If she didn't know they were filming her that in itself is illegal. The cops used the video to prove consent so it must have had sexual acts.
No, it must not have. Here's a quote from the article:
"
During an 8 second clip, the woman appears lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time."
Well, "somewhat playful" isn't a sure-fire description of something sexual by any means. If somebody described that to me in just a general context, the first thing that would come to my mind would be flirting at best, no a description of people having sex.
The article goes on to say that all the videos totaled 90 seconds. Given the description of the first video, it doesn't sound like anything sexual was filmed to me.
Again I have read through the comments and the collective anti male bias is overwhelming. Feminism has certainly succeeded in brainwashing many into believing that when it comes to male/female relations, anything that goes wrong it is ALWAYS the male who is the responsible party.
1) I would love to see Minnesotas code of conduct where it says no gang bangs or multiple male partners in one session are not allowed.
2) As far as I know from the limited evidence I have read about, the female was a WILLING participant to the point that the local law enforcement found nothing that rose to a level of a crime.
3) why is it that so many are willing to just "take the word" of the woman as gospel. Why should young men who were vetted through local law enforcement and found to not have committed a crime now have to reprove their innocence to their university?
Here are the issues with the points you raised:
1) It's not that simple. The university's issue is consent (and of course alcohol plays consent as well). This is a quote from the article:
She estimated there were at least a dozen men. "I was shoving people off of me," she testified. "They kept ignoring my pleas for help. Anything I said they laughed. They tried to cheer people on."
About an hour and a half later, she said, she was allowed to leave. She called her sister, who told her to go to the hospital immediately, where she was given a rape exam, while her mother made a report to Minneapolis police.
I underlined the pertinent section. She called her sister after this happened, went to the hospital, and called the police. Well, from the university's point of view, this is a little more troubling. It's not simply the fact that she had sex with some guys. It's the fact that right after it happened, she went to the hospital and the police were called. If I was a school administrator, that would indicate to me that there was something about this encounter the girl wasn't comfortable with. When you combine that with the alcohol factor, as an administrator, that would make me think this group of guys took advantage of a situation that was in their favor.
2) Again, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CRIME. I don't know why some of you have such a hard time understanding that. The university is in charge of thousands of young people who are studying/living on their premises. They have to maintain a safe environment. I can definitely see why they would deem 10 guys taking advantage of a situation to gangbang a drunk girl as compromising a safe environment.
3) For my part, that's not the case. If you want criticism of the woman's behavior, I can certainly do that as well. I'm not taking her side. My problem is, the boycott by the football team. It's stupid. The university didn't suspend the players just to be doing it. They did it because there was a serious charge made against some players, and the university found the behavior of the players troubling, even if it wasn't illegal. In other words, I'm taking the side of the university. They made a decision for the wellbeing of their institution. I'm just offering this analysis to describe why they might have arrived at that decision. If the players want to get mad at anyone, then blame their teammates for using poor judgment.
