TOM DAVIES: The Verdict — U Of M President Should Stand His Ground

By now, it’s common knowledge that the poor Minnesota Gopher football players have been savaged by a bad old administration for, as one blogger put it, “taking a stand for due process.”

Inforum.com reported the entire Gopher team would be boycotting the Holiday Bowl over suspensions handed out by the University of Minnesota administration over the sexual activities of many football players and others with a single intoxicated female victim.

I thought there were a lot more learned writers on this subject, but I was apparently wrong. The players’ more recent decision to drop that idea doesn’t change the picture, either. Let me tell you what I think should be done, and then I’ll tell you why.

I’d suspend each and every player who threatened to participate in the boycott and terminate their scholarships. On top of that, I would fire Coach Tracy Claeys, who tweeted his support for his players after their announcement.

While it’s true the players gutted out when they were exposed for what they are, and now plan to play, the situation still requires action by the university administration for their defense of the indefensible.

A quick summary: The Hennepin County Attorney’s office declined to prosecute the players. In criminal court, the burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Because they decided they would not prosecute (a decision, by the way, that can be reconsidered if they wish), the University of Minnesota administration did as it is required to do under federal law.

The administration commenced an investigation under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. The law states this: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Here is a little-known fact. While the Title IX act applies generally to athletics, it also applies to every aspect of education. When it is used, the burden of proof is by preponderance of the evidence (i.e. who is more believable) — which is a much lower standard than “reasonable doubt.”

The U of M has administrative rules and policy that relate to sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking and relationship violence that comply with Title IX. That’s where the players’ violations were noted.

Let’s summarize the school’s 80-page confidential report — which was “leaked” and posted online by a Twin Cities TV station:

What happened: A young lady college student became intoxicated in her room before leaving for some parties. The parties were advertised via the football team’s own “Empire network,” which enabled them to indicate who would be there and what and where things were happening — things like players and others having sex with girls.

The young lady, although intoxicated, apparently had some of her senses when the night began. She remembers all of her clothes being removed and thrown to the far side of the room. All she was left was a blanket to cover herself.

She entered a room where, before the night was over, she allegedly had sex with 10 players plus an undisclosed number of other men who were not identified. She was extremely fearful and wanted out of the room but feared injury if she did not comply … so she did with a variety of sex acts. Some things she remembers; some not.

No one disputes the report that there was a line of men outside the room — referred to as a crowd — waiting to have sex with her.

It’s easy to say she shouldn’t have been there, but that is not the point. Without consent, this constitutes a crime being committed. Even without the crime scenario, what kind of morals do these young men have … and what kind of moral leadership does the coach provide?

Apparently, the answer is “none.”

Knowing what had happened, that coach sided with his group of student “heroes” — young men who think it’s quite all right to seek out and abuse vulnerable women, including those whom they may refer to as “hoes,” meaning prostitutes.

What kind of demented thinking can condone and or accept what these cowardly men did? No woman with her faculties would consent to sex with up to 20 men. No men with any guts or moral fiber would participate.

Apparently, the fact a person is intoxicated, is involved in group sex without consent and surrounded by a pack of male animals — who just happen in most cases to be football players — did not give the Hennepin County Attorney “probable cause” to believe a crime has been committed. Do you suppose there was some degree of fear that such a move would be unpopular?

When the university began its own investigation, the Police Department released its reports in redacted form; in this case, that means they were edited to delete names. But, oddly, the Hennepin County Attorney refused to release its own reports. Odd … but not anything new.

It was the word of a sizeable pack of sex-crazed male miscreants against one intoxicated female student. Hell, that pack of jackals even deleted messages surrounding the incident from their phones and took other steps to hide their involvement.

The University of Minnesota has done its job and, up to this point, has done it well. Now, here’s some advice! Don’t let those clowns play in any bowl game this year. In fact, get the males who were involved in this ugliness completely off your campus.

Give Gov. Mark Dayton a copy of the Title IX Report with conclusions, too, since he has said he thinks the administration should meet with the players. He is wrong! They should not.

These athletes seem to uphold the abusive, woman-abusing tradition of our president-elect. You heard the Trump tape in October. You know what I mean. Enough is enough! It is long, long past time that a message be sent to the self-proclaimed superjocks that this behavior will not be tolerated … not when they start being spoiled in high school, and certainly not as young adults in college.

The father of one of the players involved in the incident has been quoted as saying that if his son is suspended, he will take him out of school. Good riddance! At least in the case of this man’s son, it is clear who set the example for his behavior.

By the way, the young female victim did go to the hospital the next day for medical care, and she reported the horrendous incident to the police. Yet we’re told the county prosecutors didn’t think they had a case. I ask you: Isn’t that what juries are for?

There is so much more to this story. It virtually begs to be released. That information would further validate the actions of the school administration.

My strongest recommendation to University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler is this: Stand your ground!

On a much lighter note, here’s one last update on the Davies Christmas Tree Caper. The tree went up; the cat knocked it down. The tree went up again; the cat knocked it down again. That’s what happens, we now know, when you leave a stepladder beside the tree and exit the room.

Once we learned that she was launching herself from the top of the ladder, we finally moved it. The third time was a charm. Our 10-foot tree is still standing.

As a Christmas gift to the cat, we let her live.

Amen … and a merry Christmas to all!

2 thoughts on “TOM DAVIES: The Verdict — U Of M President Should Stand His Ground”

  • Bill McKechnie December 22, 2016 at 6:58 am

    Spot on

    1. Thomas A. Davies December 22, 2016 at 11:36 am

      Thanks Bill


Leave a Reply