(12-19-2016 02:02 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Good for the players for sticking up. I won't pretend that I know what happened. But what I can say is that they should be innocent until proven guilty. Rape is a terrible thing but reading these comments it sounds many of you are just angry it was group sex. It's not the job of the public to approve of how people should have sex. I really hope the players sue the University over this.

If you want to control how adults have sex then establish a code of conduct that applies to all students.

You never read what the school found out have you? They discovered things that the police did not reported. Why a 17/18 year old kid still in high school there having sex with her? It sounded like she never approved in a group sex? It was a kid that Minnesota is trying to recruit which almost sounds like the Louisville basketball scandal. I say those players are going to get expelled. After the statement from the boycotting players? It sounds like the ones who was accused by the woman may be expelled from school for that. The others they wish justice be served for the woman and the other players not involved in the group sex. And justice for the kid who was egged on by the 5 to have sex with the woman.

(12-18-2016 10:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 06:55 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  The real travesty was that the no criminal charges were filed

No crime was committed.

(12-17-2016 08:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  The players did get something out of the deal.

Yes, they stood up for their teammates who were unfairly judged. That is something, in itself.

The more I think about this, the more it's obvious to me that the civil standard of proof should not be allowed in this case, and any other case where actual status is at stake, not just a monetary penalty. It should have to be the criminal standard of proof, for any student facing expulsion or suspension.

I'd like to see a lawsuit against a university or some universities bring that change about.

(12-18-2016 01:12 AM)crewbear742 Wrote:  the players in question treated her like a slab of meat

That's your irrelevant judgement and nothing more.

Moral judgements like that should not be allowed to be the basis for doling out loss of status punishments.

The burdens of proof and their different levels have been around for a very long time. They have evolved like they have for very sound reasons over hundreds of years.

You are asking for a criminal standard to be applied to administrative law and civil law.

There is no chance that a "lawsuit against a university" would result in civil and/or administrative law changing the standard of proof to a criminal standard.

None. Zero. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is only used where a person's life or freedom (actual freedom, as in being put in jail) is in jeopardy.

That is because we allegedly want to be extremely hard on the state to use its legal machinery to kill someone or put them in jail for up to life sentences.

We want to be close to certain that we get that right (even though we often don't in reality).

Whenever anything less than execution and/or jail time is involved...anything....the lower "more probable than not" standard is used.

That is because the sanction is much less in civil cases and they don't always involve the state. Private parties hire lawyers to battle over money in civil cases, mostly.

The stakes are much less in civil and administrative cases. Nobody will be taken out and shot if he loses a civil case. It usually only involves money.

Money and things like suspension and/or expulsion from college are never going to invoke a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof..nor should they.

Few things are as entrenched in the legal system, basic to that system and as settled law as the respective burdens of proof.

They capitulated because they read the leaked report I suspect.

(12-18-2016 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  really the only point you claimed

Absurdly false, and my posts are there for you to read.

(12-18-2016 06:28 PM)crewbear742 Wrote:  Neither does it seem all that irrelevant to the other football players who quickly abandoned their boycott.

False. The players ended it because the University Prez said he would not lift the bowl game suspension for the 10 players, no matter what.

Then the suspended players asked the team not to go through with the boycott. The team then voted, and ending the boycott was the result of the team vote.

(12-19-2016 02:02 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  they should be innocent until proven guilty

I agree. That should be the standard of proof that has to be used, if we're talking about a loss of status (expulsion from school, for example) and not just a monetary penalty.

(12-19-2016 08:14 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Whenever anything less than execution and/or jail time is involved...anything....the lower "more probable than not" standard is used.

It's a waste of the message board to talk about how the law is currently written, or how unlikely that law is to change.

Talking about how things should be, is the sweet spot for internet discussions.

Without a doubt in my mind, universities should be forced to use the higher standard for any internal hearing that can result in a loss of student status. Doubt I'll be swayed from that opinion, but certainly open to hear the arguments.

The players didn't want to miss out on the bowl game and free stuff. They got to pretend with the boycott and make the news. Best of both worlds.

(12-19-2016 09:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-18-2016 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  really the only point you claimed

Absurdly false, and my posts are there for you to read.

The only claim that was 'absurdly false' was your claim that the boycotting football players got a concession that the 10 suspended players would not be expelled or suspended in return for agreeing to play, when in fact, as far as we know, they completely capitulated.

The law enforcement failed where the school did not failed. The school interviewed all the players that were there which was why 10 players was suspended. The police only interviewed 5 players. In this case, the law enforcement and the DA failed the victim by not interviewing everybody that was there. The law enforcement failed the victim in Tallahassee. The law failed the victims in Waco. The law failed the victim in at the University of Missouri. The law failed the victim in Norman with Mixon. We have bumbling police who sweep star athletes' troubles under the rug.

(12-19-2016 09:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-18-2016 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  really the only point you claimed

Absurdly false, and my posts are there for you to read.

(12-18-2016 06:28 PM)crewbear742 Wrote:  Neither does it seem all that irrelevant to the other football players who quickly abandoned their boycott.

False. The players ended it because the University Prez said he would not lift the bowl game suspension for the 10 players, no matter what.

Then the suspended players asked the team not to go through with the boycott. The team then voted, and ending the boycott was the result of the team vote.

(12-19-2016 02:02 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  they should be innocent until proven guilty

I agree. That should be the standard of proof that has to be used, if we're talking about a loss of status (expulsion from school, for example) and not just a monetary penalty.

(12-19-2016 08:14 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Whenever anything less than execution and/or jail time is involved...anything....the lower "more probable than not" standard is used.

It's a waste of the message board to talk about how the law is currently written, or how unlikely that law is to change.

Talking about how things should be, is the sweet spot for internet discussions.

Without a doubt in my mind, universities should be forced to use the higher standard for any internal hearing that can result in a loss of student status. Doubt I'll be swayed from that opinion, but certainly open to hear the arguments.

Sweet spot? Fantasy talk about absurd legal positions nobody else in the country wants or thinks will happen?

Sure. Knock yourself out.

I gave you the reasons why you are alone in the universe with your proposal. There is no need to try to change your opinion or provide you with any additional arguments.

(12-20-2016 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  the boycotting football players got a concession that the 10 suspended players would not be expelled or suspended in return for agreeing to play

When it was first being reported, this was implied. Later, it was clarified. I jumped the gun, sue me.

The more interesting thing is that the school and/or media lied, as it was reported that the one of the driving forces behind the end of the boycott was the leaked report.

Some of the players were so angry at this lie, that they wanted to resume the boycott. But the coach intervened and convinced them not to go there.

(12-20-2016 08:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  absurd legal positions nobody else in the country wants or thinks will happen

Absurd to require universities to use an actual burden of proof if they're going to eject the student from school??
No one thinks universities should have to hold that a student is innocent until proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt??

Those are both false, the latter provably so (easily, in fact). So you know your statement is absurd.

(12-20-2016 08:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I gave you the reasons why you are alone in the universe with your proposal.

As I said, it's provable that I'm not.

And you didn't give any justification for why a university should be allowed to arbitrarily decide if it thinks someone is guilty.


Very few people think that should be allowed. And as more and more lawsuits are filed against the schools, and won by students unfairly punished by the schools, the laws will get changed. Good

(12-20-2016 09:52 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  the boycotting football players got a concession that the 10 suspended players would not be expelled or suspended in return for agreeing to play

When it was first being reported, this was implied. Later, it was clarified. I jumped the gun, sue me.

The more interesting thing is that the school and/or media lied, as it was reported that the one of the driving forces behind the end of the boycott was the leaked report.

Some of the players were so angry at this lie, that they wanted to resume the boycott. But the coach intervened and convinced them not to go there.

(12-20-2016 08:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  absurd legal positions nobody else in the country wants or thinks will happen

Absurd to require universities to use an actual burden of proof if they're going to eject the student from school??
No one thinks universities should have to hold that a student is innocent until proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt??

Those are both false, the latter provably so (easily, in fact). So you know your statement is absurd.

(12-20-2016 08:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I gave you the reasons why you are alone in the universe with your proposal.

As I said, it's provable that I'm not.

And you didn't give any justification for why a university should be allowed to arbitrarily decide if it thinks someone is guilty.


Very few people think that should be allowed. And as more and more lawsuits are filed against the schools, and won by students unfairly punished by the schools, the laws will get changed. Good

I have to hand it to you. You stick to your guns even when you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about - which is remarkably often. Like now.

Interesting opinion piece on FERPA law in today's StarTrib: http://www.startribune.com/u-football-cr...407513046/

Quote:FERPA is a train wreck of a statute. Intended to protect only the confidentiality of “education records,” the law has become a catchall excuse for educational institutions to avoid accountability.

...

Congress drafted FERPA in 1974 with one narrow purpose in mind: To keep K-12 schools from disclosing psychological evaluations and similar documents to law enforcement before parents had the opportunity to inspect and correct them for misleading information. But thanks to aggressive lawyering by secretive colleges — and “home cooking” from deferential state-court judges — the statute has been judicially expanded beyond all rational boundaries. One Ohio court even classified e-mails between a football coach and a booster suspected of offering cars to recruits as “education records.”

...

But where college sports are concerned, reform needn’t wait for Congress. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has all the authority it needs to make college athletics more transparent — if the college presidents who run the organization decide to do so.

Every college athlete signs an NCAA-mandated privacy waiver as a condition of participation in intercollegiate sports. At the Division I level where Minnesota plays, the waiver states in part: “You … agree that information regarding any infractions matter in which you may be involved may be published or distributed to third parties as required by NCAA policies, bylaws or procedures.”

In other words, if NCAA “policies” required athletic departments to release more information about disciplinary infractions by athletes, then the public wouldn’t be left to wonder why Johnny isn’t playing — or whether Johnny is playing and shouldn’t be.

Helpfully, U President Eric Kaler is one of 24 members of the NCAA’s Division 1 board of directors — the very people who write those NCAA policies. He should seize this moment to show leadership and make sure the NCAA clarifies that, when athletes are accused of serious wrongdoing beyond petty victimless indiscretions, athletic departments must disclose everything they can without compromising the legitimate privacy interests of victims.

Colleges often tell the public, “We’d like to tell you more, but our hands are tied.” In fact, college presidents hold the keys to their own privacy handcuffs. Now it’s up to them to prove they’re sincere about accountability.

(12-20-2016 10:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  I have to hand it to you. You stick to your guns

I implore you to add to the discussion.

State a case, an argument, or just add something for why/how you think it should be a certain way, regardless if it is that way now and regardless of the likelihood for that to become the way in the future.

(12-20-2016 10:05 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 10:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  I have to hand it to you. You stick to your guns

I implore you to add to the discussion.

State a case, an argument, or just add something for why/how you think it should be a certain way, regardless if it is that way now and regardless of the likelihood for that to become the way in the future.

You are just having a "discussion" with yourself. Which is a good thing for you, since that means you don't have to be right, sensible, or open minded when you are your own audience.

Your entire history on this board is one of combative ignorance. You shoot off your mouth and then expect others to play by your imaginary rules for proper internet behavior. Newsflash. You don't get to make up the rules.

Troll away, Bison. It seems to make you happy. Just don't expect others to play your silly games.

An absolute contrarian, who won't lay any cards on the table himself.

Is there any other type, in internet discussions?? Touche, ken_d.

So IMHO the NCAA needs to investigate the improper benefits afforded the recruit...pretty swarmy.