Copy of Dept. of Ed. letter to Mary Sue Coleman re: investigation
This is the letter which informed the university that the Department of Education would be looking into UM's policies and responses to complaints of sexual violence.
At first glance, it appears they are looking for both general information (on a year by year basis) on what UM's policies are and specific information (again, on a year by year basis) regarding complaints filed at the school. In other words, they aren't looking just at Gibbons. They are looking at how UM handled every single complaint made from 2011 to 2014 to see if things are being handled properly.
The only reference to a specific complain that I noticed was actually in the first paragraph. It makes reference to a sexual assault allegation filed August 2012 by an unnamed student. I suppose it could be that the victim from the Gibbons case decided in 2012 to make a complaint given the new standard of proof which was part of the interim policy enacted in 2011. Of course, it could be a different student as well.
Anyway, read for yourself.
http://vpcomm.umich.edu/pa/key/documents/OCRNOTIFICATIONLETTER.pdf
February 25th, 2014 at 5:39 PM ^
that's just a form letter. it doesn't tell us much, if anything.
February 25th, 2014 at 5:46 PM ^
I'd say it actually does tell us something. The fact that they want information on every complaint filed from 2011 - 2014 tells us they are not investigating the Gibbons case, in particular. They are investigating the entire procedure UM handles all cases (which includes Gibbons, of course).
To me, that's significant. It indicates that their concern is UM isn't doing things the way they are supposed to according to the federal guidelines rather than a concern UM gave one particular person (Gibbons) a break.
But I'm speculating, obviously.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:09 PM ^
The letter states that it is in response to a particular complaint. The request for broader information is not surprising, as the OCR would be required to investigate whether this is part of a pattern and/or whether there is a poisoned environment. They aren't investigating those other cases, but the other cases are relevant to this case. And, if they see issues with other cases, I would imagine it could cause the OCR to broaden the current review.
February 25th, 2014 at 8:43 PM ^
that if the Gibbon's case was the specific target then information from school years 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 would also be requested.
February 26th, 2014 at 6:37 AM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 5:49 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 5:51 PM ^
No, I think you're wrong. The Detroit News and ESPN said they were specifically looking at the Gibbons case.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:12 PM ^
Well, I guess you can take their word for it or you can take the word of the people actually conducting the investigation. Per the letter, they are investigating all reports made from 2011 - 2014. 2011 is when the feds directed all schools to implement the new policies on sexual assault to use the lowered legal standard of preponderance of the evidence. They want the info on every complain made since then.
Does that include Gibbons? Yes. Is it Gibbons alone? No.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:43 PM ^
I dunno...I have to think that the Detroit News and ESPN writers wouldn't write something without knowing all the facts first. And they wouldn't mislead their faithful readers with sensationalism. Those industries are based upon reliablity and integrity, so I think it's probably the Dept of Ed/OCR that's lying.
February 26th, 2014 at 8:42 AM ^
You serious, Clark? If so, LOLWUT.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:46 PM ^
you may be right, but citing ESPN does not help validate ANY argument.
February 25th, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
double
February 25th, 2014 at 6:01 PM ^
I posted this in the other thread, but this is basically how the OCR starts every investigation. (I have represetented school districts. I have seen this kind of letter before.) My take is that this is about the Gibbons thing AND the University's general policies, Federal agencies will take a look at an institution's overall policies when it gets a complaint about a specific incident that implicates those policies. That is especially the case where the area is a point of special concern for the agency, as this seems to be for OCR.
One point to remember - OCR may very well find a violation in how a 2014 policy is worded (or is being distrubted, etc.) and require the University to fix it. Such a vioaltion could have nothing to do with Gibbons.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:26 PM ^
Under Title VII and, I believe, Title VIII as well, all complaints must be investigated and the investigation must take place within 100 days of receipt -- is the rule the same for Title IX?
February 25th, 2014 at 6:55 PM ^
I would have to pull the statute to see if there is a timeline. I deal with OCR mostly in a Section 504 context in grades K-12. OCR is professional and very thorough, but I wouldn't describe them as speedy.
February 25th, 2014 at 7:43 PM ^
To lend a little credence to this point, I have a friend that works for a local bank currently having certain lending practices being investigated by the Department of Justice. A single complaint about discrimination brought DOJ in and they're investigating everything over a 3 or 4 year span.
This issue is surely about Gibbons. They're just doing due diligence to make sure it's not a consistent issue.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:05 PM ^
Why aren't they investigating the police? They are the ones that didn't charge him. My complaint is how he got kicked out of UM when he wasn't charged. Either we kicked an innocent guy out of school or the police messed up in not charging him.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:13 PM ^
Jurisdiction. OCR and the feds in general have no oversight in this area. Title IX controls educational institutions that receive federal funds. AA Police are not subject to the Dept of Education.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:15 PM ^
...but it's also worth noting that the police/prosecutors have to work with a different standard of proof than does the school.
February 25th, 2014 at 7:30 PM ^
Apparently UM initially used a "clear and convincing" standard when they didn't find culpability. After they changed to making a determination based on a "preponderance of the evidence" they found against Gibbons.
People shouldn't criticize prosecutors based on the final finding by UM. UM found insufficient evidence against Gibbons when they used a lower standard of proof than prosecutors would be held to in a criminal trial.
February 26th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
Don't forget Gibbons was ousted for sexual misconduct under the University policy, which is a lot broader than sexual assault or rape in the legal sense.
Check out the definitions of sexual misconduct, consent, and incapacitated here.
Actually, spend some time reading the entire site: someone show me the link where the accused civil rights are addressed. Of particular interest is the page on Findings and Outcome Notfification:
"Before the report is finalized, the participating Complainant and Respondent will be given the opportunity to review their own statement and, to the extent appropriate to honor due process and privacy considerations, the participating Complainant and Respondent may also be provided with a summary of other information collected during the investigation. A Complainant or Respondent must submit any comments about their own statement, or on any investigation summary that might be provided, to the Investigator within five (5) calendar days after that statement or summary was sent to them for review."
So you you may get a summary of what was said against you, and you get five days to comment.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:17 PM ^
The accuser didn't pursure anything after making the initial claim. Hard to go forward when the accuser doesn't want to. Granted, prosecutors do have some discretion to pursue cases, but I doubt that (due to the lack of evidence) this wasn't something they chose to pursue. You think this would hold up under the standard of proof in a criminal court? Michigan couldn't even expel him when the standard was previously "clear and convincing" (lower than criminal's "beyond a reasonable doubt"). The only reason they were able to expel him is due to the federally mandated lowering of burdens of proof to a mere preponderance (50.1%).
February 25th, 2014 at 7:49 PM ^
February 26th, 2014 at 4:41 PM ^
They couldn't expel him if there was insufficient evidence under the evidentiary standard they were using.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^
...it's not just Gibbons that being investigated???
Oh, boy, the pessimist in me is preparing for the fact that the school might have covered up dozens of alleged assaults by football players for years & years.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^
It's really a national type investigation and not focused on athletics.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:13 PM ^
They have one specific allegation and are using this to open an investigation into the University's entire policy/procedure for this. This is not uncommon for OCR.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:46 PM ^
The letter makes a pretty sweeping request for a documentation of the schools' sexual harrasment policy and other records, together with incident reports, etc. Notably, they cite a regulation that purportedly says that they are entitled to full disclosure, without regard to privacy.
That seems like a lot to get together in two weeks. Based on your experience, will the school request an extension of time to reply? And are such extensions routinely granted?
Also, they are acting in response to a complaint. Does the complainant have to be the victim, or can an individual who has not been harrassed make the complaint - like the self-styled gadfly from "Washtenaw Watchdog"? Put another way, who has standing to make these complaints?
February 25th, 2014 at 6:55 PM ^
Anyone can start the complaint process. Here's the relevant passage from the Dept. of Education's site:
"A complaint of discrimination can be filed by anyone who believes that a school that receives Federal financial assistance has discriminated against someone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age. The person or organization filing the complaint need not be a victim of the alleged discrimination, but may complain on behalf of another person or group."
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-201104.html
February 25th, 2014 at 9:57 PM ^
I pull stuff together for the state government sometimes and two weeks would be an unheard-of luxury with those folk.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:14 PM ^
...on that case. They only ask for docs back to 2011 (as someone notes above), and the Gibbons incident happened in 2009.
February 26th, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^
The pessimist in you is, in that case, part of the problem of putting sports players above everyone else. There are hundreds of sexual assault cases each year that the university does nothing about - while it is good that the Gibbons thing sort of gives a voice to these problems, what Gibbons may or may not have done pales in comparison to what non-athlete perpetrators do to their victims here on campus. Quite frankly, I've gotten the vibe that there is only so much interest in case because a MICHIGAN FOOTBALL player was involved, and not because there is any real concern for sexual assault victims.
Utterly and totally despicable.
February 25th, 2014 at 6:08 PM ^
case. I have a spart nearby. I still recall the day I overheard him talking to another spart about his Frosh son learning of a rape incident with 2 bball players. Word was it was being handled. Guess so. Both are still on the team. Standards?
February 25th, 2014 at 6:14 PM ^
Glass houses and stuff.
February 25th, 2014 at 7:05 PM ^
Shattered when it comes to rivals all the time.
February 26th, 2014 at 9:26 AM ^
That's the consequence of taking federal funds.