All Things EOAA, Investigation, Suspension, Overturned Etc. Thread: UPDATED 1 Thread

Donate To GopherHole
Trisuper said:
After visiting and just reading GopherHole for several years, I decided to register in order to make comments because of the posts of those active here regarding the ten suspended Gopher football players. Several things really bother me about what has been written about the subject:
1. First of all, I cannot think of a setting more poorly positioned for rational discussion of the very complex issues involved in these matters. The forum allows for anyone to say anything regardless of facts and laws, known or unknown. For example, if someone were to read the EEOC report carefully, one could easily see exactly each one of the ten individuals was and what was reported about their behavior. A. Winfield, for example, was a "hero" in this situation because he gave testimony that revealed several other players had lied about not being in the apartment and about not having harassed the female cheerleader by shouting remarks and blinking the lights while she was having sex.
2. Only four of the players were said to have engaged in sexual assault as defined by the student handbook. The instigator of the situation, Djam, was not found guilty of sexual assault but was kicked out of the university because he sent videos of himself and the recruit having sex with the cheerleader to his friends without her permission. Djam also enabled the recruit to be involved in the matter.
3. Four of the remaining five players were found to have engaged in sexual harassment of the cheerleader, mostly based on Winfield's testimony. The fifth was found guilty of lying to the EEOC investigators.
4. The state of Minnesota has laws governing sexual assault and the University of Minnesota has policies regarding sexual assault. The laws and policies are different, as are the procedures used to enforce them. Both approaches can fail miserably--see the Baylor University situation--but they only way to remedy errors is to work to change the systems. My daughter, a graduate of the U of M law school, has worked to get hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits tested all over the country. Many, many jurisdictions collect rape kits obtained in hospitals and never have the results tested. Is that justice?
5. We can argue constitutional issues regarding this case until we are blue in the face but only one body--the federal judiciary and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court--can determine whether laws, policies and/or procedures are unconstitutional or not. To the best of my knowledge, very few cases calling activities under EEOC governing bodies have been determined by federal judges to be remotely unconstitutional.
6. Several weeks ago, an attorney who actively opposes EEOC matters wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post regarding the U of M situation. He said the facts of the case were terrible for advocates of EEOC reform. But what would he know? He isn't a Gopher football fan nor does he post at Gopherhole.
7. The attorney that represents nine of the players CONFIRMED in a recent radio interview that he was the one who released the report to the press. The great Tyrone Carter released the name of the cheerleader and later apologized for having done so. The damage was already done. And I wonder where Carter got the female's name?
8. How many who post here support the Black Lives Matter movement? I'm guessing very few. If a person wants to fight against injustice based on race, you might focus more on the issues BLM addresses than those within the U of M.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. Glad you joined to contribute and add clarity to the discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Attack the forum for discussing things that you don't think should be discussed on such a forum. Then start a separate thread to discuss them.

After reading it, looks like you're mainly upset that posters have the audacity to question how this was handled, because you certainly don't have any.

Oh, except for anything from the accused's point of view. You think all their concerns are b.s.

Yep, hang them all huh?
 

While I have no idea how Tyrone Carter obtained the name of the Cheerleader in this case, her name was accessible through the Minnesota State Courts computer system which listed her name when she filed for a restraining order last fall. it was also possible to access the petition filed on her behalf which included the allegations initially made on her behalf, prior to the EEOC procedures, as well as the fact that she was a Cheerleader and not simply involved in "Gopher game day operations" which led to the restraining order excluding the players from TCF Bank stadium on game days.
 

Trisuper said:
After visiting and just reading GopherHole for several years, I decided to register in order to make comments because of the posts of those active here regarding the ten suspended Gopher football players. Several things really bother me about what has been written about the subject:
1. First of all, I cannot think of a setting more poorly positioned for rational discussion of the very complex issues involved in these matters. The forum allows for anyone to say anything regardless of facts and laws, known or unknown. For example, if someone were to read the EEOC report carefully, one could easily see exactly each one of the ten individuals was and what was reported about their behavior. A. Winfield, for example, was a "hero" in this situation because he gave testimony that revealed several other players had lied about not being in the apartment and about not having harassed the female cheerleader by shouting remarks and blinking the lights while she was having sex.
2. Only four of the players were said to have engaged in sexual assault as defined by the student handbook. The instigator of the situation, Djam, was not found guilty of sexual assault but was kicked out of the university because he sent videos of himself and the recruit having sex with the cheerleader to his friends without her permission. Djam also enabled the recruit to be involved in the matter.
3. Four of the remaining five players were found to have engaged in sexual harassment of the cheerleader, mostly based on Winfield's testimony. The fifth was found guilty of lying to the EEOC investigators.
4. The state of Minnesota has laws governing sexual assault and the University of Minnesota has policies regarding sexual assault. The laws and policies are different, as are the procedures used to enforce them. Both approaches can fail miserably--see the Baylor University situation--but they only way to remedy errors is to work to change the systems. My daughter, a graduate of the U of M law school, has worked to get hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits tested all over the country. Many, many jurisdictions collect rape kits obtained in hospitals and never have the results tested. Is that justice?
5. We can argue constitutional issues regarding this case until we are blue in the face but only one body--the federal judiciary and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court--can determine whether laws, policies and/or procedures are unconstitutional or not. To the best of my knowledge, very few cases calling activities under EEOC governing bodies have been determined by federal judges to be remotely unconstitutional.
6. Several weeks ago, an attorney who actively opposes EEOC matters wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post regarding the U of M situation. He said the facts of the case were terrible for advocates of EEOC reform. But what would he know? He isn't a Gopher football fan nor does he post at Gopherhole.
7. The attorney that represents nine of the players CONFIRMED in a recent radio interview that he was the one who released the report to the press. The great Tyrone Carter released the name of the cheerleader and later apologized for having done so. The damage was already done. And I wonder where Carter got the female's name?
8. How many who post here support the Black Lives Matter movement? I'm guessing very few. If a person wants to fight against injustice based on race, you might focus more on the issues BLM addresses than those within the U of M.
Click to expand...

When did the EEOC become involved?
 

You are correct these are very complex issues but if you want to be taken seriously as someone that knows anything beyond superficiality it would be helpful to get the name of the EOAA correct.

I can see you know next to nothing about this issue but are upset about what they possibly did. That's fair I suppose but no need to start another thread.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
You are correct these are very complex issues but if you want to be taken seriously as someone that knows anything beyond superficiality it would be helpful to get the name of the EOAA correct.

I can see you know next to. Othong about this issue but are upset about what they possibly did. That's fair I suppose but no need to start another thread.
Click to expand...

But things are much more clear after reading it right?
 

Carter didn't release the name, he tweeted out the police report that had the name unredacted. He shouldn't have done that but I will note that one of the restraining order remains online with her name on it (just checked).

Your post is hard to read which weakens your argument.

PS Note to Gopherholers, please "reply" rather than "reply with quote" unless you are going to edit the quote for a specific statement or paragraph. When long posts get quoted in full it becomes very hard to read on a phone. A lot of scrolling to get to a one sentence response.
 

Trisuper said:
After visiting and just reading GopherHole for several years, I decided to register in order to make comments because of the posts of those active here regarding the ten suspended Gopher football players. Several things really bother me about what has been written about the subject:
1. First of all, I cannot think of a setting more poorly positioned for rational discussion of the very complex issues involved in these matters. The forum allows for anyone to say anything regardless of facts and laws, known or unknown. For example, if someone were to read the EEOC report carefully, one could easily see exactly each one of the ten individuals was and what was reported about their behavior. A. Winfield, for example, was a "hero" in this situation because he gave testimony that revealed several other players had lied about not being in the apartment and about not having harassed the female cheerleader by shouting remarks and blinking the lights while she was having sex.
2. Only four of the players were said to have engaged in sexual assault as defined by the student handbook. The instigator of the situation, Djam, was not found guilty of sexual assault but was kicked out of the university because he sent videos of himself and the recruit having sex with the cheerleader to his friends without her permission. Djam also enabled the recruit to be involved in the matter.
3. Four of the remaining five players were found to have engaged in sexual harassment of the cheerleader, mostly based on Winfield's testimony. The fifth was found guilty of lying to the EEOC investigators.
4. The state of Minnesota has laws governing sexual assault and the University of Minnesota has policies regarding sexual assault. The laws and policies are different, as are the procedures used to enforce them. Both approaches can fail miserably--see the Baylor University situation--but they only way to remedy errors is to work to change the systems. My daughter, a graduate of the U of M law school, has worked to get hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits tested all over the country. Many, many jurisdictions collect rape kits obtained in hospitals and never have the results tested. Is that justice?
5. We can argue constitutional issues regarding this case until we are blue in the face but only one body--the federal judiciary and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court--can determine whether laws, policies and/or procedures are unconstitutional or not. To the best of my knowledge, very few cases calling activities under EEOC governing bodies have been determined by federal judges to be remotely unconstitutional.
6. Several weeks ago, an attorney who actively opposes EEOC matters wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post regarding the U of M situation. He said the facts of the case were terrible for advocates of EEOC reform. But what would he know? He isn't a Gopher football fan nor does he post at Gopherhole.
7. The attorney that represents nine of the players CONFIRMED in a recent radio interview that he was the one who released the report to the press. The great Tyrone Carter released the name of the cheerleader and later apologized for having done so. The damage was already done. And I wonder where Carter got the female's name?
8. How many who post here support the Black Lives Matter movement? I'm guessing very few. If a person wants to fight against injustice based on race, you might focus more on the issues BLM addresses than those within the U of M.
Click to expand...

Scumbag post.
 

Winnipegopher said:
Carter didn't release the name, he tweeted out the police report that had the name unredacted. He shouldn't have done that but I will note that one of the restraining order remains online with her name on it (just checked).

Your post is hard to read which weakens your argument.

PS Note to Gopherholers, please "reply" rather than "reply with quote" unless you are going to edit the quote for a specific statement or paragraph. When long posts get quoted in full it becomes very hard to read on a phone. A lot of scrolling to get to a one sentence response.
Click to expand...
Get tapatalk on your phone dawg.
 






Ironically the OP touched on one of the main reasons false accusers lie in these situations - saving their reputation. My daughter lies to me prolifically when she feels it will keep her out of trouble. She's good at it.
 



FFS stop quoting the entire original post just to clarify he's an idiot. It was bad enough to read once, don't need to have to scroll through it any more than that
 

As to your points:

(1) So, this is a terrible forum for talking about the situation, yet, you create a user name and make a long post to . . . talk . . . about. . . the . . . situation. Ha. Personally, I think the Comments section of the Strib are an awful place to have political discourse, so guess what I do, I don't have political discourse on the comments section of the Strib. Novel idea, eh?

(4) What do untested rape kits have to do with this situation? I'll answer your question, no, it is not justice. However, get this, there can be more than 1 injustice in the world. Crazy huh?

(5) The Federal Courts RULE on whether or not something is Constitutional, however, it's an incredibly common discussion. By your "logic" people shouldn't discuss any legal matter unless they are on a jury or they are a judge. This is an atrocious take.

(6) I read it and yeah, it's a great article. I actually agree with him, the facts of this case are difficult. Usually, when you're trying to change some ridiculous law/rule, you try to find the ideal case so that the dissenters don't sidetrack the discussion. This is the Rosa Parks scenario (they made sure she had an impeccable background and was quiet and polite the entire time). He's right. The facts of this situation aren't great because it lets stupid people debate other things (are gang bangs icky? did you see those texts? the recruit shouldn't have been there? etc.) rather than the key issue of the entire situation which is how the EoAA responds to, punishes, and investigates instances of sexual assault. But he's right, the facts are incredibly difficult. That has NOTHING to do with the process.

(8) How could you possibly try to shoehorn this into a BLM discussion? I've been one of the biggest opponents of these Title IX offices (from before this entire thing) and I don't think race played a gigantic factor. The problem with the EoAA is hyper-regressive insanity, not racism (IMO).
 

Trisuper said:
7. The attorney that represents nine of the players CONFIRMED in a recent radio interview that he was the one who released the report to the press. The great Tyrone Carter released the name of the cheerleader and later apologized for having done so. The damage was already done. And I wonder where Carter got the female's name?
Click to expand...

I think I missed this. In what radio interview did Hutton confirm that he released the EOAA report? I listed to his interview with Doogie this morning and he didn't do it there. I didn't know he was interviewed elsewhere.

Hey, I didn't quote the whole post.
 


Yeah I missed that Hutton released the report too. I would like a link or something on this.
 

He didn't confirm that he released the EOAA report. (I think he did release it, but he did not say so in the interview.) What I assume is being referred to here is the part where LH did confirm that he was the one who released what they were being punished for and who got what punishment.

Here is a link to the interview: http://kstp.com/news/scoop-podcast-...ophers-players-eoaa-report/4387228/?cat=13000
I listened to it a few days ago and can't remember where they address the info release stuff. Don't think it was in the first 20 min, but you'll have to listen to the whole thing.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
As to your points:

(1) So, this is a terrible forum for talking about the situation, yet, you create a user name and make a long post to . . . talk . . . about. . . the . . . situation. Ha. Personally, I think the Comments section of the Strib are an awful place to have political discourse, so guess what I do, I don't have political discourse on the comments section of the Strib. Novel idea, eh?

(4) What do untested rape kits have to do with this situation? I'll answer your question, no, it is not justice. However, get this, there can be more than 1 injustice in the world. Crazy huh?

(5) The Federal Courts RULE on whether or not something is Constitutional, however, it's an incredibly common discussion. By your "logic" people shouldn't discuss any legal matter unless they are on a jury or they are a judge. This is an atrocious take.

(6) I read it and yeah, it's a great article. I actually agree with him, the facts of this case are difficult. Usually, when you're trying to change some ridiculous law/rule, you try to find the ideal case so that the dissenters don't sidetrack the discussion. This is the Rosa Parks scenario (they made sure she had an impeccable background and was quiet and polite the entire time). He's right. The facts of this situation aren't great because it lets stupid people debate other things (are gang bangs icky? did you see those texts? the recruit shouldn't have been there? etc.) rather than the key issue of the entire situation which is how the EoAA responds to, punishes, and investigates instances of sexual assault. But he's right, the facts are incredibly difficult. That has NOTHING to do with the process.

(8) How could you possibly try to shoehorn this into a BLM discussion? I've been one of the biggest opponents of these Title IX offices (from before this entire thing) and I don't think race played a gigantic factor. The problem with the EoAA is hyper-regressive insanity, not racism (IMO).
Click to expand...

I can't speak for all the stupid people, but at least can for myself. The references to the recruit being there have more been made in regard to it being poor judgement, maybe players shouldn't host recruits (especially after 10PM), who is overseeing the process, not in relation to the EOAA. I'm not a lawyer, but common sense tells me the recruit shouldn't have been there. Maybe we can chalk it up to dumb (non-elite) logic.
 

Trisuper said:
After visiting and just reading GopherHole for several years, I decided to register in order to make comments because of the posts of those active here regarding the ten suspended Gopher football players. Several things really bother me about what has been written about the subject:
1. First of all, I cannot think of a setting more poorly positioned for rational discussion of the very complex issues involved in these matters. The forum allows for anyone to say anything regardless of facts and laws, known or unknown. For example, if someone were to read the EEOC report carefully, one could easily see exactly each one of the ten individuals was and what was reported about their behavior. A. Winfield, for example, was a "hero" in this situation because he gave testimony that revealed several other players had lied about not being in the apartment and about not having harassed the female cheerleader by shouting remarks and blinking the lights while she was having sex.
2. Only four of the players were said to have engaged in sexual assault as defined by the student handbook. The instigator of the situation, Djam, was not found guilty of sexual assault but was kicked out of the university because he sent videos of himself and the recruit having sex with the cheerleader to his friends without her permission. Djam also enabled the recruit to be involved in the matter.
3. Four of the remaining five players were found to have engaged in sexual harassment of the cheerleader, mostly based on Winfield's testimony. The fifth was found guilty of lying to the EEOC investigators.
4. The state of Minnesota has laws governing sexual assault and the University of Minnesota has policies regarding sexual assault. The laws and policies are different, as are the procedures used to enforce them. Both approaches can fail miserably--see the Baylor University situation--but they only way to remedy errors is to work to change the systems. My daughter, a graduate of the U of M law school, has worked to get hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits tested all over the country. Many, many jurisdictions collect rape kits obtained in hospitals and never have the results tested. Is that justice?
5. We can argue constitutional issues regarding this case until we are blue in the face but only one body--the federal judiciary and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court--can determine whether laws, policies and/or procedures are unconstitutional or not. To the best of my knowledge, very few cases calling activities under EEOC governing bodies have been determined by federal judges to be remotely unconstitutional.
6. Several weeks ago, an attorney who actively opposes EEOC matters wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post regarding the U of M situation. He said the facts of the case were terrible for advocates of EEOC reform. But what would he know? He isn't a Gopher football fan nor does he post at Gopherhole.
7. The attorney that represents nine of the players CONFIRMED in a recent radio interview that he was the one who released the report to the press. The great Tyrone Carter released the name of the cheerleader and later apologized for having done so. The damage was already done. And I wonder where Carter got the female's name?
8. How many who post here support the Black Lives Matter movement? I'm guessing very few. If a person wants to fight against injustice based on race, you might focus more on the issues BLM addresses than those within the U of M.
Click to expand...

Great post, Trisuper. It is the best first post in the eight years I have been posting in GopherHole. It is the only post that has made an honest effort to get a discussion going about what is actually in the EOAA report. That is probably because not that many posters in GopherHole have actually read it from beginning to end. If they did read all 80 pages they would know that much of the evidence against the players came from the players themselves and other witnesses who were with the players that night or knew where they were.

Any GopherHolers who have read the report would also know that the issue of the girls consent to sex is not relevant for the majority of players who were accused of violating the Student Code of Conduct. Among other things, they are accused of sexual harassment, lying to the EOAA investigators, or engaging in a conspiracy among the players to obstruct the investigation.
 

That was a very entertaining post. It all seemed so delightfully random - untested rape kits, Black Lives Matter, the EEOC, his daughter's educational background. I kind of wanted a little bit more.
 


UpnorthGo4 said:
Congrats, Johnboy. Apparently, you have never done a typo or had a brain fart before. We are proud of you.
Click to expand...

Huh? If he was a part of the U I don't think he would get the name of the organization wrong.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
As to your points:

(1) So, this is a terrible forum for talking about the situation, yet, you create a user name and make a long post to . . . talk . . . about. . . the . . . situation. Ha. Personally, I think the Comments section of the Strib are an awful place to have political discourse, so guess what I do, I don't have political discourse on the comments section of the Strib. Novel idea, eh?
You're right, Bob. I never should have posted here. Only the same people who post the same things every day should be allowed to do so.



(4) What do untested rape kits have to do with this situation? I'll answer your question, no, it is not justice. However, get this, there can be more than 1 injustice in the world. Crazy huh?

Prior to mentioning rape kit, I discussed state statutes and university policies, how their respective procedures can differ and how both can fail. The only recourse is to reform the laws/policies/procedures just as people have worked to reform the abuses in the area of untested rape kits have done. In other words, I was saying--in part--that there can be more than I injustice in the world. Crazy of me, huh? Finally, I'm proud of my daughter's U of M law degree and what she had done with it with respect to promoting social justice. You mention you U of M law degree ALL of the time. Why can't others?

(5) The Federal Courts RULE on whether or not something is Constitutional, however, it's an incredibly common discussion. By your "logic" people shouldn't discuss any legal matter unless they are on a jury or they are a judge. This is an atrocious take.

I didn't say people shouldn't discuss this but I did bring up the point that the Federal Courts have issued virtually no rulings regarding the constitutionality of the processes most universities use to enforce student codes of conduct and Title IX due process issues. You've implied repeatedly that there is something unconstitutional about such matters. Why haven't the Federal Courts issued very many or any rulings to support your position?

(6) I read it and yeah, it's a great article. I actually agree with him, the facts of this case are difficult. Usually, when you're trying to change some ridiculous law/rule, you try to find the ideal case so that the dissenters don't sidetrack the discussion. This is the Rosa Parks scenario (they made sure she had an impeccable background and was quiet and polite the entire time). He's right. The facts of this situation aren't great because it lets stupid people debate other things (are gang bangs icky? did you see those texts? the recruit shouldn't have been there? etc.) rather than the key issue of the entire situation which is how the EoAA responds to, punishes, and investigates instances of sexual assault. But he's right, the facts are incredibly difficult. That has NOTHING to do with the process.

I didn't say the facts had nothing to do with the process. But facts matter as much as process and an expert has written that the facts are awful in this case--something one almost never reads here.

(8) How could you possibly try to shoehorn this into a BLM discussion? I've been one of the biggest opponents of these Title IX offices (from before this entire thing) and I don't think race played a gigantic factor. The problem with the EoAA is hyper-regressive insanity, not racism (IMO).
Click to expand...

I "shoe horned" in BLM because race is at the heart of this case according to many who have posted here and the players attorney. He brought up Emmit Till, for God
's sake. My original post wasn't addressed to you alone, or at all. The fact that you don't think race played a role in this matter puts you at odds with most of the people who have been posting here. I seriously doubt that many of those posters care very much about racial injustice apart from how it applies to African-American football players at the University of Minnesota.
 

Trisuper said:
I "shoe horned" in BLM because race is at the heart of this case according to many who have posted here and the players attorney. He brought up Emmit Till, for God
's sake. My original post wasn't addressed to you alone, or at all. The fact that you don't think race played a role in this matter puts you at odds with most of the people who have been posting here. I seriously doubt that many of those posters care very much about racial injustice apart from how it applies to African-American football players at the University of Minnesota.
Click to expand...

Why in both posts do you have to lump everyone that posts on here into one large group? I don't care much about racial injustice? You don't know me OP!
 

I'd bet a fortune the OP didn't 'join' GH today. He created a new account today - most likely because his current has lost all credibility on this topic. Who? I'd say the first to agree & come to his defense. A fortune.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
I'd bet a fortune the OP didn't 'join' GH today. He created a new account today - most likely because his current has lost all credibility on this topic. Who? I'd say the first to agree & come to his defense. A fortune.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding!!! WE have a winner!!
 

Spoofin said:
I'd bet a fortune the OP didn't 'join' GH today. He created a new account today - most likely because his current has lost all credibility on this topic. Who? I'd say the first to agree & come to his defense. A fortune.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

BINGO!
 

Spoofin said:
I'd bet a fortune the OP didn't 'join' GH today. He created a new account today - most likely because his current has lost all credibility on this topic. Who? I'd say the first to agree & come to his defense. A fortune.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Was there someone a lot like this user?

I kinda thought it actually felt like "new guy" kinda post, but granted I don't go through all those threads and read every post (god help those who do).
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom