Here is the full statement by Gophers Drew Wolitarksky on decision to end boycott

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,805
Reaction score
17,745
Points
113
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!
 



Very well done. And the first positive statement with any sort of future perspective that has come out of this disgusting sh*t show. It is so embarrassing that it had to come from a group of 20 year old football players rather than the pathetic, highly-paid University leadership.
 

I agree very well said, now let's get on with the Bowl Game in San Diego.

GO GOPHERS!!
 


GopherBulldog said:
Very well done. And the first positive statement with any sort of future perspective that has come out of this disgusting sh*t show. It is so embarrassing that it had to come from a group of 20 year old football players rather than the pathetic, highly-paid University leadership.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the administration at the U is ridiculous
 

So did Kaler actually give them anything they wanted or did they just try to make it sound like they reached a compromise? It seems like everything Kaler agreed to would have happened if they never boycotted.
 

I especially appreciate Drew's last sentence in the 3rd to last paragraph of their statement that they hope the public will have a open dialogue about the severe lack of due process being afforded in university settings.

Specific to that, I have a strong feeling what the team (and others around the country have dealt with it too) is referring to will be addressed nationally/federally on January 21st. When the new federal Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, likely and hopefully rescinds the unlawful, insanely unconstitutional, anti-male activist driven, DOE "guidelines" (guidelines, not actual law mind you) relating to university investigations that the Obama administration put in place back in 2011. Put in place without passing any actual legislation and completely bypassing the role of Congress.

These ridiculous guidelines, which hold federal funding over public universities heads, by forcing them to unconstitutionally eliminate the correct and traditional understanding of being afforded due process under the ACTUAL law. Guidelines which unfairly and severely impact male students (all male students, not just student-athletes) and put them in basically completely untenable and unconstitutional positions of being "guilty until proven innocent" (rather than the constitutionally afforded precedent of innocent until proven guilty in an actual court of law) in a university settings while simultaneously stripping them of virtually all semblance of the constitutional right to due process.

It is not the role of activist driven, ideologically driven, rogue university committees and departments (i.e. like the EOAA office which is almost completely devoid of any diversity of gender in it's department....6 of the 7 members are females mostly from activist backgrounds) to play judge, jury and executioner. That is the role of ACTUAL judges, and actual juries, in the ACTUAL legal system long established in the United States.

To some on here that have been arguing on behalf of this ridiculously unlawful, "guideline enabled", kangaroo court system, which the EOAA office is unconstitutionally allowed to operate under, due to the Obama administration's reckless implementation of their unconstitutional federal DOE "guideline" in 2011, you're wrong. And hopefully this kangaroo court nonsense will be coming to an end in 2017.
 

supadupafly said:
I especially appreciate Drew's last sentence in the 3rd to last paragraph of their statement that they hope the public will have a open dialogue about the severe lack of due process being afforded in university settings.

Specific to that, I have a strong feeling what the team (and others around the country have dealt with it to....Duke lacrosse, Virginia/Rolling Stone, Yale basketball, etc) is referring to will be addressed nationally/federally on January 21st. When the new federal Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, likely and hopefully rescinds the unlawful, insanely unconstitutional, anti-male activist driven, DOE "guidelines" (guidelines, not actual law mind you) relating to university investigations that the Obama administration put in place back in 2011. Put in place without passing any actual legislation and completely bypassing the role of Congress.

These ridiculous guidelines, which hold federal funding over public universities heads, by forcing them to unconstitutionally eliminate the correct and traditional understanding of being afforded due process under the ACTUAL law. Guidelines which unfairly and severely impact male students (all male students, not just student-athletes) and put them in basically completely untenable and unconstitutional positions of being "guilty until proven innocent" (rather than the constitutionally afforded precedent of innocent until proven guilty in an actual court of law) in a university settings while simultaneously stripping them of virtually all semblance of the constitutional right to due process.

It is not the role of activist driven, ideologically driven, rogue university committees and departments (i.e. like the EOAA office which is almost completely void of any diversity of gender in it's department....6 of 7 are females mostly from activist backgrounds) to play judge, jury and executioner. It is the role of ACTUAL judges and juries in the ACTUAL legal system long established in the United States.

To some on here that have been arguing on behalf of this ridiculously unlawful, "guideline enabled", kangaroo court system, which the EOAA office is unconstitutionally allowed to operate under, due to the Obama administration's reckless implementation of their unconstitutional federal DOE "guideline" in 2011, you're wrong. And hopefully this kangaroo court nonsense will be coming to an end in 2017.
Click to expand...

I'm not a football guy, but I am po'd about this whole situation for more reasons than anyone cares. But you are onto something about the new leadership likely doing something to address what is amounting to Kangaroo Courts in universities all over the country. Your examples, though, are all from places in which cases were in the actual legal system. What I haven't seen mentioned here (have not poured through all threads) is the problem of balancing the rights of a university or any other institution to enforce their own codes of conduct with the rights of people accused of violating them. It is clear that a school, employer, service organization or any other group has a right to establish and enforce its own code for issues which may not be crimes. The standards don't have to meet the criteria of civil or criminal action, but they have to be fair. The long arm of the Feds and the hammer of money produced a system which has treated untold numbers of accused very unfairly but there have to be SOME standards to deal with them that are not simply "we can't prove a crime so no punishment." With the removal of the financial club, it will give the institutions themselves an opportunity to figure out a system that is fair (e.g representation for the accused) and allows them to have some standards that are not simply criminal. As one familiar with bureaucracy though, I think the likely changes from the Feds may take a while and interests in universities who favor the current system are likely to slow walk their implementation.
 



GopherBulldog said:
Very well done. And the first positive statement with any sort of future perspective that has come out of this disgusting sh*t show. It is so embarrassing that it had to come from a group of 20 year old football players rather than the pathetic, highly-paid University leadership.
Click to expand...

LOL, the students didn't write this statement on their own.
 


GoGophersUMN said:
So did Kaler actually give them anything they wanted or did they just try to make it sound like they reached a compromise? It seems like everything Kaler agreed to would have happened if they never boycotted.
Click to expand...

The only thing I could think of is the hearing for the players. I thought the decision to expel and suspend was a done deal, but Im not sure and I dont know if there is a policy for the hearings anyways.

Other than that I immediately thought the same thing as you lol.

Boycott to meet with the board of regents without Kaler or Coyle. — Ends up only meeting with Kaler and Coyle.
Lift suspensions — No lift and there is a hearing.
Boycott Ended — Nothing really changed.

This was just an embarrassing, ill-conceived, student athlete demonstration.
 

Kaler and Colye should be replaced!

I cannot imaging anyone handling as poorly as these two have.
 



woozee said:
Boycott to meet with the board of regents without Kaler or Coyle. — Ends up only meeting with Kaler and Coyle.
Click to expand...

Well, they had a meeting with at least some regents w/o Kaler/Coyle there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

woozee said:
The only thing I could think of is the hearing for the players. I thought the decision to expel and suspend was a done deal, but Im not sure and I dont know if there is a policy for the hearings anyways.

Other than that I immediately thought the same thing as you lol.

Boycott to meet with the board of regents without Kaler or Coyle. — Ends up only meeting with Kaler and Coyle.
Lift suspensions — No lift and there is a hearing.


Boycott Ended — Nothing really changed.

This was just an embarrassing, ill-conceived, student athlete demonstration.
Click to expand...

Sounds like they made a decision to support their "band of brothers" without enough information to put their own necks and reputations on the line. Not uncommon for young men to want to sacrifice for others and struggle with the power of suggestion and doing impulsive things. The boycott was likely a result of not enough information and a little bit of righteous desire to stand up for their teammates. Coming to that conclusion themselves is likely why they ended the boycott.
 


Holy Man said:
Sounds like they made a decision to support their "band of brothers" without enough information to put their own necks and reputations on the line. Not uncommon for young men to want to sacrifice for others and struggle with the power of suggestion and doing impulsive things. The boycott was likely a result of not enough information and a little bit of righteous desire to stand up for their teammates. Coming to that conclusion themselves is likely why they ended the boycott.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. And I am disappointed. There needed to be a mentor that the team looks to who would have helped guide them the right way.

Be patient and let this settle a bit first before you act and demonstrate publicly.

My initial hunch is that falls on the responsibility of their coach. But maybe it could have been someone else.

I'd like to think that the coach could be that person for those boys. Because this whole situation was ripe with learning experiences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherBulldog said:
Very well done. And the first positive statement with any sort of future perspective that has come out of this disgusting sh*t show. It is so embarrassing that it had to come from a group of 20 year old football players rather than the pathetic, highly-paid University leadership.
Click to expand...

I assume you meant come from a group of 20 year old football players lawyer.
 


GopherBulldog said:
Never suggested that. Your point?
Click to expand...

I thought it was obvious. It didn't come "from a group of 20 year old football players." Kaler told them something like, here's what you'll say if you want to remain affiliated with the university in an athletic capacity. He may have explained to them why their boycott stunt was a terrible idea and reflected poorly on them and the university, but hopefully he didn't need to. Maybe it was just bullet points and Drew and the boys fleshed it out some, but this obviously didn't "come from" them.
 

The forced a discussion, they forced leaks, they forced the President to take action make a statement and talk to the press, they forced visibility and bias towards the hearing being fair for all parties.

You think they moved too fast? I disagree, I think their intentions were right and probably misunderstood. They saw events taking place in a vacuum and saw themselves become victim to it.

Kudos to sitting up and protesting. You can be pisssed at the process and still not support innocence of the players. That's what many seem to miss here.
 

supadupafly said:
I especially appreciate Drew's last sentence in the 3rd to last paragraph of their statement that they hope the public will have a open dialogue about the severe lack of due process being afforded in university settings.

Specific to that, I have a strong feeling what the team (and others around the country have dealt with it too) is referring to will be addressed nationally/federally on January 21st. When the new federal Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, likely and hopefully rescinds the unlawful, insanely unconstitutional, anti-male activist driven, DOE "guidelines" (guidelines, not actual law mind you) relating to university investigations that the Obama administration put in place back in 2011. Put in place without passing any actual legislation and completely bypassing the role of Congress.

These ridiculous guidelines, which hold federal funding over public universities heads, by forcing them to unconstitutionally eliminate the correct and traditional understanding of being afforded due process under the ACTUAL law. Guidelines which unfairly and severely impact male students (all male students, not just student-athletes) and put them in basically completely untenable and unconstitutional positions of being "guilty until proven innocent" (rather than the constitutionally afforded precedent of innocent until proven guilty in an actual court of law) in a university settings while simultaneously stripping them of virtually all semblance of the constitutional right to due process.

It is not the role of activist driven, ideologically driven, rogue university committees and departments (i.e. like the EOAA office which is almost completely devoid of any diversity of gender in it's department....6 of the 7 members are females mostly from activist backgrounds) to play judge, jury and executioner. That is the role of ACTUAL judges, and actual juries, in the ACTUAL legal system long established in the United States.

To some on here that have been arguing on behalf of this ridiculously unlawful, "guideline enabled", kangaroo court system, which the EOAA office is unconstitutionally allowed to operate under, due to the Obama administration's reckless implementation of their unconstitutional federal DOE "guideline" in 2011, you're wrong. And hopefully this kangaroo court nonsense will be coming to an end in 2017.
Click to expand...

Wow- you are so self important you make sure you put your exact post in multiple threads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GhostofBronko said:
I thought it was obvious. It didn't come "from a group of 20 year old football players." Kaler told them something like, here's what you'll say if you want to remain affiliated with the university in an athletic capacity. He may have explained to them why their boycott stunt was a terrible idea and reflected poorly on them and the university, but hopefully he didn't need to. Maybe it was just bullet points and Drew and the boys fleshed it out some, but this obviously didn't "come from" them.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to assume nearly all of the public correspondence on this topic has come from attorneys. If you believe that the statement the players put out was dictated by the President and AD, that's fine. I'd feel much better about them if that were truly the case. However, after months of nothing. Essentially neglecting the issue, appearing to be surprised with the EOAA's findings and being in duck-and-cover mode after it was released, I doubt that's the case.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom