Lawsuit filed

Donate To GopherHole

hello-world said:
Nobody involved with the University outside of football fans see it that way, so I'm not sure what makes you qualified to give that opinion.
Click to expand...

Do a little research next time before you post.
 


FireDaveLee said:
Cruze arrogantly kept on making posts to the effect of "where are all those lawsuits?"

Well.....
Click to expand...


This! While I want to be respectful, and I want to state that sexual assault is a serious issue, so many were so smug. So "well of course they did it...". There was not much of a let us wait and see in this case. It was a guilty until it can be proven guilty stance. Not here, but I even heard statements such as "they are animals and don't deserve a fair trial".
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Kaler was certainly the bigger issue.

Coyle, as the AD, should not have talked so much about things like improving the character of the team, "living in truth", etc. At that time, while Gopher football players were accused of sexual assault, an assault they denied, it's a bad look.

His press conference when he fired Claeys should have been something like "I want to thank Tracy for all that he has done here, but we decided to go in a new direction." It should have been vanilla as possible. It's difficult to listen to Coyle speak in the time between the bowl game and the hiring of Fleck and not come out of it with the impression that he didn't believe the players. He is entitled to that opinion, personally, but when you're their AD. . . it's trouble to verbalize it publicly.
Click to expand...

I had been saying that from the very beginning. Almost every AD I had heard during termination press conferences said basically the same thing.
 


STPGopher said:
This! While I want to be respectful, and I want to state that sexual assault is a serious issue, so many were so smug. So "well of course they did it...". There was not much of a let us wait and see in this case. It was a guilty until it can be proven guilty stance. Not here, but I even heard statements such as "they are animals and don't deserve a fair trial".
Click to expand...

Don't want to re-litigate the whole deal, but after reading the lawsuit, there is one fairly inescapable conclusion.

The players and Jane Doe are telling stories that are completely opposite of each other. They cannot both be right. Now, I'm not saying anyone is deliberately lying. Memories are subjective. We can be convinced that we remember something accurately, and it turns out we didn't.

But - back to my point. If the players are right (or at least closer to the 'real' truth), then Jane Doe is wrong. If Jane Doe is right, then the players are wrong.

And if the players are right, then they got a raw deal. They were branded as sexual predators for a consensual encounter. This whole situation was handled poorly from the get-go. mistakes were made on both sides. but only the players have paid a real penalty in terms of consequences. I'm not saying this has been a picnic for Jane Doe - her life will never be the same. But she didn't have her picture on the front page of the paper, and if you google her name, the first thing that that comes up is not going to be "expelled from college for sexual assault."

I am not saying the players deserve a gold star for good conduct - but if they are telling the truth, then they are victims in this case - just as much as Jane Doe is a victim.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Don't want to re-litigate the whole deal, but after reading the lawsuit, there is one fairly inescapable conclusion.

The players and Jane Doe are telling stories that are completely opposite of each other. They cannot both be right. Now, I'm not saying anyone is deliberately lying. Memories are subjective. We can be convinced that we remember something accurately, and it turns out we didn't.

But - back to my point. If the players are right (or at least closer to the 'real' truth), then Jane Doe is wrong. If Jane Doe is right, then the players are wrong.

And if the players are right, then they got a raw deal. They were branded as sexual predators for a consensual encounter. This whole situation was handled poorly from the get-go. mistakes were made on both sides. but only the players have paid a real penalty in terms of consequences. I'm not saying this has been a picnic for Jane Doe - her life will never be the same. But she didn't have her picture on the front page of the paper, and if you google her name, the first thing that that comes up is not going to be "expelled from college for sexual assault."

I am not saying the players deserve a gold star for good conduct - but if they are telling the truth, then they are victims in this case - just as much as Jane Doe is a victim.
Click to expand...

My main point was that there was a rush to judgement against the players from moment one.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Don't want to re-litigate the whole deal, but after reading the lawsuit, there is one fairly inescapable conclusion.

The players and Jane Doe are telling stories that are completely opposite of each other. They cannot both be right. Now, I'm not saying anyone is deliberately lying. Memories are subjective. We can be convinced that we remember something accurately, and it turns out we didn't.

But - back to my point. If the players are right (or at least closer to the 'real' truth), then Jane Doe is wrong. If Jane Doe is right, then the players are wrong.

And if the players are right, then they got a raw deal. They were branded as sexual predators for a consensual encounter. This whole situation was handled poorly from the get-go. mistakes were made on both sides. but only the players have paid a real penalty in terms of consequences. I'm not saying this has been a picnic for Jane Doe - her life will never be the same. But she didn't have her picture on the front page of the paper, and if you google her name, the first thing that that comes up is not going to be "expelled from college for sexual assault."

I am not saying the players deserve a gold star for good conduct - but if they are telling the truth, then they are victims in this case - just as much as Jane Doe is a victim.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a muddy middle ground of crossed wires/miscommunication - someone may not be totally comfortable but goes along with the proceedings and later decides it meets the school definition of sexual assault. See the Aziz Ansari episode. Or, memories can be clouded by alcohol and someone that normally wouldn’t engage in certain behaviors can’t believe they would have willingly done something. Accusations are dismissed based on video/text evidence in those cases.

The law doesn’t recognize lack of affirmative consent by a cogent, responsive person as assault. Only the school defines it that way. Neither side claims violence but the accuser claims she was implicitly intimidated. That’s a tough nut to crack.
 

Pete smith said:
How ironic. The starting pitcher today for Oregon State against the Gophers wasn’t drafted, even though he is their best pitcher. They had 3 players drafted in the first round. Why, you ask? Because he was accused of sexual assault. Still playing and representing Oregon State, you betcha. Would he be playing for the Gophers if this happened in Minneapolis? Don’t think so.
Click to expand...

He admitted to and was convicted of sexually assaulting his 4 year old niece.

He wouldn't be playing at the U and he shouldn't be playing there.
 




short ornery norwegian said:
Don't want to re-litigate the whole deal, but after reading the lawsuit, there is one fairly inescapable conclusion.

The players and Jane Doe are telling stories that are completely opposite of each other. They cannot both be right. Now, I'm not saying anyone is deliberately lying. Memories are subjective. We can be convinced that we remember something accurately, and it turns out we didn't.

But - back to my point. If the players are right (or at least closer to the 'real' truth), then Jane Doe is wrong. If Jane Doe is right, then the players are wrong.

And if the players are right, then they got a raw deal. They were branded as sexual predators for a consensual encounter. This whole situation was handled poorly from the get-go. mistakes were made on both sides. but only the players have paid a real penalty in terms of consequences. I'm not saying this has been a picnic for Jane Doe - her life will never be the same. But she didn't have her picture on the front page of the paper, and if you google her name, the first thing that that comes up is not going to be "expelled from college for sexual assault."

I am not saying the players deserve a gold star for good conduct - but if they are telling the truth, then they are victims in this case - just as much as Jane Doe is a victim.
Click to expand...
Hear! Hear! This whole issue revolves around the hubris of a militant crowd hiding in the fight for social justice and equality. They hide their specious, exploitative and manipulative behavior behind a righteous cloak. It begins with the "guilty until proven innocent" stance taken against anyone accused of sexual harassment or assault and manifests with coercing a person out of their belief that they were behaving consensually in morally questionable behavior and into believing they were subjugated to a criminally submissive act. The mentality of these militants is entirely based on the ends justifying the means regardless of their own immoral, unethical or even criminal behavior. They want their social justice to be pink or lavender with no room for darker hues or alternate colors.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 


hello-world said:
Men should be raised to protect and look out for the women in their life.
As I read these comments, I think that it's pretty clear that the vast majority of gen X and millennials fail to understand that responsibility.
It's an embarrassment to American culture, male heritage, and, apparently now, the University of Minnesota.

Even if these players did absolutely nothing to harm this woman (which, from what I have seen so far, seems very unlikely), they still had a drunken orgy on a Saturday night, that made it's way to national headlines, and managed to cause extensive damage to the reputation of the University of Minnesota.

That alone should be enough to expel any one of them.
Attending this University should be a privilege.
If you're conducting yourself in a way that draws significant negative attention to the institution, then I don't understand how you all can justify that behavior.
Click to expand...

Oookay.

Not sure why it’s hard to find the nuance between behavior some might find unseemly (like drinking or premarital sex) and calling something criminal. You’re the one that needs to rethink all this.
 



hello-world said:
Men should be raised to protect and look out for the women in their life.
As I read these comments, I think that it's pretty clear that the vast majority of gen X and millennials fail to understand that responsibility.
It's an embarrassment to American culture, male heritage, and, apparently now, the University of Minnesota.

Even if these players did absolutely nothing to harm this woman (which, from what I have seen so far, seems very unlikely), they still had a drunken orgy on a Saturday night, that made it's way to national headlines, and managed to cause extensive damage to the reputation of the University of Minnesota.

That alone should be enough to expel any one of them.
Attending this University should be a privilege.
If you're conducting yourself in a way that draws significant negative attention to the institution, then I don't understand how someone can justify that behavior.
Click to expand...

You think that is the first drunken orgy on campus ever? Wasn’t first, won’t be the last either. Not saying it’s right to do it nor is it wrong. If it was forcible, then by all means they should be held accountable. If consensual then not sure why there’s outrage.
It made national headlines well after the fact, when the players were suspended and the boycott happened. None of that would have happened had the entire situation been handled better by everyone involved, including the players, admin, EOAA office



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


hello-world said:
This isn't a criminal issue. That's said and done. This is a University issue. That's why the University is being sued.
The University conducted an investigation, decided that this behavior was unseemly to the University, and removed the relevant parties.

From my point of view, that was the correct course of action.

The incorrect course of action would be to engage in a cover up in which this issue did not follow pre-established procedures.

If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the Strib's smear campaign.

I don't think that I would have changed a single thing about how the University handled this.
I understand the frustration that the players experienced. From what I read about what Coyle said to them while Claeys was out of town, I would have been as angry as they were.

However, Coyle and Kaler were bound by a certain amount of discretion and if I was in their shoes, I probably wouldn't have felt comfortable disclosing every nuance of the investigation to the players either.

I see you guys talking about "social justice warriors" and "liberal activists" but none of that crap is relevant to what happened here.
Click to expand...

So, in a nutshell you’re mad that some people might think less of the school for having some potentially bad actors. I think that’s a really weird take because every large organization in the world has at least a few bad actors. Do you read the papers? Furthermore, you’re not concerned that the process might be a bit unfair because you personally think they are guilty as charged. Empathetic, mature people are concerned for the welfare of the accused even when it’s hard to be. I’m not sure what’s going on with you or the rage of the activists but it isn’t a healthy position.
 


Hey Bloblaw, the world is full of egregious behavior yet only the deep pockets get sued. Sadly, if there was no dough at the u there would be no suit.
 



short ornery norwegian said:
Don't want to re-litigate the whole deal, but after reading the lawsuit, there is one fairly inescapable conclusion.

The players and Jane Doe are telling stories that are completely opposite of each other. They cannot both be right. Now, I'm not saying anyone is deliberately lying. Memories are subjective. We can be convinced that we remember something accurately, and it turns out we didn't.

But - back to my point. If the players are right (or at least closer to the 'real' truth), then Jane Doe is wrong. If Jane Doe is right, then the players are wrong.

And if the players are right, then they got a raw deal. They were branded as sexual predators for a consensual encounter. This whole situation was handled poorly from the get-go. mistakes were made on both sides. but only the players have paid a real penalty in terms of consequences. I'm not saying this has been a picnic for Jane Doe - her life will never be the same. But she didn't have her picture on the front page of the paper, and if you google her name, the first thing that that comes up is not going to be "expelled from college for sexual assault."

I am not saying the players deserve a gold star for good conduct - but if they are telling the truth, then they are victims in this case - just as much as Jane Doe is a victim.
Click to expand...

Very very well stated and I think the only possible objective takeaway of this situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


I couldn't imagine being so clueless and intellectually clumsy on a topic that I had to delete all my own posts......
 

It appears that negotiated attempts to settle had been made, and the failure to reach an amicable agreement is the filing of the lawsuit.

The University need fix all the issues and move on. They'll be a lot better because of this.
 

hungan1 said:
It appears that negotiated attempts to settle had been made, and the failure to reach an amicable agreement is the filing of the lawsuit.

The University need fix all the issues and move on. They'll be a lot better because of this.
Click to expand...

Got a source or just your opinion on failed settlement talks?
 



PMWinSTP said:
I think filing of the suit is the opening salvo to serious negotiations.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking they didn't need to file it to negotiate. I'm thinking they didn't get what they wanted already, or were outright denied with their opening.

Could be as simple as a letter and the response from the U was "naw".
 

I don't know what the ulterior motives of the plaintiffs are. At a minimum reinstatement of their good name, and their records of "violations" expunged from the U. Plus monetary compensation.

Maybe the lawsuit is a tactic to exact a settlement that addresses all of the above.

The racial discrimination part is scary part for the U. I am surprised Pamela Hewitt is not included in the lawsuit.

Other than that, I don't know if anyone has the stomach to go into a lengthy litigation.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I'm thinking they didn't need to file it to negotiate. I'm thinking they didn't get what they wanted already, or were outright denied with their opening.

Could be as simple as a letter and the response from the U was "naw".
Click to expand...

Which I why I posted serious negotiations...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom