Monster Cluster Eff

[GGGG]

BTW, an interesting byproduct of this topic is watching JB go back and forth with Mbakwe on twitter. 

[rocket surgeon]

  "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."

   seriously??  the guy hasn't been anywhere near this board for over ? months, but you've got to keep picking at the scab 


thanks tamu for the clarity from the schools point of view.  i can understand how a defense attorney for the alleged perpetrators would have a field day here.  there are so many things wrong here on both sides.  i'm hoping that they are working toward better resolutions. correct me if i'm wrong, but due process and representation would be a good start.  i can just see defense attorneys dropping flyers over the campus like propaganda leaflets-better call saul, eyn'a?  this has nasty written all over it-no winners here

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

thanks tamu for the clarity from the schools point of view.  i can understand how a defense attorney for the alleged perpetrators would have a field day here.  there are so many things wrong here on both sides.  i'm hoping that they are working toward better resolutions. correct me if i'm wrong, but due process and representation would be a good start.  i can just see defense attorneys dropping flyers over the campus like propaganda leaflets-better call saul, eyn'a?  this has nasty written all over it-no winners here

What makes you think that they don't get due process and representation? Per Title IX students accused of any form of sexual violence are allowed to have an attorney present for the process.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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

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 do you mean by these comments? What does it matter if she verbally consented to two of the players? Why would the players misinterpreting her make a difference? If she gave consent to two people and others think that included them and they forced themselves on her, then she was still raped by multiple people. Why would you not have sympathy for her? I can understand that impacting your feeling towards the football players and the case. But that woman is still deserving of sympathy.

The only situation where she is not deserving of sympathy is if she consented to all of the players having sex with her and decided to lie about it later. That doesn't seem to be the case here and I don't think it was what you were talking about but please correct me if I'm wrong.

[rocket surgeon]

What makes you think that they don't get due process and representation? Per Title IX students accused of any form of sexual violence are allowed to have an attorney present for the process.

there have been many articles written on this, critical of due process and title IX. here is one of many you can find if you google it.  i would truly respect your viewpoint of this as you do have experience with it, but it seems to be a common denominator.  here is a snippet written by george will in the  5/2016 WaPo

    "Title IX of the Education Amendments enacted in 1972 merely says no person at an institution receiving federal funds shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. From this the government has concocted a right to micromanage schools' disciplinary procedures, mandating obvious violations of due process.

Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sign up
In 2011, the Education Department's civil rights office sent "dear colleague" letters to schools directing them to convict accused persons on a mere "preponderance" of evidence rather than "clear and convincing" evidence. Schools were instructed to not allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers, but to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty verdicts, a form of double jeopardy.

"Although a "dear colleague" letter is supposedly a mere "guidance document," it employs the word "must" in effectively mandating policies. While purporting to just "interpret" Title IX, these letters shred constitutional guarantees. And the letters evade the legal requirement that such significant rulemaking must be subject to comment hearings open to a properly notified public. Even were CSU Pueblo inclined to resist such dictates — academic administrators nowadays are frequently supine when challenged — it would risk a costly investigation and the potential loss of the 11 percent of its budget that comes from Washington."

  from the washington post 5/16

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/due-process-is-still-being-kicked-off-campus/2016/05/13/cbf3ee6e-1860-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?utm_term=.5838d0d8c760

[GGGG]

Rocket Chicos doesn't need you to be his personal defender.

And again Title IX isn't a court of law. Attending a specific university isn't a civil liberty.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

there have been many articles written on this, critical of due process and title IX. here is one of many you can find if you google it.  i would truly respect your viewpoint of this as you do have experience with it, but it seems to be a common denominator.  here is a snippet written by george will in the  5/2016 WaPo

    "Title IX of the Education Amendments enacted in 1972 merely says no person at an institution receiving federal funds shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. From this the government has concocted a right to micromanage schools' disciplinary procedures, mandating obvious violations of due process.

Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sign up
In 2011, the Education Department's civil rights office sent "dear colleague" letters to schools directing them to convict accused persons on a mere "preponderance" of evidence rather than "clear and convincing" evidence. Schools were instructed to not allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers, but to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty verdicts, a form of double jeopardy.

"Although a "dear colleague" letter is supposedly a mere "guidance document," it employs the word "must" in effectively mandating policies. While purporting to just "interpret" Title IX, these letters shred constitutional guarantees. And the letters evade the legal requirement that such significant rulemaking must be subject to comment hearings open to a properly notified public. Even were CSU Pueblo inclined to resist such dictates — academic administrators nowadays are frequently supine when challenged — it would risk a costly investigation and the potential loss of the 11 percent of its budget that comes from Washington."

  from the washington post 5/16

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/due-process-is-still-being-kicked-off-campus/2016/05/13/cbf3ee6e-1860-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?utm_term=.5838d0d8c760

The article has some misinformation in it. While yes, the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) technically forced all schools to go to the preponderance of the information (not evidence) standard, most schools were already there. The reason the DCL included this is because there were some schools that had set up separate systems for sexual assault cases that used the higher "clear and convincing" or sometimes even "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards when every other violation on their campus was using the the "preponderance of the information" standard. It was meant to stop schools from using a higher standard to artificially lower their rates of sexual assault.

The not allowing accused to cross examine their accusers is a true statement. But accusers are not allowed to cross examine the accused either. Instead a panel questions both sides. This is to keep students from harassing and bullying each other during the process. This too was also a standard practice, and what was used in most kinds of cases that happen on campus. The DCL simply standardized it.

Complainants are allowed to appeal if the panel finds the accused not responsible. That is true. Just like the accused is allowed to appeal if the panel finds them responsible. Its even on both sides.

Really the due process issues that most people complain about is the standard of proof. Preponderance of the information requires the panel to think it is more likely than not (or 50.1% likely) that a violation occurred with the burden of proof being on the university. This means that panel member start completely on the side of the accused (0% likely) and it is the university's responsibility to convince the panel from 0 to 50.1%. This is the correct standard to use in university cases. The university has very limited powers in terms of sanctions so a beyond all reasonable doubt standard is not warranted. I could hear an argument for the clear and convincing standard but it is such an arbitrary standard. It would lead to wildly different rulings based on who was in the panel.

The sad reality of our legal system is that it fails us when it comes to rape. It is currently estimated that 97% of people who commit an act of rape (different from sexual assault) will never spend a day in jail. It is such a hard crime to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It usually happens behind closed doors, without witnesses. Rape kits can just tell you that sex occurred, not if it was consensual. All it takes is 1 out of 12 jurors to say "I think they're lying" and the case is lost. Short of someone walking in on the crime and being willing to step in and testify, you aren't likely to get a conviction. And even when you do, there are biases that often lead to comically short prison terms (Brock Turner).

To be clear, while the legal system does fail us on this crime, beyond a reasonable doubt is still the right thing in these cases. When a person's freedom hangs in the balance, you need to be 100% sure. But its still failing us. The fact that a woman that I love could be raped tomorrow and her rapist has a 97% of getting of scott free is a terrible reality. I don't know how to fix it though.

Someone's freedom does not hang in the balance in the university system. The process is completely private, shielded by several layers of privacy laws. The absolute worst a university can do is expel them. They are more than free to transfer to a different university. A difficult inconvenience for sure, but hardly life shattering. Attending a specific university is not a right, it is a privilege.

[Lennys Tap]

The only situation where she is not deserving of sympathy is if she consented to all of the players having sex with her and decided to lie about it later. That doesn't seem to be the case here and I don't think it was what you were talking about but please correct me if I'm wrong.

That is the only situation where she is deserving of NO sympathy. I didn't say she deserved no sympathy, but the sympathy I have for any alleged victim of any crime is mitigated by both the the likelihood that he/she is being truthful and the reckless behavior (if any) that put said person in harm's way.

When I said I didn't have "a great deal" of sympathy for the alleged victim in this case I misspoke. The extent of my sympathy depends on the weighing of the facts.

[ChuckyChip]

Minnesota is going to play - http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/minnesota-football-team-will-play-in-holiday-bowl/ar-AAlGq9j?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

That is the only situation where she is deserving of NO sympathy. I didn't say she deserved no sympathy, but the sympathy I have for any alleged victim of any crime is mitigated by both the the likelihood that he/she is being truthful and the reckless behavior (if any) that put said person in harm's way.

When I said I didn't have "a great deal" of sympathy for the alleged victim in this case I misspoke. The extent of my sympathy depends on the weighing of the facts.

I would be careful with this part. Reckless behavior is dumb, but it does not make her responsible for her own rape. Getting drunk around people you don't know and consenting to have sex with two guys in one night is reckless and dumb. But the only people responsible for the rape are the attackers. Not the one who was attacked.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Minnesota is going to play - http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/minnesota-football-team-will-play-in-holiday-bowl/ar-AAlGq9j?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

That didn't last long.

[jsglow]

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.

Of course.  We've had this discussion on another thread 6  months ago and I completely agree with your point.  A big point of contention was the .08 BAC issue. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

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

http://kstp.com/sports/university-of-minnesota-eoaa-investigative-report-gophers-football-players/4347059/

[Eldon]

Colleges that are the subject of a negative long-form news article typically see a 10% drop in applications the following year, according to a working paper published earlier this year. That's about the same effect on applications as if the school dropped 10 spots in the U.S. News and World college rankings, the study found.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-a-college-scandal-costs-in-terms-of-applicants-and-donations-2016-11-16?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

[Lennys Tap]

I would be careful with this part. Reckless behavior is dumb, but it does not make her responsible for her own rape. Getting drunk around people you don't know and consenting to have sex with two guys in one night is reckless and dumb. But the only people responsible for the rape are the attackers. Not the one who was attacked.

Of course you're right. And when someone is drunk and leaves their wallet on the bar to go to the bathroom the one responsible for the wallet's theft is the thief. But I'll have less sympathy for that victim than I will for the victim who has their apartment broken into and wallet stolen.

[dgies9156]

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 guess I have a real problem with this. The university is a branch of the state and it is ruining people's lives based on the "preponderance of the evidence," whatever that means. What happened was horrible but I have strong fear that in these situations, politics is a bigger issue and institutional messaging the standard of proof. That scares me no matter what the incident.

You end up too often with a situation like Duke Rugby, which hurts women who have been assaulted as well as men who didn't but were accused of doing so.

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

I do agree with you on this matter, TAMU.

[GGGG]

I guess I have a real problem with this. The university is a branch of the state and it is ruining people's lives based on the "preponderance of the evidence," whatever that means. What happened was horrible but I have strong fear that in these situations, politics is a bigger issue and institutional messaging the standard of proof. That scares me no matter what the incident.

You end up too often with a situation like Duke Rugby, which hurts women who have been assaulted as well as men who didn't but were accused of doing so.

A university can discipline students without holding the proceedings to the standards of a criminal court.  They accept that when they enroll.

And these players haven't had their "lives ruined."  They aren't in jail.  They just can't continue their education at the University of Minnesota.  That is the key difference between this and the Duke Lax case.

Yeah their path has changed due to a poor decision they made.  That's life.

[real chili 83]

A university can discipline students without holding the proceedings to the standards of a criminal court.  They accept that when they enroll.

And these players haven't had their "lives ruined."  They aren't in jail.  They just can't continue their education at the University of Minnesota.  That is the key difference between this and the Duke Lax case.

Yeah their path has changed due to a poor decision they made.  That's life.

The players are named and their pictures are on every newscast up here.  You cen bet they are getting the same treatment from the media in their home towns. 

It's not jail, but it is significant.  This will follow them. 

What a complex issue.  If they did it, they deserve it.  If they didn't......

[4everwarriors]

Did dey at least sport da ol' raincoat, hey?

[real chili 83]

Interesting difference in the evidence reviewed.

The police viewed almost 2 minutes of cell phone video evidence.  The U of M investigators reviewed 12 seconds of video evidence. 

You can't make any conclusions based on the differences in the amount of evidence, but it is interesting.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The players are named and their pictures are on every newscast up here.  You cen bet they are getting the same treatment from the media in their home towns. 

It's not jail, but it is significant.  This will follow them. 

What a complex issue.  If they did it, they deserve it.  If they didn't......

That's because the police got involved. The university process is completely private. The media coverage has nothing to do with the university.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Of course you're right. And when someone is drunk and leaves their wallet on the bar to go to the bathroom the one responsible for the wallet's theft is the thief. But I'll have less sympathy for that victim than I will for the victim who has their apartment broken into and wallet stolen.

I don't think that's the right analogy. I think the closer analogy is two people have their apartment broken into. One had their door locked, the other didn't. Do you really feel less sympathy for the one who forgot to lock their door? Both were equally violated.

[real chili 83]

That's because the police got involved. The university process is completely private. The media coverage has nothing to do with the university.

In the university investigation, students who weren't investigated by the police were named.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I guess I have a real problem with this. The university is a branch of the state and it is ruining people's lives based on the "preponderance of the evidence," whatever that means. What happened was horrible but I have strong fear that in these situations, politics is a bigger issue and institutional messaging the standard of proof. That scares me no matter what the incident.

You end up too often with a situation like Duke Rugby, which hurts women who have been assaulted as well as men who didn't but were accused of doing so.


I do agree with you on this matter, TAMU.

First, I wouldn't believe everything you read about Duke LAX. Second, even if you do believe everything you've read about Duke LAX, that case would be the a very rare exception. Not the rule. It is far more common that victims are railroaded and rapists walk free than the other way around.

Instead of comparing the university system to criminal court, compare it to civil court. Lower sanctions, lower standard or proof, and due process is designed to make it fair for both parties, not give an advantage to the accused. Its a much more accurate comparison. No one has an issue when someone who wasn't convicted of sexual assault in criminal court gets held responsible in civil court. I'm not sure why they wouldn't view the university system in the same way.

The university system makes no attempt to be a criminal court. In fact, it goes to great lengths to distance itself from comparisons to criminal court.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

In the university investigation, students who weren't investigated by the police were named.

"out in a confidential EOAA report obtained by 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS."

1 of 2 things happened here. Either one of the accused students leaked it to the news for god knows what reason. Or someone at the University of Minnesota is getting fired and then sued.

Student conduct investigations are part of a students educational record. As such they are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The university cannot release the information without the written consent of everyone involved, a warrant/subpoena, or to a specific individual with an "educational need to know" (e.g. releasing gpa to financial aid to determine scholarship availability). However, individuals involved in the investigation are free to share it with whoever they like.

Again, the university process is completely private. If one of the accused students chooses to share their copy of the investigation with the news, that is not the university's fault.