Reusse: Clash of powerful social forces – or maybe a feud – roil U waters - Reusse

[Iceland12]

The below was taken from the end of the column which was posted at 9:43 tonight.

...We have a football roster with numerous players who a year ago woke up on a mid-October morning to hear of a Star Tribune article claiming that some among them had been accused of sexual assault, sexual harassment and retaliation in the 2014-15 academic year.

The accusation had come from Kimberly Hewitt, the director of the aforementioned EOAA office, in an e-mail sent to then-athletic director Norwood Teague dated July 16, 2015. The Star Tribune had gained access to the e-mail months later through a records request.

Hewitt and her office had looked into the 2014-15 allegations and substantiated one case of sexual harassment. One.

A month after Hewitt sent the e-mail, Teague’s own issue with sexual harassment came to light and he wound up being fired.

I was told by a couple of university sources that Kill was very upset that Kaler sided with Hewitt internally on the original e-mail.

And don’t discount how much that mid-October revelation by the Star Tribune added to Kill’s level of angst as he unsuccessfully battled to control his epilepsy. He was beside himself when that story appeared.

The Gophers followed with a horrible performance vs. Nebraska one day after the Hewitt e-mail story. And 12 days after it was published, Kill retired as the football coach.

Why are the players — including senior leaders Mitch Leidner and Drew Wolitarsky — standing up for 10 teammates after these suspensions and calls for expulsions?

Relax, baby boomers. The players’ agenda here isn’t to support group sex or assaults.

I contend these football players felt as if they all were in Hewitt’s cross hairs from the time her e-mail — with its wide-ranging accusations based on little evidence — surfaced as a major news story.

The Gophers’ protest could be as simple as their conviction that 10 teammates never had a chance with Hewitt and her staff of advocates. There is e-mail evidence from July 2015 to support that theory.

http://www.startribune.com/clash-of-powerful-social-forces-or-maybe-a-feud-roil-u-waters/407164706/

 

[pregameatblarneys]

A thoughful article by Patrick that isn't full of schnide comments about the U? Well I'll be damned. Well done Patrick, well done.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

 

[homermn]

A thoughful article by Patrick that isn't full of schnide comments about the U? Well I'll be damned. Well done Patrick, well done.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Very well put, someone who actually lays out a great argument.

 

[beavergopher]

Nice summary.

 

[Winnipegopher]

Yes but... Shouldn't the players, realizing they are marked men, monitor their behaviour? Just a little bit?

 

[WoodburyTim]

It's very possible there is a lot of people in the wrong here. On both sides of this.

 

[Iceland12]

Kaler at his short press conference after said that all 10 players will get a hearing. Their "due process". That satisfied the players. Wonder if it would have made Kill happy?

 

[RolGnav]

holy shinto... who kidnapped the real Reusse?

 

[Vandy]

holy shinto... who kidnapped the real Reusse?

It's gotta be the Christmas Spirit...or a "Festivas Miracle"!

 

[#2Gopher]

Kaler at his short press conference after said that all 10 players will get a hearing. Their "due process". That satisfied the players. Wonder if it would have mad Kill happy?

So they get to play (the ones that aren't being redshirted?)?

 

[minny01]

From listening to Pat on the radio this morning, here is one of the problems that I have with this investigation. How can you suspend a player for a year, who was never in the apartment, but next door in another apartment? It makes not sense.

 

[Iceland12]

So they get to play (the ones that aren't being redshirted?)?

I have no idea. Would guess it means that if they have the hearings in a timely manner and they decided that those players weren't involved, that certainly would be the case.

But "timely manner" would be a major sticking point.

 

[gopherhoopsguy]

Well done patrick ... some common sense

 

[Spoofin]

From listening to Pat on the radio this morning, here is one of the problems that I have with this investigation. How can you suspend a player for a year, who was never in the apartment, but next door in another apartment? It makes not sense.

Easy. The EOAA determined they were "likely" to know something about the event that hasn't been proven to have happened and didn't offer info on said event that matched what was accused. Therefore they were obstructing their investigation. Make more sense now? Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[minny01]

Easy. The EOAA determined they were "likely" to know something about the event that hasn't been proven to have happened and didn't offer info on said event that matched what was accused. Therefore they were obstructing their investigation. Make more sense now? Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With this kangaroo court, it makes perfect sense!

 

[gopherhoopsguy]

How did Coyle get hired? Did no one else apply?

 

[hungan1]

Can the EOAA board, Hewitt in particular, be sued?

 

[UpnorthGo4]

With this kangaroo court, it makes perfect sense!

For posters who won't take the two minutes it requires to find the information in the EOAA report. I am happy to provide that service for them. Player A9 was never in the apartment but he was suspended for lying about where he was that night and obstructing the investigation. They are both clear violations of the Student Code of Code. By the way, players A8 and A11 were also charged with lying and obstructing the investigation.


3. Falsification

The Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code, Sectjon IV, Subd. 3 provides that students who willfully provide University offices or officials with false, misleading or incomplete information are subject to appropriate disciplinary action. We find that A9 violated this Subdivision by repeatedly and deliberately providing false information to EOAA. In particular, based on the evidence described above, we find that A9 falsely reported that he was not
present in apartment A in the Radius on the night of the fu·st football game.

A9 conduct had the serious negative effect of hindering a University sexual harassment and assault investigntion. By falsely reporting that he was not present in apartment A that night, A9 avoided providing EOAA with critical first~hand information about the events in apartment A that night. This information was particularly important to EOAA' s investigation given that RS and many of the accused students were present in apartment A before and/orafter visiting apartment B.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, we find that A9 violated the Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code, Section IV, Subdivision 3 (Falsification) by willfully providing EOAA with false, misleading and incomplete information.

http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs/files/U of M EOAA redacted5.pdf

 

[minny01]

For posters who won't take the two minutes it requires to find the information in the EOAA report. I am happy to provide that service for them. Player A9 was never in the apartment but he was suspended for lying about where he was that night and obstructing the investigation. They are both clear violations of the Student Code of Code. By the way, players A8 and A11 were also charged with lying and obstructing the investigation.


3. Falsification

The Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code, Sectjon IV, Subd. 3 provides that students who willfully provide University offices or officials with false, misleading or incomplete information are subject to appropriate disciplinary action. We find that A9 violated this Subdivision by repeatedly and deliberately providing false information to EOAA. In particular, based on the evidence described above, we find that A9 falsely reported that he was not
present in apartment A in the Radius on the night of the fu·st football game.

A9 conduct had the serious negative effect of hindering a University sexual harassment and assault investigntion. By falsely reporting that he was not present in apartment A that night, A9 avoided providing EOAA with critical first~hand information about the events in apartment A that night. This information was particularly important to EOAA' s investigation given that RS and many of the accused students were present in apartment A before and/orafter visiting apartment B.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, we find that A9 violated the Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code, Section IV, Subdivision 3 (Falsification) by willfully providing EOAA with false, misleading and incomplete information.

http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs/files/U of M EOAA redacted5.pdf

What you are making is the assumption that everything in the EOAA report is factual and that anything else that goes against those opinions are lies. If the information in the report is not factual, how can those statements that they deemed as being lies, be, in fact, lies?

 

[Spoofin]

For posters who won't take the two minutes it requires to find the information in the EOAA report. I am happy to provide that service for them. Player A9 was never in the apartment but he was suspended for lying about where he was that night and obstructing the investigation. They are both clear violations of the Student Code of Code. By the way, players A8 and A11 were also charged with lying and obstructing the investigation.

No one was charged with anything. The EOAA believes some players "likely" knew stuff about an event that hasn't been proven to happen and didn't share and/or lied based on their assumption that the girl is telling the truth and the players aren't. Of course, I would expect someone who said the day before the report was even released that they "sure not going to believe a group of football players over this girl" to treat that as fact. That is your quest right. Tool.

You realize the girl lied too right? Only in the report it concludes her memory got sharper over time or was just trying to set the record straight. Makes sense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spoofin]

Double post

 

[UpnorthGo4]

What you are making is the assumption that everything in the EOAA report is factual and that anything else that goes against those opinions are lies. If the information in the report is not factual, how can those statements that they deemed as being lies, be, in fact, lies?

You asked the question why the player who was not in the apartment was suspended. I gave you the relevant sections of the report which provide the answer. You refuse to even acknowledge the report MIGHT be true. I am wasting my time with you.

 

[minny01]

Like Spoolin says much better than I can -

No one was charged with anything. The EOAA believes some players "likely" knew stuff about an event that hasn't been proven to happen and didn't share and/or lied based on their assumption that the girl is telling the truth and the players aren't. Of course, I would expect someone who said the day before the report was even released that they "sure not going to believe a group of football players over this girl" to treat that as fact. That is your quest right. Tool.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Can the EOAA board, Hewitt in particular, be sued?

I'm sure they could, but they were carrying out a Federal mandate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tikited]

For posters who won't take the two minutes it requires to find the information in the EOAA report. I am happy to provide that service for them. Player A9 was never in the apartment but he was suspended for lying about where he was that night and obstructing the investigation. They are both clear violations of the Student Code of Code. By the way, players A8 and A11 were also charged with lying and obstructing the investigation.


3. Falsification

The Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code, Sectjon IV, Subd. 3 provides that students who willfully provide University offices or officials with false, misleading or incomplete information are subject to appropriate disciplinary action. We find that A9 violated this Subdivision by repeatedly and deliberately providing false information to EOAA. In particular, based on the evidence described above, we find that A9 falsely reported that he was not
present in apartment A in the Radius on the night of the fu·st football game.

A9 conduct had the serious negative effect of hindering a University sexual harassment and assault investigntion. By falsely reporting that he was not present in apartment A that night, A9 avoided providing EOAA with critical first~hand information about the events in apartment A that night. This information was particularly important to EOAA' s investigation given that RS and many of the accused students were present in apartment A before and/orafter visiting apartment B.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, we find that A9 violated the Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code, Section IV, Subdivision 3 (Falsification) by willfully providing EOAA with false, misleading and incomplete information.

http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs/files/U of M EOAA redacted5.pdf

Said player should never have been involved period. Anything he said, or didn't, should not be held against him as soon as it was discovered he wasn't even there. He could have said he was on Mars at the time. This is what should have happened in a world that makes sense, but we are talking about a world created by a committee that royally screwed up with that one student/player.

 

[Word]

Easy. The EOAA determined they were "likely" to know something about the event that hasn't been proven to have happened and didn't offer info on said event that matched what was accused. Therefore they were obstructing their investigation. Make more sense now? Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you imagine if that same standard was applied to "real life"? You were "likely" to be speedg so we gave you a ticket. You were likely to drive drunk because you ordered a beer, etc. Innocent until proven guilty.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.

 

[beavergopher]

Can you imagine if that same standard was applied to "real life"? You were "likely" to be speedg so we gave you a ticket. You were likely to drive drunk because you ordered a beer, etc. Innocent until proven guilty.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.

That is the crux of the matter.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Can you imagine if that same standard was applied to "real life"? You were "likely" to be speedg so we gave you a ticket. You were likely to drive drunk because you ordered a beer, etc. Innocent until proven guilty.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.

Unfortunately it's what they agreed to by becoming a student at the U.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[supadupafly]

Can you imagine if that same standard was applied to "real life"? You were "likely" to be speedg so we gave you a ticket. You were likely to drive drunk because you ordered a beer, etc. Innocent until proven guilty.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.

+100. That is what is so maddening about some on here, who are quite likely just trolls who spend their time on GH attempting to stir the pot for reaction, who see nothing wrong at all with the ridiculously unconstitutional nature of these rogue university groups like EOAA (headed by ideological activists) being given power by the Obama administration in 2011 via a flawed Dept of Education "guideline" letter to go and haphazardly play judge (most of these ppl having zero legal training or accreditation) and jury. In place of the ACTUAL legal system, police investigators, lawyers, judges, juries.

This whole EOAA process at the U of M and at universities around the country is truly nothing more than a system of fake adjudication built by and for the benefit of SJW activists. SJW activists who can make the most coordinated noise on campuses. As they strategically and essentially turn the matters into trial of the accused via SJW driven public relations campaigns....using a usual liberal and sympathetic media and online social media...as their megaphones to tar and feather the accused in the court of public opinion regardless of due process and/or their mutual right to privacy as well.

If you are someone who in your life has said, or who says, that you believe in and support the U.S. constitution.....then there is NO way you can with a straight face or with any degree of sincerity sit here and also say that you agree with this EOAA type of process. Which seemingly throws a number of important constitutional rights of the accused in our country right out of the window.

It's a messed up, extremely flawed and inherently unfair system of adjudication (especially towards males in a university setting) and hopefully the Obama administration 2011 "guideline" which allowed the creation of this joke of a system will be rescinded by the new Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos in 2017.

 

[Some guy]

What you are making is the assumption that everything in the EOAA report is factual and that anything else that goes against those opinions are lies. If the information in the report is not factual, how can those statements that they deemed as being lies, be, in fact, lies?

Correct


It isn't lying if you believe it