Monster Cluster Eff

[real chili 83]

The Gophers suspend 10.  Team boycotts bowl game.

Political correctness run amuck?

Entitled student athletes?

Wow, what a cluster eff.

Coach sides with players, gives (figuratively speaking) the bird to U of M administration.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/12/15/gophers-players-threaten-to-boycott-holiday-bowl-over-suspensions/

[GGGG]

Some thoughts:

**Title IX investigations are a federal requirement.  They don't have to meet the same standards as the law which means it is very consistent to be not criminally charged but still be suspended or dismissed from school.

**That being said, schools all over are struggling with these investigations because they don't have the background and experience to conduct them.  That leads to inconsistent application.

**I have no idea if the players are guilty.  However they simply cannot reinstate the players based on this protest.  My goodness the backlash would be awful.  (And don't bring up the Duke LAX case.  That is completely different.)

**I don't blame the players for the protest.  They have every right to do so.  They also have to face whatever consequences come from this, but it's not like they are going to revoke everyone's scholarship.

**Tracy Claeys is rightfully supportive of his players, but I don't think he's long for the University of Minnesota.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

As a university Title IX Investigator, I would challenge your assertion that we don't have the background and experience to conduct investigations. Some schools maybe don't, but they are becoming few and far between. I have received extensive training in how to conduct an investigation. I am very familiar with Title IX, its requirements, and all the necessary due process. We are more than qualified to conduct these investigations. Hell, I just did three trainings on how to interview both complrightnts and accused students in SASH (sexual assault, sexual harassment) cases for our University Police last week. The police come to us to get trained.

What people don't like is that we use a lower standard of proof than law enforcement. We are only required to reach a "preponderance of the information" which means that we think it is more likely than not that a conduct violation occurred. Since we have a lower range of sanctions (no jail time, fines, record is completely private etc) the lowered standard of proof is warranted.

I can personally vouch for the office at the University of Minnesota. They are one of the leaders in the field. A school that the Department of Education has pointed to as an example for others. It is certainly possible that they made a mistake, but I would be very surprised.

From my understanding of this case, there is a video that shows that the young woman consented to sex with multiple players (she also admits to consenting to sex with two players). However, the video combined with testimony  from the accused show that the woman was way beyond drunk when the consent occurred making it invalid. It also shows her as a willing participant for the first two men. But then a line formed and they started taking turns. At no point was consent given for most of the men in the train. I would also assume that the young woman did not consent to being video taped while having sex and having that video distributed. Another violation.

The DA likely declined to press charges because Minnesota law requires a person to be passed out from alcohol in order for it to be non-consensual. The DA also likely didn't think s/he could convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that the train was non-consensual when she consented to the first two. The University of Minnesota code of conduct requires that a person not be incapacitated by alcohol when giving consent. Per Title IX, incapacitated is .08 BAC. The University of Minnesota is also one of the few universities that require "affirmative consent" which means you need to actively ask for consent or it can be considered an assault. My guess is that the video and witness testimony clearly showed a woman who looked well beyond the .08 BAC and that no attempt to gain consent was made by a majority of the train. There would also be conduct violations if the video was taken and distributed without the consent of everyone in the train.

People will get bent out of shape because the DA decided not to press charges. But not pressing charges and innocent are two different things. Universities have different standards for conduct and that is a good thing.

I was not present for the investigation. I have not seen the video. I have the same information everyone else does. But based on what I know, I think the University did everything they should have. There certainly could have been mistakes made. But by the preponderance of the information that we have, I think it is more likely than not that these men are appropriately being held accountable for their actions.

I feel for the University. There is no good way out of this situation.

[GGGG]

As a university Title IX Investigator, I would challenge your assertion that we don't have the background and experience to conduct investigations. Some schools maybe don't, but they are becoming few and far between. I have received extensive training in how to conduct an investigation. I am very familiar with Title IX, its requirements, and all the necessary due process. We are more than qualified to conduct these investigations. Hell, I just did three trainings on how to interview both complrightnts and accused students in SASH (sexual assault, sexual harassment) cases for our University Police last week. The police come to us to get trained.

Here's what I said.  "...schools all over are struggling with these investigations because they don't have the background and experience to conduct them."

I didn't say *all* are struggling.

I didn't say *most* are struggling.

But I do know that *many* are.

EDIT:  But the rest of your post was fantastic and thank you for the explanation.

[Benny B]

The DA likely declined to press charges because Minnesota law requires a person to be passed out from alcohol in order for it to be non-consensual. The DA also likely didn't think s/he could convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that the train was non-consensual when she consented to the first two. The University of Minnesota code of conduct requires that a person not be incapacitated by alcohol when giving consent. Per Title IX, incapacitated is .08 BAC. The University of Minnesota is also one of the few universities that require "affirmative consent" which means you need to actively ask for consent or it can be considered an assault. My guess is that the video and witness testimony clearly showed a woman who looked well beyond the .08 BAC and that no attempt to gain consent was made by a majority of the train. There would also be conduct violations if the video was taken and distributed without the consent of everyone in the train.

This is the key point most people are missing... I can tell you that when I attended HS in Minnesota, there was a code of conduct that all athletes signed as a condition of their being allowed to participate in varsity sports.  One of the provisions was no tobacco products, and with 18 being the age of majority, you can figure out what happened... Tommy was kicked off the football team because he was caught smoking despite being legally able to smoke.  A small bunch of very loud parents made a stink about it saying the code of conduct was unfair because he was legally allowed to smoke and threatened legal action; at the end of the day, the majority of the parents stood up for the school and the others backed down.

I'd like to hear what the other players and parents not defending these 10 have to say, but I'm not going to hold my breath for those interviews.

[brandx]

TAMU, thanks for the great explanation. One of the things that makes Scoop great (besides BBall).

In earlier times, a certain poster would have blown up the thread. It's nice to come here and be able to read all of the replies without throwing my hands in the air in disgust.

[tower912]

I am always in favor of futile gestures in the face of overwhelming odds.    But in the end, the players are going to stay suspended.   The school can't cave, right or wrong.     So the only real question is whether the players cave.     Will there be an opportunity for a graceful withdrawal or will each side dig in and not play the bowl game?

[Babybluejeans]

TAMU, thanks for the great explanation. One of the things that makes Scoop great (besides BBall).

In earlier times, a certain poster would have blown up the thread. It's nice to come here and be able to read all of the replies without throwing my hands in the air in disgust.

Indeed. Thanks, TAMU, for such a thorough explanation. While a certain many of us enjoy seeing college athletes asserting their rights--such as they are--this is a tough one to get behind (no pun intended).

[StillAWarrior]

This may be prudish of me, but here's a tip for young men:  sex is really not a group activity.

Don't get me wrong...I fully understand that it is possible for fully consensual group sex. But I'd suggest that you significantly increase your chance of being accused of sexual assault if you find yourself participating in group sex with a single woman. Just say no.

[jsglow]

Thanks TAMU.  We've disagreed in the past about where the line should be (the .08 thing) but if what you described is accurate, the players' behavior was WAAAAAY over the line.  Damn lucky not to be in jail.

You know what bothers me about this?  How come all of these knumbskulls failed to recognize what was going on and failed to stop it?  I don't care how intoxicated I was, I never would have thought those actions were appropriate.  Not now, not when I was 20.  Didn't these clowns have parents who taught them a little right from wrong?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Here's what I said.  "...schools all over are struggling with these investigations because they don't have the background and experience to conduct them."

I didn't say *all* are struggling.

I didn't say *most* are struggling.

But I do know that *many* are.

EDIT:  But the rest of your post was fantastic and thank you for the explanation.

Fair enough. I apologize for jumping the gun. I reacted because I hear the "these damn universities aren't qualified to be handing sexual assault cases" all the time. It can be a dangerous message because it shifts the blame from the people committing sexual assaults to the universities. But that isn't what you said.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You know what bothers me about this?  How come all of these knumbskulls failed to recognize what was going on and failed to stop it?  I don't care how intoxicated I was, I never would have thought those actions were appropriate.  Not now, not when I was 20.  Didn't these clowns have parents who taught them a little right from wrong?

This here is the problem. I guarantee that not one person in that train thinks they broke the law. They believe 100% that by consenting to sex with two guys that she was fair game for everybody. They assume that because she wanted sex with multiple guys that she was a slut and that somehow makes her responsible for whatever happens afterward. Sadly, many people accept this line of thinking. I've seen plenty of comments on the articles along the lines of "If she didn't want this to happen than she shouldn't have told two guys to put their .... in her."

[GooooMarquette]

I am always in favor of futile gestures in the face of overwhelming odds.    But in the end, the players are going to stay suspended.   The school can't cave, right or wrong.     So the only real question is whether the players cave.     Will there be an opportunity for a graceful withdrawal or will each side dig in and not play the bowl game?

The only way the players would stand their ground is if they could somehow use a possible cancellation of the Holiday Bowl as leverage (which they might believe would cause the bowl and the networks to lean on the school).  They can't.  The bowl has a Plan B (Northern Illinois), so if they stick to the protest, it will only hurt themselves and the school that gave them scholarships.  My guess is that they'd get less than favorable treatment from the bowls for the next couple of years as well, since the network won't be happy with the lower ratings they get with Northern Illinois.

[Babybluejeans]

The only way the players would stand their ground is if they could somehow use a possible cancellation of the Holiday Bowl as leverage (which they might believe would cause the bowl and the networks to lean on the school).  They can't.  The bowl has a Plan B (Northern Illinois), so if they stick to the protest, it will only hurt themselves and the school that gave them scholarships.  My guess is that they'd get less than favorable treatment from the bowls for the next couple of years as well, since the network won't be happy with the lower ratings they get with Northern Illinois.

Although I think the protest is ill-conceived, I doubt missing the Holiday Bowl would end up hurting the school. Those lower-tier bowls normally end up costing schools far more money than they make.

[GooooMarquette]

Although I think the protest is ill-conceived, I doubt missing the Holiday Bowl would end up hurting the school. Those lower-tier bowls normally end up costing schools far more money than they make.

It might not hurt the school in terms of dollars, but the loss of bowl exposure can have an impact on recruiting and the school's overall reputation.  Not huge since it's just the Holiday Bowl, but I still think it would have an impact....

[muwarrior69]

Thanks TAMU.  We've disagreed in the past about where the line should be (the .08 thing) but if what you described is accurate, the players' behavior was WAAAAAY over the line.  Damn lucky not to be in jail.

You know what bothers me about this?  How come all of these knumbskulls failed to recognize what was going on and failed to stop it?  I don't care how intoxicated I was, I never would have thought those actions were appropriate.  Not now, not when I was 20.  Didn't these clowns have parents who taught them a little right from wrong?

I agree, but if I had to ask a girl permission to kiss her and made sure i had it recorded on my iphone or signed in writing to conform to Title IX regs; it sure takes the "spontaneity" and "romance" out of dating. And if you broke up, it could get pretty  ugly going to Title IX hearing. I guess that is where we are today.

[4everwarriors]

Dat depends on weather urine a gender neutral bathroom when said neckin' began, ai na?

[GGGG]

I agree, but if I had to ask a girl permission to kiss her and made sure i had it recorded on my iphone or signed in writing to conform to Title IX regs; it sure takes the "spontaneity" and "romance" out of dating. And if you broke up, it could get pretty  ugly going to Title IX hearing. I guess that is where we are today.

Not really but keep believing that. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I agree, but if I had to ask a girl permission to kiss her and made sure i had it recorded on my iphone or signed in writing to conform to Title IX regs; it sure takes the "spontaneity" and "romance" out of dating. And if you broke up, it could get pretty  ugly going to Title IX hearing. I guess that is where we are today.

Nope. Not there at all.

[Lennys Tap]

Thanks TAMU.  We've disagreed in the past about where the line should be (the .08 thing) but if what you described is accurate, the players' behavior was WAAAAAY over the line.  Damn lucky not to be in jail.

You know what bothers me about this?  How come all of these knumbskulls failed to recognize what was going on and failed to stop it?  I don't care how intoxicated I was, I never would have thought those actions were appropriate.  Not now, not when I was 20.  Didn't these clowns have parents who taught them a little right from wrong?

+1000. I have no sympathy for these guys. And not a great deal of sympathy for the young woman.

[GGGG]

+1000. I have no sympathy for these guys. And not a great deal of sympathy for the young woman.

Uh.. what??  Presuming the report is accurate how can you not have sympathy for her?

[Lennys Tap]

Uh.. what??  Presuming the report is accurate how can you not have sympathy for her?

I confess that I have not seen the 84 page report. Where can I find it?

[GGGG]

I meant "reports."  Reports of the players behavior.

[Lennys Tap]

I meant "reports."  Reports of the players behavior.

I'd have to see the video. How drunks was she? She gave verbal consent to multiple players, could the other players fairly implied consent was given to them? If prosecutors don't believe sexual assault can be established beyond a reasonable doubt even with a videotape it gives me pause.

[GGGG]

I'd have to see the video. How drunks was she? She gave verbal consent to multiple players, could the other players fairly implied consent was given to them? If prosecutors don't believe sexual assault can be established beyond a reasonable doubt even with a videotape it gives me pause.

What does this have to do with sympathy for the woman?  You can have sympathy for an alleged victim even if crimes cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.