University of Minnesota Football Team Boycotts 'Unjust Title IX Investigation' (Updated*)

Ten students of color were suspended for sexual misconduct, even though the police said it was consensual.

|

Minn
Screenshot via ESPN

A major showdown over Title IX is brewing at the University of Minnesota, where the entire football team has agreed to boycott future games in support of 10 players who were suspended for sexual misconduct violations.

Student-athlete Drew Wolitarsky read a statement on behalf of the team Thursday night in which he blamed the administration for conducting an "unjust Title IX investigation without due process."

"We are concerned that our brothers have been named publicly with reckless disregard in violation of their constitutional rights," he said. "We are now compelled to speak for our team and take back our program."

Coach Tracy Claeys appears to be in full support of the boycott. "Have never been more proud of our kids," he tweeted.

The incident in question took place the night of September 2, after the team's season-opener. One female student alleged that she was involved in nonconsensual sex with several people, including Carlton Djam, one of the football players. According to The Star Tribune, the woman consumed "five or six" shots before heading to a party where she met Djam. He took her up to a bedroom and proceeded to have sex with her. She then engaged in sex with a number of other men—she told the police they waited in line to "take turns." She thought as many as 12 men were involved, though she couldn't recall the exact number.

That's the woman's version. Djam told police that their sex was fully consensual. He produced three video clips taken on the morning in question that showed the woman was "lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time," according to the police report. This satisfied the police and no charges were filed.

The woman then pursued a restraining order against six football players, and an agreement was reached: they had to stay away from her, and she agreed not to take further legal action against them.

End of story? Nope. That's because the university has its own process for investigating sexual misconduct that is separate from the police. According to the Education Department, Title IX—a federal statute mandating equality between the sexes in public education—requires universities to adjudicate sexual misconduct internally. These Title IX proceedings often deny fundamental due process rights to accused students, since the Office for Civil Rights—the agency that ensures Title IX compliance—has instructed universities to use a lower standard of proof. OCR guidance also discourages administrators from allowing cross-examination, one of the most vital tools a defendant has to prove his or her innocent.

As a result of Minnesota's Title IX proceeding, 10 players were suspended. The Pioneer Press reported that expulsion was recommended for at least one of them.

The New York Times wrote about the boycott, which seems likely to become a major national issue—and hopefully result in increased scrutiny of OCR. The NYT wrote that "burdens of proof used in [Title IX] investigations are by law lower than the criminal justice system's," which is a bit misleading, as KC Johnson pointed out. It is OCR's opinion that Title IX—a one-sentence statute—requires university administrators to use the preponderance of evidence standard. But neither Congress, nor the courts, nor the Minnesota legislature have approved such a requirement.

That's not the only curious thing about the NYT's coverage.

Note that every single one of the 10 suspended students is black. We don't know what, exactly, they are all accused of—recall that the woman only filed restraining orders against six of them—but we do know that they are all students of color, because they were named and publicly identified.

The Times glosses over this detail.

Given the fact that the criminal justice system is plagued by implicit and explicit racism, it's astonishing that the paper of record would ignore the racial implications of a university denying fundamental due process to 10 black students and then punishing them for sexual misconduct.

*Updated on December 17 and 1:00 p.m.: The Gophers have ended their boycott. The suspensions remain in place.

Advertisement

NEXT: Hell in a handbasket, grammar division

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I was waiting for Reaason to pick this up. It has the makings of a real shit-show.

    And I’m first for the first time!

    1. I sent him the lead last night. I trust his analysis and diligence on these topics and wanted to make sure he ran with it to get to the truth.

    2. First awards are for Links posts only.

      1. Um…yeah…I knew that. I was just…uh…practicing. yeah, I was practicing!

    3. I currently gain in the span of 6000-8000 bucks on monthly basis with my internet task. Everyone eager to work easy online tasks for some h every day from your house and gain solid income for doing it… Then this work is for you… http://www.ezycash5.com

    4. I currently gain in the span of 6000-8000 bucks on monthly basis with my internet task. Everyone eager to work easy online tasks for some h every day from your house and gain solid income for doing it… Then this work is for you… http://www.ezycash5.com

  2. Every time MN makes Reason news it’s something facepalm worthy. My own college no less.

    1. What’s that Latin bit for referencing the college you graduated from?

      1. Alma mater?

        1. Gratzie.

          1. ^ I passed 2 years of Italian. let me break some news to you guys — college is a fucking joke and anyone who fails out had to try, hard. Fin. Finite? Finito?

            1. anyone who fails out had to try, hard

              Or not try at all…so I’ve heard.

            2. I dunno, I could see people not having to try very hard to fail out of something like a material science degree.

              1. Yeah that very much depends on your major.

                Still if you flunk out of Quantum Physics you can always transfer to liberal arts before you get kicked out entirely.

                1. I was a philosophy major with no minor lol.

                  Basically couldn’t have been any easier but some people say philosophy is hard. Idk.

                  Don’t make me do math problems — in MN only math class I had to take in 6ish years of college (I was a super senior) was logic, but that was for the AA. Philosophy BA didn’t give no fucks.

                  1. A philosophy major that doesn’t know Latin?

                    1. I was a shit student, I take no pride in it. Imputing the least amount of effort for maximum results has always been my forte.

                      I’m a people person, who could play a mean, “sorry professor, I’ve just been having some troubles at home.” card. I buttered up my professors like nobodies business. All options were on the table, all weapons were used.

                  2. Other philosophy major here, though not at the U.

                    Can confirm that it was pretty easy (though I actually did take Latin). In my program we had a name for the people who said philosophy was hard: seminarians.

                2. You just have to make it pass-fail and get a sympathetic professor.

            3. Gratzie

              I passed 2 years of Italian.

              college is a fucking joke

              QED

              1. Grazie per quel chiarimento. Si vede che fino al terzo anno si salta la scrittura!

                Of course, his typos spill over to English as well.

                His honesty is laudable: he’s not proud of the low road he took. Half and half, did you find satisfaction after the less-than-satisfactory university stint? After all, you read Reason….

        1. Now that’s the Latin I speak

      2. U of M’s motto: We’ll Lernt You Good

  3. Note that every single one of the 10 suspended students is black. We don’t know what, exactly, they are all accused of?recall that the woman only filed restraining orders against six of them?but we do know that they are all students of color, because they were named and publicly identified.

    The Times glosses over this detail.

    I dunno, wasn’t there a viral video of a woman walking around New York city for ten hours, and it accidentally showed that the biggest danger to white women on the streets of NY were black men?

    1. Both these episodes complicated the narrative, and thus were swiftly shoved down the memory hole.

      1. Weird how the memory hole always seems to be giving emphatic affirmative consent.

    2. Clearly white woman pussy should be outlawed due to it’s power over the black man.

    3. What is the racial composition of the football team as a whole? The photo shows one white student in the foreground, and at least four black students, and one other white student, behind him. What is the race of the accuser? These questions shouldn’t matter, but since the question of race was brought up, they do.

    4. That video which proved that saying, “Hi, how are you?” is an unbearable form of harassment?

  4. Note that every single one of the 10 suspended students is black. We don’t know what, exactly, they are all accused of?recall that the woman only filed restraining orders against six of them?but we do know that they are all students of color, because they were named and publicly identified.

    Oh the humanity.

    The Times glosses over this detail.

    This is a key detail as to whether or not these rape allegations are legitimate. Like totally, Robby.

    Given the fact that the criminal justice system is plagued by implicit and explicit racism, it’s astonishing that the paper of record would ignore the racial implications of a university denying fundamental due process to 10 black students and then punishing them for sexual misconduct.

    It’s like apartheid, Jim Crow and a KKK lynching all rolled into one times 1000.

    Someone get this Robby guy another Southern California journalism award stat!

    1. I may be wrong, but I think Robby is insinuating that this story shows that advancing the narrative of “Rape Culture” ranks higher on the NYT To-Do list than ending “Racism”

    2. It just confirms that to the NYT, the rape culture narrative takes precedence over the race baiting narrative. Expect a hysterical response from EverydayFeminism blaming White Feminism for this development.

      1. I like the way you said it better

        1. But you were first and that’s what really matters!

          1. Ahh…you say the nicest thing.

      2. Do they consult a cheatsheet for grievance ranking or did they have to agonize over it for hours? I’m pulling for them having to agonize, but the cheatsheet is more likely.

      3. Excellent!!

        Microaggressor|12.16.16 @ 12:49PM said:

        ” It just confirms that to the NYT, the rape culture narrative takes precedence over the race baiting narrative. Expect a hysterical response from Everyday Feminism blaming White Feminism for this development.”

        On the Some Girls album Mick Jagger said: “White girls want everything in the world you can possibly imagine”
        Only legally marring Bianca and divorcing, all other women he had relationships with he paid off.

        Found out he’s right

    3. It’s like apartheid, Jim Crow and a KKK lynching all rolled into one times 1000.

      If you are going to complain, you should probably stick to what people actually are saying. Or not. I shouldn’t care I guess.

      But, given that the actual criminal justice system apparently didn’t railroad them because they were black, it is a bit of a non sequitur.

      It probably should have just noted that the NY Times probably would have made a thing of their race had they been shot by cops, or questionably accused of a non-sex crime. Must be a tough decision. Do we go with the “everyone’s racist” narrative, or the “college campuses are rape factories and jocks are evil” one?

      1. If you are going to complain, you should probably stick to what people actually are saying. Or not. I shouldn’t care I guess.

        It was a joke. It was obviously a joke. Welcome to the commentariat! If you should or shouldn’t care, that’s up to you. I don’t.

        But, given that the actual criminal justice system apparently didn’t railroad them because they were black, it is a bit of a non sequitur.

        Hence my joke lying complaint about what Robby said.

        1. Sorry, I’m just not a fan of jokes based on wild misrepresentations of what people actually say or believe.

          You are awfully sensitive for someone who claims not to care what people think of him.

          1. Sorry, I’m just not a fan of jokes based on wild misrepresentations of what people actually say or believe.

            Alright so your sense of humor is boring and you’re immune to sarcasm. That’s fine, you can still lead a happy and productive life.

            You are awfully sensitive for someone who claims not to care what people think of him.

            That’s interesting. I’m the sensitive one for writing a short and civil reply to your strangely combative comment, and here you are calling out someone for what was clearly a joke, as though it was presented to you as sober paraphrasing.

            And you misunderstand me, I didn’t say that I don’t care what people think of me. I said I don’t care if you personally give any fucks about how I worded a sarcastic comment.

            1. Clearly a joke? Obviously not. That joke was about as clear as Robby’s equivocation.

              1. Right, I was soberly paraphrasing Robby’s statement by saying that “it’s like apartheid, Jim Crow and a KKK lynching all rolled into one times 1000”. You can tell that I was super serious because you’re just so good at grasping context. What else are you “good” at?

    4. Eh…I think it’s just a wedge issue to throw in their faces. “Fight fire with fire” kind of stuff.

    5. It’s like apartheid, Jim Crow and a KKK lynching all rolled into one times 1000.

      It’s traditional, in particular for Democrats.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGQ-ISsDm8M

  5. Note that every single one of the 10 suspended students is black.

    I’m not sure what the implication here is supposed to be. Any? Is it just that the NYT is selective about their obsession about fixating on race? or is it that some of the accused students were white, but only the black students were suspended? its not clear.

    1. and yes i read the bit =

      it’s astonishing that the paper of record would ignore the racial implications of a university denying fundamental due process to 10 black students and then punishing them for sexual misconduct.

      My point is that i don’t really get the “Racial implications” being suggested. Isn’t this the same way Title IX treats everyone? Robby’s written dozens of examples of “due process denial” on campus and they’ve mostly been white kids, last i checked.

      1. I think it’s worth pointing out, because we can assume the NYT is in favor of Title IX, and reporting on these hatefacts would undermine their readers’ support for Title IX which is Not Okay.

        1. reporting on these hatefacts would undermine their readers’ support for Title IX which is Not Okay

          You mean they avoid saying “it hurts black kids too” because it might make Title IX look bad? ok, fair enough. Weird that it never ‘looked bad’ before when it does the same thing to hundreds of others.

          I still don’t know what the “Racial Implications” he refers to are. Because he knows as well as anyone that Title IX is equally shitty to everyone. Is the idea that *anything* that happens to black people has ‘racial implications’? Its like saying Hurricane Sandy had ‘racial implications’ when it flooded Far Rockaway, but not Hoboken.

          1. Because he knows as well as anyone that Title IX is equally shitty to everyone.

            Probably more of a disparate impact angle.

            Weird that it never ‘looked bad’ before when it does the same thing to hundreds of others.

            Weird to you and I, and others who aren’t obsessed with race. Not weird to the BLM crowd who cheer when white people are punished (justice is served) and protest when black people are punished due to a religious believe in collective guilt.

          2. But of course it did. Housing standards are lower in Rockaway than in Hoboken and that’s racist. You can always find some way to turn anything into racism as long as it isn’t exclusive to white (or orientals – somehow we never could make them accept their rightful place as marginalized, desperate, uneducated, poor non-whites that we tried so hard to make them into /sarc).

            1. Housing standards are lower in Rockaway than in Hoboken and that’s racist. You can always find some way to turn anything into racism

              Beat me to it. Here’s one way: Massive loads of public housing were dumped in the Rockaways because they’re about as far away from the rest of the city as you can get.

      2. Robby is really begging the question here. He just assumes, as blindly as he possibly can, that a black person being accused of a crime automatically implies some nefarious form of racism at work. Given the over-representation of blacks on collegiate and professional football teams, the purported bias could just as easily be one against football players and men more generally.

        1. I disagree. Robby points out that ALL of the students caught up were black.

          It’s fair to point out that the NYT has printed reams of articles calling out school systems for having extremely lopsided records on punishing black students in much greater proportion than white students. If the NYT doesn’t even give a nod to this in the application of Title IX, doesn’t it suggest that maybe the NYT never really cared about race before, but uses it as a wedge issue?

          1. I don’t see the additional utility or clarity of having a major newspaper once again draw undue attention to the race of alleged perpetrators of a crime for which there is no known racial dimension. The newspaper in question would be more likely to create a racial dimension where there wasn’t one before.

            From what I’ve read, it certainly seems like Robby is convinced that race is the central issue here.

            Robby points out that ALL of the students caught up were black.

            They were also all on the football team. They are also all men. They probably all have short hair and are all possibly taller than average. And yes they are all black. No one, except the Title IX bureaucrats really knows what exactly the bias is however, so pretending to know is not constructive.

            Heck maybe Robby is making a comment on race baiting from the NYT, but will anyone read it that way? I know I didn’t, but only because I’ve seen Robby do plenty of race baiting himself. Or maybe this is just Robby being coy by making it seem like he’s convinced of the racial aspect being valid.

          2. Robby gets a lot of undue shit for equivocation. But, I think it’s a stretch to say that he was trying to point out the Times’ hypocrisy. The point was Robby’s. And yes, it is a silly one.

        2. He just assumes, as blindly as he possibly can, that a black person being accused of a crime automatically implies some nefarious form of racism at work

          I suppose that probably isn’t quite the dumbest way to interpret the post.

          Seems to me he’s making the point that people who cry racism over every damn thing are being careful to hide the race of the affected students because they don’t want people screaming racism this time.

          1. Given the fact that the criminal justice system is plagued by implicit and explicit racism, it’s astonishing that the paper of record would ignore the racial implications of a university denying fundamental due process to 10 black students and then punishing them for sexual misconduct.

            Yes, I see that’s he’s commenting on the NYT coverage, but he didn’t mention anything about their history of race baiting and he did not try to contrast them with any sort of “then versus now” comparison regarding NYT coverage. He just spelled out that the justice system is racist and the NYT is remiss for not focusing on the race of the alleged perpetrators that were effectively cleared of wrongdoing by the aforementioned racist justice system.

            Sorry but it’s hard to give Robby the benefit of the doubt when he’s riding his “everyone is racist” hobby horse. Which looks suspiciously like the steed he’s riding right now.

            1. Hey, don’t blame me for the fact that you can’t grasp context. And take Gilmore with you.

              1. Yeah clearly I can’t grasp context. Robby’s problem is that he wrote this article just too perfectly, so only the truly superior commentarians, like yourself, can really understand it. Heaven forbid anyone take his writing at face value and not read it in the best possible light. It just can’t be possible that Robby made bad any arguments.

                1. Heaven forbid anyone take his writing at face value and not read it in the best possible light.

                  Right, it’s easier to just be a douche. Because Robby.

                  1. Right, it’s easier to just be a douche. Because Robby.

                    Just to be clear, being a douche = criticizing an argument for things it actually said, instead of praising it for saying something it literally didn’t say.

                    Do you think Robby is going to give you some pussy or something? Because your white knighting for him makes it difficult to take you seriously, somehow even more difficult than usual.

                    1. Because your white knighting for him makes it difficult to take you seriously, somehow even more difficult than usual.

                      I guess I take a little pride in the fact that I don’t need everything spelled out for me like a child. I’m pretty satisfied with the fact that I can discern an actual message without getting overly hung up on the words.

                    2. But not so much pride that you bother to point to anywhere that it actually says what you say it does. Don’t get hung up on words because they don’t mean stuff. Message received, great talk.

                    3. Message received, great talk.

                      Yes, I understand you don’t get things unless they’re explicitly spelled out for you. No need to belabor the point.

                    4. No need to belabor the point for which you have no evidence, ’tis true.

                2. Well, I do think that it is usually best to read things with a charitable interpretation.

                  There is no “face value”. Everything has meaning only in context. If there are multiple reasonable ways to read something, why not choose the most positive one?

                  1. There is no “face value”. Everything has meaning only in context. If there are multiple reasonable ways to read something, why not choose the most positive one?

                    Okay, what’s the context? That Robby wrote it? I guess we should just assume that he’s making a rational argument even if all the evidence points to the contrary, because it’s Robby posting on Reason.com, there can’t possibly be any bad arguments being made.

                    1. You said there is no reason to read it in the best possible light. I think there is. That’s all.

                    2. You said there is no reason to read it in the best possible light. I think there is. That’s all.

                      Meanwhile I have the written word to cite. You have what? Feelings? If you have “context” other than feelings, I’d love to see it. That’s all.

              2. take Gilmore with you.

                What did i do this time?

                1. What did i do this time?

                  Last I checked, you actually disagreed with my assessment. But I guess Sparky couldn’t “grasp the context”.

          2. Seems to me he’s making the point that people who cry racism over every damn thing are being careful to hide the race of the affected students because they don’t want people screaming racism this time.

            I agree that’s what he apparently *tried* to say (according to his below comment)

            its just that he didn’t say it at all clearly.

            In fact, it seemed from the last paragraph that he wasn’t suggesting any ‘double standard’ by the NYT – but chastising them for overlooking obvious “racial implications” (which no one else seems to grok)

    2. They found 10 black people in Minnesota? That sounds newsworthy to me.

      1. They play for the football team, I doubt most of them are actually from there.

      2. Well, MN does actually have the largest Somali population outside of Mogadishu, but point taken.

        1. What’s Morris Day?

            1. Its sad that morris day is best (pretty much only) remembered as a Kevin smith joke.

    3. I generally agree, but I think racial angle makes it tougher for the ESPNs of the world to roll out their standard boilerplate SJW “think pieces” on this fiasco. If they follow through with the boycott, it’s going to be a massive deal in the sports world.

      1. the racial angle makes it tougher for the ESPNs of the world to roll out their standard boilerplate SJW “think pieces” on this fiasco

        Noted = the Vanderbilt football-team gang-bang never really got nearly the same public-traction as the UVA/Jackie story.

        At least outside the sports-pages… it never became part of the SJW ‘rape culture’ narrative partly because (i think) the perps were *both* white and black. It didn’t have the sort of clear-cut “racist” (like duke – white on black) or ‘anti-institutional’ (frats) angles like the UVA story….

        1. Yeah, I had heard about that one (in my various “fake news” feeds) and you’re exactly right on why it didn’t get the attention.

          The thing about this one is that the boycott is a massive forcing function for attention. If they follow through on it, it just can’t be ignored. At the very least the sports media has to cover it. This is an interesting opportunity to get normal people to think about the Title 9 / OCR stuff that we see on Reason, but don’t get MSM coverage.

          Then racial angle sort of balances the scales of social justice so that it’s tougher SJWs to write a one-sided opinion piece. On talk shows you could end with a white-SJW type debating against a black former player.

  6. Glosses over?

    Nah.

    Some black athletes ran a train on this woman–that’s not even being disputed.

    The Minnesoda cops agreed with the black jocks that she liked it.

    Glossed over–more like sanded off. Cops and black guys agreeing?

    When it’s “rape”?

    That’s gotta rip a liberal mind to pieces.


    1. Cops and black guys agreeing?
      When it’s “rape”?
      That’s gotta rip a liberal mind to pieces.

      Ok, now THAT is clear. But i don’t think that’s the point robby was making (or that the NYT was avoiding).

      That *is* an interesting angle = the story seems to undermine the typical BLM accusations, always asserting that its “police” that are tainted by structural racism, and that the Good Government attitude typical of college-campuses is the better model. Here that’s reversed.

      Or maybe not – i presume the reaction by many of the socjus-leaning types is that the cops got it wrong, and that the “victim” isn’t being properly handled. That she was probably in denial and that you can’t use evidence like, “she seemed cool with it” afterward in a case like this.

      Which may in fact be true; but they’ll assume it even if it wasn’t.

      1. you’d be surprised how many (alleged) sex assault cases are dumped by sex assault detectives as being full of shit, not to mention at the patrol level and above that at the prosecutor level.

        I’ve personally investigated cases that were utter horseshit and my questioning of the “victim” and ‘suspect” revealed the suspect was innocent as fuck.

        1. I’ve personally investigated cases that were utter horseshit and my questioning of the “victim” and ‘suspect” revealed the suspect was innocent as fuck.

          Yeah, because you have to wear a badge to truly learn or appreciate this lesson. No regular man has ever been falsely accused by a woman for anything let alone anything sexual.

          1. based on the nature of our job, we are much more likely to deal with it and far more examples of it.

            many men can go through life never falsely accused of sexual misconduct

            but in 20 yrs of patrol (man that makes me feel old) , I’ve run into several

            that I know of

            no way to know if some of the apparently legit reports I took were full o shit as well

            1. based on the nature of our job, we are much more likely to deal with it and far more examples of it.

              Deal with false accusations? Deal with people not getting raped? More likely than whom? Holy fuck, do marriage counselors, social workers, and divorce lawyers not exist in your world? Are all the guys you know friendless eunuchs? I mean, fuck, do you investigate false pregnancies too? Are cases of buyer’s remorse purely mythical until you’ve filed a report on them? There’s probably an STD-scares task force isn’t there?

              Based on the nature of your job you’re only likely to deal with anything when somebody decides to pick up the phone and call you. You may be surprised to find learn that all the other false accusations and near misses get shared at the sports bar and nail salons with the rest of the normies. Both sides in the Title IX fight acknowledge that the police generally get the least amount of information and specifically because everybody keeps them on a ‘need-to-know’ basis so they can bludgeon the other side.

              You aren’t Superman and, even if you were, nobody ever calls fucking Superman to investigate a false rape.

            2. I mean, holy shit, the whole article is about how the police were minimally involved but now an entire *team* of guys, possibly even a University, has to do *something* about this false rape allegation and *you’re* telling *me* the cops are the only ones who have a clue as to the prevalence and magnitude of false allegations?

              Get your head examined.

              1. “based on the nature of our job, we are much more likely to deal with it and far more examples of it.”

                response: ” You aren’t Superman and, even if you were, nobody ever calls fucking Superman to investigate a false rape.” “Get your head examined.”

                LMAO. You are single and have no friends, mad.causal!

    2. Some black athletes ran a train on this woman–that’s not even being disputed. The Minnesoda cops agreed with the black jocks that she liked it.

      And it sounds like they shouldn’t be found guilty of criminal misconduct. However, a university might reasonably consider such behavior incompatible with its educational goals, reputation, and/or athletic team requirements even if consensual. And the same goes for the drinking and the wild parties.

  7. I really don’t care about the racial angle. The fact that they were denied due process has me much more concerned.

    I hope they do boycott – it will be fun to watch this cost the school a ton of money for the bowl game.

    1. Yes, that is the most important aspect of this story. Hit back twice as hard, as Instapundit likes to say.

  8. Duke!

    This story puts assholes like Jackson and Sharpton in a bit of a pickle I reckon.

  9. OCR guidance also discourages administrators from allowing cross-examination, one of the most vital tools a defendant has to prove his or her innocent*.

    * innocence?

    1. The second time around this sentence hits me a strange way. Aren’t we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Is this just semantics, or does cross-examination serve some other purpose, like destroying the accusation of guilt?

      Any law students out there?

      1. “Aren’t we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? ”

        First saw this story on Drudge. Clicking on it leads to the linked report. The comments on from that link were interesting. Seemed to be 20’s age group educated who could not grasp the concept of innocent until proven guilty. ‘To deem innocent requires labeling alleged victim as liar, which is unjust’! My thought was how do educated young people not quite grasp the moral justice of innocent until proven guilty? It was beyond their comprehension!
        It IS really quite simple, AND just: Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent

  10. I don’t get the racial angle either. The team doesn’t seem to be raising it, so why is Robby?

    1. I have no idea. I read the subtitle and came to the comments to complain about it.

      1. Simply because the NYT rarely misses a chance to proclaim racism in anything they cover … but in this case they did, because it seems they were more interested in the “rape culture” line than the racism line. It could be too confusing to support the Title IX actions on one hand and rant about the racism angle on the other. Put them in an interesting quandary as to which manufactured outrage wins out in their coverage.

    2. Because Robby has been marinated in political correctness from preschool through college. It’s a Pavlovian reaction or, more fundamentally, a reaction like Galvani’s electrified frog legs experiment.

      It’s wired in.

    3. It could play a role in the regret-rape hypothesis. That she was fine with it the next morning, and only came to regret it when people started finding out a bunch of black football players ran a train on her and her social life took a dive. This would affirm the “subtle racism everywhere” narrative at the expense of the “believe women” narrative. A difficult piece of cognitive dissonance for the True Believer progs.

  11. Caption contest!

    “Swizzle’s birthday wasn’t lame.”

  12. The composition of that screencap is brilliant Robby. No matter where you look, your eyes are irresistibly drawn back to the same spot.

    1. Mmmmmmmmoley! Mmmmmoley!

  13. Given the fact that the criminal justice system is plagued by implicit and explicit racism, it’s astonishing that the paper of record would ignore the racial implications of a university denying fundamental due process to 10 black students and then punishing them for sexual misconduct.

    I remember back in the 90s during PC 1.0 when people actually began to measure and sort the totem poll of grievance.

    Race was always pretty much at the top, but it looks like rape may have elevated itself above it.

    There were some early adopters though. Here in 1999 is someone beginning to question whether Atticus Finch was a rape apologist.

  14. What the fuck? On what basis were these students discplined? Based on what evidence?

    1. Have they been accused by a female? Check.
      Are they male? Check.
      Therefore guilty.

  15. I’m disappointed that the phrase “running a train” didn’t appear in the article.

    1. Not even an Armenian Conveyor Belt.

      1. Or the “Midnight Coal Car Express”.

        Oh yes I did.

    2. I’m not sure the new generation knows what that means. I suspect Robby is furiously searching Urban Dictionary right now.

      1. I gotta admit I’ve never heard that expression before. Then again I don’t watch football.

    3. The left prefers “High Speed Rail”

      1. *over-enthusiastic applause*

    4. Nothing (not even a Title9 investigation) stops a Train

  16. If there wasn’t bowl $$ at stake, they could act like an Ivy school and suspend the whole team. Harvard, Columbia, and now Princeton have suspended entire teams for wrong-think.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016…..rials.html

    1. Boys won’t be boys.

    2. It’s way more than bowl $$. The boycott could last a long time. There goes all the money next year. Public fights between the President, AD, and football coach? Almost certainly leads to at least one of those people leaving. Stability wrecked. Recruits gone. People stop watching. Recruits stop coming. This has the potential to absolutely destroy Minnesota football (and potentially other sports, since football is the major revenue sport) for decades.

      1. Good. Maybe the destruction of a Division 1 athletic department will be a wake-up call.

        1. Wake up call to whom? You think SJWs will have a problem with that? If anything, they’ll see it as a successful example of speaking truth to power.

          1. yes,the SJW left HATEs football

            all sorts of articles about how it “normalizes violence” among both observers and participants

          2. They’ll have a problem when all that money dries up, alumni get pissed and stop giving, and a bunch of girls’ sports go away too as a result. In the end, the heads of some of the crazier administrators and regents will roll.

            1. That’s a predictable end result. They won’t learn from it. They’ll just cry unfair.

              1. And patriarchy.

  17. Monitoring, publicizing, and prosecuting consensual bedroom activity. That’s what we want from our leaders right?

  18. Another racism/rape culture conundrum. Which one to focus on?!?! I don’t know how these people choose.

    1. Also, Robby, can you please get off the “people of color” train. Call them black guys if they’re black guys.

      1. What’s “African-American”, chopped liver?

        1. More of a formal garnish used at black-tie dinner parties.

      2. This, sjw’s twisting themselves around to come up with new racsist terminology is tiresome. Aren’t all Homo Sapiens “of colour” or are people of northern European descent colourless? Cuz fuck them, I’m colourful as hell!

        1. You should see the color I develop after downing a fifth of vodka.

          1. are you Asian?

            1. Nope, just very pale white.

      3. If something as innocuous as “people of color” upsets you, you’re probably just a tendentious asshole. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

        1. How about “colored people”? I think that one’s pretty innocuous.

    2. It’s like an Ent-moot but whoever is shouting loudest is winning and there are no Ents.

      Some, I assume, are identifying as Ent-wives.

  19. I wold love to see the new Secretary of Education burn the “Dear Colleague” letter on live television….

  20. These Title IX investigations are horseshit.

    of course the author’s claim about the “FACT” (lol… ideology posing as fact) that there is a plague of explicit and implicit racism in the “justice system” (it’s a legal system, people. Not a JUSTICE system) is silly SJW nonsense.

    Classism? absolutely. As Chris Rock said, If OJ wasn’t rich, he’d be Orenthal James the convicted murderer.

    Props to the cops and the team for doing the right thing…

    and even CIVIL trials allow for the right of cross examination. leftists have been eroding the right to cross examination in sex assault and DV cases for years…

    1. it’s a legal system, people. Not a JUSTICE system

      *begins to clap*

  21. I mention the race angle because if this were any other issue, liberal media outlets would seize on it. I’m pointing out a double standard in reporting.

    1. The rape/race angles are going to make for a disorganized front for the SJW.

      1. Nah…considering that most of the SJW stuff is feminist-driven, rape will trump everything. The only way that race would become an issue is if at least one of the football players identified as Muslim. If three of those players were named Abdul Hamid, Saifullah Khamasi, and Farooq Mohammad and were not members of the Nation of Islam but actually from Islamic nations, then you’d see heads explode.

    2. Given the fact that the criminal justice system is plagued by implicit and explicit racism, it’s astonishing that the paper of record would ignore the racial implications of a university denying fundamental due process to 10 black students and then punishing them for sexual misconduct.

      No, you’re not pointing out the double standard. You are (pretending to be?) shocked, shocked that institutional racism is not mentioned. If you want to point out double standard in reporting, maybe use the words “double” “standard” and “reporting” in a sentence? Also perhaps a reminder of times NYT did focus on the race on campus, with relevant links.
      Or say “Times usually seizes upon the race of accused in other cases, but is ignoring it this time – this is hypocritical of them”? Maybe throw in “vile” or “abhorrent” while you’re at it – I mean, they are covering up for racism, aren’t they?

      1. This is why you don’t bother clarifying, Robby. Many of us knew what you were going after. The rest aren’t going to believe you no matter what you say.

        1. *shrug*

          I get my US news from Reason and world news from CBC and BBC. I don’t ever visit NYT unless the link is from here, so I was unaware that apparently crime stories involving black people there include a section on how racist the justice system is and identification of race of the accused, except for this one.

          As I said, a paragraph that says “in other cases, NYT…” with couple links would have provided context for me, and yes, would make it easier to see what Robby was driving at (NYT sides with black people in criminal cases, so not mentioning race here is hypocritical).

          1. The NYT including “women and minorities hardest hit” in any story whatsoever has been a long-running joke in many places.

            1. A terrible, terrible joke in a case where we’re dealing with High Speed Rail…

          2. A link to NYT indicates “false news”

          3. Pan- Here’s an example about the NYT I saw today.

      2. It’s a winner for debates and publicity.

        Push that angle and you’ll end up with some sports journo type interviewing a black ex-player about this and expecting the normal “do something about rape culture” response. Combine the racial angle with the possibility that the player did some shit (or at least saw some shit) in his playing days and the journo gets completely ambushed by a disagreement that he’s never even heard voiced anywhere in his bubble.

    3. Uh huh.

    4. While I agree that is something worth pointing out, I don’t think you actually did point it out in the article. You don’t mention a double-standard or even that these kinds of articles/outlets typical focus on race, you just assert that it’s odd because “the criminal justice system is plagued by implicit and explicit racism”, which comes off as a something of a non-sequitur.

      Hence everybody being confused.

      1. Not everyone was confused.

      2. I think that Robby takes a bit too much for granted that his readers have the same background assumptions and information as he does. For instance, it was obvious to me how the almost funny disparity over which attack line the NYT took was one of the main points of the column, while someone reading it more literally wouldn’t get that as a subtle jab.

        1. Robby’s real mistake is thinking that a subset of the commentariat will one day stop thinking he’s a beta SJW douchebag. If indeed he’s making that mistake.

          1. You seem to be blaming people for actually reading the literal words he put on the page, rather than being able to immediately intuit the most generous possible interpretation like yourself.

            I really don’t think this is a robby-bashing exercise (*there are so many other opportunities for that). This is actually genuine confusion about what the point about “Racial Implications” meant.

            1. I only read it one time but Gilmore is correct, this article was noticeably moving in two directions at once. Sorry to say Rob.

            2. What forest? All I can see is trees!

              1. No, dammit, do yous not realize Robby does these things in a quest for guidance from the commentariat, each time he gets a spanking he learns…. Eventually he too will become an enbittered libertatarian… gubsmacked by the the shortsightedness and stupidity of those around us.

                1. … gobsmacked…

              2. When something is obvious to no one except you, its not technically obvious.

                1. When something is confusing to no one except you, it’s not technically confusing.

                  1. No one found it “confusing”, first of all. This seems to be a a debate between people criticizing words that were written versus people defending words that weren’t actually written.

                    If you care to scroll the comments, you’ll notice that “no one except you” is a number higher than 1.

                    1. If you care to scroll the comments, you’ll notice that “no one except you” is a number higher than 1.

                    2. Who other than you is insisting upon the obviousness of Robby’s written assertion?

                  2. no one except you

                    You seem to be trying to explain this to lots of people.

    5. I mention the race angle because if this were any other issue, liberal media outlets would seize on it. I’m pointing out a double standard in reporting.

      Maybe you were a bit *too* tongue-in-cheek about it. There was no contrast made with past reporting, no mention of your gripe being one about logical inconsistency and no use of the term “double standard”. All of which might have actually helped you make the point that you claim you were trying to make.

    6. Robby you mention the race angle because you’re a pedantic twat.

      If you’re going to virtue signal then don’t deny that’s what your doing. Lying about it just makes you appear more pathetic. The sad part is that you have writing talent.

      I’ve been reading reason for about 7 years and every day I’m less and less inclined to read the articles. The comment section is quickly becoming the only valuable part of the website.

  22. “Ten students of color”

    Can we be a little more specific here? Is white still not a color? Reason has really bought into the proggy talk, big time.

    1. “of color” means black and has for decades. White has never been a color. Don’t play cute.

      1. I thought “of color” can also mean “Latino”, “Pakistani”, “Arab” or “Chinese” etc, as necessary?

        1. Maybe the neo-usage of the phrase. “Colored” has a long and ignoble history of meaning black in America.

          1. You’re completely wrong, “of color” has always been used to mean “Latino”, “Pakistani”, “Arab” or “Chinese” in addition to “Black”.

            1. Fine, I concede and stand corrected.

        2. Nope – orientals aren’t “people of color.” They made the mistake of succeeding on their own without playing the race card so they’re off the color reservation.

          1. Yellow isn’t a color?

        3. That is mostly correct…”person of color” is a generic placeholder which is meant to indicate “not white.” However, to be very clear, it is only ever used to refer to “brown people (i.e. people of African descent, Hispanics, Arab people, Brown Asians (as opposed to Non-Brown Asians), and occasionally Pacific Islanders).” I’ve seldom seen the PoC label applied to “Non-Brown Asians.”

          But the usage of the term in of itself is an oxymoron in this era of identity politics as it completely erases the specific ethnic/racial identities of all of the peoples who fall under the “PoC umbrella.” For example; somebody calling themselves a “Hispanic person of color” would be indulging in a redundancy as “person of color” is meant to already indicate that they are “not White” so it doesn’t matter whatever else they are as long as it is not White.

          Okay, okay…I can’t even maintain any semblance of seriousness anymore with this crap. To this day, I have never understood how is it that referring to somebody as their ethnic/racial identity is racist. And furthermore, using a term to indicate that somebody is “not white” is genuinely worse. I am genuinely convinced that SJWs are the face of the new racism. All of this nonsense including “cultural appropriation,” are simply things meant to further divide our society.

          Meh…it’s late and I give up.

      2. Can we shorten it to “colored”?

        1. Not enough sillables

      3. ‘of color’ wasn’t even a thing until recently. You’re thinking about ‘colored’ people. And that is now a racist term.

        1. And why is “colored” now racist (along with “negro”?) Because it became useful for blacks to declare it racist. You might have noticed a subtle push to declare “black” racist with “African-American” started to come into vogue, but African-American is so clunky, and so problematic when you’re trying to describe black people who are neither African nor American, that it never took off.

          I have no patience for the grievance-monger industry. Colored and negro were terms used without any ill-will and are no more racist than black, hispanic, latina/latino, asian or oriental (nowalso nonsensically declared racist, making the ridiculous use of asian a pain because then you have to specify, “No, I don’t mean Indian Asians.”)

          1. I do have an answer for that one.

            1) African-American puts us almost on the same playing field as everyone else in the US who identifies with their historical ethnicity. Considering that very few of us know what African country that our direct ancestors came from, Africa is as close as we can cut it. Everybody needs something that they can call “their own;” this name is ours and it allows us more freedom in celebrating our particular diversity.

            2) We, as opposed to other people, chose African-American for ourselves. The original captured and enslaved Africans referred to themselves by the name of the tribe or dominion in which they lived before they were captured (i.e. Kongo, Dahomey, Igbo, etc….). But those names were lost due to the “cultural grinder” that was part of American slavery to whatever else the captors wanted to call us.

            3) The term “African-American,” also forces us as a people to accept racial diversity in its usage within our own culture. Through a running joke that I constantly catch flak for, I always say that if I decided to ask Charlize Theron out on a date, it wouldn’t be “mixing” because we’re both “African-American.” Corny as all hell, but it clearly gets the point across.

            With that being said; I do not get offended by being referred to as “Black.” though if “Negro” or “Colored” comes up, I will make a dig about being in the 50s.

            Cause reasons.

            Blame it on my ADD, baby!

            Sail.

            1. Black citizens in the US who are originally from Jamaica, are they African-American?

        2. And why is “colored” now racist (along with “negro”?) Because it became useful for blacks to declare it racist. You might have noticed a subtle push to declare “black” racist with “African-American” started to come into vogue, but African-American is so clunky, and so problematic when you’re trying to describe black people who are neither African nor American, that it never took off.

          I have no patience for the grievance-monger industry. Colored and negro were terms used without any ill-will and are no more racist than black, hispanic, latina/latino, asian or oriental (nowalso nonsensically declared racist, making the ridiculous use of asian a pain because then you have to specify, “No, I don’t mean Indian Asians.”)

  23. What do the players being black have to do with anything? I’m really confused why Mr. Soave felt the need to point that out, much less chastise the NYT for -not- pointing it out. Is it relevant? Is Reason the new home of “But it only affected black people therefore RAAAAACISM!!!!11” nonsense?

    There’s enough injustice here to get plenty riled up without baseless claims of racism piled on top.

  24. The pile of human excitement and south side of Chicago progressive caricature Tim Baffoe had a lot of stupid and poorly thought out comments on this: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/20…..righteous/

    1. *Excrement. My autocorrect is kinder in its thoughts than I am.

    2. Healthy protests are good. Conscientious objecting is foundationally American. Upsetting the status quo regularly is necessary to best expel the foul humors of the body politic.

      And yet college athletes are mostly young adults, some of whom for which that great student-athlete education hasn’t involved much in critical thinking exercises. Therefore, they’re prone to misguided, if not really ignorant, approaches to social stances. An unfortunate example of that was on display Wednesday.

      PROTEST FOR RIGHT-THINK GOOD, PROTEST FOR WRONGTHINK BAD

      the rest of the Gopher players believe their teammates have been wronged by the collegiate sports system. Certainly some rudimentary social media understanding of amendment rights is overtaking an understanding of Title IX and the operations

      lol, oh, “it requires sophistication to fully appreciate our intellectual hypocrisy”

      this is the protest of a group of young men ? the ripest sort for absorbing misinformation and/or obstinate views of the world outside their bubbles ? that isn’t noble, isn’t wise and isn’t in the spirit of any crappy PR ad or most liberal professor’s classroom.

      This isn’t rupturing that status quo mentioned earlier or sticking it to the powerful.

      Given that “the powerful” is the school and its money-making off their football… i’d say it probably is.

    3. Siding with alleged rapists over victims ? -charges filed or not, convictions made or not ? is the status quo. Putting sports over violence against women is the very powerful windmill these football players think they’re slaying.

      ? not even sure how the atheletes are ‘putting sports’ ahead of anything by refusing to play. and the ‘violence against women’ is begging the question.

      I’m tired of re-arguing that “due process” is a severely flawed system when it comes to rape ? especially involving athletes ? a system heavily disproportionately favoring the accused (male) and not the accuser.

      There are whole paragraphs following that which don’t even make grammatical sense. It devolves into some kind of feeling-rant where many words are used, but little cogent sense is derived.

      He compares the protesters to the Malheur Occupiers at one point.

      This is more Oregon militia standoff than [bob] Marley, and it further marginalizes women as less-thans when it comes to football and rape victims as inconveniences. It further gives power to a side that already has the vast majority of it ? dudes, particularly ones who play revenue-generating sports.

      College student-atheletes are still unpaid, of course. But dudes have all the power. Like Colin Kaepernick. Oh wait, he’s “one of the good ones”.

      1. I have determined that the intersection of Sports Writing + Social Justice is some incredibility volatile mix that wipes out brain-cells faster than glue-sniffing.

      2. also = what editor allows someone to “Slay Windmills”? You slay dragons – you tilt at windmills. I bet the motherfucker never ever read don quixote

        1. To be fair, most of us have never ever read don quixote. (Seeing The Man from La Mancha doesn’t count.)

          1. Aldous Huxley said that “Don Quixote” was the most boring book in the Canon.

        2. Also to be fair, he’s a high school English teacher/pizza deliveryman. Who would expect him to have read actual real live books?

    4. And of course, there’s no section for comments.

      Fancy that….

  25. Given the fact that the criminal justice system is plagued by implicit and explicit racism

    Sure it is.

    1. Added: This would be the same justice system that declined to file charges?

      It’s the oh-so-enlightened liberal university that’s “persecuting” the players.

    2. Also, what does this have to do with the “criminal justice system”? This is an internal tribunal – the college seems totally within its rights to suspend or not deemed on whatever morality nonsense that students are likely required to sign these day.

      1. We don’t know that they’re being suspended for the “rape” (I take no position on whether or not it happened). They could be being suspended for any number of violations of the campus’ code of conduct. These are usually pretty darned strict. That said, I really don’t understand how these codes of conduct pass constitutional muster. Can someone explain this?

        1. I don’t think the Constitution has anything to do with it. They’re being suspended from classes, not prosecuted.

          1. It does have something to do with it. At public universities, any action taken against students is taken by state agents and yes… the constitution does apply…

            various constitutional case law as to criminal procedure etc. does not apply, but the constitution itself DOES apply

            1. your argument is – if it’s not a criminal trial, the constitution doesn’t apply

              would this thus mean the constitution doesn’t apply at civil forfeiture hearings?

              if you believe this, you are wrong

              1. Clearly! If the constitution applied, there would be no civil forfeiture hearing.

          2. Privileges and immunities, yo.

          3. Wow! Leave your constitutional rights at the door!

    3. Never mind that victim’s surveys about their attackers conforms rather neatly with conviction data regarding race et cetera.

      1. That’s a BadFact.

        1. I believe the term is HateFact.

          1. Yes, NCVS data…
            and when equalized for INCOME, racial sentencing etc. disparities disappear

            you are WAY better off being rich and black than poor and white

  26. Terrible! Only innocent straight white men deserve to be railroaded like this.

    1. lol

      you win today’s prize for “most succinct, most accurate comment”

    2. The irony of being railroaded for having a girl pull the train.

  27. Given that these Title IX proceedings inevitably get hidden behind claims that the schools must ‘protect’ student privacy can any of them ever provide proper due process?

    Aren’t they all inevitably star chambers?

  28. when i looked at the figure of 14786 dollars .Than I have no other choice but to accept , what i saw .They have been doing this for a year and get rid of their debts.. Yesterday they purchased new Aston Martin ?
    visit This Site.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  29. It’s only news if University of Minnesota actually shows up for a football game.

  30. Minnesota, huh? Vell, Ae bayne vrom Visconsin, an’ Ae bayne tamn proed fur dese Minneysodans! Midwestern Pride, baby!!

  31. If the Scottsboro Boys had been university students, they’d have fared worse under Title IX than they did under Jim Crow.

    1. Suspended from classes, a fate worse than death. Especially when you consider how serious college football players are about their classes.

  32. For those interested, this is a pretty decent synopsis of the legal standards being applied.

    1. The comments are worthwhile. It looks like a lot of this comes down to being administrative law (a branch of law that many of us probably think should be reined it, if it should exist at all).

        1. Is HTML not allowed in the comments? Anyway:
          http://www.thedailygopher.com/…..he-process

          1. Oooooh! It automatically links! Fancy!

            1. Here’s a link to the actual EEOA report:
              http://kstp.com/sports/univers…..059/?cat=1

  33. My son was a D1 college wrestler and was accused and kicked out of school. No one, including his coach or teammates stood by him other than in word. So good to see this coach and team stand up for their brothers. No idea what that will mean to these accused young men. Way to go Mn football team and coaches….honor and loyalty.

    1. Well said.

    2. Know one here on Reason seems to have caught this, but those spineless worms caved, no doubt terrified at the prospect of actually having to pay for their own education.

      Spineless worms in the administration, spineless worms on the playing field.

  34. “Paper of Record”? That monniker no longer seems to apply, and has not for some time.

    If this silly girl in a woman’s body took one guy upstairs to play with, then serviced so many more after he was satisfied she lost count, she’s not much different than the hookers downtown. Except that she’s trying to collet her “pay” after the fact by unleashing the biased school’s “system” on these guys. I’ll bet she felt horrible the next morning, and is taking her fury at her sorry wretched self for being such a tramp out upon them. the numbers are real funny, as well…. the school examined six possible partners but suspended ten?

    1. Maybe you read a different article; 10 or 12 suspects, the accuser does not remember, but that is irrelevant. Six under restraining order, ten suspended. The school did not examine anyone, the accusation was sufficient under title 9. Missing from the article is how they picked the ten from the ten or twelve or so possibles.

  35. Just for the record:
    Robby, the New York Times is no longer “the paper of record”.
    There is no “paper of record” left. They all went away with the cited, named, source; and reporting what, when ,who where, why, and how. Nothing left but generating clicks for ad revenue.

    1. “the New York Times is no longer ‘the paper of record’.”

      It’s still the piper of record, though.

      (Thread winner?)

  36. It’s a “progressive” kangaroo court, so it’s … better.

  37. To anyone confused by why Robby brought race into it, here’s my take: accusing black men of rape in sham trials is something we were doing 60 years ago. Hell, they wrote a book about it. A fairly high number of these cases are white women accusing black athletes. The tendency to find them immediately guilty of going after white women plays into a very old racist trope, one that progs should theoretically avoid. I think in prog terms, this violates “intersectionality”. Think Lena Dunham shaming Odell Beckham for ignoring her at some stupid gala

  38. Title 9 requires no such campus adjudications….AT ALL. That all came from Barry’s Education dept’s Dear Colleage letter. Trump needs to end those kangaroo courts asap….

  39. Elizabeth. true that Janice`s comment is unimaginable… last saturday I got a top of the range Mazda MX-5 since I been bringin in $9155 this last 5 weeks and-just over, 10k this past month. it’s certainly the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever had. I began this 10-months ago and almost straight away got at least $69, per-hr. browse this site

    =======================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  40. According to The Star Tribune, the woman consumed “five or six” shots before heading to a party where she met Djam. He took her up to a bedroom and proceeded to have sex with her.

    I think such incidents might become less frequent if more colleges actually started treating all these behaviors, drinking, mixed gender parties, and premarital sex, as reasons for expulsion, for both men and women. That would also make the Title IX investigations quite simple for the college because both the men and the women would be automatically expelled (the woman for her pre-sex behavior, which was voluntary regardless of any subsequent rape), and any determination of criminal rape would revert again to the criminal justice system.

    1. Because then you end up punishing an even larger and more innocent group of people: People who consensually get drunk and consensually have sex.

      The last thing we need is college discipline offices trying to sort out just how far off campus you need to be to drink/have sex or write up strict definitions of what even constitutes sex. They really should just get their hands out of the rape cookie jar entirely and leave crimes to the police.

      1. Because then you end up punishing an even larger and more innocent group of people: People who consensually get drunk and consensually have sex.

        If I get “consensually drunk” at work or “consensually have sex” at work, I get fired. If I get too drunk at a bar or have sex in a hotel bathroom stall, I may get kicked out of the hotel. I don’t see how college is any different.

        They really should just get their hands out of the rape cookie jar entirely and leave crimes to the police.

        Getting fired from your job or kicked out of college are not criminal proceedings.

        The last thing we need is college discipline offices trying to sort out just how far off campus you need to be to drink/have sex or write up strict definitions of what even constitutes sex.

        College ought to be a voluntary, private association. As such, either party should be able to terminate that association subject to whatever contracts and penalties the parties agreed to. Since college educational contracts tend to get paid for and renewed by semester, the college doesn’t have to give any reason for non-renewal. That is, they don’t need to be perfectly consistent.

      2. People who consensually get drunk and consensually have sex.
        i’m told by SJWs that this is impossible, especially when women are drunk. That said, there is material about this story that makes it far less than the “students of color” thing Robby is pushing.

  41. Blacks are on a different tier of the hierarchy in the eyes of SJW feminists.

  42. If you have some free time on your hands, why not make some extra cash every week? Follow this link for more information………………….
    http://www.buzzjob6.com

  43. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  44. From the update:
    “I learned a lot from these past couple days,” Wolitarsky said. “There are no right choices . . . .”
    I call bullshit. There are always right choices.

    Meanwhile, back at the original boycott due to lack of due process; was there something in the report that was too confidential to release until the team needed to play the bowl game that actually showed due process was followed? If so, why is it not reported?
    I call bullshit. If the report could not be released, then it was released, that is bullshit.

    The idea of college students being adults will have to wait a bit longer.

  45. I don’t think their race has anything to do with the racism of the system, just the racism of women.

  46. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  47. my friend’s sister makes $79 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her payment was $19847 just working on the laptop for a few hours…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.