GopherHole Podcast: Scott Korzenowski Spot On Regarding Boycott

Donate To GopherHole
GopherBulldog

GopherBulldog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
129
Points
63
Just listened to the GopherHole podcast. I completely agree with 90% of the position stated by Scott Korzenowski. Very rational and thoughtful perspective regarding due process, TC's role and the selfish antics of EC and MK. It clocks out at nearly 40 minutes, but is definitely worth the time.
 

I'll have to check it out. Hopefully it is more rational than some (upper, comn, dean) have been on the issue.
 

Here it is if you don't want to search, you can also download it on iTunes. I had Korzo on today because of his knowledge or sports and the Gophers, as well as his legal expertise as an attorney. We may not agree on everything, we actually often don't - but he's so smart, backs up his statements, and can disagree in a very mature manner (wouldn't be nice if we all could). I thought he did a great job.

<a class="embedly-card" href="http://www.1500espn.com/gopherhole-2/2016/12/dissecting-gophers-football-boycott-sexual-assault-case-ep-10/">Dissecting the Gophers football boycott and sexual assault case (ep. 10) - 1500 ESPN Twin Cities</a><script async src="//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/platform.js" charset="UTF-8"></script>
 

I find his use of the term "alleged victim" and GopherLady's use of "victim" interesting.
 

Very good listen. Covers a lot of bases including, towards the end, how athletes at high levels have different make ups. Not all, but some.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


I agree for the most part but disagree on 2 important issues:

1.) The fact that the investigation was held without legal representation for the players and results of the investigation were published prior to the completion of the process (including appeals) are completely unfair to the accused. A fundamental point of our system of justice is the right to legal representation and defense against self-incrimination. Remove the 'player comments'* from the EOAA report that can be construed as the girl expressing lack of consent and the entire ordeal can be viewed in a different light. Any half competent legal rep would have stopped those statements from ever being made. This transends the truthful of the statements - you have a basic right not to make them. Maybe this will finally be the "Miranda" moment for the EOAA process in which the accused must be made aware of their rights and granted legal representation before they are compelled to testify. Because once those self-incriminating statements are made - legal representation is not really worth much. We understand this fact for our legal system - why is there an exception here?

2.) The female host said it would be awful to prosecute the girl. For me, this is a blatant double-standard. If this was a 24 year old male medical student having sex with a 17 year old female volleyball recruit, I feel as though her stance would be very different. If we care about fairness, we need to ignore the genders of parties and simply look at the specifics of the actions such as age and ability to give consent based on drug/alcohol consumption.

* without transcripts, we don't know what was actually said
 

Interesting interview but it was not very enlightening. Korzo never once talked about U's Student Code of Conduct and the disciplinary process it uses to enforce it. He never mentioned the lower standard of proof that is needed to enforce the Code of Conduct versus criminal cases. Korzo apparently didn't even know that it wasn't the U that leaked the EOAA report to KSTP. And he also doesn't know that colleges all over the country routinely use interim suspensions after the issuance of the EOAA report and before the Code of Conduct hearing to protect the alleged victim in sexual harassment and rape cases. Finally, it is unfair of Korzo to state that Kaler and Coyle don't care about the athletes. He doesn't know the motivations of either of them.
 

He understands the process is a farce.

He made many good points regarding Kaler and Coyle and their self-interest. It doesn't matter if that was the "right thing" to do for PR reasons or because everyone else is doing it. They threw the players under the bus and continue to do so. He did an excellent job explaining why true due process is necessary despite being unpopular, and why Claeys and the team showed more backbone than anyone is giving them credit for. They are not wrapped up in the PR aspects and self-interest at this point in their lives and careers. Refreshing.

The hosts also are confused about the true incidence of false allegations of sexual assault. They repeat the inaccurate 2% put out there by victim advocate groups and such but the actual consensus seems to be 8-10 percent. The only true scientific study we have (which isn't a particularly good sample size or definitive or even well done) had upwards of 50% on a college campus. Why so high? Possibly the emotional immaturity of the parties in that age group.

It's difficult to get to a true number because it's unknown how many are dropped (for various reasons), vs defeated in court, vs never reported. The numbers are really muddy. Again the consensus across the population at large seems to be 8-10%.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
He understands the process is a farce.
Click to expand...

Let's discuss the process. Courts have often ruled against colleges on due process grounds because they haven't followed there own policies and procedures. Please tell us where the U has not followed their Title IX process and has made a farce out of it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE IX COMPLAINT PROCESS

• Anyone can report Title IX violations committed by a University student. These violations should be reported to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA], for investigation. University of Minnesota employees in the University of Minnesota Police Department, The Aurora Center (TAC), the Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (OSCAI), or Housing and Residential Life (HRL) will refer students to EOAA to submit a report.

• A trained EOAA staff person will thoroughly investigate the report. The investigator will first interview the reporting party to gather as much information as possible about the incident. The investigator will also interview relevant witnesses including those provided by the reporting party, before contacting the accused student. The EOAA office will notify the accused student writing about the complaint, available resources and to schedule an interview to discuss the alleged violations.

• The EOAA investigator will interview the accused student and any witnesses identified by the accused student. It might also be necessary to meet with the reporting party a second time to ask any additional questions that arose during the investigation process.

• EOAA will also collect information such as copies of text messages, email correspondence, VM recordings, medical reports, video recordings from surveillance cameras when available, and any other relevant evidence.

• EOAA will explain the process to both parties.

• After all the interviews are completed, EOAA will prepare a report in which they analyze the facts and determine whether or not the accused student is responsible for violating the UMN Board of Regents Student Conduct Code based on the preponderance of evidence. (This means that based upon the information gathered during the investigation it is more likely than not that the policy was or was not violated.) EOAA will then forward the investigation report to OSCAI.

• OSCAI sends an email to the reporting party and the accused student informing them of the outcome of the investigation. The email will include a determination as to whether the student conduct code was violated, and a proposed informal resolution. In this letter, OSCAI notifies both the reporting party and the accused student of their right to have the case heard before a formal hearing panel consisting of faculty, staff and students if either of the parties are dissatisfied with the outcome The letter will also indicate that either party can request a copy of the investigation report The parties have five days to request a formal hearing. (If either party requests a meeting with OSCAI to discuss the informal resolution, the time to request a formal hearing will be extended to 5 days from the date of the meeting.

• Both parties can choose to have an advocate, and or an attorney/advisor and may request one extension to the deadline of no more than 10 days.)


HEARING

If either party requests a formal hearing, the matter will be forwarded to the Campus Committee on Student Behavior. (CCSB) A panel of faculty, staff and students will hear testimony and review evidence from both parties. The panel will then determine if the accused student is or is not responsible, and if responsible determine the appropriate sanction.

http://oscai.umn.edu/title-ix-process


CAMPUS COMMITTEE ON STUDENT BEHAVIOR HEARING PROCEDURES

A. INTRODUCTION

The Campus Committee on Student Behavior (CCSB) assists in implementing the Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code at the University of Minnesota on the Twin Cities Campus. The CCSB provides a fair hearing to determine if a student’s behavior has violated the Student Conduct Code and to determine what, if any, sanction should be imposed.

Complaints of Student Conduct Code violations are referred to the CCSB for a hearing by the Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (OSCAI). The CCSB Secretary receives the complaints and assists the CCSB Chair in managing the hearing process.

B. PARTIES TO THE COMPLAINT

In CCSB cases, the University is the formal complainant and the accused student is the individual alleged by the University to be in violation of the Student Conduct Code. For the purpose of these procedures, the parties are identified as the University presenter and the accused student. The University appoints a presenter to bring the University’s case before the Committee. If an accused student is represented by an attorney, the University’s Office of the General Counsel will assign an attorney to serve as the University presenter. Students may obtain the services of an advocate through the Student Conflict Resolution Center, who can help them prepare and present their case before the CCSB. The accused student must submit the name of any advocate or attorney to the CCSB Secretary before the prehearing conference, and must give immediate notice to the CCSB Secretary if there is any change in an advocate or attorney.

C. COMMITTEE AND PANELS

The Senate Committee on Committees appoints faculty, staff, and student members to the CCSB. Panels are drawn from the CCSB to hear individual cases. A CCSB Panel consists of the Panel Chair and a panel of five (5) or more voting members. Each Panel will include at least one faculty and one student, not including periods when the University is not in session. The Panel Chair and the CCSB Secretary have no vote. The CCSB Chair normally serves as the Panel Chair, but may delegate that role to another CCSB member.

In addition to Panel members, the Dean of the accused student’s college appoints a faculty, staff, or student to sit on the Panel. In cases involving cross-collegiate situations, a representative from each college is appointed to the Panel. Collegiate-appointed panel members have a vote and are counted in the quorum of five. Collegiate representation is not applicable when the accused is a student organization.

Panel members are not advocates for either side. The Panel shall fairly consider the information presented at the hearing and may ask questions of the witnesses. The Panel shall decide whether the accused student violated the Student Conduct Code and, if so, what sanctions are appropriate. The Panel may not talk privately (outside of the hearing room) about the complaint with the parties or their advocates.

D. CASES OF HARM TO PERSON OR SEXUAL ASSAULT

For hearings involving violations of sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence, the panel membership will be limited to five (5) members, one of which shall be a collegiate representative. These hearings will be held as soon as possible.

E. THE COMPLAINT AND SCHEDULING

When a complaint is not resolved informally, OSCAI forwards it to the CCSB Secretary for a hearing. The CCSB Secretary will notify the CCSB Chair, the University presenter, and the accused student of the statement of the complaint, the Student Conduct Code, and these procedures. Where more than one student is alleged to have violated the Student Conduct Code in a related incident, CCSB proceedings generally will be held together. The Chair has discretion to hold separate hearings upon a student’s request prior to the prehearing conference.

The CCSB will strive to complete a hearing within one month of the student’s request for a hearing, not including periods when the University is not in session. The CCSB Secretary will be responsible for scheduling a prehearing conference and the hearing, taking into account the parties’ academic schedules as appropriate. The CCSB Secretary generally will provide at least 5 days notice before the prehearing conference.

F. STUDENT STATUS DURING THE PROCESS

An accused student ordinarily is allowed to continue the status of a student-in-good-standing pending the outcome of the CCSB hearing. However, in certain cases, the President or delegate may suspend a student temporarily, pending the CCSB’s hearing and decision, as provided in the Student Conduct Code. In such situations, the CCSB should hold a hearing as soon as possible. In complaints of alleged scholastic dishonesty, any grade affected will be redacted from the transcript pending a disposition from the Panel.

http://usenate.umn.edu/ccsb/ccsbprocedures.pdf
 



You don't know what you don't know. If you think this process is impartial or appropriate for determining guilt of a criminal matter I can't help you. The formal appears a bit less of a total farce but still does not allow for the legal protections and rights of a typical civil trial.

Question: if the students were suspended pending the formal hearing due to public safety than that public relations reasons I assume they were banned from university housing, facilities, etc?
 

GopherLady said:
Here it is if you don't want to search, you can also download it on iTunes. I had Korzo on today because of his knowledge or sports and the Gophers, as well as his legal expertise as an attorney. We may not agree on everything, we actually often don't - but he's so smart, backs up his statements, and can disagree in a very mature manner (wouldn't be nice if we all could). I thought he did a great job.

<a class="embedly-card" href="http://www.1500espn.com/gopherhole-2/2016/12/dissecting-gophers-football-boycott-sexual-assault-case-ep-10/">Dissecting the Gophers football boycott and sexual assault case (ep. 10) - 1500 ESPN Twin Cities</a><script async src="//cdn.embedly.com/widgets/platform.js" charset="UTF-8"></script>
Click to expand...

It was interesting that you did not agree because we get to listen to different viewpoints and make up our own mind.
 


UpnorthGo4 said:
Interesting interview but it was not very enlightening. Korzo never once talked about U's Student Code of Conduct and the disciplinary process it uses to enforce it. He never mentioned the lower standard of proof that is needed to enforce the Code of Conduct versus criminal cases. Korzo apparently didn't even know that it wasn't the U that leaked the EOAA report to KSTP. And he also doesn't know that colleges all over the country routinely use interim suspensions after the issuance of the EOAA report and before the Code of Conduct hearing to protect the alleged victim in sexual harassment and rape cases. Finally, it is unfair of Korzo to state that Kaler and Coyle don't care about the athletes. He doesn't know the motivations of either of them.
Click to expand...

Again with the misused lower standard of proof argument as the differing outcomes rationale. The standard for arrest/charging is lower than EOAA's and is often used by DAs to create opportunities to gather additional information/evidence and witnesses to determine their ability to then successfully prosecute.
 




PMWinSTP said:
Again with the misused lower standard of proof argument as the differing outcomes rationale. The standard for arrest/charging is lower than EOAA's and is often used by DAs to create opportunities to gather additional information/evidence and witnesses to determine their ability to then successfully prosecute.
Click to expand...

What you are pointing out is a fault of case law and the criminal code. Thanks for playing. You still did not address federal code in this matter, particularly any laws within Title IX. So, you are going after the U for the fault of procedure outside the U. Nice rationalization. But, wrong on so many levels.
 

Dean S said:
What you are pointing out is a fault of case law and the criminal code. Thanks for playing. You still did not address federal code in this matter, particularly any laws within Title IX. So, you are going after the U for the fault of procedure outside the U. Nice rationalization. But, wrong on so many levels.
Click to expand...

Got it. Please explain the "fault" as you put it.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Got it. Please explain the "fault" as you put it.
Click to expand...

First, some questions. What property was lost by the players? What life was forfeit? What liberty was deprived? I cannot assume on your behalf, these answers.
 

Dean S said:
First, some questions. What property was lost by the players? What life was forfeit? What liberty was deprived? I cannot assume on your behalf, these answers.
Click to expand...

Is it a fault of the system to have differing threshold levels for arresting, charging, prosecuting? Is that not what you stated? If not, please clarify.
 

Dean S said:
First, some questions. What property was lost by the players? What life was forfeit? What liberty was deprived? I cannot assume on your behalf, these answers.
Click to expand...

It's a little convoluted, but: the federal government 'accumulates' taxpayer money (a violation of property), then gives some of that money to Universities with strings attached. One of those strings is that Universities prosecute sexual assault cases with much lower standards than is required by our justice system. So yes, I think you could argue that their liberty was deprived by the federal government. If the University were an independent organization, it could have any standard for behavior it wanted, and kick players off teams or expel students for chewing gum.
 

Section2 said:
It's a little convoluted, but: the federal government 'accumulates' taxpayer money (a violation of property), then gives some of that money to Universities with strings attached. One of those strings is that Universities prosecute sexual assault cases with much lower standards than is required by our justice system. So yes, I think you could argue that their liberty was deprived by the federal government. If the University were an independent organization, it could have any standard for behavior it wanted, and kick players off teams or expel students for chewing gum.
Click to expand...

But their liberty was initially deprived by their decision to enroll in a school that has a student conduct policy. I think we can go around and around on the due process arguments, but, as you say, any school can institute a student conduct policy with or without receiving federal aid and in many instances, those codes may go well beyond what is required in Title IX. As part of a social contract, most of us give away part of our liberty daily. There are multiple social contracts that govern our daily lives and these contracts usually require subscribing to a set of procedures that limit the totally free exercise of our liberty. In your example, you would have to clearly establish that there would be no enforcement in these types of situations "but for" the guidelines issued by the Federal government. I don't know how compelling that argument would end up being.
 

50PoundHead said:
But their liberty was initially deprived by their decision to enroll in a school that has a student conduct policy. I think we can go around and around on the due process arguments, but, as you say, any school can institute a student conduct policy with or without receiving federal aid and in many instances, those codes may go well beyond what is required in Title IX. As part of a social contract, most of us give away part of our liberty daily. There are multiple social contracts that govern our daily lives and these contracts usually require subscribing to a set of procedures that limit the totally free exercise of our liberty. In your example, you would have to clearly establish that there would be no enforcement in these types of situations "but for" the guidelines issued by the Federal government. I don't know how compelling that argument would end up being.
Click to expand...

Again, if the federal government is the reason for the content of the student conduct policy, they are depriving liberty. If an independent school has a policy, no problem, choose a different school. The feds "free money" is their entrance to control.

There is no such thing as a social contract.

I don't have any statistical evidence that the enforcement changed in 2011, only anecdotal, but it's pretty strong evidence.
 

Section2 said:
Just the headline of this stating the 1 in 4 statistic which has been completely and thoroughly debunked, hardens my resolve that those involved on the EOCC are pushing an agenda and not interested in justice.
Click to expand...

That is what the male population at universities are up against .

Absolute fiction . 1 in four had sex with a Guy that maybe they regretted but those stats are offensive .

Would you not almost need the alleged rapists to validate these claims to make them accurate ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherBulldog said:
Just listened to the GopherHole podcast. I completely agree with 90% of the position stated by Scott Korzenowski. Very rational and thoughtful perspective regarding due process, TC's role and the selfish antics of EC and MK. It clocks out at nearly 40 minutes, but is definitely worth the time.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all accounts!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom