Gophers players end boycott of football; preparing to play in bowl game


#1

University of Minnesota football players ended their boycott of the team Saturday morning and “will immediately begin preparations” to play in the Holiday Bowl, according to a players’ statement emailed to the Star Tribune.

Several players gathered at the football complex Saturday morning to announce the team’s plans.

The players’ statement reads, in part:

“As a team, we understand that what has occurred these past few days, and playing football for the University of Minnesota, is larger than just us. …

“We now ask that you, the members of the media, our fans, and the general public hold all of us accountable for ensuring that our teammates are treated fairly, along with any and all victims of sexual assault. We also ask that the public dialogue related to the apparent lack of due process in a university system is openly discussed and evaluated.

“As football players, we know that we represent this University and this state and that we are held to a higher standard. We want to express our deepest gratitude to our coaching staff and so many others for their support during this difficult time, and we hope that our fans and community understand why we took the actions that we did.

“Our thoughts and prayers are for the well-being of the woman involved in the original incident, and for our 10 teammates to ensure that they are treated fairly. We look forward to representing the University of Minnesota and the state of Minnesota in the Holiday Bowl in a way that makes all of you proud.”

More:
startribune.com/gophers-players-u-leaders-working-toward-ending-boycott-of-football/407201426/


#2

Despite the fact that these players were cleared by the police investigation, they will never be treated fairly by the college. Title XI and the Obama Administration’s Dear Colleague Letter are fundamentally opposed to due process and the school will follow those directives due to fear of losing federal funds.

The only way the players could strike back is threatening the school with destruction of their football program and they gave up their strongest bargaining chip.


#3

Do we know they didn’t violate school rules regarding their conduct? This could differ from what is considered criminal from a police investigation standpoint.


#4

This is not cheating, or being disruptive in the classroom. This is sexual assault we are talking about here. This should be a criminal matter. It should not be a trivialized to the level of a voluntarily intoxicated female accompanying a male athlete back to his room.


#5

Agreed.

My understanding is that there was a video presented as evidence which made it appear consensual, which is why the criminal matter was dismissed.

With that said, the university has at it’s disposal it’s own code of conduct rules I would imagine that allowed them to enforce their suspensions.

I’m disgusted the entire team decided to protest by boycotting the game. Where are these adult mens sense of right and wrong here?


#6

Which is why I would have supported them if they had forfeited the game. It’s my understanding that Minnesota is one the teams that has lost money on at least one bowl game before anyways. :eek:


#7

Since it was consensual, what gives the school the right to redefine sexual assault?

I’m disgusted the entire team decided to protest by boycotting the game. Where are these adult mens sense of right and wrong here?

I was impressed by them. A group of guys standing up for their own instead of white-knighting? You rarely see men with the backbone to do that. Loyalty to their brothers and a dedication to a fair procedure is laudable.


#8

They didn’t redefine sexual assault. But they did have code of conduct that defined what is acceptable. The news here (yes, I am in Minneapolis) is that the striking players, the faculty, and the general student body all agreed that the University treated the suspended players fairly and in accord with the same standards that would apply to any student.


#9

Yes, they did redefine sexual assault under a nebulous standard of affirmative consent which would effectively enable anyone to retroactively cry rape.

The news here (yes, I am in Minneapolis) is that the striking players, the faculty, and the general student body all agreed that the University treated the suspended players fairly and in accord with the same standards that would apply to any student.

They were cleared by the police. They are innocent until someone comes up with more evidence than the words of a woman who was intoxicated at the time.


#10

The University has a code of conduct that is in addition to what the police would define as a crime.


#11

Yes, and as I pointed out, that code redefines sexual assault so that anyone could retroactively cry rape. It is an assault on due process.


#12

They weren’t cleared by the police. The county attorney decided not to file charges because he didn’t think he could prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. That isn’t an exoneration. The boycotting players started under this same faulty reasoning. Once they actually read the report and realized how bad this is, they dropped their boycott without any concessions at all.

I suggest that people actually read the reports before they reach conclusions (I read both the police report and the University’s report; yes, I live here and graduated from the school). The University did a far deeper investigation that the police did. The first two guys were probably consensual, but the rest probably weren’t. There is evidence in the University report that this is not the first time they’ve done this, either. The University report explains why her testimony is credible and theirs is not.

Also, the county attorney is taking a second look at the case now that the University uncovered more than the police did, so it would not surprise me to see criminal charges down the road: County attorney taking another look at Gophers’ assault investigation


#13

Which in a lot of cases has turned into a crybaby fest and kangaroo courts designated to force people to follow a narrow, progressive line of thinking.

That’s a HUGE free speech issue on a public university.

Even mainstream liberals are getting upset over this nonsense, and they should be!


#14

My original comment was in response the CA not filing charges, but if they do, that’s a different ball-game because of the obvious legal legitimacy.

Otherwise, US universities have become notoriously annoying with all sorts of overblown nonsense.


#15

Going beyond just this case and stating the obvious (especially on this forum), a lot of these problems on campuses could be avoided if people followed Christian teachings on sexuality. But what does God know about His designs for Creation.


#16

I see nothing impressive nor laudable for a group of guys defending several of their brothers acting dishonorably towards a woman (whether the acts were consensual or not).


#17

We live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty and proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required.

he boycotting players started under this same faulty reasoning. Once they actually read the report and realized how bad this is, they dropped their boycott without any concessions at all.

That report is bunk. I bet you would look guilty too if we:

  1. Had a panel of academics with no formal legal training but had preconceived ideological biases judge you

  2. Prevented you from having a lawyer present.

  3. Prevented your cross examination of the accuser.

  4. Accused you of a crime with a nebulous definition.

  5. Made you prove your innocence.


#18

This is whether or not a sexual assault occurred acting “honorably”, or chivalrously has nothing to do with it. Besides, women are equal and have no need for chivalry. Besides that, if she wanted to be treated honorably how about not getting drunk, having a threesome, then falsely accusing people?


#19

Acting honorably has everything to do with it.


#20

That goes both ways.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.