Pioneer Press: UMN’s Mark Coyle clarifies plan for student-athlete code inquiries

per Jace:

Moving forward, Mark Coyle will be more informed during Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action investigations that involve Gophers student-athletes.

The new student-athlete code of conduct, which came into effect in January, outlines a process in which more communication exists between the athletic director and other University of Minnesota entities.

The school’s EOAA and its Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity are responsible for addressing student conduct that may violate Title IX, such as sexual misconduct. The EOAA handles investigations, meeting and interviewing the primary parties and relevant witnesses to determine “whether it was more likely than not that the accused student violated the student conduct code.”

The new code of conduct states that, at the time of the initiation of an investigation, the EOAA or the OCS “will inform the athletic director of the investigation of a respondent student-athlete and will provide the athletic director a description of complainant’s allegations, other relevant information, and, if applicable, copies of police reports.”

https://www.twincities.com/2018/05/...-opens-communication-between-mark-coyle-eoaa/

Go Gophers!!

It makes no sense that the EOAA could operate on its own secretly and just sort of announce when someone is being punished .... and same goes for appeals.

What is surprising is that anyone thought it was ok when they did do that...

I get why they would want to keep the athletic department out of any investigation. The optics of it are really bad if it appears the athletic department had their hands all over the investigation of a star player. But I think this change is a good thing. Makes sense to keep the AD in the know, as long as you can ensure that they don't have any influence in the investigation.

Bottom line: There are certainly valid questions at hand about the EOAA investigative procedures, and those issues likely aren't going to ironed out by this change. But IMO any change that involves more communication is a good thing.

bizzle22 said:

I get why they would want to keep the athletic department out of any investigation. The optics of it are really bad if it appears the athletic department had their hands all over the investigation of a star player. But I think this change is a good thing. Makes sense to keep the AD in the know, as long as you can ensure that they don't have any influence in the investigation.

Bottom line: There are certainly valid questions at hand about the EOAA investigative procedures, and those issues likely aren't going to ironed out by this change. But IMO any change that involves more communication is a good thing.

Click to expand...

I feel like not telling the Athletic Department just sort of assumes the department is bad and bound to just do something corrupt.

But that is really avoiding the real issue. You want a department that is going to do the RIGHT thing with the information. Just hiding it creates whole new issues about handling situations and etc.

Agreed on communication. There's no reason it should be so secret nobody knows.

When you believe that you are on a higher moral ground, there is nothing that can possibly deter you from implementing your highly moral process. Other laws and rules are not applicable.

highwayman said:

When you believe that you are on a higher moral ground, there is nothing that can possibly deter you from implementing your highly moral process. Other laws and rules are not applicable.

Click to expand...

Tell us what the EOAA process is and why you find if so objectionable?

Cruze said:

Tell us what the EOAA process is and why you find if so objectionable?

Click to expand...

Biased investigators, panel chair, and panel members instead of a random community panel. No record on investigator interviews. Inability to admit critical evidence, eg videos if the accuser objects, low standard of guilt. Indoctrination of panel members in faulty “memory science” pushed by professional paid witnesses.

I could go on.