Letter from Tracy Claeys

[Gopherphile]

Really, posting a letter in the local paper just before the season starts -- yet another nail in the coffin of Claeys' coaching career.

'

I view it as closure for him - he's entitled to that, especially as a response to the report citing weak leadership. Let's hope he, and a bunch of people from this board, can now move on.

We traded up to get Fleck, and nothing exemplifies it more than Claeys' letter. Telling folks that "hard work" is essential seems indicative of his style. The phrase means nothing by itself - it's been emptied over time. Fleck, despite his corniness, gets that you need to connect the mission of what you do every day to those basic traits you need to cultivate. Hence, row the boat. The phrase drives many people over the edge, but he clearly gets connecting with young people at a level that coach Claeys didn't.

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

"And the gang bang probably wouldn't have happened either." How so? Do you think this could not happen at Alabama or Notre Dame or to any coach in the nation? Kill had rules as did Claeys, the same rules. The same rules as every program in the country.

You honestly think the rules are the same everywhere in the country? What happened here is (supposedly) commonplace in the SEC. Except usually the girls are arranged beforehand, if you catch my drift.

I don't believe the rules were even the same between Claeys and Kill, to be honest. It certainly didn't seem like it (even in other aspects).

But university officials soon conducted their own inquiry and in December re-suspended the five players and suspended five more — again, even though prosecutors had determined there was no basis for formal charges.

Members of our Football Leadership Group and others on the team felt strongly that administration officials had overstepped their authority and that the accused players were treated unfairly and denied protection under due process.

The part that gets me is after all this time he doesn't understand the University was LEGALLY BOUND to investigate AND that that investigation did not have the same requirements as a legal investigation.

I also like how he mentioned he shouldn't have gone to San Diego for the press conference. That wasn't the issue. The issue was he didn't jump on the first plane back from San Diego. He should have stopped what he was doing and come back right then and there. At very least he should have recognized how the boycott would be perceived (right or wrong it appeared to condone the accused behavior), and had a FaceTime with them right then and there to tell them that. Instead he hung out in San Diego a couple days, let things fester to the point of out of control, then it resolved itself when the report was made public without Claeys interjection. That is the definition of not leading.

And I've said this before, but when Claeys saw what the basketball program went through and implemented before last season and choose not to implement similar types of training about respecting women, etc., what kind of leadership does that show? I'm not saying it would have for sure stopped this, but by doing nothing you certainly aren't going to stop it.

I'm not saying Coyle did everything right (he absolutely did not) but the fact Claeys still doesn't get the issues above is reason enough in my mind that he had to be fired.

 

[Iceland12]

If you want to be fair, Star Tribune story a few weeks back about the training you are talking about. It was initiated by Kill. Claeys was working with the people who eventually put the program together. They started the training last season.

Cue one of the dooshbags to complain about it in 3,2,1....

 

[LakerFan]

I also like how he mentioned he shouldn't have gone to San Diego for the press conference. That wasn't the issue. The issue was he didn't jump on the first plane back from San Diego. He should have stopped what he was doing and come back right then and there. At very least he should have recognized how the boycott would be perceived (right or wrong it appeared to condone the accused behavior), and had a FaceTime with them right then and there to tell them that. Instead he hung out in San Diego a couple days, let things fester to the point of out of control, then it resolved itself when the report was made public without Claeys interjection. That is the definition of not leading.

+1, In the absence of a like button.

 

[CentralGopher]

We can go on and on, but Coyle could have and should have acted. He didn't.

Row the D@mn boat!!! Onward and upward.

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[saintpaulguy]

You honestly think the rules are the same everywhere in the country? What happened here is (supposedly) commonplace in the SEC. Except usually the girls are arranged beforehand, if you catch my drift.

I don't believe the rules were even the same between Claeys and Kill, to be honest. It certainly didn't seem like it (even in other aspects).



The part that gets me is after all this time he doesn't understand the University was LEGALLY BOUND to investigate AND that that investigation did not have the same requirements as a legal investigation.

I also like how he mentioned he shouldn't have gone to San Diego for the press conference. That wasn't the issue. The issue was he didn't jump on the first plane back from San Diego. He should have stopped what he was doing and come back right then and there. At very least he should have recognized how the boycott would be perceived (right or wrong it appeared to condone the accused behavior), and had a FaceTime with them right then and there to tell them that. Instead he hung out in San Diego a couple days, let things fester to the point of out of control, then it resolved itself when the report was made public without Claeys interjection. That is the definition of not leading.

And I've said this before, but when Claeys saw what the basketball program went through and implemented before last season and choose not to implement similar types of training about respecting women, etc., what kind of leadership does that show? I'm not saying it would have for sure stopped this, but by doing nothing you certainly aren't going to stop it.

I'm not saying Coyle did everything right (he absolutely did not) but the fact Claeys still doesn't get the issues above is reason enough in my mind that he had to be fired.

Assuming sex workers enter into contracts willingly, it would be far better to hire out. I am not sure where you are going with that comment.

 

[IronRanger91]

Tons of people have their first head coaching experience at the Big Ten level. Neither path is better or worse.

Maybe. But not career assistants and I'd hardly say tons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spoofin]

Four awful takes that need to stop.

1. This "we don't know rape didn't happen, just that it couldn't be proven" mentality BS. It didn't happen. America says so. Unless you think everyone ever accused of a crime should forever be under suspicion of that crime - whether or not found innocent or even if there wasn't enough evidence to charge. Didn't happen.

2. This "different standards" BS. Yes, we all get it. No crime, but apparently Group Sex is a no no (that would only happen under TC's watch) at the U. Of course the investigation had to happen and no one has debated that. Yes, the U followed their procedures and no one is debating that. The debate is on these procedures and the completely biased method the EOAA was allowed to proceed in and how poorly the Admins (and coach) at the U handled things.

3. CoMn

4. Cruze


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[saintpaulguy]

Four awful takes that need to stop.

1. This "we don't know rape didn't happen, just that it couldn't be proven" mentality BS. It didn't happen. America says so. Unless you think everyone ever accused of a crime should forever be under suspicion of that crime - whether or not found innocent or even if there wasn't enough evidence to charge. Didn't happen.

2. This "different standards" BS. Yes, we all get it. No crime, but apparently Group Sex is a no no (that would only happen under TC's watch) at the U. Of course the investigation had to happen and no one has debated that. Yes, the U followed their procedures and no one is debating that. The debate is on these procedures and the completely biased method the EOAA was allowed to proceed in and how poorly the Admins (and coach) at the U handled things.

3. CoMn

4. Cruze


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will stipulate all of these if we can also stop "this is worse everywhere else".

Even if it is.

 

[dpodoll68]

Maybe. But not career assistants and I'd hardly say tons.

What does "career assistants" even mean in this context? By definition, if it's their first head coaching job, their entire career up to that point was as an assistant, so they're all career assistants.

And yes, it is tons. I'm not going to sit and do the math, but there are many active and recently retired coaches whose first head coaching job was in a Power 5 conference. Bret Bielema, Pat Fitzgerald, James Franklin, Chris Ash, Lane Kiffin, D.J. Durkin, Les Miles, Butch Davis, Larry Coker, Gene Chizik, Phil Fulmer...I could go on. There are many whose first head coaching job is in a major conference and are great. There are many who are terrible. There are many who work their way up through small school head coaching jobs and are great. There are many who are terrible. There is no "right" formula. If there were, everyone would follow it.

 

[Killjoy]

Major history revisionist in action... Makes me want to puke to think there are such stupid simpletons out there that can just change words and meanings and say whatever they want and that makes it fact.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Hey! That is the president of the United States that you are talking about!

 

[IronRanger91]

What does "career assistants" even mean in this context? By definition, if it's their first head coaching job, their entire career up to that point was as an assistant, so they're all career assistants.

And yes, it is tons. I'm not going to sit and do the math, but there are many active and recently retired coaches whose first head coaching job was in a Power 5 conference. Bret Bielema, Pat Fitzgerald, James Franklin, Chris Ash, Lane Kiffin, D.J. Durkin, Les Miles, Butch Davis, Larry Coker, Gene Chizik, Phil Fulmer...I could go on. There are many whose first head coaching job is in a major conference and are great. There are many who are terrible. There are many who work their way up through small school head coaching jobs and are great. There are many who are terrible. There is no "right" formula. If there were, everyone would follow it.

I think a career assistant is someone like Claeys who stayed with the same staff for 30 years and never left. I look at guys like Bielma, Kiffin, Chizik, Ash, Bob Stoops and Barry Alvarez as guys who moved around and learned from lots of great coaches and had the goal of being a head coach in mind. They took from the best and weren't complacent with the same staff. Fitz doesn't really fit this mold but was a hungry young up and comer. I just feel Claeys didn't fit that mold. Just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[STPGopher]

'

I view it as closure for him - he's entitled to that, especially as a response to the report citing weak leadership. Let's hope he, and a bunch of people from this board, can now move on.

We traded up to get Fleck, and nothing exemplifies it more than Claeys' letter. Telling folks that "hard work" is essential seems indicative of his style. The phrase means nothing by itself - it's been emptied over time. Fleck, despite his corniness, gets that you need to connect the mission of what you do every day to those basic traits you need to cultivate. Hence, row the boat. The phrase drives many people over the edge, but he clearly gets connecting with young people at a level that coach Claeys didn't.

I interpreted it as closure as well. Though coach Claeys may have had many perceived faults, his proof was in the pudding? Could he have done some things better sure. His hard work message was heard loud and clear by all of his players on the field, and most of his players off of the field. I think he could have grown into a very good coach if he had a real chance. Hopefully he will get that chance again somewhere else.

Thank you coach Claeys! Welcome Coach Fleck!

 

[dpodoll68]

I think a career assistant is someone like Claeys who stayed with the same staff for 30 years and never left. I look at guys like Bielma, Kiffin, Chizik, Ash, Bob Stoops and Barry Alvarez as guys who moved around and learned from lots of great coaches and had the goal of being a head coach in mind. They took from the best and weren't complacent with the same staff. Fitz doesn't really fit this mold but was a hungry young up and comer. I just feel Claeys didn't fit that mold. Just my opinion.

So what's wrong with that? Joe Paterno never coached anywhere but Penn St. - 16 years as an assistant and decades as one of the most successful coaches of all time. Fulmer spent almost all of his career at Tennessee (12 years as an assistant) and was very successful, winning a national title. When Kill was hired, the loyalty of his staff and bringing them here as a unit was a selling point. Now it's detrimental, apparently.

 

[IronRanger91]

So what's wrong with that? Joe Paterno never coached anywhere but Penn St. - 16 years as an assistant and decades as one of the most successful coaches of all time. Fulmer spent almost all of his career at Tennessee (12 years as an assistant) and was very successful, winning a national title. When Kill was hired, the loyalty of his staff and bringing them here as a unit was a selling point. Now it's detrimental, apparently.

As I said, just my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[saintpaulguy]

I interpreted it as closure as well. Though coach Claeys may have had many perceived faults, his proof was in the pudding? Could he have done some things better sure. His hard work message was heard loud and clear by all of his players on the field, and most of his players off of the field. I think he could have grown into a very good coach if he had a real chance. Hopefully he will get that chance again somewhere else.


Thank you coach Claeys! Welcome Coach Fleck!

Wrong, do it again.

How can you have any pudding when you don't eat your meat?

 

[STPGopher]

Wrong, do it again.

How can you have any pudding when you don't eat your meat?

So you are saying that the team didn't work hard to improve in the classroom or on the field?

 

[Halsey Hall]

Four awful takes that need to stop.

1. This "we don't know rape didn't happen, just that it couldn't be proven" mentality BS. It didn't happen. America says so. Unless you think everyone ever accused of a crime should forever be under suspicion of that crime - whether or not found innocent or even if there wasn't enough evidence to charge. Didn't happen
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you know the legal definition of rape? Do you understand the standards of consent?

 

[dpodoll68]

I'm still waiting for the example of when college football teams played without a coach.

Are you serious? There are tons of examples. You don't know the history of your own program very well. The Gophers played the 1892 season without a coach and managed to go 5-0, beating Michigan, Wisconsin, and Northwestern - all of whom had coaches. Harvard played the first 17 years of their football program without a coach and won 77.9% of their games.

Even if it happened a long time ago, it could not happen today.

Sure it could. Would it? No. But could it? Yes, most definitely.

Players today choose a school because of the coach far more than because of the school.

Not all do. Some choose a school because it's close to home, some choose it because it has great academics, some choose it because their girlfriend (or boyfriend) go there, some choose it because their dad is on the coaching staff, some choose it because their family member(s) went to that school, some choose it because they like the color of the uniforms, etc., etc., etc. There are dozens of different decision criteria. Sometimes the coach is the sole or almost sole criteria, sometimes it's somewhere in the middle, and sometimes it's not a factor whatsoever.

Why would they show up to play if a coach didn't want them?

Because they want to go to that school? There are thousands of students who go to every FBS college in the country, and less than 1% go there because of the football coach. Those 99% would still be going to those schools, and they would build a football team from those students, just like they used to.

If my statement is false, then Alabama would always be Alabama. Their program must have been exactly the same under Mike Shula as it is under Nick Saban or was under Bear Bryant. Ohio St. would always be Ohio St. Minnesota would always be Minnesota. It must be just pure luck that the the Gophers program went from winning national championships and Big Ten titles, to a mediocre to bad program for the last 50 years.

Please point out where I said that the quality of a coach doesn't make a team better or worse. Of course it does. You're arguing against a straw man. Saban is a fantastic coach, probably the best active football coach at any level, and Alabama football is unquestionably better for his presence. But Alabama football existed before Nick Saban was even born, and it will continue to exist long after Nick Saban is dead and gone. Most Alabama fans wouldn't even call him the best coach in their own program. The coach is not the program.

If the program is the same regardless of coach

Yeah, no one is arguing that. Again, you're making things up.

Players show up to Minnesota just because it's called Minnesota right?

Some do, yes. Not every football player in the country is on scholarship, and not every walk-on is preferred. Believe it or not, there was a time when athletic scholarships didn't exist. Could Minnesota go back to that time and field a team made up entirely of walk-ons from the general student body and play 12 games without a coach? Yes, they absolutely 100% could do that. Would they? No, of course they would not. Again, that has never been the point of contention. The point you're willfully ignoring is that a coach is not a necessary ingredient to field a football team. The quality of the coach (let alone the existence of one) is absolutely a huge factor in the quality of the program. Again, that was never in debate. The coach is not the program.

 

[Spoofin]

Do you know the legal definition of rape? Do you understand the standards of consent?

Yes I do. Dumb question as you are missing the point completely. If I accuse you today of stealing from me, the police investigate, don't have enough evidence to charge - are you innocent or are you "might have done it, just didn't have enough to prove it"? Should you be under suspicion the rest of your life of being a thief - I mean, after all, Spoofin accused you and we don't really know what did/didn't happen? Would you tell a potential employer, "nope, never convicted of a crime - but was accused - just not enough evidence to charge." America says no to all of that. You didn't do it. Innocent until proven guilty. Go ahead and push this topic - go ahead and play the "we don't know what really happened" card all you want. Cruze and CoMn will be supporting that decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Word]

Yes I do. Dumb question as you are missing the point completely. If I accuse you today of stealing from me, the police investigate, don't have enough evidence to charge - are you innocent or are you "might have done it, just didn't have enough to prove it"? Should you be under suspicion the rest of your life of being a thief - I mean, after all, Spoofin accused you and we don't really know what did/didn't happen? Would you tell a potential employer, "nope, never convicted of a crime - but was accused - just not enough evidence to charge." America says no to all of that. You didn't do it. Innocent until proven guilty. Go ahead and push this topic - go ahead and play the "we don't know what really happened" card all you want. Cruze and CoMn will be supporting that decision.

This might be good reading for some people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

If you want to be fair, Star Tribune story a few weeks back about the training you are talking about. It was initiated by Kill. Claeys was working with the people who eventually put the program together. They started the training last season.

Cue one of the dooshbags to complain about it in 3,2,1....

I thought that it was reported during the investigation that Claeys had not done that type of training. If he had, then I take back that point but stand by the statement he showed zero leadership during the crisis.

I always complain about having to do that type of training, but honestly I have changed certain behaviors over the years because of it. Not everyone will though.

Assuming sex workers enter into contracts willingly, it would be far better to hire out. I am not sure where you are going with that comment.

gopherjay said that the rules are the same here as every other program. My point was that hiring professionals would not be acceptable here, where it is (allegedly) commonplace and at least somewhat acceptable in the SEC. I'm not trying to say morally it'd be worse, just disputing the fact that the rules are the same at all programs.

Again, I can't remember specifics but I remember there were a couple specific rules that Claeys relaxed, so even his rules weren't the same as Kill's rules.

 

[Iceland12]

I thought that it was reported during the investigation that Claeys had not done that type of training. If he had, then I take back that point but stand by the statement he showed zero leadership during the crisis.

I always complain about having to do that type of training, but honestly I have changed certain behaviors over the years because of it. Not everyone will though...

"The Gophers had cleaned their image under former coaches Jerry Kill and Tracy Claeys, ranking among the national leaders in fewest arrests while they coached together from 2011 to 2015. They overhauled the team’s poor academic standing from the Tim Brewster era and were far more competitive on the field...

The Gophers also met with the university’s Aurora Center, which works with sexual assault victims. The Aurora Center used to hold sessions with the entire athletics department, explaining what constitutes sexual consent, but now those sessions are held at the team level.

While many of Fleck’s efforts have been publicized — through social media and interviews — the Gophers quietly held several educational sessions under Kill and Claeys, too. Among the speakers who addressed those teams were Adam Ritz and Sandra McDonald.

Ritz is a TV/radio host from Indianapolis who was convicted of sexual battery against his family’s baby sitter in 2004. McDonald is a sexual education authority who has worked with several NFL teams and spoke to the Gophers men’s basketball team in 2016, at coach Richard Pitino’s request.

Bob Coughlin, father of defensive end Carter Coughlin, worked with the staff last fall in planning a series of sessions. Claeys planned to unveil this “Go Program” the same week he was fired, according to people familiar with the plan."

 

[Cruze]

This might be good reading for some people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

There is very little doubt this would be excellent reading for the usual suspects in GopherHole:


Bench and Bar of Minnesota: Understanding Title IX Investigations: What they are and what they aren’t

Reactions to the recent investigation of 10 suspended University of Minnesota football players revealed widespread misunderstanding of the differences between a criminal investigation/prosecution and the campus adjudication process dictated by Title IX statutes and regulations. This article seeks to clarify key points of law regarding Title IX investigations.

In recent years, campus sexual assault has received considerable attention. Statistics show one in five women and one in 16 men report a sexual assault while in college.1 This is hardly a new problem. But the push for greater institutional accountability relating to student safety, on and off campus, has led to changes in approach as well as greater visibility.

The issue hit close to home during the final weeks of 2016 when 10 student athletes from the University of Minnesota football team were suspended from playing for their involvement in an alleged sexual assault.2 The suspensions were announced by Athletics Director Mark Coyle and University President Eric Kaler after a lengthy investigation by the University’s Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA) office produced an 80-page report linking player actions to various violations of the Student Conduct Code.3

The players had been suspended for three games earlier in the season, pending the outcome of a Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) criminal investigation.4 Subsequent to her report to the University of Minnesota EOAA and MPD, the alleged victim sought a protective order against several of the alleged perpetrators. The matter was settled with an agreement that the student athletes involved stay 20 feet away from her.5

The EOAA report was not publicly released due to student confidentiality protections under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,6 in addition to other federal campus related laws described below. However, KSTP-TV published a redacted version on its website, along with the MPD’s investigation report. The report was published online one day after the entire Gopher football team announced a boycott of their upcoming Holiday Bowl appearance.

The detailed EOAA report incited public outrage. It described a lengthy sexual encounter with consensual and nonconsensual aspects, partially filmed, involving a female student athlete and several male student athletes as well as a high school recruit. The boycott ended following an all-night meeting between campus administration and student athletes. The University refused the team’s request to lift the suspensions prior to the final outcome of the campus adjudication process.

It was not until the press conference announcing the end of the boycott that the team players and Coach Tracy Claeys (who had tweeted support for the players’ boycott) stated concern about the problem of sexual violence. Many viewed this acknowledgement as too little too late, fueling conversation about a pervasive rape culture on campus.7

Two weeks later the university terminated Claeys. Athletic Director Mark Coyle cited a need for better leadership, adding that the current events underscored his preexisting concerns about the football program’s direction on and off the field.8

Key Misperceptions

Reactions to the suspensions, boycott, and termination revealed a significant lack of understanding on the part of student-athletes and coaches about their various code of conduct obligations. Members of the general public likewise expressed confusion.

Of particular note, the team and much of the public appeared to believe that the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office decision not to file criminal charges against the student-athletes meant that the university could not hold them accountable for code of conduct violations.

This belief reflected a pervasive misunderstanding of the campus investigation and adjudication process, which is completely independent from the criminal justice system. One significant distinction between the campus adjudication process and the criminal justice system involves burden of proof.

Criminal Prosecution

The burden of proof in a criminal prosecution is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is the highest burden of proof in our legal system, because a criminal prosecution involves the potential deprivation of an individual’s fundamental right to liberty. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the same standard used in criminal cases across the United States. It is an intentionally high standard because a defendant’s constitutional rights are at stake.

There are many reasons why a prosecutor may decide not to charge an alleged perpetrator. But a lack of criminal charges does not mean a sexual assault did not occur. It simply means that after reviewing the evidence provided by law enforcement, a prosecutor determined they could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Criminal sexual conduct is often difficult to prove; it not uncommon for prosecutors to decline charges.10 While promising practices such as the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview can improve the collection of information during law enforcement investigations, public skepticism toward victims remains pervasive.11 Gender bias in policing remains an issue.12 The myth of rampant false reporting persists, though in reality the range is only 2 to 8 percent of all cases.13 Other misperceptions held by jury members can also affect the success of a prosecution.

Campus Adjudication Process

The campus adjudication process operates under a “preponderance of evidence” standard; this is the same standard used for civil litigation in discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.14 Preponderance of evidence means the conduct is more likely than not to have occurred. While access to higher education is important, enrollment comes with a requirement to abide by the code of conduct. If a violation is significant enough, a school may warn, suspend, or expel a student, among other possibilities. Students are afforded due process throughout a campus adjudication process.

Read more at: http://mnbenchbar.com/2017/02/title-ix-investigations/

 

[GophersInIowa]

There is very little doubt that this would be excellent reading for the usual suspects in GopherHole:


Bench and Bar of Minnesota: Understanding Title IX Investigations: What they are and what they aren’t

Reactions to the recent investigation of 10 suspended University of Minnesota football players revealed widespread misunderstanding of the differences between a criminal investigation/prosecution and the campus adjudication process dictated by Title IX statutes and regulations. This article seeks to clarify key points of law regarding Title IX investigations.

In recent years, campus sexual assault has received considerable attention. Statistics show one in five women and one in 16 men report a sexual assault while in college.1 This is hardly a new problem. But the push for greater institutional accountability relating to student safety, on and off campus, has led to changes in approach as well as greater visibility.

The issue hit close to home during the final weeks of 2016 when 10 student athletes from the University of Minnesota football team were suspended from playing for their involvement in an alleged sexual assault.2 The suspensions were announced by Athletics Director Mark Coyle and University President Eric Kaler after a lengthy investigation by the University’s Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA) office produced an 80-page report linking player actions to various violations of the Student Conduct Code.3

The players had been suspended for three games earlier in the season, pending the outcome of a Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) criminal investigation.4 Subsequent to her report to the University of Minnesota EOAA and MPD, the alleged victim sought a protective order against several of the alleged perpetrators. The matter was settled with an agreement that the student athletes involved stay 20 feet away from her.5

The EOAA report was not publicly released due to student confidentiality protections under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,6 in addition to other federal campus related laws described below. However, KSTP-TV published a redacted version on its website, along with the MPD’s investigation report. The report was published online one day after the entire Gopher football team announced a boycott of their upcoming Holiday Bowl appearance.

The detailed EOAA report incited public outrage. It described a lengthy sexual encounter with consensual and nonconsensual aspects, partially filmed, involving a female student athlete and several male student athletes as well as a high school recruit. The boycott ended following an all-night meeting between campus administration and student athletes. The University refused the team’s request to lift the suspensions prior to the final outcome of the campus adjudication process.

It was not until the press conference announcing the end of the boycott that the team players and Coach Tracy Claeys (who had tweeted support for the players’ boycott) stated concern about the problem of sexual violence. Many viewed this acknowledgement as too little too late, fueling conversation about a pervasive rape culture on campus.7

Two weeks later the university terminated Claeys. Athletic Director Mark Coyle cited a need for better leadership, adding that the current events underscored his preexisting concerns about the football program’s direction on and off the field.8

Key Misperceptions

Reactions to the suspensions, boycott, and termination revealed a significant lack of understanding on the part of student-athletes and coaches about their various code of conduct obligations. Members of the general public likewise expressed confusion.

Of particular note, the team and much of the public appeared to believe that the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office decision not to file criminal charges against the student-athletes meant that the university could not hold them accountable for code of conduct violations.


There are many reasons why a prosecutor may decide not to charge an alleged perpetrator. But a lack of criminal charges does not mean a sexual assault did not occur. It simply means that after reviewing the evidence provided by law enforcement, a prosecutor determined they could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Almost everyone here understands that. You keep arguing things most people aren't even saying.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Caroline Palmer is the public and legal affairs manager at the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, a statewide organization representing 60 sexual assault victim services programs. She is also an adjunct legal writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law.

Lindsay J. Brice is a staff attorney at Standpoint (previously known as the Battered Women’s Legal Advocacy Project), a statewide organization whose mission is to promote justice for victims of domestic and sexual violence. She is a former prosecutor and victims’ advocate who has worked in the field for over 20 years.


The authors are clearly biased in favor of a process that does not grant the due process present in a civil trial limited to economic damages. The enormous damages associated with expulsion from school and difficulty with enrollment at other institutions or graduate and professional programs should not be overlooked.

The activists that brought affirmative consent to the U (thus all but ensuring EOAA conviction) are now changing privacy laws to ensure the expelled have transcripts labeled with the sexual deviant label.

Shame on these women and all of those support this madness. Enact a proper and fair adjudication process or leave it to professional investigators and courts.

 

[Cruze]

So here is what we are now getting from the hardcore defenders of the 10 football players involved in the Gopher gang bang scandal:

- They have totally dismissed the 80-page EOAA Report mandated by Title IX of the U.S. Code as 100% biased and without accurate and truthful information of any kind. They have maintained this fiction since the first day the report was made public by KSTP. Furthermore, they continue to disparage the honesty and integrity of the EOAA investigators despite the fact the U's student disciplinary hearings and appeals officers upheld the expulsion and suspension of 6 of the players based upon the evidence provided in the report. To date the naysayers have failed to cite even one sentence in the EOAA Report that is not accurate. I believe one of the reasons they haven't tried is that very few of them have read the complete report. More than a few of them even admitted this in GH threads while defending the players. Compare this with the Penn State diehards on Blue and White Illustrated who to this day continue to parse and criticize almost every sentence in the Freeh Report on the Sandusky sex abuse scandal.

- They have disparaged and ignored the Dorsey law firm report that found that the U followed their policies and procedures for Student Code of Conduct investigations, hearings, and appeals exactly as they are written and posted on the U's website. The Dorsey report stated that the U's "due process" protections for students "far exceed" those at almost every other Big 10 school. This means the U's "due process" protections for students "far exceed" almost every other university in America. A cursory reading of articles about the federal court cases on Title IX discrimination lawsuits by students indicates that many of the cases hinged on the fact the schools failed to follow their own policies and procedures. It is safe to say this is probably the main reason none of the 10 players at the U have filed lawsuits challenging how their cases were handled. Their attorneys have most likely determined there is not much chance of winning such a case against the U because the football players received all the due process the U.S. Constitution requires in student disciplinary proceedings.

 

[Spoofin]

So here is what we are now getting from the hardcore defenders of the 10 football players involved in the Gopher gang bang scandal:

- They have totally dismissed the 80-page EOAA Report mandated by Title IX of the U.S. Code as 100% biased and without accurate and truthful information of any kind. They have maintained this fiction since the first day the report was made public by KSTP. Furthermore, they continue to disparage the honesty and integrity of the EOAA investigators despite the fact the U's student disciplinary hearings and appeals officers upheld the expulsion and suspension of 6 of the players based upon the evidence provided in the report. To date the naysayers have failed to cite even one sentence in the EOAA Report that is not accurate. I believe one of the reasons they haven't tried is that very few of them have read the complete report. More than a few of them even admitted this in GH threads while defending the players. Compare this with the Penn State diehards on Blue and White Illustrated who to this day continue to parse and criticize almost every sentence in the Freeh Report on the Sandusky sex abuse scandal.

- They have disparaged and ignored the Dorsey law firm report that found that the U followed their policies and procedures for Student Code of Conduct investigations, hearings, and appeals exactly as they are written and posted on the U's website. The Dorsey report stated that the U's "due process" protections for students "far exceed" those at almost every other Big 10 school. A cursory reading of articles about the federal court cases on Title IX discrimination lawsuits by students indicates that many of them hinged on the fact the schools failed to follow their own policies and procedures. It is safe to say this is probably the main reason none of the 10 players at the U have filed lawsuits challenging how their cases were handled. Their attorneys have most likely determined there is not much chance of winning such a case against the U because they received all the due process the U.S. Constitution requires in student disciplinary proceedings.

You do realize that each and every one of the players the EOAA report added to this scandal were cleared at the end of this process, right? Of course you do UpNorth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PMWinSTP]

You do realize that each and every one of the players the EOAA report added to this scandal were cleared at the end of this process, right? Of course you do UpNorth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course he does, it's part of his trolling bit.

BTW...your tagline needs updating.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

So here is what we are now getting from the hardcore defenders of the 10 football players involved in the Gopher gang bang scandal:

- They have totally dismissed the 80-page EOAA Report mandated by Title IX of the U.S. Code as 100% biased and without accurate and truthful information of any kind. They have maintained this fiction since the first day the report was made public by KSTP. Furthermore, they continue to disparage the honesty and integrity of the EOAA investigators despite the fact the U's student disciplinary hearings and appeals officers upheld the expulsion and suspension of 6 of the players based upon the evidence provided in the report. To date the naysayers have failed to cite even one sentence in the EOAA Report that is not accurate. I believe one of the reasons they haven't tried is that very few of them have read the complete report. More than a few of them even admitted this in GH threads while defending the players. Compare this with the Penn State diehards on Blue and White Illustrated who to this day continue to parse and criticize almost every sentence in the Freeh Report on the Sandusky sex abuse scandal.

- They have disparaged and ignored the Dorsey law firm report that found that the U followed their policies and procedures for Student Code of Conduct investigations, hearings, and appeals exactly as they are written and posted on the U's website. The Dorsey report stated that the U's "due process" protections for students "far exceed" those at almost every other Big 10 school. This means the U's "due process" protections for students "far exceed" almost every other university in America. A cursory reading of articles about the federal court cases on Title IX discrimination lawsuits by students indicates that many of the cases hinged on the fact the schools failed to follow their own policies and procedures. It is safe to say this is probably the main reason none of the 10 players at the U have filed lawsuits challenging how their cases were handled. Their attorneys have most likely determined there is not much chance of winning such a case against the U because the football players received all the due process the U.S. Constitution requires in student disciplinary proceedings.

I realize you're a troll but I'll take the opportunity to present the other side which is sorely missing. We have to start somewhere.

I think when the student SMSS committee is educated (*cough* indocrinated) by the EOAA among other groups prior to them being allowed to serve (and there is an obvious conflict of interest present); when the defendant is limited to 90 minutes to present a defense (and the 10 were not all granted their time in this case so procedure was not followed); when the evidence presented at the SSMS hearing can be handpicked by the faculty chair (no video evidence); when the interviews are not recorded....this is not a fair or impartial process.

When the U adopted the affirmative consent policy in mid 2015 it became much easier to "convict". You will see DAs charging, e.g. manslaughter or 2nd degree instead of 1st degree rmurder because the bar to conviction is lower. The bar for affirmative consent is low. Unless the defendant has evidence the partner was willing and had not had a drink the EOAA is forced to find for the accused due to the preponderance standard.

The expelled students, if their transcripts are labeled with the reason for expulsion, will be unable to enroll at other colleges or pursue graduate or professional education. There have been other publicized incidents of students enrolling at other colleges only to have an informer, e.g. accuser or their family member or friend, contact the new school leading to their dismissal from that school.

These EOAA decisions have far-ranging and long lasting economic effects. Even cavemen, jocks, and other degenerate males should have better due process than that afforded at the U.