I have been naive, and my heart is broken

Donate To GopherHole
I am confused about the perceived lack of due process. They gathered evidence. They interviewed the players so the players could tell their side of the story. They looked at the body of evidence and determined that the players violated the U's code of conduct. They looked up what possible consequences there were for the violations. Both the code and the consequences is readily available on line for everyone to see. They made a determination, sent out letters that concluded that each player could appeal the decision. What possible due process were they not given? There will be an appeal. Just because they don't like the outcome doesn't mean they didn't get due process or that the EOAA is denying their due process.
 

CoMn said:
I am confused about the perceived lack of due process. They gathered evidence. They interviewed the players so the players could tell their side of the story. They looked at the body of evidence and determined that the players violated the U's code of conduct. They looked up what possible consequences there were for the violations. Both the code and the consequences is readily available on line for everyone to see. They made a determination, sent out letters that concluded that each player could appeal the decision. What possible due process were they not given? There will be an appeal. Just because they don't like the outcome doesn't mean they didn't get due process or that the EOAA is denying their due process.
Click to expand...

your lack of due process that many are upset about is that the whole Title IX hearing system & process in universities across the country is a giant, unconstitutional, extra-judicial, cluster-F. entirely due to the Dept. of Education "guideline" letter the Obama administration sheepishly put out in 2011 while simultaneously holding federal funding over universities heads stating that they were obligated to follow the recommendations of the "guideline" letter or risk losing federal funding.

the process we're seeing on display was not actual legislative law passed by the U.S. Congress. but rather a "guideline" driven "new" university adjudication process (we are seeing it and all it's constitutional failings vividly on display right now at the U of M) that was developed and created by mainly feminist activists who have snookered some politicians and gullible people in the country view social justice activism campaigning into believing there is a rampant "rape culture" on campuses when that is not the case.

it's an unconstitutional, activist-driven guideline process (of which there have been many from Obama.....who bypassed the law making U.S. Congress and signed more executive orders and guideline decrees than any President in recent history) which purposely and strategically stacks the deck against male students at federally funded universities across the country.
 

Hey, tell us what exactly about the 2011 guidance you think created this process!
 

Crosby said:
Then to top it off, we had an ENTIRE TEAM, including the coach, showing solidarity over the "lack of due process." Okay... maybe. But that means, by definition, that the players (and coach) all saw no problem with the "train" activity going on that night.
Click to expand...

This part I don't necessarily agree with. You can be disgusted by their actions, yet still hope for a fair process. I think of the boycott like if a family member was accused of something. Your first natural reaction is to defend them no matter what. As time goes by and more information is available, then your opinion may change.

Did they handle this how I would have? Probably not. But I don't think an entire team should be vilified because of the actions of a few.
 

supadupafly said:
your lack of due process that many are upset about is that the whole Title IX hearing system & process in universities across the country is a giant, unconstitutional, extra-judicial, cluster-F. entirely due to the Dept. of Education "guideline" letter the Obama administration sheepishly put out in 2011 while simultaneously holding federal funding over universities heads stating that they were obligated to follow the recommendations of the "guideline" letter or risk losing federal funding.

the process we're seeing on display was not actual legislative law passed by the U.S. Congress. but rather a "guideline" driven "new" university adjudication process (we are seeing it and all it's constitutional failings vividly on display right now at the U of M) that was developed and created by mainly feminist activists who have snookered some politicians and gullible people in the country view social justice activism campaigning into believing there is a rampant "rape culture" on campuses when that is not the case.

it's an unconstitutional, activist-driven guideline process (of which there have been many from Obama.....who bypassed the law making U.S. Congress and signed more executive orders and guideline decrees than any President in recent history) which purposely and strategically stacks the deck against male students at federally funded universities across the country.
Click to expand...

I see. So your position is political in nature. Make a different review board with "male activists" then. There needs to be review board of some sort to deal with the bad actors, who often end up on football teams, for some reason.
 


CoMn said:
I am confused about the perceived lack of due process. They gathered evidence. They interviewed the players so the players could tell their side of the story. They looked at the body of evidence and determined that the players violated the U's code of conduct. They looked up what possible consequences there were for the violations. Both the code and the consequences is readily available on line for everyone to see. They made a determination, sent out letters that concluded that each player could appeal the decision. What possible due process were they not given? There will be an appeal. Just because they don't like the outcome doesn't mean they didn't get due process or that the EOAA is denying their due process.
Click to expand...

here's a link to the process at the U

https://diversity.umn.edu/eoaa/site...a/files/Summary of process and policies_0.pdf

heres some of the info on appeal.

Either party may disagree with EOAA’s investigative outcome and/or OSCAI’s proposed resolution and opt to initiate the University’s formal resolution process. In this formal process, the parties are afforded a hearing before a panel drawn from the Campus Committee on Student Behavior.
 

RolGnav said:
Come on people, get it into your heads. The boycott had more to do with the players who weren't even directly involved, and weren't even mentioned in the restraining order. It's like you going to work one morning with a note on your desk saying you're fired because of a comment you made in a meeting a few months ago. I would think that you'd be pretty outraged. And when you go to your boss to ask why, they tell you it's a privacy issue, and that's all.
Click to expand...

This is what I think must of us that are peeved are peeved about. The new names not suspended during the restraining order process, yet they get lumped in and their names released with the other 5 original suspended student athletes. Not all 10's names and pictures should have been released together during the Title IX suspension announcement. This has led to the majority of the frustration and confusion of many. Like PhillyGopher said we did not need another thread on it though. The fact that the whole entire teams is being vilified in comments sections on many media sites is also disappointing. You watch they are going to be booed big time at the Bowl game and even the band will likely hear rude comments during the parade.
 

Crosby said:
Yeah it has been said a milion times and it's incorrect. The fact that they never acknowledged that the behavior was wrong said enough for me. They were more outraged by perceived "lack of due process" than they were about the disgusitng actions of their fellow players. Tells me volumes.[/]

It was hard to find the actual text of the Boycott Statement. It is shown below [couldn't paste because of file type]. The parts that stand out to me is the statement that the men were "falsely accused" [really? All of them?] and the demand that all ten suspensions be lifted immediately. It is obvious that saying the football players were "falsely accused" IS saying the behavior was acceptable. The lack of due process assumes the University wasn't following the due process of its own administration. Again, that was followed. You can disagree with it, but it followed its own processes, not necessarily those of a court of law.
Click to expand...
 

Block M said:
I see. So your position is political in nature. Make a different review board with "male activists" then. There needs to be review board of some sort to deal with the bad actors, who often end up on football teams, for some reason.
Click to expand...

nope, my position is not political in nature. it's constitutional in nature. these matters are entirely legal matters and the exclusive adjudication of them should be left entirely to the U.S. justice system and laws. imo, they are not something ideologically motivated, often agenda driven (just look at the strategic, intentional PR bomb throwing Kimberly Hewitt of the EOAA office has been doing against the athletic dept the last year and a half or so) university "departments" like EOAA are meant to handle or get to play kangaroo court on.

that said, perhaps Obama shouldn't have been a political coward by trying to play the role of Congress the past 8 years by sheepishly giving into activists demands time after time and circumventing Congress by signing executive orders and sending out "guideline" decrees like this Title IX one that has led to legal mine fields all over.
 



It is ok to be upset that the guys are into icky sorts of sexual activities, do not speak well or respectfully of women, while still demanding a legitimate legal process to determine if a crime occurred.

If you want men of pure character on the team you will not find such a team anywhere. Some men may speak better, or respectfully publicly, and not engage in extramarital icky sex, but I can assure you most men, even you are sinners.

Shame on all of you for the mob justice mentality.
 

supadupafly said:
nope, my position is not political in nature. it's constitutional in nature. these matters are entirely legal matters and the exclusive adjudication of them should be left entirely to the U.S. justice system and laws. imo, they are not something ideologically motivated, often agenda driven (just look at the strategic, intentional PR bomb throwing Kimberly Hewitt of the EOAA office has been doing against the athletic dept the last year and a half or so) university "departments" like EOAA are meant to handle or get to play kangaroo court on.

that said, perhaps Obama shouldn't have been a political coward by trying to play the role of Congress the past 8 years by sheepishly giving into activists demands time after time and circumventing Congress by signing executive orders and sending out "guideline" decrees like this Title IX one that has led to legal mine fields all over.
Click to expand...

What is entirely a legal matter, whether students violated the university's code of conduct? Try again.
 

I very much agree with most of the original post (except the part about "by definition that means they had no problem with the train")

Besides the act itself I don't get why other people aren't putting 2 and 2 together and realizing that a big part of the suggested punishment for the "second tier" accused players involves a coordinated effort to obstruct an (very large and with high stakes, mind you) official University investigation. Can't all of you "Due Process" types agree, that at the very least 5-10 scholarships are very much in danger based solely on this? In a parallel situation that doesn't involve your favorite sport, could you agree that a long suspension for that behavior is totally on the table?

But OMG THESE ACTIVISTS, AMIRITE? LET'S PLUG OUR EARS AND REPEAT THIS OVER AND OVER

This board is really infected, and despite the good intentions of its leadership I am pretty close to not giving it any more click revenue.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Why did you remain a fan after the Dom Jones train? That was actually decided to be a crime by the police and the legal system.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't.

He probably stayed a fan because it was a just process. It's right in his post. I don't think he ever insinuates that he wouldn't be a fan if these awful things happened and if people were punished for bad behavior. I think he said his process was with an unjust process. That's the major difference between Dom Jones and this case.
 



citywok said:
I very much agree with most of the original post (except the part about "by definition that means they had no problem with the train")

Besides the act itself I don't get why other people aren't putting 2 and 2 together and realizing that a big part of the suggested punishment for the "second tier" accused players involves a coordinated effort to obstruct an (very large and with high stakes, mind you) official University investigation. Can't all of you "Due Process" types agree, that at the very least 5-10 scholarships are very much in danger based solely on this? In a parallel situation that doesn't involve your favorite sport, could you agree that a long suspension for that behavior is totally on the table?

But OMG THESE ACTIVISTS, AMIRITE? LET'S PLUG OUR EARS AND REPEAT THIS OVER AND OVER

This board is really infected, and despite the good intentions of its leadership I am pretty close to not giving it any more click revenue.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with football for me. I wrote about this situation with the EOAA the second I heard about their involvement. In law school, we offered legal services to college students and the EOAA was doing this sort of thing to non-athletes as well. It was every bit as disgusting to them as it is to the athletes. The athletes involvement shined a light on an outrageous system.

As far as "due process", you're mixing the two. You can't make an argument against due "process" by arguing substantive issues. They are two separate issues (one is process, one is substance).

Procedurally - You didn't really bring up a question.
Substantively - Yeah, I am sure that kind of behavior would warrant a suspension. If the other players really did make a coordinated effort to obstruct an investigation, they should be punished.

Procedurally - The report itself is a really difficult source of information. I know this will set you off. However, it reads like an argument written by the attorney for the alleged victim (contains sections about her internal monologue, explains her actions/doesn't explain theirs) except LARGE portions of it would have been removed on objection.

Here is the key - - - The process has been so tainted, that it has spoiled the probative value of the evidence. It's why due process is so vital to any investigation. I am not saying that I completely disregard anything in the report and "them boys are innocent". I'm saying that process was so flawed that it's probably impossible to ever have a real investigation now.

As far as the activists, they are an atrocious entity. It's fine if you refuse to believe that and have the nerve to say that I am only arguing against these people because of football. I love football but this is WAY bigger than football.

If you want to argue that my motives for arguing my position are football related, you're clueless. When I still lived in Minnesota, I donated hundreds of hours to the Tubman Family Alliance (organization for victims of domestic violence), I've represented women (for free) who were victims of various different kinds of violence and intimidation. You think I would argue against the system so that my favorite football team's third string cornerback doesn't get expelled? C'mon.
 

Count me in as having a very similar opinion as the original poster.
If having a problem with 10-20 players (as stated in the report) receiving texts and word of mouth and heding down to that apartment for the purpose of gangbanging a female student makes me self-tighteous or holier-than-thou or whatever the majority of the people on this board are calling us that oppose such things - than I guess that's what I am.
I KNOW that I am man enough to have either stopped the situation or called the authorities and I would have been when I was in college. The guys I consider(ed) my "brothers" would do the same.
 

Go Gophers Rah said:
Count me in as having a very similar opinion as the original poster.
If having a problem with 10-20 players (as stated in the report) receiving texts and word of mouth and heding down to that apartment for the purpose of gangbanging a female student makes me self-tighteous or holier-than-thou or whatever the majority of the people on this board are calling us that oppose such things - than I guess that's what I am.
I KNOW that I am man enough to have either stopped the situation or called the authorities and I would have been when I was in college. The guys I consider(ed) my "brothers" would do the same.
Click to expand...

I assume you're talking about, if it was non-consensual. Then, we all agree.

But if you're talking about a consensual activity- - You'd stop people from engaging in a consensual sexual activity? You would be arrested.
 

Bob you've made it very clear the whole time that your motivations aren't based on jocksniffing, there are other (super and/or duper) posters who haven't.

I am not mixing anything, I am making a simple statement about correct consumption of a multifaceted issue. I am not interested in laying out procedural or legal arguments, or a cloud of causal and temporal sentences, that is not the right realm with which to discuss my simple statement. You constantly try to frame this complex issue within your preferred realm, but it shouldn't always reside there.

It sounds to me like your view (both in this post and in your posting history) is that because of procedural/source bias issues, nothing or next to nothing should happen to the accused athletes. "probably impossible to ever have a real investigation now". If that is the case, the backlash would likely shut the program down completely. I also don't think that you believe what this woman has said, for whatever reason. That should be taken into consideration with a whole bunch of what you lay out on this message board in very loud fashion.
 

citywok said:
Bob you've made it very clear the whole time that your motivations aren't based on jocksniffing, there are other (super and/or duper) posters who haven't.

I am not mixing anything, I am making a simple statement about correct consumption of a multifaceted issue. I am not interested in laying out procedural or legal arguments, or a cloud of causal and temporal sentences, that is not the right realm with which to discuss my simple statement. You constantly try to frame this complex issue within your preferred realm, but it shouldn't always reside there.

It sounds to me like your view (both in this post and in your posting history) is that because of procedural/source bias issues, nothing or next to nothing should happen to the accused athletes. "probably impossible to ever have a real investigation now". If that is the case, the backlash would likely shut the program down completely. I also don't think that you believe what this woman has said, for whatever reason. That should be taken into consideration with a whole bunch of what you lay out on this message board in very loud fashion.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean about framing the complex issue within my preferred realm, no offense, but that sounds like word salad to me. This is a legal and procedural issue, that is really the backbone of this discussion.

To be honest, I don't know what the next steps are in the process. It is impossible to have a real investigation (by the U) at this point. That is the catastrophic damage (to all the parties), when an investigation is ran like this one. It is one of the main reasons why Due Process (in any investigation) is so important, it makes it easier for everyone to accept and believe its findings.

As far as not believing her, you have no basis for saying that. In almost every post, I prefaced it by saying "if it was consensual or non-consensual". Her consent is the issue in this investigation. I have lashed out at people who have said things like "consensual or not. . .blah blah blah". If you've read from my postings that I don't believe her, you're reading into something.

I would guess if we went through the posting history on this subject, you'd be hard pressed to find a single post that I've made that hasn't made it clear that I don't know what happened that night. I don't think you could say the same for yourself or a lot of other people on this board.

There is a contingent on this board (and in the media) who have made statements like "even if nothing illegal happened" or "consensual or not", I have attacked those people because of the absurdity of those statements. If nothing illegal happened (it was consensual), then what happened to these players is a travesty, whether you agree with their sexual preferences or not. I've attacked phrases like "rape culture" and mocked the EOAA playing loose and fast with the term "consent", but I've never implied that I know what happened that night. I don't think you can say the same thing.
 

Crosby said:
I am a long-time season ticket holder. I am a donor and am fairly involved at the U, supporting academic as well as athletic programs. I have lived and died with every football win/loss for the last thirty years and more. But I'm sad to say that all of my support for the football side of the equation stops today. That's not a threat or anything as I am not enough of a "bigshot" to make a huge difference. I am just astounded by the way that this has unfolded.

To me, the main issue is not whether it was harassment, rape, etc. It is not whether these players got appropriate due process. It does not matter to me whether the girl has some fault here. You can argue about all that stuff forever. The real issue, and it is undisputed, is that there was a "train" of young men, apparently lined up to take turns with an intoxicated girl. These same guys were texting about "b**ches," and "h**s" and other equally vile things. Judging by those texts, it's sort of a normal thing for many players. Wow.

Anybody with half a moral compass would not have been there that night and/or would have put a stop to it. After reading that report... don't tell me that these are "character guys." Even if you disagree and go with the idea that "group sex happens all the time on campus" (it doesn't by the way, not in civilized circles) and "we should not judge what consenting adults do" then we have to question the utter stupidity of the players' actions that night. Every one of those kids should have been bright enough to figure out that this was not going to end well. And they should have removed themselves from the siutation. If they did not have the brains to do that, then they are not bright enough to be in college. If that was my son, his a$$ would be back at home already and he would not be participating in football or enrolled at the U any longer. Why? Because he would have shown me that he was incapable of making coherent decisions in a respectful society.

Then to top it off, we had an ENTIRE TEAM, including the coach, showing solidarity over the "lack of due process." Okay... maybe. But that means, by definition, that the players (and coach) all saw no problem with the "train" activity going on that night. Yes... the players said in their most recent statement that sexual harassment and/or sexual violence have no place on the team. Very noble of them. But they stopped short of saying that the activity that night was disgusting and stupid (even if consensual) and that there would be immediate attempts to change the culture. All of this blaming the administration is utter nonsense. Clean up your own house guys. Take some freaking responsibility. Your teammates had a drunken gang bang. Somebody please say something about how that is unacceptable.

If I were a player, and I read a report like that, there is no way in hell that I would stand up for "the brotherhood." I would have called my teammates out and said ... "WTF were you thinking? Your selfish behavior, even if not illegal, put the success of our season and the pride of this university on the line. And you expect me to support you? No way. This sh*t starts getting changed right now." That would be leadership.

But apparently the culture on the team is "stuff like this is okay, as long as we aren't breaking the law." I can't support that mentality and I can't support that culture. I have been naive. I have cared deeply about this program. No more. It obviously operates under a completely different set of moral values than I have. I won't be a part of it, and I certainly won't help fund it.

I hope Washington State wins, and wins big. And it breaks my heart to say that.
Click to expand...

I agree.
You would like to think we are cultivating fine young men who value the opposite sex and treat them with respect, but it's evident there is no compassion or human decency with many of these "men".

It reeks.
 

Crosby said:
I am a long-time season ticket holder. I am a donor and am fairly involved at the U, supporting academic as well as athletic programs. I have lived and died with every football win/loss for the last thirty years and more. But I'm sad to say that all of my support for the football side of the equation stops today. That's not a threat or anything as I am not enough of a "bigshot" to make a huge difference. I am just astounded by the way that this has unfolded.

To me, the main issue is not whether it was harassment, rape, etc. It is not whether these players got appropriate due process. It does not matter to me whether the girl has some fault here. You can argue about all that stuff forever. The real issue, and it is undisputed, is that there was a "train" of young men, apparently lined up to take turns with an intoxicated girl. These same guys were texting about "b**ches," and "h**s" and other equally vile things. Judging by those texts, it's sort of a normal thing for many players. Wow.

Anybody with half a moral compass would not have been there that night and/or would have put a stop to it. After reading that report... don't tell me that these are "character guys." Even if you disagree and go with the idea that "group sex happens all the time on campus" (it doesn't by the way, not in civilized circles) and "we should not judge what consenting adults do" then we have to question the utter stupidity of the players' actions that night. Every one of those kids should have been bright enough to figure out that this was not going to end well. And they should have removed themselves from the siutation. If they did not have the brains to do that, then they are not bright enough to be in college. If that was my son, his a$$ would be back at home already and he would not be participating in football or enrolled at the U any longer. Why? Because he would have shown me that he was incapable of making coherent decisions in a respectful society.

Then to top it off, we had an ENTIRE TEAM, including the coach, showing solidarity over the "lack of due process." Okay... maybe. But that means, by definition, that the players (and coach) all saw no problem with the "train" activity going on that night. Yes... the players said in their most recent statement that sexual harassment and/or sexual violence have no place on the team. Very noble of them. But they stopped short of saying that the activity that night was disgusting and stupid (even if consensual) and that there would be immediate attempts to change the culture. All of this blaming the administration is utter nonsense. Clean up your own house guys. Take some freaking responsibility. Your teammates had a drunken gang bang. Somebody please say something about how that is unacceptable.

If I were a player, and I read a report like that, there is no way in hell that I would stand up for "the brotherhood." I would have called my teammates out and said ... "WTF were you thinking? Your selfish behavior, even if not illegal, put the success of our season and the pride of this university on the line. And you expect me to support you? No way. This sh*t starts getting changed right now." That would be leadership.

But apparently the culture on the team is "stuff like this is okay, as long as we aren't breaking the law." I can't support that mentality and I can't support that culture. I have been naive. I have cared deeply about this program. No more. It obviously operates under a completely different set of moral values than I have. I won't be a part of it, and I certainly won't help fund it.

I hope Washington State wins, and wins big. And it breaks my heart to say that.
Click to expand...

While I do agree with the meat of your post, the part that bugs me is that it looks like you decided that this event/scandal or whatever you want to call it was a good reason to join what is the nexus of Gopher Football talk- Gopherhole. Heck- there's lots Haters on here that definitely do not support the program or Gopher athletics. Sometimes, we the supporters, fall into that category (except Dpodoll- but he's an a**hole) out of frustration. Just being on this board does not necessarily legitimize you as a Gopher fan- lots of fans have no idea that this board exists. But- I suppose there are lots of 'new' members that have been gained from this event.

I guess what I'm trying to say is- your opinion has been stated and is clearly been expressed by most Gopher fans already. I'm sorry that a negative event like this made you search out and decide to post your first post on Gopherhole.
 

Crosby said:
I am a long-time season ticket holder. I am a donor and am fairly involved at the U, supporting academic as well as athletic programs. I have lived and died with every football win/loss for the last thirty years and more. But I'm sad to say that all of my support for the football side of the equation stops today. That's not a threat or anything as I am not enough of a "bigshot" to make a huge difference. I am just astounded by the way that this has unfolded.

To me, the main issue is not whether it was harassment, rape, etc. It is not whether these players got appropriate due process. It does not matter to me whether the girl has some fault here. You can argue about all that stuff forever. The real issue, and it is undisputed, is that there was a "train" of young men, apparently lined up to take turns with an intoxicated girl. These same guys were texting about "b**ches," and "h**s" and other equally vile things. Judging by those texts, it's sort of a normal thing for many players. Wow.

Anybody with half a moral compass would not have been there that night and/or would have put a stop to it. After reading that report... don't tell me that these are "character guys." Even if you disagree and go with the idea that "group sex happens all the time on campus" (it doesn't by the way, not in civilized circles) and "we should not judge what consenting adults do" then we have to question the utter stupidity of the players' actions that night. Every one of those kids should have been bright enough to figure out that this was not going to end well. And they should have removed themselves from the siutation. If they did not have the brains to do that, then they are not bright enough to be in college. If that was my son, his a$$ would be back at home already and he would not be participating in football or enrolled at the U any longer. Why? Because he would have shown me that he was incapable of making coherent decisions in a respectful society.

Then to top it off, we had an ENTIRE TEAM, including the coach, showing solidarity over the "lack of due process." Okay... maybe. But that means, by definition, that the players (and coach) all saw no problem with the "train" activity going on that night. Yes... the players said in their most recent statement that sexual harassment and/or sexual violence have no place on the team. Very noble of them. But they stopped short of saying that the activity that night was disgusting and stupid (even if consensual) and that there would be immediate attempts to change the culture. All of this blaming the administration is utter nonsense. Clean up your own house guys. Take some freaking responsibility. Your teammates had a drunken gang bang. Somebody please say something about how that is unacceptable.

If I were a player, and I read a report like that, there is no way in hell that I would stand up for "the brotherhood." I would have called my teammates out and said ... "WTF were you thinking? Your selfish behavior, even if not illegal, put the success of our season and the pride of this university on the line. And you expect me to support you? No way. This sh*t starts getting changed right now." That would be leadership.

But apparently the culture on the team is "stuff like this is okay, as long as we aren't breaking the law." I can't support that mentality and I can't support that culture. I have been naive. I have cared deeply about this program. No more. It obviously operates under a completely different set of moral values than I have. I won't be a part of it, and I certainly won't help fund it.

I hope Washington State wins, and wins big. And it breaks my heart to say that.
Click to expand...

My man, there is nothing new about group sex. I'm sure one will happen in a neighborhood near you in the very near future. They also happen frequently on college campuses. It's was never my thing and I hope not my children's thing either but who are we to tell consenting adults what they do is wrong? As to the report; that's a one sided document that substantiates the the position the U decided to take. The players should stand together because it might be them the next time. They have far more power together than alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Crosby said:
I hope Washington State wins, and wins big. And it breaks my heart to say that.
Click to expand...

my reading on what's going on in Pullman suggests to me that WSU is a program that favors football over school and people. I see the U as trying to change that culture

I'll be cheering for the Gopher players myself.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't know what you mean about framing the complex issue within my preferred realm, no offense, but that sounds like word salad to me. This is a legal and procedural issue, that is really the backbone of this discussion.

To be honest, I don't know what the next steps are in the process. It is impossible to have a real investigation (by the U) at this point. That is the catastrophic damage (to all the parties), when an investigation is ran like this one. It is one of the main reasons why Due Process (in any investigation) is so important, it makes it easier for everyone to accept and believe its findings.

As far as not believing her, you have no basis for saying that. In almost every post, I prefaced it by saying "if it was consensual or non-consensual". Her consent is the issue in this investigation. I have lashed out at people who have said things like "consensual or not. . .blah blah blah". If you've read from my postings that I don't believe her, you're reading into something.

I would guess if we went through the posting history on this subject, you'd be hard pressed to find a single post that I've made that hasn't made it clear that I don't know what happened that night. I don't think you could say the same for yourself or a lot of other people on this board.

There is a contingent on this board (and in the media) who have made statements like "even if nothing illegal happened" or "consensual or not", I have attacked those people because of the absurdity of those statements. If nothing illegal happened (it was consensual), then what happened to these players is a travesty, whether you agree with their sexual preferences or not. I've attacked phrases like "rape culture" and mocked the EOAA playing loose and fast with the term "consent", but I've never implied that I know what happened that night. I don't think you can say the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yes you do.
You are a typical internet bully with this issue. You play dumb when it benefits you, you pick and choose what you want to focus on when it benefits you and ignore what doesn't.

This is only a purely legal and procedural issue (and, only about consent vs lack of consent) to you because you are a lawyer and that is the realm that you operate in. To many others this has become many other things, and you know it, but you generally don't acknowledge anything other than your focus. I am asking you to. I am even playing in your world and asking you to consider that this is also about obstructing an investigation and at best you minimally acknowledge it, because it doesn't help what you are trying to do.

My belief that you don't believe what she has said is based on your cloud of causal and temporal theoreticals in every single one of your posts. If x, then y. When z, then w. And again here, look at your answer to me. I say directly that I don't think you believe her. Your response could be "you are wrong, I believe some of what she says", or "no I do not believe her". Instead your answer is a squirmy "if that's what you think, then you have a reading problem". When you do show sympathy, that isn't covered in theoretical caveats, it is only towards the ten accused students. I can tell which way the wind blows.
 

Quote Originally Posted by Go Gophers Rah

Count me in as having a very similar opinion as the original poster.
If having a problem with 10-20 players (as stated in the report) receiving texts and word of mouth and heading down to that apartment for the purpose of gangbanging a female student makes me self-righteous or holier-than-thou or whatever the majority of the people on this board are calling us that oppose such things - than I guess that's what I am.
I KNOW that I am man enough to have either stopped the situation or called the authorities and I would have been when I was in college. The guys I consider(ed) my "brothers" would do the same.

____________________________________

Bob_Loblaw replied:

I assume you're talking about, if it was non-consensual. Then, we all agree.

But if you're talking about a consensual activity- - You'd stop people from engaging in a consensual sexual activity? You would be arrested.
___________________________________

You've stated this kind of thing a number of times.

Do you really believe that this college student who had 5-6 vodka shots (look up the effect of that on a female weighing 120-135 pounds) and hinted around that she might be interested in a three-way with a player and an underage recruit (an issue all unto itself) wanted to, and consented to having repeated sex in a variety of positions with 10-20 men?

I do not believe that to be the case based on what I read in the report (I know, I know, it was a report full of lies authored by femi-nazis who's sole purpose in life is to punish innocent men and their secondary purpose is to shut down athletics at the U).

Calling this thing consensual would be like saying that a band member who was tipsy started picking a fight with a couple of football players and then was ultimately beat to within an inch of his life by a group of 10-20 players. Did he indicate initially that he wanted to fight more than one football player? sure - maybe. As his buddies took their turns pummeling him in every conceivable way, did he stop and say "I no longer consent to this?" No, probably not. Does that mean he started the fight, consented to its continuation and that the players were simply defending themselves????
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't know what you mean about framing the complex issue within my preferred realm, no offense, but that sounds like word salad to me. This is a legal and procedural issue, that is really the backbone of this discussion.

To be honest, I don't know what the next steps are in the process. It is impossible to have a real investigation (by the U) at this point. That is the catastrophic damage (to all the parties), when an investigation is ran like this one. It is one of the main reasons why Due Process (in any investigation) is so important, it makes it easier for everyone to accept and believe its findings.

As far as not believing her, you have no basis for saying that. In almost every post, I prefaced it by saying "if it was consensual or non-consensual". Her consent is the issue in this investigation. I have lashed out at people who have said things like "consensual or not. . .blah blah blah". If you've read from my postings that I don't believe her, you're reading into something.

I would guess if we went through the posting history on this subject, you'd be hard pressed to find a single post that I've made that hasn't made it clear that I don't know what happened that night. I don't think you could say the same for yourself or a lot of other people on this board.

There is a contingent on this board (and in the media) who have made statements like "even if nothing illegal happened" or "consensual or not", I have attacked those people because of the absurdity of those statements. If nothing illegal happened (it was consensual), then what happened to these players is a travesty, whether you agree with their sexual preferences or not. I've attacked phrases like "rape culture" and mocked the EOAA playing loose and fast with the term "consent", but I've never implied that I know what happened that night. I don't think you can say the same thing.
Click to expand...

You have laid out your reasoning clearly and consistently. I appreciate that but have two points of disagreement. The stronger one is with that if nothing illegal happened, this all should be ignored. Sorry, there is a code of conduct, they are on scholarship, and they do represent the U. I'd dare say the vast majority of fans and, for sure, the general populace don't want a program where it's okay to line up and have your turn with someone. The messages going out and guys showing up really is bad. You don't have to believe it's a "rape culture" or be a prude to think this is just sordid. Second, the question of consent is also really complicated. If she started out okay with it, but then decided no more after a couple or seven or whatever, and it didn't stop then it is rape according to law. Or at least the way I understand it. You're never going to get a conviction obviously, but there was a crime committed.

This whole mess is going to reverberate for a long time. With all the grey area here, most people are not going to be satisfied with the resolution. The U really needs some leadership here, but most don't have any faith in what is there now. Hell, if there had been leaders with foresight, I'm pretty convinced this wouldn't have happened--not only the boycott but even the original incident, or whatever the hell you want to call it. I tell myself to just say the hell with the Gophers but am enough of a hypocrite to worry about how this will all affect recruiting, who will transfer, how big of a hit this will be on fundraising, what coach would want this job, who will be our QB next year, etc. You'd think 50 years of being a Gopher fan would cure me, but it hasn't.
 

citywok said:
I very much agree with most of the original post (except the part about "by definition that means they had no problem with the train")

Besides the act itself I don't get why other people aren't putting 2 and 2 together and realizing that a big part of the suggested punishment for the "second tier" accused players involves a coordinated effort to obstruct an (very large and with high stakes, mind you) official University investigation. Can't all of you "Due Process" types agree, that at the very least 5-10 scholarships are very much in danger based solely on this? In a parallel situation that doesn't involve your favorite sport, could you agree that a long suspension for that behavior is totally on the table?

But OMG THESE ACTIVISTS, AMIRITE? LET'S PLUG OUR EARS AND REPEAT THIS OVER AND OVER

This board is really infected, and despite the good intentions of its leadership I am pretty close to not giving it any more click revenue.
Click to expand...

By all means retreat to the echo chamber of your choosing. Here you need to defend your opinions, and that is all they are.
 

Crosby said:
I am a long-time season ticket holder. I am a donor and am fairly involved at the U, supporting academic as well as athletic programs. I have lived and died with every football win/loss for the last thirty years and more. But I'm sad to say that all of my support for the football side of the equation stops today. That's not a threat or anything as I am not enough of a "bigshot" to make a huge difference. I am just astounded by the way that this has unfolded.

To me, the main issue is not whether it was harassment, rape, etc. It is not whether these players got appropriate due process. It does not matter to me whether the girl has some fault here. You can argue about all that stuff forever. The real issue, and it is undisputed, is that there was a "train" of young men, apparently lined up to take turns with an intoxicated girl. These same guys were texting about "b**ches," and "h**s" and other equally vile things. Judging by those texts, it's sort of a normal thing for many players. Wow.

Anybody with half a moral compass would not have been there that night and/or would have put a stop to it. After reading that report... don't tell me that these are "character guys." Even if you disagree and go with the idea that "group sex happens all the time on campus" (it doesn't by the way, not in civilized circles) and "we should not judge what consenting adults do" then we have to question the utter stupidity of the players' actions that night. Every one of those kids should have been bright enough to figure out that this was not going to end well. And they should have removed themselves from the siutation. If they did not have the brains to do that, then they are not bright enough to be in college. If that was my son, his a$$ would be back at home already and he would not be participating in football or enrolled at the U any longer. Why? Because he would have shown me that he was incapable of making coherent decisions in a respectful society.

Then to top it off, we had an ENTIRE TEAM, including the coach, showing solidarity over the "lack of due process." Okay... maybe. But that means, by definition, that the players (and coach) all saw no problem with the "train" activity going on that night. Yes... the players said in their most recent statement that sexual harassment and/or sexual violence have no place on the team. Very noble of them. But they stopped short of saying that the activity that night was disgusting and stupid (even if consensual) and that there would be immediate attempts to change the culture. All of this blaming the administration is utter nonsense. Clean up your own house guys. Take some freaking responsibility. Your teammates had a drunken gang bang. Somebody please say something about how that is unacceptable.

If I were a player, and I read a report like that, there is no way in hell that I would stand up for "the brotherhood." I would have called my teammates out and said ... "WTF were you thinking? Your selfish behavior, even if not illegal, put the success of our season and the pride of this university on the line. And you expect me to support you? No way. This sh*t starts getting changed right now." That would be leadership.

But apparently the culture on the team is "stuff like this is okay, as long as we aren't breaking the law." I can't support that mentality and I can't support that culture. I have been naive. I have cared deeply about this program. No more. It obviously operates under a completely different set of moral values than I have. I won't be a part of it, and I certainly won't help fund it.

I hope Washington State wins, and wins big. And it breaks my heart to say that.
Click to expand...

So "We don't need no damn trial! Hang 'um! Hang 'um all to the nearest tree!"

You presented your case more thoughtfully than they did in the "old days", but it's the same argument.

Many of us forcefully reject that argument, but thanks to the internet we know it's still out there big time.
 

I tried to post similar feelings earlier (not as elequently as you) and got lit up for it. Yes, I don't understand the moral compass of this team when any would stand up for what happened here. It's not just the younger generation, but their parents need to do some soul searching. Law or ECOO, who cares, everyone should be against what happened here.
 

Bob please answer this...the girls said "nooooo" according to the policeMAN (what city has a male cop interview an alleged victim of a gang bang?) and then he heard a slap. He decided that the girls was sarcastic and the slap was playful. She can't remember much because she was drunk. First, you can't give consent if you are too drunk in most places. I admit that I don't know the law in Minnesota. Second....so she says "no" and a guy interprets that as being playful and being sarcastic. In no place in the video did she give consent. But then all the guys after Djam who screwed her reported that they asked her for verbal consent before screwing her. Amazingly the only two guys who didn't ask for consent were the ones who recorded themselves. Coincidence? I think not...but rather having a week to cover up the alleged crime before the cops came...who btw, called Mr. Coyle just to give him a heads up about everything and give him 3 FULL DAYS to get the players lawyered up, get their stories straight (the advantage of having one lawyer for all the guys...if they had had separate lawyers some of the guys might have protected themselves and given up their teammates) in addition one player reported hearing the girl say no (later). What does a girl have to do to get a conviction. The cops did everything they could do to protect the guys. I read you are a lawyer...perhaps not a criminal defense one...or a prosecuting one...but do cops typically give alleged criminals a week to clean up the evidence (which indeed it was btw)? The district attorney couldn't prosecute because the police so bungled the investigation allowing evidence to disappear...IMO, on purpose. If a girl says no at least twice and there is no evidence of her giving consent is it a rape? IMO, yes. In addition, I do not know nor have ever met a single woman who thinks it would be a lot of fun to have a dozen guys screw them. I have yet to talk to a single woman about this case who sees this as anything but a gang rape. But again, if saying no at least twice as reported in the video and by a player....what the heck is the threshold? Justice won't be served by merely expelling these guys. They need to be locked up.
 

The Madison incident brought about the same outcry. This is our society folks. When the Madison incident occurred I had friends swear they were done with the U and Gopher Basketball specifically. Yet many rallied by the program to support the remaining players.
( Remember the " Iron Five ") The administration took the same stand as they did in this incident only they fired Jim Dutcher immediately . The only difference was there was no EOAA.
Eventually the players were cleared of any wrong doing . I had a friend studying for the bar during that period and he got a hold of the transcripts and the graphics were as bad as in this case. The friends that said they were done with the U eventually came back in fold. Time can be a great healer.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom