Minnesota's boycott

Fox News reports that the Minnesota football team is boycotting all football activities, which would include their bowl game, until they get satisfactory answers from the University about the suspension of 10 players. They were suspended after an internal investigation into a sexual assault case.



The article includes the girl involved saying she was drunk and may have had consensual sex with 2 of the men.



The article refers to the Missouri boycott before the played BYU wherein the university president was kicked out.

It's impossible to have consensual sex while drunk.

nuk13 wrote:
Fox News reports that the Wisconsin football team is boycotting all football activities, which would include their bowl game, until they get satisfactory answers from the University about the suspension of 10 players. They were suspended after an internal investigation into a sexual assault case.



The article includes the girl involved saying she was drunk and may have had consensual sex with 2 of the men.



The article refers to the Missouri boycott before the played BYU wherein the university president was kicked out.

I thought it was Minnesota, not Wisconsin. I read something on ESPN about Minnesota:



http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18288753/minnesota-golden-gophers-players-boycotting-football-activities-suspensions-10-teammates

hawkwing wrote:
It's impossible to have consensual sex while drunk.

And you know this how? :whistle:

It is Minnesota. I got it wrong.



It is wrong for them to get off without consequence.

Here's the problem I have though. The players haven't been charged with anything yet. Innocent until proven guilty. Full team status until they've been charged with something. Unless there's proof they broke a team rule.

byufan4ever wrote:
Here's the problem I have though. The players haven't been charged with anything yet. Innocent until proven guilty. Full team status until they've been charged with something. Unless there's proof they broke a team rule.

I agree with the this sediment, but I think it the situation is slightly more complex. The players in question were not charged with any criminal offense by a prosecutor. But the university investigator(s) felt differently. Four players have been recommended to be expelled, another five to be suspended from the university for a year.



In my mind, the issue at question is how far can a university (a public one) punish students for offenses that did not warrant criminal charges. In this case there were basically two different standards that were applied to the players. The criminal standard and a university standard. How different should they be?

That's why I said unless they broke a team rule. If they signed up to the team rules then they have to live with those consequences too.

Maybe we could stay in SD and play in the Holiday Bowl in their place.

This is a tricky one.



First the investigator is literally risking his/her job to push forward with these. See what happened to Missouri's President. So I have to believe their investigation lead to evidence that is pretty compelling.



Second, the DA not pressing charges isn't that strange. If there isn't much evidence beyond the victim's testimony, then the DA may be judge they have no chance at a criminal conviction.



Based on that I have to believe the evidence shows that accused probably committed the crime. However, there is not the right kind of evidence for a criminal trial.



Which means that if the other players want to boycott, they are likely supporting criminals.

scott715 wrote:
Maybe we could stay in SD and play in the Holiday Bowl in their place.

Wouldn't that be something? Two bowl games in one season, and not in the playoffs. See, there is still a chance at a ten win season. Tom Holmoe needs to get on the phone! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

At my job if someone is even suspected of sexual harassment they are removed from the job or location of the alleged victim until the matter is resolved in order to protect all three parties.

Gopher fan here--I'm pretty surprised about the stance the football players are taking, especially give the progressive nature of Minnesotans in general and the University in particular. The optics of this are terrible and reading the statements by the players, they know this. Something about this whole situation doesn't seem right, so I'm planning on reserving judgement until after more facts come out.



This issue has become a huge story both in Minnesota and nation-wide, so I hope in the end it's not a case of the players being mislead by teammates' false claims of innocence.

byufan4ever wrote:

It's impossible to have consensual sex while drunk.

And you know this how? :whistle:

Excellent reply. I can see Hawk blushing now as he sloppily staggers into his bedroom!

Another option is to have the winner of our bowl to then play in the Holiday Bowl. Quasi playoff and it would make our game more interesting.

Yet another example that if universities really want to get serious about sexual assault they must address the one of the biggest, if the not THE biggest, factor in almost ALL of these:



ALCOHOL.



It's use destroys lives. Nothing good comes from its consumption.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Yet another example that if universities really want to get serious about sexual assault they must address the one of the biggest, if the not THE biggest, factor in almost ALL of these:



ALCOHOL.



It's use destroys lives. Nothing good comes from its consumption.

Amen to that!

SpiffCoug wrote:
Yet another example that if universities really want to get serious about sexual assault they must address the one of the biggest, if the not THE biggest, factor in almost ALL of these:



ALCOHOL.



It's use destroys lives. Nothing good comes from its consumption.

That is true not just of alcohol but of all drugs.



Is the football team going to run the University of Minnesota or is the president and staff? Are sports of all kinds going to be more important than academics at many universities?