UMN REVISING POLICY

Donate To GopherHole

Brod said the timing of Thursday’s presentation is coincidental.

“This is not about litigating the most recent incident,” she said. “This is about making sure we get it right for all students; I don’t care who they are. First, we need to know what the EOAA does as it relates to structure, oversight and process.”
Click to expand...

Really? That's like saying "The redesign of our cruise ships had nothing to do with the sinking of the Titanic." I'm glad they are reviewing it, but come on.
 

LakerFan said:
Really? That's like saying "The redesign of our cruise ships had nothing to do with the sinking of the Titanic." I'm glad they are reviewing it, but come on.
Click to expand...

Legally it might be something they want to say....

Either way how they get to a better place, I don't much care as long as they get there.
 

Good for the U, hopefully they will get it right, or at least better in this revision.
 



This seems like smoke and mirrors to me. Until the process becomes transparent the system still declares you guilty until proven innocent. It's an @ss backwards approach to due process.
 

Bisker82 said:
Hopefully a step in the right direction

http://www.twincities.com/2017/02/0...al-others-umn-revising-sex-misconduct-policy/
Click to expand...

Super misleading title from the PP.

The article itself gives the impression that the only thing being revised is to attempt to make reporting mandatory for all University employees and the possibility of continuing (or beginning) the Title IX investigation without the alleged victim's consent or to even go against their wishes if they want to drop any investigation.

Almost literally the opposite of what the headline is spouting.
 

MennoSota said:
This seems like smoke and mirrors to me. Until the process becomes transparent the system still declares you guilty until proven innocent. It's an @ss backwards approach to due process.
Click to expand...

I think the U is in a real catch 22 with transparency.

I belive they really are in a situation where they legally can't be as transparent as the actual legal process.

As for the insanity of the process, obviously that can be addressed, but transparency, not sure how possible that is as far as being transparent to you or me.
 

Doesn't this action provide the players a better case for legal action against the U?
 



GFBfan said:
Doesn't this action provide the players a better case for legal action against the U?
Click to expand...

This is not about litigating the most recent incident

Clearly not ;)

But maybe... still it needs to be changed for its own legal reasons / future actions, not that they can say that.

I'm not entirely sure legal action will occur, maybe just settlement, maybe just nothing.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I think the U is in a real catch 22 with transparency.

I belive they really are in a situation where they legally can't be as transparent as the actual legal process.

As for the insanity of the process, obviously that can be addressed, but transparency, not sure how possible that is as far as being transparent to you or me.
Click to expand...
The problem is that UMN is hiding behind FERPA data, but FERPA relates to academic data in regards to transcripts. FERPA does not apply to criminal complaints regarding sexual assault. FERPA does not apply to the potential breaking of school social policies, to which the present sexual misconduct accusations apply.

Thus, in my opinion, the University is applying a smoke and mirror approach whereby they are perceived as improving policies while actually still hiding in their secret little room.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I think the U is in a real catch 22 with transparency.

I belive they really are in a situation where they legally can't be as transparent as the actual legal process.

As for the insanity of the process, obviously that can be addressed, but transparency, not sure how possible that is as far as being transparent to you or me.
Click to expand...

Guess I'm not taking it as transparency to the public, but to the accuser and accused. Those directly involved need to know and understand the process at the start of any investigation.
 

All the article says is that the EOAA office is trying to expand their reach to include cases where the accuser wants to "drop charges". Then Laura Brod says she heads a committee that looks into how the EOAA operates. So, nothing concrete and possibly opposing factions working on a new policy. I would hope after their recent chastening the EOAA office is told to pound sand on their proposals.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
All the article says is that the EOAA office is trying to expand their reach to include cases where the accuser wants to "drop charges". Then Laura Brod says she heads a committee that looks into how the EOAA operates. So, nothing concrete and possibly opposing factions working on a new policy. I would hope after their recent chastening the EOAA office is told to pound sand on their proposals.
Click to expand...

I think any change is gonna involve push and pull from everyone.
 

CurveballJesus said:
Super misleading title from the PP.

The article itself gives the impression that the only thing being revised is to attempt to make reporting mandatory for all University employees and the possibility of continuing (or beginning) the Title IX investigation without the alleged victim's consent or to even go against their wishes if they want to drop any investigation.

Almost literally the opposite of what the headline is spouting.
Click to expand...

Worse yet they had Shipley, the leader of the lynch mob, write the story.
 

The U is in a really difficult spot. I think the vast majority of people who really dig into this issue will see that the system is completely dysfunctional. That said, most people don't dig in. So the EoAA has their fanatics and the sort of complicit majority (who wouldn't want to go after sex offenders?).

Even if the U wanted to do the right thing, their in a tough spot. They also HAD to say that this has nothing to do with this case.

The scary thing about the actual discussion of the changes is that it appears to be going even further off the rails. They want to pursue these cases even when the police don't want to pursue them (which is fine), even when the female doesn't want to pursue them. That is making this even scarier (and it should make it even more obvious that this has nothing to do with the justice for the alleged victim). Like Pompous pointed out, I am sure there are opposing factions.

It's just scary because these people are really good at politics. They know that they're coming under a little fire but they also know that most people won't dig in, so if they say they're making revisions. . .that's enough for most people. Hopefully the revisions are a sprinkling of sanity. It's just concerning that Laura Brod appears so involved.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Guess I'm not taking it as transparency to the public, but to the accuser and accused. Those directly involved need to know and understand the process at the start of any investigation.
Click to expand...

Yeah no question the internal process needs work, everyone should know what is up.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
They want to pursue these cases even when the police don't want to pursue them (which is fine), even when the female doesn't want to pursue them. That is making this even scarier (and it should make it even more obvious that this has nothing to do with the justice for the alleged victim).

It's just scary because these people are really good at politics. They know that they're coming under a little fire but they also know that most people won't dig in, so if they say they're making revisions. . .that's enough for most people. Hopefully the revisions are a sprinkling of sanity. It's just concerning that Laura Brod appears so involved.
Click to expand...


These are the parts that really concern me. If a female decides she doesn't want to pursue an incident, she could be drug through a process that she may decide causes her more unwanted trauma. This could actually have an adverse effect and lead to more assaults going un-reported.

Politics in this type of decision usually is never a good thing.
 

More mandatory reporting sounds like something they should have had a long time ago.

I'm not too sure about pursuing cases where the reporter (not necessarily a female) wants to drop it. On one hand, this will help prevent intimidation of victims and retaliation, but it will also put many victims in situations they don't want to be in. Getting someone in trouble won't undo a traumatic event. If someone wants to put it behind them, that should be their choice. It seems like there are better ways to prevent intimidation and retaliation.

I don't agree with combining sexual harassment and sexual assault. I'm not sure why they keep getting lumped in together. One is much worse than the other. Part of the problem with the way they dealt with this incident was how they grouped all 10 players together. It seems like they try to use sexual harassment as "we can't prove you raped them but we'll make it seem like you did anyway". Quite a few people still think all 10 players raped that woman.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom