BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
Damn more to this than I thought. I can see why the players would be pissed off.
Ahhh, toe the line or we won't honor our contract. Doubt the scholarship agreement had anything about "don't protest" written into it.That warm. Come on Minnesotans are a hardy bunch, temps are just getting good for some ice fishing or snowmobiling.
It has been a long time since a school did that, may be necessary for it to happen again just to reign in some of these "protest" that we keep hearing from various schools.
If Minny does it they better be sure that they have the evidence because they will be dealing with a huge amount of public scrutiny and a bunch of lawyers going after them.
If they truly had no clue, then sure. Doubt that a multi-party "event" of that nature was contained in 1 room with no knowledge of those outside.I'd be pissed if I just happened to be in the apartment at the time and knew nothing of what happened until after the fact and still got suspended. Yeah, that's not right.
No, not on here. 1 opinion limit per posterIs it too reasonable to say that sexual assault is abhorrent, but that kangaroo courts are also unacceptable?
Ahhh, toe the line or we won't honor our contract. Doubt the scholarship agreement had anything about "don't protest" written into it.
For those of you saying the university should pull their scholarships, does the football coach's opinion change your mind?
I take issue with the "under the influence" and inability to give consent thing. By that definition, if I make love to my wife after she's had a few glasses of wine then I raped her.
That's always bothered me too. The old adage which has always made sense to me is if a woman is drunk and decides to drive, she is responsible for that. But if she is drunk and consents to sex, she's not responsible for that decision. It's patronizing.
That's always bothered me too. The old adage which has always made sense to me is if a woman is drunk and decides to drive, she is responsible for that. But if she is drunk and consents to sex, she's not responsible for that decision. It's patronizing.
The woman never claimed that she consented to multiple sex partners. She said that she went to have sex with one player, and that the procession was foisted upon her. That is why she went to the police. it is entirely possible that she became ashamed of her involvement in the proceedings, and that she decided to complain after that, however...
It is not unreasonable to suggest that football players who are receiving scholarships from a university should understand the sexual consent policy of that university. U of M has a very specific "affirmative consent" policy that states that people who are incapacitated by drugs and alcohol are incapable of giving consent. In this case, the woman stated that she had several shots before this happened. I know that things were different when I was in college, but the fact of the matter is that getting someone drunk is not an acceptable strategy for getting laid. Furthermore, people just need to be smart enough to realize that participation in a gang bang does not have a lot of positive outcomes. Is it really unreasonable to tell college students that? Is not participating in gang bangs really going to deprive anyone of a positive college experience?
I think it at least begs for some self reflection when we are critical of how Baylor handled rape complaints, while also being critical of U of M for going in the opposite direction. I know that this case really brings up some gray areas on both sides of the issue, but I think that part of being a functioning adult in this day and age is having some discretion when it comes to things like this.
How many women (or for that matter, men, but in this case it was a woman) would sober, consent to a multi-party sexual encounter? Most who are into that world don't do it at a football party after a game. There is a world where that sort of thing is normal, but it is not a fly by night, hey let's have a 6-way cause you just won the big game.
Then think about it from this stand point: Which is more believable - 1. She willingly, pre-alcohol consented to running a train on 1/4 of the team; or 2 - she willing started to hook up with 1 player, then got drunk (either her choice or with "help") and was beyond the ability to stop things when it escalated.
Yes, it is possible she consented, regretted it later, then pressed charges. But is that really the most likely case?
chitrib linkGetting a team to fill a bowl spot on short notice would be difficult, if not impossible. But the next team in line to receive a bid could be Northern Illinois, which finished 5-7 but has the highest Academic Progress Rate among teams with that record. NIU athletic director Sean Frazier said Friday that the school was monitoring the situation.
"We're proud of the academic success of our football program which puts us in this conversation. If the situation warrants, we'll have an update at that time," Frazier said.
Maybe unfairly, but in most of these cases I tend to side with or at least believe that the woman's complaint should be investigated as if it were credible unless proven otherwise. The comments about her willingly having activity with multiple partners certainly makes sense.
The university is right in taking this situation seriously but unfortunately it seems that they completely botched the situation. At this point it may be impossible to get justice for either side.
Well, for starters, the kid who was in his dorm room when the alleged assault took place being suspended indefinitely.How, specifically, do you think they botched it? From what I can tell, they performed an investigation as required by Title IX, and doled out discipline that they saw as appropriate.
Well, for starters, the kid who was in his dorm room when the alleged assault took place being suspended indefinitely.
How, specifically, do you think they botched it? From what I can tell, they performed an investigation as required by Title IX, and doled out discipline that they saw as appropriate.
Well, for starters, the kid who was in his dorm room when the alleged assault took place being suspended indefinitely.
I'm at happy hour, I'll look later for source.I haven't seen any mention of this. Source? (Not doubting you - Would really like to see this information.)
Players suspended then returned to the team then long after suspended again even in the absence of any significant new evidence. Guys suspended now who weren't the first time even though they knew they were there when it first came down.
Perfect example as well.
Just smells of a poorly handled situation.
ProllyI take issue with the "under the influence" and inability to give consent thing. By that definition, if I make love to my wife after she's had a few glasses of wine then I raped her.
Fair enough. Let me ask you this - What should they have done differently? Should they have not suspended the students in the first place? If they had information that led them to believe that these ten players were complicit in a sexual assault, should they have not acted?
As for the dorm room accusation, I have looked for any mention of this, and I can't find one.
I remember, it was from a poster on another board who I liken to Buffnik. so nothing concrete, apologies.As for the dorm room accusation, I have looked for any mention of this, and I can't find one.
If the evidence is now sufficient to suspend the players it should have been done earlier since the evidence they are basing this on has been in their hands for a long time.
It seems as if they simply couldn't decide if it was credible or not and eventually decided they had to "do something." If you are going to suspend then suspend, don't wait for this long then do a general suspension of everyone associated regardless of evidence of their specific involvement.
Is anyone just a little appalled at the participant's behavior whether "consensual" or not? I mean, I'd hope my kids would never put themselves in a situation like that to begin with. But then, I guess, this isn't a "morality" issue in the "religious" sense, but rather, in the societal sense because societal morality no longer corresponds to "religious" morality.
Is anyone just a little appalled at the participant's behavior whether "consensual" or not? I mean, I'd hope my kids would never put themselves in a situation like that to begin with. But then, I guess, this isn't a "morality" issue in the "religious" sense, but rather, in the societal sense because societal morality no longer corresponds to "religious" morality.