University issues statement on sexual misconduct policy
Posting this without comment: the full text of a statement released tonight by the university, posted by the Toledo Blade as an attachment to this article:
University statement on sexual misconduct policy
Jan. 29, 2014
Questions have been raised about the University of Michigan's response to allegations of sexual misconduct in 2009. Those allegations were handled in accordance with the university policy in effect at the time.
The university now adheres to the institution's policy on sexual misconduct by students, which was adopted in 2013. The Office for Institutional Equity is the designated university office for conducting investigations into allegations of sexual misconduct involving students. In implementing university policy, OIE treats all students equally and conducts fair and impartial investigations.
Our current process allows that, if new information is obtained at a later point, the university could commence an investigation at that time.
In accordance with the university's policy of not disclosing details about student disciplinary actions, we will not release the results of any investigation. The university does produce and publish annual reports on aggregate student disciplinary sanctions through the Office of Student Conflict Resolution.
U-M sexual misconduct policy timeline
2009
Under the University's process investigations commence at the request of complainants after a complaint is filed with the Office of Student Conflict Resolution.
2011
April - The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights provides additional guidance that highlights the nationwide impact of sexual misconduct on college campuses and makes specific recommendations regarding how colleges and universities should respond to allegations of sexual misconduct.
August - University of Michigan implements an interim policy on student-to-student sexual misconduct that reflects the U.S. Department of Education guidance.
2013
August - After a year-long review process, the university implements new policy on student-to-student sexual misconduct. Key changes in the policy, which also were part of the interim procedure, include how an investigation is initiated and the standard of evidence being used. These changes also are consistent with guidance from the Department of Education.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^
"Either he raped a girl and essentially got away with it until now, or he is innocent and is victim himself of a lower burden of proof standard under the new system."
I know that this is a wildly popular misconception, but that doesn't make it any less of a misconception. It is possible that he didn't rape the girl (since he had to know that she was refusing consent, and alcohol may have warped his - Nand/or her - perception of what she was saying) and she thought that he had.
That may clear him of a criminal charge, but not of a non-criminal violation of the student code of conduct. He was found to have violated the SCC using the procedures and standards established by the university. That has nothing to do with criminal guilt.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:19 AM ^
But is that a bigger problem than teenage girls getting raped with the attacker whistling fucking dixie out the front door? Look, the Duke case sucks. And nothing is a perfect system. But if you were to guess, how many rapists are walking free right now? More than the number of men falsely accused? I'm willing to bet my house that this is the case.
There is no perfect answer, but you are completely ignoring the fact that if someone is perceived as 90% likely to be guilty of rape, they come away 100% free from a court of law. For most victims, there is no justice.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:23 AM ^
You make some excellent points.
But remember that time guys were falsely accused? Obviously we can't accuse anyone at all of rape from here on out, just in case that happens again. We can't have injustice.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
The Duke case didn't involve allegations of a violation of the student code of conduct, so it doesn't have much relevance to this case the UM's procedures.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:31 AM ^
I think the university should consider the rights if the accused, but they also have an epidemic that the justice system seems ill suited to address.
January 30th, 2014 at 1:32 AM ^
Better that 9 guilty men go free than have one innocent man found guilty...never heard of it before? Our system of jurisprudence is in part built upon it. But maybe for all crimes except for rape. Eh?
January 30th, 2014 at 7:05 AM ^
yeah, actually I'm good with that, as long as this isn't a court of law, which it's not.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:41 AM ^
Part of what makes you so frustrating as a poster - and so bad at what you try to do - is that you use loaded language and bait people into petty political fights in a way that distracts from what can be important, debatable principles underlying the issues. There are really interesting questions at the center of this whole conversation. By talking about a "feminist star chamber," forcing everything into Obama/liberals language, etc., you piss people off, drive them away from your views, and make these conversations stupid and vitriolic when they could be engaging and mature.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:52 AM ^
Well said, Turd Ferguson.
January 30th, 2014 at 1:20 AM ^
You don't think that the April 2011 policy change was a political decision?
As for what I "try to do"...
I'm not sure that even I could tell you what I am trying to do. I thought I was just trying to be right. Be accurate; supply the information that is being overlooked or ignored; in the general media, or on the Board.
I'm not trying to win friends or influence people. And I don't propose to suffer fools gladly.
Of all the dumb, sloppy, careless posts in the several threads on this subject, it is so weird that anyone would pick on me since I've been 1,000 times more accurate, careful and subsantive than most.
January 30th, 2014 at 1:26 AM ^
I don't even know what "a political decision" means. If I'm in charge and decide to do X because I believe that X is the right thing to do - and if others with a different political orientation disagree - does that make it a political decision? But honestly, I don't care, and I don't think this is the place to talk about that. If you want stupid political bickering about which side of the political spectrum is dumb/evil//lying/corrupt, then go to a news site and argue with the assholes who post in the comments section.
And your shtick about how you're just being accurate and factual - never political - is annoying and condescending. If I remember correctly, you had Ayn Rand in your signature until recently. You're the most political poster here, even if you do it in a way that you think gives you deniability.
I honestly think that you seem like a smart person, and if you toned it down a bit, I'd love talking about issues with you. In my opinion, you just make that very hard.
January 30th, 2014 at 8:28 AM ^
If I remember correctly, you had Ayn Rand in your signature until recently.
Nope. Not me. And I cannot think of you who might be talking about. You lost me with that.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
You never had a reference to or quote from John Galt (or someone/something else in Atlas Shrugged)? If that wasn't you, I apologize. Then again, even if you say that you didn't, it'll seem just as likely that you found some technicality with my language that lets you deny it even though the broader point is obviously true. That's part of what I'm trying to tell you is so frustrating.
And it's very you to find the one sentence that you want to respond to, ignore everything else, and then conclude with a "you lost me with that."
January 30th, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^
I think I have had exactly two signatures on the MGoBoard. One was a Moderator-imposed punishment that lasted about 48 hours for some fight in which I admitted no wrongdoing. I think it read, "I am a pretty pretty princess." The other person got a worse sanction, as I recall.
I also put up a quote from Michael Rosenberg, for a couple of weeks. I think it was about his being offended that his work of three years War As They Knew It, was being unfairly trashed on Amazon. Just take a moment to appreciate that. Rosenberg, complaining that three years of hard work were trashed by anonymous persons.
So no word games. You're just not recalling correctly. Your apology is accepted.
I've never read all of Atlas Shrugged. I'm not even a student of Ayn Rand. You could fool me with an Ayn Rand quote. All that I know about her is that she was a friend and dinner companion of Allen Greenspan when he was young.
January 30th, 2014 at 8:29 PM ^
My mistake then. Please accept my apologetic upvote.
A site search suggests that it was probably MGrowold with that signature.
January 30th, 2014 at 2:46 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 2:45 AM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 11:37 PM ^
I know that there was a question (my question) about why it is surprising/bad that a federal change in policy regarding how rape accusations are handled by universities would change how a university (this university) would handle a rape accusation.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:10 AM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 11:29 PM ^
"Our current process allows that, if new information is obtained at a later point, the university could commence an investigation at that time."
What constitutes, "new information?" Is the U. allowed to determine what is considered "new information?" If a new "witness" came forward with a "my brother's next door neighbor's dog walker heard that so-and-so did it" can be classified as "new information," and, consequently, a new investigation can be launched, that is ex post facto, in my opinion.
Even so, this is the current process. It was not in effect when the incident occurred, so I don't see how this isn't ex post facto, and would hold up under appeal. If I'm Gibbons, I'm suing hard.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:49 PM ^
applies to changes in the elements of a crime (or the creation of a new crime), or increases in the penalty to be assessed. It does not, generally, apply to changes in procedure.
Whether any of this even applies to a university administrative proceeding is a separate issue, but there's certainly no reason to expect the rules regarding ex post facto changes to be more strict in an administrative proceeding than they would be in a court of law.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:12 AM ^
but filing such a lawsuit could be reason for disbarment for his attorney. Gibbons suing would be the worst possible legal strategy. He's not out of potential legal jeopardy in the criminal courts. Voluntarily testifying under oath and undergoing cross-examination is just too dangerous for him, even presuming his innocence. It's also the type of action that could spur the young woman involved to press criminal charges.
I don't see how ex post facto applies here. The rules haven't been changed in a way that applies to the permissibility of Gibbons' alleged conduct. The change is only in how the case can be investigated by the school.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:15 AM ^
...even if he and his counsel thought that they had a dandy case against the University of Michigan for denial of due process, and against his adversaries, for libel...
Just points out why any case against him in the first instance should not be conducted under lowered standards of proof and any relaxed evidentiary rules. There is just too much at stake.
If Brendan Gibbons is to be accused of rape, make the prosecution take him to court and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. And give Gibbons all of his due process rights. That's the right way to do it. That's the only way to do it.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:41 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 6:51 AM ^
There's a reason there's precedent for a lower standard, ie civil court
Students opt into being students. They can leave any time they want if they don't want the rules in place
January 30th, 2014 at 11:52 AM ^
"If Brendan Gibbons is to be accused of rape, make the prosecution take him to court and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. "
Agreed, and would extend that further to any criminal case, but the point is moot because Gibbons hasn't been accused of rape.
January 30th, 2014 at 1:38 AM ^
want to pursue a case of wrongful expulsion, he might want to sue the ever loving crap out of the University for having released private and confidential materials relating to him and his expulsion.
January 30th, 2014 at 7:42 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 9:20 PM ^
changed hands a dozen times, ultimately it did come from the University. Could have come from Gibbons...do you think Gibbons released the information? No? Then the University did.
January 30th, 2014 at 6:56 AM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 11:32 PM ^
I really hope that Hoke and Brandon did the right thing. I really am undersure of what happened and I am waiting for the full story to come out before I judge anyone, but the gap in the timeline, the "brunette girls" incident, and the possible lying that was done about Gibbons's status toward the end of the season really make me wonder....and I hope to God that the whole Lewan thing isn't true...
January 29th, 2014 at 11:39 PM ^
That was probably all we're going to get. There's a huge legal responsibility for Hoke et al to protect Gibbon's privacy which goes beyond whatever information people may feel is owed to them.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:48 PM ^
That's true. We probably won't hear much more than this. It is just upsetting because personally I have always loved that even though Michigan hasn't been perfect, they have always seem to make an effort to do things the right way. I hope that hasn't changed.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:43 AM ^
I think this is a perfect example of how Michigan has made an effort to do things the right way - they could have very easily swept this under the rug and/or ignored this, especially with Gibbons being at the end of his career; instead they chose to expel him at the end of the semester and his football career (which opens them up to being scrutinized, like they are, and a whole new can of worms). If they ignored investigating nobody would have faulted them since the original incident was largely forgotten and happened four years prior and thus nobody would have known.
The real issue seems to come off of Brian's post about it - they don't like what Hoke said, but in a world where privacy (even for athletes) exists, and in a world where the Athletic Department does not rule the entire university (they don't), there's very little that Hoke probably could have said without opening up a legal can of worms. I wouldn't even be surprised if Hoke never knew about the university reinvestigating Gibbons (does being a player on a football team waive all your privacy rights?) until sometime after the committee reached a verdict. I would even hope that he didn't know before then (unless Gibbons volunteered the information himself) because it would mean that the atheletic department and football program have far more power than they should wield in the university and that they trump any individual player's right to privacy.
January 30th, 2014 at 6:49 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^
The football progtram may have done right, but some posters here simply will assume that, in the absence of evidence that it did, it didn't. Given that the evidence will probably never come because of privacy conerns, please go on assuming the worst of the football program, if that makes you happy.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:39 PM ^
double post =(
January 29th, 2014 at 11:46 PM ^
Gibbons played until the university found probable cause to expell him, and not after. He was at the university and on the team until the day he was expelled, so at no point could Hoke have actually said he was off the team.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:49 PM ^
Ohio State: injury (maybe it was)
Bowl Game: family matter (it definitely wasn't).
January 30th, 2014 at 12:13 AM ^
If Gibbons was having issues and was at home with his family, you could easily call it a family matter. You're splitting hairs on a "no comment" type statement that Hoke made.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:48 AM ^
This. The whole argument about how Hoke should have lied to us is ridiculous. It can be a "family matter" in the sense that Gibbons and to sit down with those close to him and figure out his life. To Hoke, "family matter" could reasonably mean "stuff that I can't/shouldn't get into that doesn't involve football."
January 30th, 2014 at 7:41 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
I'm going for the third dimension. X=it was a lie, and Y=it appears to have been a lie to cover up him being expelled for rape, but Z=it was just one he told to sports media.
You know what we journalists can't abide? Being lied to in a press conference.
Do you know what matters very little in this particular case? Lying to a journalist in a press conference.
Hoke needs to explain what he thought of Gibbon's guilt, because one of the things he absolutely should be judged on is whether his team is harboring a rape culture.
The big problem that seems in all likelihood to be behind this whole sordid affair is barely being discussed: 18-year-old men come to college and listen to their peers glorify the acts of getting drunk and "hooking up" with a woman while she's drunk, and don't understand that is rape. I used to have SAPAC come in to talk to our pledges because of this, and nearly every one of them, when that scenario was described, would say it's not rape. With the benefit of fully adult brains that are capable of understanding every consequence (something many college freshmen haven't developed yet but will later on), it seems this should be obvious. It's not.
And that's why I find it terrifying, always, that Michigan's athletes are likely getting drunk, hooking up with women who are too drunk to make a decision, and laughing about it the next morning with each other as if nothing's wrong. That is what I mean by "rape culture." It doesn't require a serial rapist who belongs behind bars; it just requires uninformed young people.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:52 AM ^
Then, if you have an opportunity to pursue this line of questioning, don't mention Gibbons at all. Don't trigger the inevitable and necessary stonewall, since that's not really what you're after anyway.
Intoxicated young men with a shaky understanding of consent is a problem with students generally; there's no reason to think it isn't potentially an issue in the football program as well. Is he concerned? Are they doing anything to educate their players in this regard? You used to have SAPAC come to talk to your pledges. Does SAPAC come to talk to the football team?
He can't talk about a specific case; don't go there. But if you seem to be showing concern instead of anger/aggression something might come from it. You might even trigger some action on their part, which to me is far more important than getting an answer.
January 30th, 2014 at 3:43 PM ^
Yes, but that's just the semantics of press conferences. You're still asking the same thing but with different words. But yeah, if we get a chance the SAPAC question will be asked, and probably not by us first.
January 30th, 2014 at 5:31 PM ^
...which means semantics are everything. They're parsing every word; they have no choice. Anything you can do, when phrasing a question, to make that process easier for them will probably get you a better answer. (It'll probably be appreciated, too.) And the most important thing they're needing to avoid is giving any information on this one particular case.
I wish you luck--I think your diagnosis of the bigger problem is spot on.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^
"I'm going for the third dimension."
Then I'm going for the fourth dimension: I am going to assume that Hoke was tellling the truth as he knew it at the time. It is possible that he decided, for some reason, to lie, but no one has yet come up with a plausable reason. occam's Razor says to go with the answer that requires the fewest caveats. That answer is that Hoke was telling the truth (as far as he knew).
January 30th, 2014 at 1:47 AM ^
any shred of proof that Hoke didn't believe there to have been a family issue? Obviously you must or else you wouldn't have made such an absolute statement.
January 30th, 2014 at 7:29 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 12:24 PM ^
What? Are you implying that Hoke is omniscient and cannot be wrong or fooled about why Gibbons never came back from Florida? If you are, that's quite a stretch.