Every now and again, regardless of how highly you may think of your own intelligence and ability to see things from all sides, you are left scratching your head.
Admittedly, some of us have to scratch our heads more than others, but hey, you can learn from those experiences, right?
One of those head scratching moments happened for me this past weekend in reading the University of Minnesota Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action's 80-page report surrounding the Sept. 2 incident involving a number of Gopher football players and a young woman who found herself with them that night. Events that have happened the last few days stemming from that incident have some of the higher-ups preaching this moment in time as one of those 'experiences you can learn from'.
But before we get to that, let's take a step back to set up just why I was left scratching my head.
The 80-page report referenced above addressed the allegations of a 22-year-old University of Minnesota student that says she was raped on that early September morning by anywhere from 5-10 Gopher football players. Many surrounding the situation that are not the victim claim the encounter as consensual.
Before that report was released Friday, Gopher players vowed days earlier to boycott all football activities until the suspensions that were imposed by university president Eric Kaler and athletic director Mark Coyle on the 10 members of the team allegedly involved in the incident were lifted.
Until the report came out Friday, we were left at an impasse in which players, pundits, and the public were taking one of two sides with little-to-no tangible evidence regarding this specific case. You were either with the girl, or you were with the team.
I frantically scrambled to find evidence to support the opposite side so I could better understand the responses I was seeing, the team's decision to boycott, and the outcry from some highly respected Minneapolis media members against the EOAA, the university's decision, and in favor of the team and their seemingly short-sighted decision.
But there was nothing there except blind servitude to a program. People simply taking sides on instinct.
I scratched my head then and I scratch my head now when I consider the thought process that led to Drew Wolitarsky, Mitch Leidner, and the rest of the Gophers that stood before the media when they announced their plan to boycott. Did they not consider that the men that hold the two highest offices at the University of Minnesota, not to mention the EOAA, did their due diligence on this issue? Did they not have some foresight and figure out that there may be a gruesome report behind this decision? Did they stop and consider what they may be backing?
The head-scratching continues as I've seen many scoff at the idea that the victim in this situation should have privacy rights, and even more that seem to think a football game or team is bigger than one of our country's biggest issues on college campuses, that being sexual misconduct. Fandom is one thing, supporting your team is a plus, and having a feeling of togetherness with a program you love I certainly understand. But that line of thinking needs to have bounds, as it needed to the night of Sept. 2, and that is true regardless of consent.
Is the situation worse if the victim was not OK with the actions of that night? Of course. But even if the young woman was not resisting and was compliant with the sexual acts, someone in the apartment where these acts happened should have looked around and come to the realization that, if this situation were described to the public, it would paint a very disturbing picture of the culture around the football program. Someone should have seen that togetherness, brotherhood, and celebration, had gone too far. Fans and media should've seen the same with their support of the boycott, and it should not have taken an 80-page report for any of the involved groups to repent on their stance.
What happens now for those involved? Time will tell. But to see this program look drastically different heading into the 2017 season, including at the head coach position, would be unsurprising. Head Coach Tracy Claeys stated his support for his players boycott on Twitter late last week, a boycott that ended up being on behalf of 10 men that, at the very least, were complacent in an unsettling sexual scene, and in all actuality, may have raped a woman. Those men are ones that Tracy Claeys brought into his program, and if they are of the moral fiber to be able to carry out that kind of act or stand by while it goes on, should Claeys really be in charge of what kind of people are representing the most visible portion of the seventh-largest university in the country? A point that surely will be addressed in the coming weeks between himself, AD Coyle, and President Kaler.
Speaking of head coaches, while all of this ugliness was going on at the 'U', the man most recently in the post Claeys now holds, Jerry Kill, was making news of his own.
In a bit of intrigue that went almost entirely unnoticed in the metro because of the situation in Dinkytown, Coach Kill was making an attempt to get back into coaching, interviewing at fellow Big Ten program Rutgers for an offensive coordinator position.
Wait.
What?
Last time we heard about Kill and coaching, it was in the context of him not being able to do it anymore because it was literally, from what we could surmise from his emotional "retirement" press conference, killing him.
So that leads to one of three theories regarding him getting back into coaching, something that it appears is now imminent:
-He and his team of doctors have found a way to get his epileptic condition under control, and coaching is no longer a significant detriment to his health.
-The last 14 months he has been miserable, and can physically not live without coaching, so he is returning to what he knows and loves, regardless of the consequences.
The third one is a bit out there. I don't think it's completely unfathomable, but I think buying into it does mean you have to suspend a bit of disbelief. With that as a preface, I think we have to at least consider that Jerry Kill may have seen some issues with this program coming, so he stepped away at a time that would be a convenient one for his health.
Before I continue, I do want to make it clear that I am not saying Jerry Kill could've predicted the type of scenario currently being dealt with in Minneapolis. Do consider, however, that just two weeks before Coach Kill "retired" from coaching and stepped down from his position as head football coach at Minnesota, the Star Tribune published a report stating there is a "concerning pattern" with Gopher football players and sexual assault.
Many of the examples referred to in that article also state that those cases were reported but went uncharged, much like the one currently involving Gopher football.
There have also been sporadic instances of violence leading to dismissals, from Philip Nelson to Brian Smith.
While it doesn't feel like the pattern of violence is enough to constitute an "out of the norm" amount for a Division I football program, it seems like a mistake to assume that, along with the alleged sexual deviancy of the program, the combination of the two issues couldn't have caused worries for Kill.
Could he have looked around at his program, seen the increasing amount of concerning, if not downright unacceptable, behavior within it, and known it would reach an ugly pinnacle sooner than later? Could this theory just be born out of the fact that Kill is getting back into coaching at the same time as all of this is happening at the University of Minnesota?
I think both are possible, and while we may never know the true answer, I certainly hope the first theory I outlined is correct, and that Coach Kill is in better health so he can continue what he loves to do unimpeded by his condition. It would ease the sting of his retirement press conference, which still is right at the top of the list of painful sports moments to stomach during my lifetime.
While all of the theories ARE possible, what is impossible for me is to look at the events of the last week at the University of Minnesota and pledge my support for the current group of people that make up the Gopher football program. Some issues in our society are bigger than a game, and it seems as though, despite their current claims, many involved in the short-lived boycott and those directly involved in the Sept. 2 incident fail to recognize that. Many comments made by players, coaches, and fans seem to come from a place of privilege, arrogance, insensitivity, and ignorance.
I stand with President Kaler and AD Coyle in their decision to levy suspensions against the 10 young men that were involved Sept. 2, and for those that have not been able to see it the same way, I encourage you to read the 80-page report released Friday and use this moment in time as a learning experience, just as those that rushed to a boycott should.