U of M football player says team didn’t consider alleged sexual assault victim

A University of Minnesota football player has provided new insight into what the team was thinking when it called a boycott of football activities to protest the suspension of 10 players who were accused of sexually assaulting a woman after a September party.

Junior Gaelin Elmore, of Somerset, Wis., told the Pioneer Press’ John Shipley that the team didn’t think about the alleged victim of the assault.

I think some people also have to understand it’s hard to get insight into how those people might feel if you don’t know people in your own life who have gone through that. It’s bad. We acknowledge that it’s bad that it never crossed our minds, and it’s something we have to fix, as far as being active in our relationship with that side of it.

Because after all this went down, I knew that if we had better knowledge of sexual assault victims, and how they feel and how they experience things, I think we would have handled it so much better, and I think that’s something that, within our program — and athletics in general, and campus-wide — that’s something we have to address. We’ve reached out to groups.

Elmore says if the team had read the lengthy report about the alleged assault, the team likely still would have boycotted football activities to protest the way the suspensions and discipline were handled.

Elmore said he doesn’t think there’s a culture of disrespect for women on the team.

No, not at all. Coach (Jerry) Kill instilled it. He always told us, “Women are always right.” That’s something that we all believe. Coaches bring their wives, their kids, their daughters; we go to coaches’ houses. I don’t think as a father, a husband, you would bring your family into a rape culture. People can think whatever they think, but we don’t condone it, and if someone were open about that, in our program, they wouldn’t last very long.

Elmore also said the 10 players who were disciplined were part of the team meeting to discuss whether to protest. It’s not clear if anyone on the team asked them what happened in the off-campus apartment.

Shipley asked him if the team felt “betrayed” by the 10 players.

I don’t think so because we’ve listened to their side, and read the report, and also read the other investigations, and we see where there are discrepancies in the EOAA report. We don’t know what’s factual, but we know there are doubts, so we can’t take a stance on that report, in any case.

That’s why we’ve tried very hard not to say, “These guys are innocent, why is this happening?” I think that’s why we’ve been very deliberate in saying “due process” and things like that. And I think the phrase “due process” really lulled people to sleep, and the sexual assault side is louder.

The school’s athletic director wouldn’t answer questions about the investigation, Elmore said, and when the team was considering ending the boycott, university president Eric Kaler was “in charge.”

But before the boycott, coach Tracy Claeys told the team it could cost him his job, Elmore said.

Claeys was fired this week.

“We were 108 young adult, adolescent teen males trying to do this, and we had no leadership,” said Elmore, who said he’d take part in the boycott again although the team would “handle it differently.”

Related: National Champion Missy Erickson, an Alexandria, Minn., Native, Speaks Out About Her Sexual Abuse (Bicycling)

  • Robert Moffitt

    It’s a start. But blaming his and his teammates failure to understand the difference between right and wrong on “youth and a lack of leadership” is a sign that he has a long way to go and much to learn.

    • Perhaps. But I at least give the kid credit for coming forward to try to explain his side. He set himself to be the face of this thing. That should have been the job of a senior. But, like the kid said, “leadership.”

      • wjc

        I give him credit for trying, but his comments are a little scattered, which may be understandable given his age.

        His comment “And I think the phrase “due process” really lulled people to sleep, and the sexual assault side is louder.” and his continued support of the boycott tactic shows that he still is a bit tone deaf concerning the issues in the case.

  • jon

    “If you don’t know people in your own life who have gone through that.”

    What’s the stat, 1 in 5 women? nationally. 1 in 4 people sexually assaulted on an given college campus… 1 in 7 women raped on a college campus?

    Odds are he knows some one… Going to guess odds are they don’t talk about it, Going to guess that given the recent actions of the team they probably had a good reason not to talk about it, given the reaction they were likely to receive.

    I know this is a lot of guessing on my part.
    The idea that “we didn’t know!” as an excuse is extremely thin.
    Try “We didn’t think!” and you might be a little closer.

    • Jack

      Let’s not forget that it’s not just on college campuses. Some of us endured things in high school and/or post secondary education that we don’t talk about.

      Between the U Football issue and Trump’s issue, I’ve been remembering things I had hoped to forget. There’s a reason I don’t do HR anymore – it was hard to forget the details I heard during the sexual harassment investigations that I was part of.

      • jon

        Yeah, the numbers and figures suck everywhere not just on college campuses…
        The U of M has a whole page of statistics on the topic that might be more accurate than what I tried to remember off the top of my head above.

        Odds are good we all know some one who has been through this.

        Odds are they don’t want to talk about it.
        Trauma is like that.
        My grandfather and uncle both refuse to speak of their time in the military, no one thinks that is weird.
        When women (or men) go through a trauma that we don’t know happened, we expect them to speak up and tell everyone, that concept is truly weird.

        • jon

          Actually, if there are 108 young men, odds are that one of them has been sexually assaulted… Nationally the number is 1 in 71 men, according to the U of M numbers (admittedly demographics (like age) might shift those odds substantially)

          • Dan

            Depends which numbers you’re going from. If you’re going from the “1 in 4” number, then the comparable number for men is 1 in 17.

          • jon

            That’s a my bad, I grabbed the “1 in 71 men have been raped during their lives.” and said sexually assaulted…

            Odds are really good that more than one of the players has been sexually assaulted, and that potentially at least one of them has been raped. (demographics withstanding).

        • Al

          Thank you for saying this.

  • Jack

    //“We were 108 young adult, adolescent teen males trying to do this, and we had no leadership,” said Elmore//

    I would like Elmore to clarify what he means by “had no leadership”.

    • wjc

      Yeah. Somebody was “leading” when they decided to boycott.

    • MikeB

      I think that statement says it all. This was so preventable

    • Barton

      reading into the statement, he is saying that the coach was never a leader, in fact none of the coaching staff was leading….

  • Mike

    I don’t see how anyone can reasonably fault the players for the boycott. At the time, they didn’t have access to the report. Once they read it, they changed their minds and called off the boycott. That seems to be a mature response to new information.

    The idea that they should have simply taken the administration’s word for it – or that the boycott was disrespectful to the alleged victim – is odd, to say the least. Given that the mission of a university is to educate people to think for themselves, no one should be expected to take some authority figure’s pronouncement at face value.

    • Laurie K.

      Did you read the part where he said that if they had read the reports they would have still boycotted due to the way the discipline was handled? Thinking for yourself is fine, but you should probably have all the facts before you act.

      • This. So much this.

      • Mike

        His claim is counterfactual because that’s not how it actually happened. Maybe they would have boycotted anyway, or maybe they wouldn’t have. We can’t know that. People say all kinds of things about what they would or wouldn’t have done. What we know is that they called off the boycott after reading the report.

        • We don’t know that. We know that they SAID they called off the boycott after reading the report.

          Also possible they called off the boycott because it was clear the administration was fully willing to let the Holiday Bowl know the U wasn’t coming.

          These guys FULLY overplayed their hand. They really didn’t know what game they were even playing by boycotting. .

          • Mike

            That’s certainly possible, but it’s nothing more than speculation on your part.

          • What is?

          • Mike

            That they called off the boycott because the administration called their bluff about the Holiday Bowl.

          • Sure. But their “we just didn’t know anything until we read the report” is a position that’s throroughly discredited by the facts. It’s the remaining most likely possibility.

            In negotiations, the side that has the strongest hand is usually the one that wins. And what’s in that hand is usually what contributes most to the decision to fold.

    • Well, it’s not that hard to figure out.

      The player acknowledged that the 10 players in the investigation were at the meeting and took part in the discussion whether to boycott. They had already received this letter. And, of course, they already knew what the story was and why they were being investigated.


      So the opportunity was there to find out more about what this was all about. Nobody was flying blind.

      Now, you can argue that maybe the 10 players held something back or refused on their own to say what it was all about, preferring instead to let their teammates do something stupid.

      And that’s fair.

      But it doesn’t square with the answer to the question that Shipley asked about whether the team felt “betrayed” by the 10 players.

      That’s #1.

      #2 is the notion that the players simply didn’t know anything about rape culture is a complete non-starter. The juniors and seniors on the team — and that includes this young man — were at THIS meeting.


      #3 is the players, if they paid any attention to the news at all, already had the opportunity to suspect the woman was claiming a non-consensual situation, because the story of the restraining order against them at TCF Bank stadium had been around for weeks. They only needed to add 2 + 2, even if the 10 players had refused to tell them, that there was something here that SHOULD have set the little voices in their heads off. “Warning, Will Robinson.”

      #4 is the assertion that the players are upset that their coach took the fall. But Claeys had already told the team that if they boycotted, he could lose his job.

      They boycotted anyway and the guy lost his job.

      • Mike

        But none of that addresses the issue of lack of access to specifics that were contained in the report. Neither you nor I have to agree with the decision to boycott, and we might have made a different decision had we been in that situation. Nonetheless, I don’t see why it’s a problem to hold out for those specifics.

        • Which part of the specifics would have led a reasonable person to believe that allegations of a sexual assault were at the heart of the investigation?

          There were 10 players at the meeting, ALL of whom knew the specifics.

          The one question I wish Shipley had asked is whether any of the team ASKED the players what was behind the whole thing?

          And, as I said, you really have to be stupid not to have suspected a non-consensual situation was at the center of this just by the fact 10 players couldn’t be at TCF Bank Stadium on game day because a judge had issued a TRO at the woman’s request.

          If they really had NO clue what this was all about — given the resources for that information that were in the room with them — it’s only because they worked hard to ignore it.

          No reasonable person needed the disgusting play by play of the specifics of the report to conclude that there was a serious situation here that should have given them pause before proceding.

          • Mike

            Point of clarification: when you say that the 10 players at the meeting knew the specifics, does that mean they were given the full report? My understanding was that it wasn’t available to any team members until after the boycott had begun.

          • No, it means there were 10 players who were at the meeting who knew what the investigation was about and what it concluded, who could have described the circumstances that were at issue and who could have connected it — if the other players couldn’t or wouldn’t — to the TRO on the players, suggesting a claim of a sexual assault.

            It goes back to the previous point. There were PLENTY of signs and resources to the players that betrays their assertion that they simply knew nothing about what the investigation was about.

            But, hey, if people have to read the play by play to conclude, “Oh, hey… there might be something involving a woman, 10 guys, and a question of whether there’s consent involved and maybe it might be best to wait on that boycott and think about it a little more”, well, that’s really the problem that reasonable are seeing that some of you aren’t.

          • Mike

            Were the 10 team members at the meeting under any orders not to discuss the incident with others? If not, then I agree that the claim of ignorance of the nature of the charges is not credible.

            But I still maintain that access to the full report would arguably justify a boycott, especially in light of the Hennepin County Prosecutor’s decision not to pursue charges. It’s obvious that the players have a lot of loyalty to each other – perhaps to a fault. But this is what the culture of sports encourages, and more broadly speaking the phenomenon of loyalty to one’s tribe is a facet of human nature that none of us is immune from.

          • What were they going to do if they talked, expel them?

          • Mike

            It’s a fair question. No need for snark. Given privacy laws nowadays, these things are very tricky. Besides, a reasonable person wouldn’t want to give the administration another club to beat him with.

          • DavidG

            You’re generally free to talk as much as you want about your own case.

          • Laurie K.

            I just wonder where their “loyalty to one’s tribe” was with regard to one of their fellow U of M students being sexually assaulted?

          • Another woman

            As University students and student athletes they knew what the code of conduct as a student at the U of MN is…they violated the code, there are consequences.

          • Veronica

            I tend to think they knew the specifics because they were there at the time of the assault.

          • This is the thing.

            While these boycotting players were peppering Coyle with questions, why didn’t they turn to the 10 players and say, “What was this about?” They’d already gotten the report (it was sent to them along with the letters of discipline. In fact the letters said that the players should have some support with them when they read it because it was so distrubing). They’d already undergone questioning by the University. They KNEW what it was all about.

            Did the players ask them? Did they get an answer. If they did and they didn’t get an answer, and they were allowed to look stupid by staging a boycott, then why don’t feel betrayed by those players?

            The smoking gun that destroys the story of the boycott is the revelation in Shipley’s interview that the 10 players took part in discussing it.

      • kcmarshall

        I think it is also important to remember that 4 players had been suspended earlier in the season _and_ had a restraining order in force that prevented them.from playing in home games. This was/is a big deal and it is unimaginable that the players had no background information before they saw the report.

        • Dan

          It’s my assumption that the players had all gotten word, from one route or another, of the general outline of what happened. Of course the version they’d have received would have originated from the players, so the “running a train” would have been consensual; this belief would have been reinforced by police report describing (based on video) part of the encounter appearing to be consensual, and that no charges were filed as a result of the accusation. Adding to the situation (lacking, at the time, the leaked report), would be that 5 players had a restraining order, but that 10 would miss the bowl game.

          But again this is just conjecture, I’m making assumptions just like everyone else.

      • Rob

        Just a small point, but I gotta believe that Claeys was fired because he publicly expressed support for the boycott once it began, not for the fact that the players decided to go ahead with the boycott.

        • I think he got fired because when he was in the room with Coyle discussion suspensions, he agreed with Coyle to go ahead with the suspensions and then when he left the room, he went on Twitter and sided with the players who were boycotting in protest of the suspensions. He tried to have it both ways. That shows a lack of leadership and integrity, exactly what was cited by Coyle when the termination was announced.

        • wjc

          Exactly. He forgot that his role as a member of the University staff and someone who needs to enforce University rules was more important than being a buddy to the players.

      • Jack

        Well stated.

  • Rob

    Good to know that the boycotting players had such high respect for women that they didn’t give a nanosecond’s thought to the assault victim when making their decision to boycott. And Elmore is truly an outlier if he doesn’t know any women who have been sexually assaulted.

    • jon

      In a small defense (maybe explanation rather than defense) of Elmore on that one point, he might not know that he knows people who have been sexually assaulted.

      Given the little we know, I don’t suspect he is going to be the first person some one opens up about a sexual assault to. I don’t think he would have HEARD it if they had?
      Life in the echo chamber of rape culture doesn’t really open itself up to hearing other sides of the story from people who have been traumatized by that same culture.

  • >>“We were 108 young adult, adolescent teen males trying to do this, and we had no leadership,” said Elmore, who said he’d take part in the boycott again although the team would “handle it differently.”<<

    So he hasn't learned anything.

    Good to know.

  • Kassie

    He says there is no culture of disrespect for women. He goes on to say that Coach Kill helped, “He always told us, “Women are always right.” I find that also disrespectful. Women aren’t always right. Nor are we always wrong. Respect means listening to what we say or seeing what we do and making judgement based on the facts, not our gender. To me, the most cringeworthy phrase in the English language is “Happy Wife, Happy Life.” It suggests that if you don’t do what your wife says, she’ll make your life terrible and it is better to just not argue. But that’s not respect. That’s not a relationship built on teamwork, mutual decision making and compromise. It is the same as “Women are always right” and that is disrespectful.

    • Sam M

      Can we look at the intent behind what was being said and not dissect and parse every phrase and word to death. We don’t need to be offended by everything. My goodness.

      • Kassie

        No. Because they say there isn’t a culture of disrespect and then point out a super disrespectful thing as proof they aren’t disrespectful. It goes to show they don’t know what respect for a woman means and that there is a culture of disrespect.

        • Sam M

          What was the intent? Was it bad or evil? No it wasn’t.

          • Laurie K.

            I am guessing you are one of those people who say “no offense, but…” You cannot get away with saying there was no intent, therefore, no harm, no foul. When you are a leader, your words mean something so you must choose them wisely.

          • Sam M

            I’m just saying I think he was coming from a good place. Sorry for thinking once again that not all people are bad.

            No I don’t say “no offense but” thanks for guessing.

      • Veronica

        Who had “Mansplaining” on the comments bingo card?

        Kassie is right– Not only is it disrespectful, it’s just a dumb thing to say.

        • Sam M

          Is that an actual quote from coach Kill? Or maybe a kid that got it wrong? Tell me what the intent was and we can go from there.

          How was what I said mansplaining? I don’t believe I was patronizing or condescending.

      • LieutenantLefse

        I’m sure there was no ill intent, but the problem with “women are always right” is the implication that women are irrational and incapable of constructive debate. It’s just as clumsy as back in the 80’s-90’s when it was common to hear “but it’s the boss’s secretary that has the real power”. I’m sure I mindless repeated that a few times, and I didn’t mean any harm, but I’m older and wiser now, and try to do better.

        • Sam M

          I understand the issue with idea of what the player stated and I don’t disagree necessarily. I just don’t think we need to get upset about something that wasn’t even a direct quote from the coach.

          The over analysis of every spoken word gets a little tiresome. We all need to cut each other some slack.

    • jon

      “Women are always right.”
      But then a woman says “Women aren’t always right.”

      This is like one of them puzzles where one guard always lies and one always tell the truth…

      All kidding a side.
      I thought the same thing reading it… but I also thought that perhaps an over simplification might be the best way to communicate a message through all of the rape culture that the kids can’t even see because they are so deep in it.

      Even a wrong statement might have more impact than the oft repeated “no means no.”

    • Dan

      You’re right, Kassie.


      • Rob


    • Jason

      If women are always right, then why didn’t they believe her when she said she was raped?

  • Will

    Dumb young athletes are dumb, we simply needed an open precess and all this would have been avoided.

    • Apparently everything and everyone will be blamed for this except the players. They did something dumb, they acted petulantly and they looked foolish.

      Keep in mind that if KSTP hadn’t published the report, a lot of this wouldn’t be public. The process in place was designed to provide some protection for all of those involved,

      If that process is open, then nobody ever comes forward to report an alleged sexual assault.

      • Will

        True, they weren’t eloquent, they came off as foolish but asking for transparency and due process isn’t a bad thing, those ARE values to stand up for.

        • Sometimes. The question in matters such as this “what business is it of ours?” And “what right do WE have to know?”

          I would assume your personnel file at work is not a matter of public record, nor is any discipline.

          We might WANT more information,but privacy laws exist — generally — for a pretty good reason.

          • Will

            Public institutions should have any punishment handed out be public. When a teacher or administrator get a massive payout after violating rules we as the public should know what happened.

          • The alleged victim didn’t get any payout and has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

            Interesting, however, the story has been “out there” since November. She appeared in public for the hearing on a temporary restraining order.


            It’s just that a lot of people didn’t care until the football players were suspended and it might have impacted a bowl game.

          • Will

            Remember the Duke LaCross team?

            Oh, then there was this false rape allegation over at the U of M earlier:


            There’s a reason for trials, due process and transparency even in rape cases.

          • You should be lecturing Mike Freeman then.

            But this is a Title IX case, not a criminal rape case. As you’ve been told, now, dozens of times to no avail.

  • Jeff

    I appreciate his candor but I’m amused and a little perplexed about his quote from coach Kill about women. It’s like they dropped in from another planet and need to be treated like unexploded ordnance. Everyone has had women in their lives and treating people with decency and respect is pretty much common sense.

  • Mike Worcester

    Here is a provocative question — What is it about the male athletic culture that amplifies this issue? Is it some combination of entitlement, rampant hormones, and emotional stunting that creates such an environment in which the assault took place?

    Related to that — is what we are seeing here a result of cultural norms or cause of such norms (in other words, are male athletes setting the pace of this mentality or are they a reflection of the mentality?)

    • Rob

      The answer to your second question is “yes;” the answer to your third question is “both.”

  • Claire

    I had a friend ask me about this article and thought I would share my comments here as well:

    SO MANY THOUGHTS! First (since the rest of this is going to be pretty critical), I think it is awesome that the players are having this post incident self reflection. If anything good can come from this, it is through these men growing as human beings; and I hope they take the lessons they have learned and teach them to other men.

    Here are my issues with this article/ Elmore’s perspective: “I think some people also have to understand it’s hard to get insight into how those people might feel if you don’t know people in your own life who have gone through that.” 1/6 women in this country have been victim of rape, or attempted rape (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence) , and that is not even counting molestation, and other forms of sexual violence. The concept that none of these young men have women in their lives that have “gone through that” (also note that this young man avoids using the terms “sexual assault” or “rape” throughout the entire article) is ignorant at best, and negligent at worst. They all know women who have been sexually assaulted, and had they taken a step back to educate themselves on the statistics, or read even an introductory piece on sexual assault, they would have realized that.

    Second point that gave me pause: “Coaches bring their wives, their kids, their daughters; we go to coaches’ houses. I don’t think as a father, a husband, you would bring your family into a rape culture.” He is still referring to women in reference to their relationships to men here, as opposed to women in these spaces independently. I think a.) this reflects problematic thinking and b.) shows he doesn’t really understand the concept of rape culture. Rape culture isn’t just about men sitting around and saying “We have a right to all women’s bodies”, it is more nuanced than that. It is the fact that Elmore states over and over again in this article that, hindsight being 20/20, they still would have boycotted, even though “We don’t know what’s factual, but we know there are doubts, so we can’t take a stance on that report, in any case.” Rape culture is prioritizing the words of fellow men, over the words of a victim. Rape culture is being so privileged as a man that you have never had to educate yourself on sexual assault until AFTER your boycott goes horribly wrong (since it is pretty clear they didn’t do so beforehand.)

    Lastly, and this feeds into the point above: “And I think the phrase ‘due process’ really lulled people to sleep, and the sexual assault side is louder.” This statement downplays sexual assault in my opinion, and also implies a lack of knowledge about due process generally. These players were protesting that these hearings weren’t public, and that the victim wasn’t named. Have they read the comments on articles about campus sexual assault? Do they realize that part of what these men were being charged for was sexual intimidation after the gang rape in the apartment? They assume that due process was not followed because they are coming at this from the perspective of their teammates and not the perspective of the assaulted woman. They weren’t thinking about how due process protected her, just how it impacted their peers.

    What this article implies to me is that, though the players are possibly reflecting on this, they still don’t really understand what they did wrong, and I’m not sure they are going to question their actions enough to ever get to that point. To reiterate over and over again, throughout this article, that they still would have boycotted, portrays a lack of maturity that is staggering. He all but admits that they did not have all the needed background information, had no leadership (shouldn’t they be acting as leaders?), and a lack of perspective, but still can’t admit that the boycott was a bad idea.

    • Kassie

      Along with your second point, and my point above about “women being always right” being sexist, I think that line of thinking often leads to the madonna/whore mentality. It becomes that the coach’s wife is always right and needs to be “respected.” My sister is always right and needs to be “respected.” But that girl at the party, she’s a whore and doesn’t fit into these rules since I don’t know her brother or father.

  • DavidG

    It’s simply not credible for them to say” people also have to understand it’s hard to get insight into how those people might feel.”

    As Newscut has written several times, as athletes, they sit through classes and sessions every year that afford them the opportunity to gain some of that insight.

  • DavidG

    A couple of things stood out about Coyle to me in this interview:

    If the players are really that clueless about Title IX and EOAA and the EOAA process, the program is failing them.

    Second, Coyle himself comes across as completely clueless about the EOAA process. I’ll leave open the possibility that he was trying to relay to the players that because of privacy rules, he couldn’t give them specifics about the investigation and that is getting mixed up in translation, But Coyle (or one of his underlings) should still have been able to explain the overall process, because how do you rise to be a Big10 AD without understanding either of those?

    Third (ok, three things): If the players are to be believed, Coyle tried to hang his decision on suspensions and expulsions on the coach, rather than own it. Not exactly a shining light for his leadership there. And this might be one of the few places where I think the players have a legitimate complaint.

  • jwest8

    The players would be better off at this point if they would not add fuel to the fire and proof of their childish petulant behavior. The code of conduct is clear as can be. Anyone can Google and download it in a nano second. That it was violated is also clear. That the more the players talk, the more they violate it is also clear. And it is violated in oh so many ways.

    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

    If I were the coach or they were my employees, they would all receive formal warnings as part of the formal disciplinary process. Athletes are not “owed” a position on the team, a scholarship or a place at the school anymore than anyone else who violates the rules of an organization/institution.

  • KDuluth

    Are these lads living in the fantasy world of porn? They think college girls want to have sex with a line of strangers at a party, because . . .?
    This is a technique used as a weapon of terror in war.

    • Will

      Yep, so where are the criminal charges?

      • Jerry

        Because if it can’t be proven that they violated the law (because it seems the cops halfassed their job), it can be proven they violated their code of conduct.

        • Will

          Logic moment, if this situation was consensual then no laws were broken and no code of conduct violation. If it wasn’t consensual then it was rape and we need a trial. End of logic lesson.

  • Laurie K.

    For all you men out there who are asking where the criminal charges are, the walkout by the players was due to their perceptions regarding the school’s investigation. The U of M is a federally funded university therefore Title IX applies. Title IX applies to gender equality but also covers gender discrimination, including behaviors related to sexual misconduct and harassment. Unlike criminal prosecution, Title IX investigations are not discretionary. In other words, the absence of criminal charges does not alleviate the school’s duty to investigate. When a prosecutor is looking at whether to charge something the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. When a school is conducting a Title IX investigation they are required to assess the evidence using a “preponderance of the evidence standard”, i.e. is it “more likely than not” that the alleged misconduct occurred. The Title IX investigation focuses on “affirmative consent” rather than “use of force”. Where there is an absence of consent, there is no consent. The Title IX investigation also looks at whether a student harassed another student and thus created a “hostile environment”.

    Bottom line, going to college is a privilege. As much as you want to argue that it is a right, it is not. In exchange for this privilege there are some pretty basic codes of conduct that you are asked to adhere to. And this applies not only to college athletes but to every college student.

    • Will

      Based on the evidence I have no idea why these guys aren’t in jail awaiting a trial.