U of Minnesota hires 2 to review case of 10 football players accused of sex assault

Donate To GopherHole
Bisker82

Bisker82

Death From Above
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
532
Reaction score
21
Points
18
From the Star Tribune

The University of Minnesota has hired two outside attorneys to review its handling of sexual assault allegations against 10 Gophers football players last fall.

John Marti, a former federal prosecutor, and Jillian Kornblatt, a specialist in labor law, were appointed Thursday to assist a special oversight committee of the U’s Board of Regents.

Regent Thomas Anderson, who chairs the committee, said the goal is to determine if the University followed its own rules in pursuing the case, and whether changes should be made in the future.

The case drew headlines after the 10 players were suspended from the team last fall, even though no criminal charges were filed. A female student alleged that she was sexually assaulted by multiple men at an off- campus party last September.

Eventually five of the accused students were disciplined by the University for sexual misconduct.

A university spokesman said the review will not focus on the sexual assault allegations, but on how the University responded to it. “This isn’t meant to rehash the investigation,” said spokesman Evan Lapiska. “It’s a review of the surrounding events and how they transpired.”
 

I'm encouraged that two legal folks with some level of understanding of process are involved.
 

Is there an organization - academic or otherwise - that spends as much time, energy and money on self flagellation as the University of Minnesota?
 






UpNorth must be appalled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

This was a high-profile matter that received a lot of media attention. I think it's valid for the U to ask "Did we handle this matter correctly?" Or, "if something like this happens again, is there a better way to handle it?"

We don't know what discussions have been held behind the scenes by the Regents, or people in the President's office or the AD's office. I'm sure there are still unanswered questions about the whole affair - or some people were not happy with the answers they received.
 




I'd prefer if the U handled it the way MSU/Dantonio handled it this spring. Keep the media out of practice, not release any names to protect their reputation in the event that they are cleared. If they are not, their names will rightfully be made public.
 

Tim Riggins said:
I'd prefer if the U handled it the way MSU/Dantonio handled it this spring. Keep the media out of practice, not release any names to protect their reputation in the event that they are cleared. If they are not, their names will rightfully be made public.
Click to expand...
There was a bowl game to be played. Different situation.
 

Tim Riggins said:
I'd prefer if the U handled it the way MSU/Dantonio handled it this spring. Keep the media out of practice, not release any names to protect their reputation in the event that they are cleared. If they are not, their names will rightfully be made public.
Click to expand...

I belive MSU has given the names of players who are not practicing / or were dismissed. And the names are actually known anyway....
 



I personally believe this appropriate. I am okay with the final outcome, but there were a lot of things said and accusations made that turned out not to be true, and the handling of the case is responsible for most of that. The EOAA investigation was a travesty handled by people not competent to provide a fair hearing. President Kaler's comments were one-sided; he was right, it was terrible mess that needed correction, but his comments on multiple occasions could have been interpreted as meaning all of the players were guilty and that was clearly not true. He was not fair to some of the players even though the ones who eventually got disciplined deserved the discipline they received.
His job is to convey both complete disapproval of the behavior, unwillingness to accept it going forward, but also make sure everyone involved gets discipline appropriate for their actions without inadvertent character assassination.
 

I find this interesting. Reagents wanted a look and now they have hired 2 outside sources. Obviously there is some sort of issue that is in question. EOAA process? The suspensions? The individuals kicked off the team? Once again there must be more to the story.
 

Let's be honest. There is no way what the EOAA did here should ever happen again. Everyone knows it and hopefully this effort makes sure it doesn't happen again - at the U at least. One can dream. No way the Regents could sit back and not do something, and still sleep at night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Lets start with making it so that the EOAA doesn't investigate, prosecute, then judge the accused. At the very least there needs be separation between investigating and prosecuting/judging the accused. MSU hired an outside investigator for their recent incident, other schools use an outside hearing examiner, what's important is that the roles are separate.
 

Spoofin said:
Let's be honest. There is no way what the EOAA did here should ever happen again. Everyone knows it and hopefully this effort makes sure it doesn't happen again - at the U at least. One can dream. No way the Regents could sit back and not do something, and still sleep at night.


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

Even without knowing all the details I don't know how anyone could look at how this whole thing played out and think it went well or that everything was handled properly.

I think it is good that they are having some people outside the U look into how things were done. The spirit of the EOAA is in the right place but there needs to be some better control over the process and how they do things.
 



PMWinSTP said:
In this case, I think many are underestimating the BoR.
Click to expand...

I hope so, too. This really is an opportunity for the U to take the lead in addressing something that has implications nationwide, but is important and impactful enough to do for our own reasons, benefit. I'd say it's an "Only Nixon Could Go to China" situation.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom