My insignificant 2 cents on this unfortunate situation

[TABinMO]

I am a very frequent reader but infrequent poster. I have a law degree from the UofM (but don't practice law) and have no experience in these situations, which is why my title is what it is - so this is simply my opinion on where we are at.

In terms of the EOAA process, my problem with this I do not believe it is an impartial panel looking objectively at the facts yet it appears that they produce the record of evidence that is used by the decision makers to decide the punishment. So from that perspective, I personally do not believe it is a fair process and the process needs to change to make it more balanced. An example of the unfairness is allowing the victim to be represented by counsel but not the accused, if that is what the process allowed.

It is amazing how people take a side of guilty or innocent without knowing all of the facts! You certainly can't say that the EOAA report states all of the facts without knowing the details of the process and the arguments for the other side. It seems to me that people are either ready to lynch or absolve of responsibility way too early. I suppose that is the problem with this day and age of immediate "news" via the Internet. We have had several examples in the last few years where the public, the media or both rushed to condemn one side or another in various encounters well before all facts were known. Some people have an agenda! In this case, we are a long way away from knowing all the facts to make an informed decision.

We don't really know if the early suspensions should have been handled differently until we know who knew what and when. However, I certainly think that having a player encourage a recruit to have sex with a girl on a recruiting visit is a situation that should cause the player to be dismissed from the team. And if the coach or anyone else in authority knew that happened, then they made a bad decision to allow that player to stay with the team.

This whole situation escalated when the team threatened to boycott the bowl game. If they did that because they thought the players being disciplined were railroaded without due process, I can understand that and see why they took the stance they did. I think the process needs to be critiqued and improved. It's unfortunate that we are the ones that are the test case for doing that, but it was probably inevitable anyway (for some school).

I am reading most of the posts, while trying to remain objective. I will wait to state an opinion on who should be punished and whether the punishment is appropriate until all the facts are known (if ever). At a minimum, I would say that if I was a parent of ANY of the people involved, I would be very disappointed in their behavior.

 

[STPGopher]

I am a very frequent reader but infrequent poster. I have a law degree from the UofM (but don't practice law) and have no experience in these situations, which is why my title is what it is - so this is simply my opinion on where we are at.

In terms of the EOAA process, my problem with this I do not believe it is an impartial panel looking objectively at the facts yet it appears that they produce the record of evidence that is used by the decision makers to decide the punishment. So from that perspective, I personally do not believe it is a fair process and the process needs to change to make it more balanced. An example of the unfairness is allowing the victim to be represented by counsel but not the accused, if that is what the process allowed.

It is amazing how people take a side of guilty or innocent without knowing all of the facts! You certainly can't say that the EOAA report states all of the facts without knowing the details of the process and the arguments for the other side. It seems to me that people are either ready to lynch or absolve of responsibility way too early. I suppose that is the problem with this day and age of immediate "news" via the Internet. We have had several examples in the last few years where the public, the media or both rushed to condemn one side or another in various encounters well before all facts were known. Some people have an agenda! In this case, we are a long way away from knowing all the facts to make an informed decision.

We don't really know if the early suspensions should have been handled differently until we know who knew what and when. However, I certainly think that having a player encourage a recruit to have sex with a girl on a recruiting visit is a situation that should cause the player to be dismissed from the team. And if the coach or anyone else in authority knew that happened, then they made a bad decision to allow that player to stay with the team.

This whole situation escalated when the team threatened to boycott the bowl game. If they did that because they thought the players being disciplined were railroaded without due process, I can understand that and see why they took the stance they did. I think the process needs to be critiqued and improved. It's unfortunate that we are the ones that are the test case for doing that, but it was probably inevitable anyway (for some school).

I am reading most of the posts, while trying to remain objective. I will wait to state an opinion on who should be punished and whether the punishment is appropriate until all the facts are known (if ever). At a minimum, I would say that if I was a parent of ANY of the people involved, I would be very disappointed in their behavior.

Thanks for the post. I am trying to piece together a timeline of events. Not easy at all. Trying not to jump to conclusions. Just keep thinking that key people could have handled this differently.

 

[Sportsfan24]

I am a very frequent reader but infrequent poster. I have a law degree from the UofM (but don't practice law) and have no experience in these situations, which is why my title is what it is - so this is simply my opinion on where we are at.

In terms of the EOAA process, my problem with this I do not believe it is an impartial panel looking objectively at the facts yet it appears that they produce the record of evidence that is used by the decision makers to decide the punishment. So from that perspective, I personally do not believe it is a fair process and the process needs to change to make it more balanced. An example of the unfairness is allowing the victim to be represented by counsel but not the accused, if that is what the process allowed.

It is amazing how people take a side of guilty or innocent without knowing all of the facts! You certainly can't say that the EOAA report states all of the facts without knowing the details of the process and the arguments for the other side. It seems to me that people are either ready to lynch or absolve of responsibility way too early. I suppose that is the problem with this day and age of immediate "news" via the Internet. We have had several examples in the last few years where the public, the media or both rushed to condemn one side or another in various encounters well before all facts were known. Some people have an agenda! In this case, we are a long way away from knowing all the facts to make an informed decision.

We don't really know if the early suspensions should have been handled differently until we know who knew what and when. However, I certainly think that having a player encourage a recruit to have sex with a girl on a recruiting visit is a situation that should cause the player to be dismissed from the team. And if the coach or anyone else in authority knew that happened, then they made a bad decision to allow that player to stay with the team.

This whole situation escalated when the team threatened to boycott the bowl game. If they did that because they thought the players being disciplined were railroaded without due process, I can understand that and see why they took the stance they did. I think the process needs to be critiqued and improved. It's unfortunate that we are the ones that are the test case for doing that, but it was probably inevitable anyway (for some school).

I am reading most of the posts, while trying to remain objective. I will wait to state an opinion on who should be punished and whether the punishment is appropriate until all the facts are known (if ever). At a minimum, I would say that if I was a parent of ANY of the people involved, I would be very disappointed in their behavior.

Great post. I will admit my comments are based on the information released and I may not have all the facts as a result my comments or position taken may be wrong. I have no problem forming and sharing my opinions because I also have no problem admitting I'm wrong and or changing said opinion. Again great post.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[metrolax]

Nice input. I think many of us are just trying to digest all of us, as there are so many
moving parts. I think its fair to say everyone is in uncharted waters in this one.

 

[GoGophersUMN]

It is amazing how people take a side of guilty or innocent without knowing all of the facts! You certainly can't say that the EOAA report states all of the facts without knowing the details of the process and the arguments for the other side. It seems to me that people are either ready to lynch or absolve of responsibility way too early. I suppose that is the problem with this day and age of immediate "news" via the Internet. We have had several examples in the last few years where the public, the media or both rushed to condemn one side or another in various encounters well before all facts were known. Some people have an agenda! In this case, we are a long way away from knowing all the facts to make an informed decision.

Interestingly enough, the only groups that really have any power here (EOAA and athletics administration) were completely willing to make a decision that has the potential to ruin people's lives without knowing all of the facts.

 

[alchemy2u]

A nice breath of fresh air to see a thread that is taking a reasonable approach to this unfortunate situation.

I get confused by all the assumptions/conclusions that are being made. My understanding is that the only official action made by the U is to suspend the 10 players for the bowl game. None of the other recommendations from the EOAA have yet been followed. The U still has to use "due process" to determine what punishment, if any, is handed out to each of the 10 players. Is that correct?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

A nice breath of fresh air to see a thread that is taking a reasonable approach to this unfortunate situation.

I get confused by all the assumptions/conclusions that are being made. My understanding is that the only official action made by the U is to suspend the 10 players for the bowl game. None of the other recommendations from the EOAA have yet been followed. The U still has to use "due process" to determine what punishment, if any, is handed out to each of the 10 players. Is that correct?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think the difficult part of the "due process" part is that the EOAA is part of the school and the President of the school is already calling her a "victim". It's not a perfect analogy, but if a judge did that, it wouldn't be called due process.

A process is going to play out, but it'll be a far cry from due process.

 

[Jack jones]

Interestingly enough, the only groups that really have any power here (EOAA and athletics administration) were completely willing to make a decision that has the potential to ruin people's lives without knowing all of the facts.

+10000

 

[GopherinPhilly]

A nice breath of fresh air to see a thread that is taking a reasonable approach to this unfortunate situation.

I get confused by all the assumptions/conclusions that are being made. My understanding is that the only official action made by the U is to suspend the 10 players for the bowl game. None of the other recommendations from the EOAA have yet been followed. The U still has to use "due process" to determine what punishment, if any, is handed out to each of the 10 players. Is that correct?

Not how I understood it...the recommendations of the EOAA were accepted by the admin and the expulsion and suspension letters were sent to the players. (The letter to Buford was published on this board with this info) The players had I believe 5 days to respond and request a hearing to challenge the decision. But all 10 players did receive official notification that they were either expelled, suspended for a year or one is on probation for a year.

 

[GoGophersUMN]

Not how I understood it...the recommendations of the EOAA were accepted by the admin and the expulsion and suspension letters were sent to the players. (The letter to Buford was published on this board with this info) The players had I believe 5 days to respond and request a hearing to challenge the decision. But all 10 players did receive official notification that they were either expelled, suspended for a year or one is on probation for a year.

And even if they didn't take any official action other than suspending them for the game, they took the unofficial action of ruining their potential careers.

Anyone who is hiring someone for a job that pays much over minimum wage will Google the applicants' names. Even if all of the players are completely cleared, their names will come up as being tied with rape. Most HR people won't do all of the work to see the full situation.

Unless something very unusual happens, all of the players who don't make the NFL will be limited to entry level jobs for the rest of their lives.

If they would have waited to announce names and punishments until they were very confident they understood the situation, it would have been easy for them to come back later and issue punishments once they decided that it was very likely that the players did what they were accused of. With the way they dealt with it, it's impossible for them to fix it if they later decide the players were innocent. That's why people are so frustrated. It's not about defending rape, it's about making sure that the players committed sexual assault before tying their name to it.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

I am a very frequent reader but infrequent poster. I have a law degree from the UofM (but don't practice law) and have no experience in these situations, which is why my title is what it is - so this is simply my opinion on where we are at.

In terms of the EOAA process, my problem with this I do not believe it is an impartial panel looking objectively at the facts yet it appears that they produce the record of evidence that is used by the decision makers to decide the punishment. So from that perspective, I personally do not believe it is a fair process and the process needs to change to make it more balanced. An example of the unfairness is allowing the victim to be represented by counsel but not the accused, if that is what the process allowed.

It is amazing how people take a side of guilty or innocent without knowing all of the facts! You certainly can't say that the EOAA report states all of the facts without knowing the details of the process and the arguments for the other side. It seems to me that people are either ready to lynch or absolve of responsibility way too early. I suppose that is the problem with this day and age of immediate "news" via the Internet. We have had several examples in the last few years where the public, the media or both rushed to condemn one side or another in various encounters well before all facts were known. Some people have an agenda! In this case, we are a long way away from knowing all the facts to make an informed decision.

We don't really know if the early suspensions should have been handled differently until we know who knew what and when. However, I certainly think that having a player encourage a recruit to have sex with a girl on a recruiting visit is a situation that should cause the player to be dismissed from the team. And if the coach or anyone else in authority knew that happened, then they made a bad decision to allow that player to stay with the team.

This whole situation escalated when the team threatened to boycott the bowl game. If they did that because they thought the players being disciplined were railroaded without due process, I can understand that and see why they took the stance they did. I think the process needs to be critiqued and improved. It's unfortunate that we are the ones that are the test case for doing that, but it was probably inevitable anyway (for some school).

I am reading most of the posts, while trying to remain objective. I will wait to state an opinion on who should be punished and whether the punishment is appropriate until all the facts are known (if ever). At a minimum, I would say that if I was a parent of ANY of the people involved, I would be very disappointed in their behavior.

What you (and most other posters) don't understand is that the U is still in the middle of the disciplinary process. The case was started by a complaint and investigation by EOAA. EOAA did not make the decision to suspend the players. Their only role was to investigate what happened and make a recommendation whether there were any violations of the Student Code of Conduct.

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

EOAA Investigation Procedures.

Formal Investigation: discrimination, harassment, and retaliation

Depending on the circumstances, a formal investigation may be appropriate, either before or after efforts to resolve the concerns informally.

Typical steps in a formal investigation include:

- interviewing the individual raising the concerns and other affected parties;
- interviewing the individuals with information relevant to the situation;
- informing responsible administrators about the concerns and investigation;
- interviewing the accused person; and
- collecting and reviewing documents and other forms of information from the individual raising the concerns, witnesses, Human Resources, administrators, or other individuals with relevant information.

At the conclusion of a formal investigation, EOAA will prepare a summary of the investigation and make a conclusion as to whether University policies against discrimination, harassment, or related retaliation were violated.

EOAA typically sends the report to: the individual(s) who raised the concerns; the accused party(s); and the responsible administrator(s).

EOAA will also make recommendations for responsive action to the responsible administrator(s). We may provide recommendations to the responsible administrator whether or not there was a violation of policy.

https://diversity.umn.edu/eoaa/process


Interim Student Suspension

The president or provost may impose an immediate interim suspension on a student or student organization pending a hearing before the appropriate disciplinary committee (1) to ensure the safety and well-being of members of the University community or to preserve University property, (2) to ensure the student's own physical or emotional safety and well-being, or (3) if the student or student organization poses an ongoing threat of disrupting or interfering with the operations of the University.

During the interim suspension, the student or student organization may be denied access to all University activities or privileges for which the student or student organization might otherwise be eligible, including access to University housing or property.

The student or student organization has a right to a prompt hearing before the president or provost on the questions of identification and whether the interim suspension should remain in effect until the full hearing is completed. The student must be informed in writing of the terms of the suspension, the reasons for it, and the opportunity to be heard on the limited questions described above.

The underlying Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code case will be heard and decided by the appropriate hearing body, and the case generally will take precedence over other cases pending before that body.


Student Code of Conduct Hearing Procedures

Administrative unit disciplinary process

Some administrative units (Housing and Residential Life, the Student Activities Office, the Learning Abroad Center) have their own disciplinary processes to formally resolve complaints involving violation of their rules and Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code violations. Students should consult the process that applies to them for information about formally resolving complaints. See Appendix: Disciplinary Processes of Professional or Graduate Programs and Administrative Units

In all cases, hearings on violations of Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code must be fundamentally fair. What constitutes fundamental fairness in a University hearing depends on a number of factors, including the seriousness of the potential penalty.

However, a fundamentally fair hearing process usually allows for students or student organizations to:

- be notified in writing of the alleged violation and the underlying factual allegations; the time, date, and place of the hearing; and the range of possible sanctions;
- receive a prompt hearing;
- present their case, including witnesses;
- hear all evidence against them;
- question adverse testimony;
- be confronted by their accusers (subject to reasonable procedures to address concerns for safety or well-being);
- be accompanied or represented by an advocate of their choice;
- be found responsible only if the information as a whole shows that it is more likely than not that the student's conduct violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code;
- receive a written disciplinary decision following the hearing; and
- receive notification of the procedure for a campus-wide appeal of the disciplinary decision.

A formal record, a tape recording, or a transcript of the hearing procedure must be kept for appellate purposes.

Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code hearings are not court cases, and court rules of process, procedure, or evidence do not apply.


Appeal

A student found to have violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code is entitled to a campus-wide appeal of disciplinary decisions made in the hearing process. The reporting party in a sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence case also has the right to a campus-wide appeal.

Grounds for Appeal

The following are the grounds for appealing a disciplinary decision.

There was significant procedural error sufficient to affect the outcome (e.g., lack of notice, opportunity to be heard, or opportunity to challenge information). A procedural error is not a basis for sustaining an appeal unless it was significant enough to affect the outcome.

The rule found to have been violated was misapplied, misinterpreted, or contrary to law.

New evidence exists that was not previously available to the appealing party and that is sufficient to affect the outcome.

The sanction was grossly disproportionate to the offense.

The disciplinary decision was not based on substantial information. Substantial information means relevant information that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

In making this determination, the appellate officer must respect the credibility determinations of the hearing body and must not substitute his or her judgment for the hearing body. Rather, the appellate officer must determine whether the hearing body’s disciplinary decision was unreasonable (i.e., arbitrary) in light of the information presented.

Nature of Appellate Review

A student found to have violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code or the reporting party in a sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence case has the right to appeal the disciplinary decision. Appellate review generally is a review of the record to determine whether a serious error occurred in the original proceeding that resulted in unfairness. Appellate review respects the credibility judgments of the hearing body, and respects the hearing body’s determinations as long as there is any evidence to reasonably support them.

Appellate Officer

The appellate officer makes the final University decision regarding student discipline. The Provost serves as the appellate officer, unless the Provost authorizes another administrator who holds a position of campus-wide scope to serve as the appellate officer in the Provost's place.

http://policy.umn.edu/education/studentconductcode-proc01#appeal

 

[TABinMO]

What you (and most other posters) don't understand is that the U is still in the middle of the disciplinary process. The case was started by a complaint and investigation by EOAA. EOAA did not make the decision to suspend the players. Their only role was to investigate what happened and make a recommendation whether there were any violations of the Student Code of Conduct.

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

EOAA Investigation Procedures.

Formal Investigation: discrimination, harassment, and retaliation

Depending on the circumstances, a formal investigation may be appropriate, either before or after efforts to resolve the concerns informally.

Typical steps in a formal investigation include:

- interviewing the individual raising the concerns and other affected parties;
- interviewing the individuals with information relevant to the situation;
- informing responsible administrators about the concerns and investigation;
- interviewing the accused person; and
- collecting and reviewing documents and other forms of information from the individual raising the concerns, witnesses, Human Resources, administrators, or other individuals with relevant information.

At the conclusion of a formal investigation, EOAA will prepare a summary of the investigation and make a conclusion as to whether University policies against discrimination, harassment, or related retaliation were violated.

EOAA typically sends the report to: the individual(s) who raised the concerns; the accused party(s); and the responsible administrator(s).

EOAA will also make recommendations for responsive action to the responsible administrator(s). We may provide recommendations to the responsible administrator whether or not there was a violation of policy.

https://diversity.umn.edu/eoaa/process


Interim Student Suspension

The president or provost may impose an immediate interim suspension on a student or student organization pending a hearing before the appropriate disciplinary committee (1) to ensure the safety and well-being of members of the University community or to preserve University property, (2) to ensure the student's own physical or emotional safety and well-being, or (3) if the student or student organization poses an ongoing threat of disrupting or interfering with the operations of the University.

During the interim suspension, the student or student organization may be denied access to all University activities or privileges for which the student or student organization might otherwise be eligible, including access to University housing or property.

The student or student organization has a right to a prompt hearing before the president or provost on the questions of identification and whether the interim suspension should remain in effect until the full hearing is completed. The student must be informed in writing of the terms of the suspension, the reasons for it, and the opportunity to be heard on the limited questions described above.

The underlying Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code case will be heard and decided by the appropriate hearing body, and the case generally will take precedence over other cases pending before that body.


Student Code of Conduct Hearing Procedures

Administrative unit disciplinary process

Some administrative units (Housing and Residential Life, the Student Activities Office, the Learning Abroad Center) have their own disciplinary processes to formally resolve complaints involving violation of their rules and Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code violations. Students should consult the process that applies to them for information about formally resolving complaints. See Appendix: Disciplinary Processes of Professional or Graduate Programs and Administrative Units

In all cases, hearings on violations of Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code must be fundamentally fair. What constitutes fundamental fairness in a University hearing depends on a number of factors, including the seriousness of the potential penalty.

However, a fundamentally fair hearing process usually allows for students or student organizations to:

- be notified in writing of the alleged violation and the underlying factual allegations; the time, date, and place of the hearing; and the range of possible sanctions;
- receive a prompt hearing;
- present their case, including witnesses;
- hear all evidence against them;
- question adverse testimony;
- be confronted by their accusers (subject to reasonable procedures to address concerns for safety or well-being);
- be accompanied or represented by an advocate of their choice;
- be found responsible only if the information as a whole shows that it is more likely than not that the student's conduct violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code;
- receive a written disciplinary decision following the hearing; and
- receive notification of the procedure for a campus-wide appeal of the disciplinary decision.

A formal record, a tape recording, or a transcript of the hearing procedure must be kept for appellate purposes.

Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code hearings are not court cases, and court rules of process, procedure, or evidence do not apply.


Appeal

A student found to have violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code is entitled to a campus-wide appeal of disciplinary decisions made in the hearing process. The reporting party in a sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence case also has the right to a campus-wide appeal.

Grounds for Appeal

The following are the grounds for appealing a disciplinary decision.

There was significant procedural error sufficient to affect the outcome (e.g., lack of notice, opportunity to be heard, or opportunity to challenge information). A procedural error is not a basis for sustaining an appeal unless it was significant enough to affect the outcome.

The rule found to have been violated was misapplied, misinterpreted, or contrary to law.

New evidence exists that was not previously available to the appealing party and that is sufficient to affect the outcome.

The sanction was grossly disproportionate to the offense.

The disciplinary decision was not based on substantial information. Substantial information means relevant information that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

In making this determination, the appellate officer must respect the credibility determinations of the hearing body and must not substitute his or her judgment for the hearing body. Rather, the appellate officer must determine whether the hearing body’s disciplinary decision was unreasonable (i.e., arbitrary) in light of the information presented.

Nature of Appellate Review

A student found to have violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code or the reporting party in a sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence case has the right to appeal the disciplinary decision. Appellate review generally is a review of the record to determine whether a serious error occurred in the original proceeding that resulted in unfairness. Appellate review respects the credibility judgments of the hearing body, and respects the hearing body’s determinations as long as there is any evidence to reasonably support them.

Appellate Officer

The appellate officer makes the final University decision regarding student discipline. The Provost serves as the appellate officer, unless the Provost authorizes another administrator who holds a position of campus-wide scope to serve as the appellate officer in the Provost's place.

http://policy.umn.edu/education/studentconductcode-proc01#appeal

I fully understand that the process may not be completed. My concern is that the EOAA hearings are the most critical part of the process because that is where the evidence is gathered and people are interviewed and the accused are hopefully presented the opportunity to confront and challenge testimony. If that part of the process is not done fairly then it is very difficult to make up for that later in the process. I would hope that reasonable people would want to ensure that the process is fair and impartial. It is certainly easy to make it unfair and partisan if you want a particular outcome to occur. I have no knowledge regarding the process, just hope that it is fair and impartial. You do not share that concern and only want the accused to be found guilty regardless of culpability?

 

[UpnorthGo4]

I fully understand that the process may not be completed. My concern is that the EOAA hearings are the most critical part of the process because that is where the evidence is gathered and people are interviewed and the accused are hopefully presented the opportunity to confront and challenge testimony. If that part of the process is not done fairly then it is very difficult to make up for that later in the process. I would hope that reasonable people would want to ensure that the process is fair and impartial. It is certainly easy to make it unfair and partisan if you want a particular outcome to occur. I have no knowledge regarding the process, just hope that it is fair and impartial. You do not share that concern and only want the accused to be found guilty regardless of culpability?

Your concerns apply to every organization in the country that does administrative hearings to resolve civil disputes and disciplinary actions. That is why lawyers were invented. Administrative hearings and procedures in America go back to the early 1800's, if not before.

 

[TABinMO]

The big difference between the EOAA process and, for example, the judicial process, is that there is always an impartial judge who is directing the proceedings to make sure it is "fair" to the accused. That significant safety valve appears to be lacking as the evidentiary process is entirely controlled by EOAA personnel. This process is akin to having a judicial hearing controlled entirely by the prosecutor without a judge, having the prosecutor write up the summary of the proceedings, and then presenting it to his boss for final adjudication. Frankly, I find that rather alarming.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

The big difference between the EOAA process and, for example, the judicial process, is that there is always an impartial judge who is directing the proceedings to make sure it is "fair" to the accused. That significant safety valve appears to be lacking as the evidentiary process is entirely controlled by EOAA personnel. This process is akin to having a judicial hearing controlled entirely by the prosecutor without a judge, having the prosecutor write up the summary of the proceedings, and then presenting it to his boss for final adjudication. Frankly, I find that rather alarming.

Every college in America does it pretty much the same way as the U. That is all I can tell you. If the players don't like the process they can sue in in the courts. That may happen. One of the reasons administrative dispute procedures were developed was to try to keep disputes like this out of the court system. It saves a huge amount of time and a helluva lot of money.

 

[hungan1]

... It is amazing how people take a side of guilty or innocent without knowing all of the facts! You certainly can't say that the EOAA report states all of the facts without knowing the details of the process and the arguments for the other side. It seems to me that people are either ready to lynch or absolve of responsibility way too early. I suppose that is the problem with this day and age of immediate "news" via the Internet. We have had several examples in the last few years where the public, the media or both rushed to condemn one side or another in various encounters well before all facts were known. Some people have an agenda! In this case, we are a long way away from knowing all the facts to make an informed decision....

+1000. I emotionally got taken without knowing all the facts and I feel bad about thinking what I was thinking then. What a fine mess on all sides.

Interestingly enough, the only groups that really have any power here (EOAA and athletics administration) were completely willing to make a decision that has the potential to ruin people's lives without knowing all of the facts.

+1000. This has to be fixed. The process has the appearance of not be impartial. The accused in this case are demanding and are entitled to due process. Their names should not have been leaked. They need to seal the identities of both parties involved, not just one side. Anyone in U administrative body or EOAA leaking any info should be liable and this should be grounds for termination. Eric Kaler publicly stating that he coudn't talk about the case because of privacy laws is circumvented by his' and Coyle's actions and by pubicly naming of the players by leaked information.

You don't change the culture through witch hunts.

 

[TABinMO]

Every college in America does it pretty much the same way as the U. That is all I can tell you. If the players don't like the process they can sue in in the courts. That may happen. One of the reasons administrative dispute procedures were developed was to try to keep disputes like this out of the court system. It saves a huge amount of time and a helluva lot of money.

Your analogy comparing this generally to administrative proceedings misses the fact that the arbitrator conducting the process is independent of both parties. That is not the case with the EOAA and creates a risk of impartiality in this case.

The fact that all colleges are doing the same thing is the most alarming thing of all and certainly doesn't make it right! If you want to minimize lawsuits then fix the process.