All Things Gopher Players Appeals Process

Donate To GopherHole
die hard gopher said:
The police report clearly indicated that Seth Green was not in the apartment. He was in a room on the first floor while the incident was in a room on the third floor.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that there were several who were not in the apartment in question.
 

PMWinSTP said:
My understanding is that there were several who were not in the apartment in question.
Click to expand...

At this rate we're about 6 GH threads away from the scuttlebutt being nobody was there .... and the place doesn't even exist.
 

Unregistered User said:
I believe I read (what seems like a long time ago) that all parties must agree to the evidence presented. And I believe it was stated that she did not allow the video to be seen :)confused:) so it would surprise me if it were presented this go 'round.

Of course, I could be 100% wrong, but I do recall reading that earlier.
Click to expand...

It would seem that if the goal of this entire process is to determine the truth, that no evidence should be off limits. I believe when the EOAA report first came out, someone said that the accused players should not have turned over their phones to examine the texts, etc.., and it was said they could have still been punished for not cooperating. If that is true, why should different rules apply to the accuser. The information she is not allowing to be seen was used in the criminal investigation. If she can now say that it's OK to use evidence that agrees with my narrative, but if it doesn't support me, it doesn't get in , that casts a giant shadow over these entire proceedings to me.
 

WoodburyTim said:
These guys pretty much have to go through this process and defend themselves. No school will take them unless they can fight and win in this process.

It is a simple fact that if these suspensions and expulsions stand, these guys will not play football again and more importantly will not be able to attend just about 4 year institution. Watch the 30 for 30 from a few years back. The football player who was expelled under very similar circumstances from Colorado School of Mines said that despite high academics he had been rejected by every school he applied to. And he said it numbered in the hundreds.

Maybe it is deserved, but these hearings aren't to determine whether they stay at the U, but whether they will attend college at all.
Click to expand...

Eh, Lane Kiffin now at FAU just took former FSU Deandre Johnson who has a clear video of him clocking a female at a bar. Stoops at OU took Dorial Green Beckahm after Mizzou kicked him off the team for allegedly pushing a girl down the stairs. There are plenty of other examples like this. I'm sure if they go to Juco for a year and light it up then a coach at an FBS school will say they just made a bad mistake and deserve a second chance.
 

Ski U Master said:
Yikes, I find all the stuff about Claeys just being a dad fighting for his kids very disturbing. To me, that's not the kind of relationship that should exist on the football team, the coach needs to be a mentor yes, but not a parent. The players keep being told by coaches and fans they are just kids, but they are not (as 10 are finding out). Hopefully this unfortunate situation will focus for the remaining players the importance of being conscious of your actions and what impact they can have on your life.
Click to expand...

Are you aware of any evidence they committed sexual assault? If not you are defaming these players. Maybe they did in fact assault her but the entire case seems to hinge on the testimony of a possibly tipsy woman that has documented horrible recall and a definite motive to lie, i.e. defense of reputation.

I fear they are gone because it is quite literally nearly impossible to prove ones innocence under the affirmative consent rule, where mere silence during sex can be and is viewed as rape.

Trampling on the rights of others in some insane quest to rid campuses of rapists (or pick your crime of choice) is not the right path. It is analogous to tossing Muslims out of the country to prevent terrorism, on the word of an accuser.
 


Prediction (just pure speculation on my part, no inside info here...): Five of the ten players get reinstated with probation; and for those half law suits will be filed on their behalf to receive monetary compensation from the U. This will take well over a year to play out. Even players that were not present in the apartment will receive probation with the statement that they were not properly cooperative with the investigative process.
 

die hard gopher said:
The police report clearly indicated that Seth Green was not in the apartment. He was in a room on the first floor while the incident was in a room on the third floor.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in the report the investigator added that she thought it is possible he was in the apartment and committed rape but she can't be sure because the accuser didn't name him. She said the same about the others. Even the one that wasn't there she implied she couldn't prove he committed rap but it was possible.

Clearly an unbiased report.
 

die hard gopher said:
Eh, Lane Kiffin now at FAU just took former FSU Deandre Johnson who has a clear video of him clocking a female at a bar. Stoops at OU took Dorial Green Beckahm after Mizzou kicked him off the team for allegedly pushing a girl down the stairs. There are plenty of other examples like this. I'm sure if they go to Juco for a year and light it up then a coach at an FBS school will say they just made a bad mistake and deserve a second chance.
Click to expand...

Very different things. You are talking about whether coaches would take these guys. Doesn't matter if the school won't accept them.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Are you aware of any evidence they committed sexual assault? If not you are defaming these players. Maybe they did in fact assault her but the entire case seems to hinge on the testimony of a possibly tipsy woman that has documented horrible recall and a definite motive to lie, i.e. defense of reputation.

I fear they are gone because it is quite literally nearly impossible to prove ones innocence under the affirmative consent rule, where mere silence during sex can be and is viewed as rape.

Trampling on the rights of others in some insane quest to rid campuses of rapists (or pick your crime of choice) is not the right path. It is analogous to tossing Muslims out of the country to prevent terrorism, on the word of an accuser.
Click to expand...

Good points and I agree that the "witch hunt" aspect is concerning. To play Devil's Advocate, these players (and all students) are briefed and rebriefed on affirmative consent. It is possible to say "no" when your buddy texts you and invites you to have sex with a girl he just tag-teamed with a recruit. The "affirmative consent" would look a lot better for the players if she had texted a bunch of guys to come join in the fun as opposed to DJAM doing it.
 




bigticket1 said:
<b>It would seem that if the goal of this entire process is to determine the truth, </b>that no evidence should be off limits. I believe when the EOAA report first came out, someone said that the accused players should not have turned over their phones to examine the texts, etc.., and it was said they could have still been punished for not cooperating. If that is true, why should different rules apply to the accuser. The information she is not allowing to be seen was used in the criminal investigation. If she can now say that it's OK to use evidence that agrees with my narrative, but if it doesn't support me, it doesn't get in , that casts a giant shadow over these entire proceedings to me.
Click to expand...

What you wrote here is very logical. Sadly, just from what I have learned through this story, I don't think we can assume the bolded part is the top goal of the EOAA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Are you aware of any evidence they committed sexual assault? If not you are defaming these players. Maybe they did in fact assault her but the entire case seems to hinge on the testimony of a possibly tipsy woman that has documented horrible recall and a definite motive to lie, i.e. defense of reputation.

I fear they are gone because it is quite literally nearly impossible to prove ones innocence under the affirmative consent rule, where mere silence during sex can be and is viewed as rape.

Trampling on the rights of others in some insane quest to rid campuses of rapists (or pick your crime of choice) is not the right path. It is analogous to tossing Muslims out of the country to prevent terrorism, on the word of an accuser.
Click to expand...
Please quote anywhere in my previous response where I said anyone committed sexual assault.
 




I just reviewed the procedures that will apply at the hearing.
Under the University’s Student Sexual Misconduct Procedures (See https://diversity.umn.edu/eoaa/titleix), the accused players appeal will be heard by a panel of 3 to 5 members of the Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity ( OSCAI), who will supposedly have been trained “on how to effectively adjudicate sexual misconduct cases.” Each panelist will receive a copy of the EOAA report and any rebuttal statements supplied by the accused. The accused can be represented by one or more lawyers, in which case the University’s case will be presented by a lawyer for the Office of the General Counsel. It is a de novo hearing, which means that additional evidence can be introduced and the panel can make an independent judgment. In other words, the hearing panel does not have to give any deference to the EOAA report. But the standard of proof, once again, is preponderance of the evidence: i.e., more likely than not. It is unclear whether lawyers for the players will be able to cross-examine the complainant. That is not permitted during the EOAA investigation, and I assume that continues to be true at the hearing. Any party can request that “certain practical measures are employed during the hearing so that the reporting and accused students are never in each other’s presence.”
Given the potential consequences of an adverse finding, I think the standard of proof should be higher, such as “clear and convincing”; that there should be some ability to conduct discovery; and, that there should be at least some ability to cross-examine the complainant. But I am somewhat encouraged by the fact that it will be a de novo hearing.
Another concern that I have is that Lee Hutton will apparently represent all, or most, of the players with the exception of Winfield. The problem is that the level of culpability, if any, of the various players is not likely the same. That is particularly true of the five players added to the list of accused by the EOAA. Under the Cannons of Ethics governing lawyers, a lawyer cannot represent a client where “there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client.” Rule 1.7 (a) (2), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. It is a potentially waivable conflict, but, among other things, the lawyer must “reasonably” believe that he or she “will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected Client. Id. Rule 1.7 (b) (1). I question whether that is likely here.
In any event, regardless of the outcome, I hope the hearing will be as fair possible to all the parties under the circumstances. I think the panel will need to give particular attention to the risk of mistaken identity.
 

rugger14 said:
Good points and I agree that the "witch hunt" aspect is concerning. To play Devil's Advocate, these players (and all students) are briefed and rebriefed on affirmative consent. It is possible to say "no" when your buddy texts you and invites you to have sex with a girl he just tag-teamed with a recruit. The "affirmative consent" would look a lot better for the players if she had texted a bunch of guys to come join in the fun as opposed to DJAM doing it.
Click to expand...

The "affirmative consent" is really going to be their hang up (IMO). It gives the places that demand this type "consent" the power to really punish most sexual encounters. Affirmative consent rules really force most encounters into those murky grey areas.

- If you are dating someone and you go to kiss that person and they kiss you back. . .is that consent? I think most of us would consider that a consensual physical activity (I'd hope). However, it isn't entirely clear when you use the principles of "affirmative consent" to determine the that exchange. The person didn't really say yes. The fact that you were dating doesn't really matter. The fact that that person went right along with it doesn't even really matter.

The qualifier of "affirmative" really bastardizes the key part of the term "consent". In every other instance (other than college campuses determining consent for sexual assault), the word consent makes sense. We get it. We understand that it is a nuanced social interaction. If we have a friend who is having a party and we bring another friend with us, that person isn't committing a trespass (he/she has consent to be in the house). Now if the homeowner says "that person can't be here", they must leave. We all get that.

The creation of the term affirmative consent probably came from a good place (I think?). But it tries to strip away the analysis of common sense and the kind of thought process we use for every single other determination of consent. You'll see this in plenty of other terms on college campuses (rape culture, white privilege, cis-gender.

So I agree with you, I think their built-in loophole is this idea of affirmative consent. I really wish it wasn't the case (not for the team, but for college campuses in general) because I think it allows a group to pick and choose what they consider consent. It allows them to abandon the definition and nullify the power of that word.
 

vagopher said:
I just reviewed the procedures that will apply at the hearing.
Under the University’s Student Sexual Misconduct Procedures (See https://diversity.umn.edu/eoaa/titleix), the accused players appeal will be heard by a panel of 3 to 5 members of the Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity ( OSCAI), who will supposedly have been trained “on how to effectively adjudicate sexual misconduct cases.” Each panelist will receive a copy of the EOAA report and any rebuttal statements supplied by the accused. .
Click to expand...

I don't have much faith in the appeals process changing the EOAA recommendations for any of the players other than anyone who can prove that they were not in the buildings/rooms in question, and, just as importantly, that they did not "interfere" with the EOAA process by withholding information, deleting possible evidence from their phones, or other things that could be against the U Code of Conduct.

I say this after a recent long discussion with a friend of mine, a professor at another Big Ten school. This particular school keeps a list of people "qualified" to serve on this type of appeals committee. The school has two separate lists: one for appeals of academic issues (such as accusations of cheating on exams or plagiarism on term papers), and one for appeals of accusations of violent behavior or sexual assault.

My friend was asked to be available for hearing appeals of violence/sexual assault cases, but was required to attend a full day Saturday session where he received the required "training". He told me that the morning session consisted of a steady stream of speakers with expertise in various subjects you can probably guess; i.e., psychologists, victim advocates, rape crisis counselors, emergency room nurses, police officers, battered women's shelters, etc.

The afternoon session began with the group leader passing out the materials in three different actual appeals, with names redacted. The participants were asked to take 45 minutes to review the materials, take a 15 minute break, and start up again in an hour. Then each case would be discussed, a vote taken, and the results of this group would be compared to the actual results of the appeal. My friend said that another member of the group, a male professor who looked to be in his mid or late-60's, scanned each document briefly, taking only about 5 minutes to page through each case file of 100+ pages. He then left the room after about 15 minutes. When he returned at the appointed time, the (female) group leader noted his lack of diligence with the appeals material and asked him how he expected to be able to vote without digesting all the material. According to my friend, his response was something like, "I don't have to read all the material. Based on what I was told in the morning sessions, the guys are guilty in all three cases." My friend started a slow clap that earned him very severe looks from the other participants, and a reprimand from the group leader. This group session was held about 18 months ago and my friend has since heard several appeals, none of which had the other professor as a participant, so he does not know whether the other guy was accepted into the program or not.

I cannot help but to think that the appeals committees are likely to be just as biased as the original EOAA panel.
 

A while back, I looked around in the material from the Department of Education, on these Title IX investigations. One of the things that I remember is that there is no power of subpoena, without the power of subpoena, how were they able to do a forensic examination of the phones? I believe that, just as the complainant was able to keep the tape off limits without consequence, the players should have been able to keep their phones off limits. I believe that the players due process rights were trampled. When you lynch a guilty person, it's still a lynching, punishment without due process, is just another form of lynching and wrong.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
The "affirmative consent" is really going to be their hang up (IMO). It gives the places that demand this type "consent" the power to really punish most sexual encounters. Affirmative consent rules really force most encounters into those murky grey areas.

- If you are dating someone and you go to kiss that person and they kiss you back. . .is that consent? I think most of us would consider that a consensual physical activity (I'd hope). However, it isn't entirely clear when you use the principles of "affirmative consent" to determine the that exchange. The person didn't really say yes. The fact that you were dating doesn't really matter. The fact that that person went right along with it doesn't even really matter.

The qualifier of "affirmative" really bastardizes the key part of the term "consent". In every other instance (other than college campuses determining consent for sexual assault), the word consent makes sense. We get it. We understand that it is a nuanced social interaction. If we have a friend who is having a party and we bring another friend with us, that person isn't committing a trespass (he/she has consent to be in the house). Now if the homeowner says "that person can't be here", they must leave. We all get that.

The creation of the term affirmative consent probably came from a good place (I think?). But it tries to strip away the analysis of common sense and the kind of thought process we use for every single other determination of consent. You'll see this in plenty of other terms on college campuses (rape culture, white privilege, cis-gender.

So I agree with you, I think their built-in loophole is this idea of affirmative consent. I really wish it wasn't the case (not for the team, but for college campuses in general) because I think it allows a group to pick and choose what they consider consent. It allows them to abandon the definition and nullify the power of that word.
Click to expand...

I agree that the affirmative consent requirement makes it much more difficult to defend where the only defense is consent, but the chances of success should be greater if the defense is mistaken identity.
 

WoodburyTim said:
These guys pretty much have to go through this process and defend themselves. No school will take them unless they can fight and win in this process.

It is a simple fact that if these suspensions and expulsions stand, these guys will not play football again and more importantly will not be able to attend just about 4 year institution. Watch the 30 for 30 from a few years back. The football player who was expelled under very similar circumstances from Colorado School of Mines said that despite high academics he had been rejected by every school he applied to. And he said it numbered in the hundreds.

Maybe it is deserved, but these hearings aren't to determine whether they stay at the U, but whether they will attend college at all.
Click to expand...

If my memory is correct, the football player also claimed he wasn't even interviewed before he was kicked out. I believe this also involved his girlfriend at the time. She was talking to a friend, and then the friend told the school she was assaulted. The girlfriend said it was taken out of context and they just had a fight. School still believed the friend over the the two people who were actually involved. It appears to have been handled very badly and the school is probably going to have to pay out a lot of money.
 

bigticket1 said:
It would seem that if the goal of this entire process is to determine the truth, that no evidence should be off limits. I believe when the EOAA report first came out, someone said that the accused players should not have turned over their phones to examine the texts, etc.., and it was said they could have still been punished for not cooperating. If that is true, why should different rules apply to the accuser. The information she is not allowing to be seen was used in the criminal investigation. If she can now say that it's OK to use evidence that agrees with my narrative, but if it doesn't support me, it doesn't get in , that casts a giant shadow over these entire proceedings to me.
Click to expand...

Where ever did you get the idea the point of this was to determine the truth?
 

All good thoughts, but I'll wait to hear what UN & CoMN have to say before agreeing with any of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

There is no way if I were accused in this situation that I would be there without my own attorney. If Hutton is allowed to represent the other nine, I think they are getting some very bad advice.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

Ski U Master said:
Please quote anywhere in my previous response where I said anyone committed sexual assault.
Click to expand...

You only implied it in that post but your position has been clear that you want them off the team for engaging in gang bangs.
 

GVBadger said:
There is no way if I were accused in this situation that I would be there without my own attorney. If Hutton is allowed to represent the other nine, I think they are getting some very bad advice.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'd want mine there working for just me. Just from the report there are different interests at play.

It could be a question of cost... we know Winfield has his own attorney and his dad made money in the NFL.

I'm not sure the resources for the others, not sure anyone provides them with an attorney (that also would be a concern).
 

GVBadger said:
There is no way if I were accused in this situation that I would be there without my own attorney. If Hutton is allowed to represent the other nine, I think they are getting some very bad advice.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Guess I figured his law firm was representing them? It's a pretty large firm. There is a lot of common interest, so I can see a benefit.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
You only implied it in that post but your position has been clear that you want them off the team for engaging in gang bangs.
Click to expand...
I do want them off the team. Not because of gang bangs in particular, but for bad judgement and decision making. Players have to be smarter than this and understand they aren't normal college students. They are role models, they are ambassadors for the University. Sure, if the act was consensual it is legal, but that doesn't mean they won't get roasted in the public and bring all this negative attention to the athletic department and University. It's easy to say that they should be allowed to be regular college students just like anyone else, but they aren't like everyone else. They have earned and been given an amazing opportunity to a free education, something most people would take in a heartbeat, the caveat is they need to play their sport and (in my opinion) represent the University with dignity and in a positive way. Their decision making that day, even if it was legal, was irresponsible and foolish given their position and they should not be allowed to continue having the privilege of representing the University.
 

Ski U Master said:
I do want them off the team. Not because of gang bangs in particular, but for bad judgement and decision making. Players have to be smarter than this and understand they aren't normal college students. They are role models, they are ambassadors for the University. Sure, if the act was consensual it is legal, but that doesn't mean they won't get roasted in the public and bring all this negative attention to the athletic department and University. It's easy to say that they should be allowed to be regular college students just like anyone else, but they aren't like everyone else. They have earned and been given an amazing opportunity to a free education, something most people would take in a heartbeat, the caveat is they need to play their sport and (in my opinion) represent the University with dignity and in a positive way. Their decision making that day, even if it was legal, was irresponsible and foolish given their position and they should not be allowed to continue having the privilege of representing the University.
Click to expand...

You can have this view, but shouldn't lump the 10 together in the same boat. The media does, but I expect more from you Ski-U-Master.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ski U Master said:
I do want them off the team. Not because of gang bangs in particular, but for bad judgement and decision making. Players have to be smarter than this and understand they aren't normal college students. They are role models, they are ambassadors for the University. Sure, if the act was consensual it is legal, but that doesn't mean they won't get roasted in the public and bring all this negative attention to the athletic department and University. It's easy to say that they should be allowed to be regular college students just like anyone else, but they aren't like everyone else. They have earned and been given an amazing opportunity to a free education, something most people would take in a heartbeat, the caveat is they need to play their sport and (in my opinion) represent the University with dignity and in a positive way. Their decision making that day, even if it was legal, was irresponsible and foolish given their position and they should not be allowed to continue having the privilege of representing the University.
Click to expand...

Why do all ten players, even those not directly involved, deserve the same consequence? I wonder if as many people would say that if Blake Cashman and Carter Coughlin were involved?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ski U Master said:
I do want them off the team. Not because of gang bangs in particular, but for bad judgement and decision making. Players have to be smarter than this and understand they aren't normal college students. They are role models, they are ambassadors for the University. Sure, if the act was consensual it is legal, but that doesn't mean they won't get roasted in the public and bring all this negative attention to the athletic department and University. It's easy to say that they should be allowed to be regular college students just like anyone else, but they aren't like everyone else. They have earned and been given an amazing opportunity to a free education, something most people would take in a heartbeat, the caveat is they need to play their sport and (in my opinion) represent the University with dignity and in a positive way. Their decision making that day, even if it was legal, was irresponsible and foolish given their position and they should not be allowed to continue having the privilege of representing the University.
Click to expand...

That's fine and I agree there need to be standards of conduct and I agree anyone can be kicked off a football team at the coach's whim. However, this case revolves around the main pillar of sexual assault and whether the accuser's version of events happened and whether the players are getting a legitimate and fair process. I don't know about the former but I vehemently say no to the latter.

If the school is going to throw people out for every violation of a code of conduct it will be a very, very sparse campus.

This is about labeling kids rapists, not just violating a code of conduct. It's also about changing a terrible EOAA process. It doesn't matter if you think trains are gross and undignified or the boycott was ill-conceived. Many people feel that homosexuals are mentally ill and is a result of choice not genetics, and is beyond icky. They ought to be kicked out of school?
 

As regarding the team being some sort of national embarrassment I can say that none of my associates that I discuss college ball with, family members outside of Minnesota had any clue to what's gone on. They were surprised to hear MN had a new coach. These are big college football fans. The details of the story might have gotten a lot of play on the local news because Pitchforks, but it had a very short half-life on the national stage. There are so many venues to gather news it takes something truly salacious to get traction not just a he said/she said that the police decided didn't have enough evidence to even bring charges/
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom