Whenever there’s a controversy involving student athletes and allegations of sexual assault, it attracts strong yet ill-informed opinions. People take sides without knowledge of the circumstances, motivated by their own personal or political interests, and risk losing the truth in the fray.
A mess has brewed in Minneapolis, where the Minnesota Gophers football team has taken a provocative stand in support of 10 suspended teammates. The move could have repercussions for other teams and the NCAA. From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
After refusing to practice Thursday, Gophers players donned their maroon game jerseys and announced they are boycotting all football activities — even their Dec. 27 bowl game, if need be — in protest of the University of Minnesota’s decision to suspend 10 teammates in the latest fallout from a September sexual assault investigation.
[…]
“The boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed and the suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted,” [Senior Drew] Wolitarsky said.
Wolitarsky said the players want an apology from university President Eric Kaler and athletic director Mark Coyle, adding that the players “demand that these leaders are held accountable for their actions.”
When asked if the players were worried about losing scholarships because of their boycott, Wolitarsky responded: “We’re all in this together. What are they going to do, pull 120 guys off the team? They won’t have a team if that’s the case.”
It’s hard to stand in judgment of the suspensions without all the relevant facts. Kaler and Coyle note in a statement that the decision to suspend 10 players was made in light of evidence protected under privacy law. The team and their supporters note that a criminal investigation into allegations of sexual assault resulted in no arrests or charges. If there isn’t enough evidence to warrant charges, how can there be enough evidence to warrant suspensions? That’s the argument underlying the boycott.
Of course, we don’t actually know why the players were suspended. It may have been for reasons tangential to the sexual assault investigation, or wholly unrelated. That information is unlikely to be disclosed.
That leaves us with the one question we are equipped to answer. Should administrative decisions at an institution like the University of Minnesota be coerced by student athletes? This is a separate question from whether the suspensions were justified. Ultimately, whether the suspensions were justified has no bearing on whether the team’s actions prove appropriate. Is it acceptable for a team to take this kind of action? Or have they stepped out of line?
It would be one thing if the players collectively quit in protest of the suspensions. That would effectively communicate their objection and exercise their freedom of association. However, as indicated by their demands and emphasized by Wolitarsky’s indignant “what are they going to do… [not] have a team” comment, this boycott is clearly meant to strong-arm a specific outcome. That’s crossing a line, and should not be tolerated.
The first and foremost purpose of an institution of learning should be preparing students for life in the real world. That includes respecting institutional authority and dealing professionally with grievances. It’s not up to football players to determine whether their teammates get suspended. Boycotting activities to enforce a list of demands proves presumptuous and inappropriate.
There may or may not be legitimate grievances regarding the treatment of the 10 suspended players. But this is not how to properly lodge those grievances. Teaching that lesson to the team, and to those observing in the broader student community, ought to take precedence in this moment.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member