't ever spelled out what's required for expulsions. All of the cases, though, imply a SIGNIFICANTLY different level of due process for Universities than for criminal courts. Comparing the two is silly.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/horowitz.html
 

PMWinSTP said:
You should probably read this from the viewpoint of being the accused in the process, as yourself or, say, your son or daughter...read the due process section real carefully, as that was the focus of the boycott.

http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2016/12/19/14013744/longform-inside-the-star-chamber
Click to expand...

Wolitarsky representing the team said the boycott would continue until due process occurred and ALL THE PLAYERS were reinstated on the team. (not just the ones who didn't have sex)...this would include Djam who videoed the sex which is unlawful under Minnesota law (but no charges forthcoming???), and got the underaged recruit involved. If you actually read what Wolitarsky said it had nothing to do with due process...even thought they keep saying that word...it had to do with outcomes. If after due process the players were determined to deserve the consequences they got, the team would still be boycotting. So for that reason, logic would say that it wasn't about due process as due process couldn't alone end the boycott but dropping the whole matter and letting the guys back on the team would.

That being said, that was a great link to read. Thanks.
 

justthefacts said:
It's a case about what due process is required for a public university to expel students. Which case law do you find to be most germane? The fact is that there isn't that much. Neither Goss vs Lopez or Horowitz vs The Univ of Missouri applies very well. SCOTUS has ruled that there's a difference in academic vs disciplinary cases, and has indicated that expulsions may require more process than suspensions, but hasn't ever spelled out what's required for expulsions. All of the cases, though, imply a SIGNIFICANTLY different level of due process for Universities than for criminal courts. Comparing the two is silly.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/horowitz.html
Click to expand...

This might be a good place to start...

https://www.thefire.org/fire-guides...mpus-full-text/#__RefHeading__2490_2127946742
 

CoMn said:
Wolitarsky representing the team said the boycott would continue until due process occurred and ALL THE PLAYERS were reinstated on the team. (not just the ones who didn't have sex)...this would include Djam who videoed the sex which is unlawful under Minnesota law (but no charges forthcoming???), and got the underaged recruit involved. If you actually read what Wolitarsky said it had nothing to do with due process...even thought they keep saying that word...it had to do with outcomes. If after due process the players were determined to deserve the consequences they got, the team would still be boycotting. So for that reason, logic would say that it wasn't about due process as due process couldn't alone end the boycott but dropping the whole matter and letting the guys back on the team would.

That being said, that was a great link to read. Thanks.
Click to expand...

A key piece of due process is that it happens before a consequence is administered. Suspensions happened. There was not due process with regard to those. As a general rule, schools can administer brief suspensions (under ten days) if there is immediate danger to the student or others. Not sure that can be argued here since they were reinstated earlier.
 

CoMn said:
really by saying they would only resume football when the consequences of all 10 guys were lifted...they backed themselves in a corner. It is true that I don't know the woman and she may have lied. I do know a line of guys screwed a drunk woman an the only video produced has her saying nooooo. The players texts were offensive and at a minimum displayed an extreme disrespect of women generally. They players didn't say they were going to boycott until the accused players got their due process....which would sort out the credibility of the alleged victim....they were going to boycott until they were ALL back on the team. For that to happen, either the alleged victim was lying or the players think rape is okay. I prefer to think they aren't okay with rape and think the woman is lying. The video their fellow students made reflects this...they think the alleged victim is lying....all of them. Not one member of the team didn't join this boycott. If this was the first time a Minnesota football player had been accused of rape, I might see their point. But clearly that is not the case. it also seems that there is at least one group of students who don't think the team respects women and doesn't take rape allegations seriously. They also involved a recruit and apparently the team thought this was okay and shouldn't be punished (again...the boycott was to last until all the members were back one the team)....which makes me think that there might be a culture on the team that needs fixing. The vast majority of rape victims do no lie about rape....anywhere from 90-98% are estimated to be telling the truth. So without knowing the woman but having seen the players tweets, I feel pretty confident...somewhere in the 90%'s that she is credible and rapes occurred.
Click to expand...

Have you considered professional help for your anger and unresolved issues? I'm serious.
 

PMWinSTP said:
A key piece of due process is that it happens before a consequence is administered. Suspensions happened. There was not due process with regard to those. As a general rule, schools can administer brief suspensions (under ten days) if there is immediate danger to the student or others. Not sure that can be argued here since they were reinstated earlier.
Click to expand...

From the letter in the leaked report:

"Both you and the reporting student are being notified of this outcome at the same time. Each party has the option to
request a formal hearing by the Student Sexual Misconduct Subcommittee (SSMS) if the outcome is unacceptable. If
I have not heard from either party within five business days (by December 20, 2016) of sending this letter, then the
decision will stand. "

I'm assuming at least the players facing expulsion have done that. During that formal hearing, there will be a lot more due process. Given that, how can anyone claim that some standard hasn't been met?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom