I make no excuse for a rapist, but I think it is important to let a court weigh the evidence before assuming a charge is fact. 

If, in fact, Gibbons raped anyone then he deserves the full sentence that a court imposes upon him. Perhaps he is guilty, perhaps not and until the various police reports and other sources of information are tested in a court of law, or until Gobbons pleads to something, he is granted the presumption of innocence.

Colleges have moved ever more quickly to equate accusation with guilt. The preponderance of the evidence is not "beyond resonable doubt", and as the guys at Duke have proven, reasonable doubt is a far fairer test. 

So at this point, Michigan expelled a student who has yet to be tried let alone convicted of anything. Assuming that no one who contributes to this blog witnessed anything surrounding the event that resulted in this charge, none of us know what happened.

So how about we let the legal process run its course and when it concludes we can all rationally discuss the evidence that comes to light. Until then we'll all be better served by taking a deep breath and waiting. 

While the optics look terrible, I will withhold my judgement that the very University (and its administration, departments, coaches, etc.) I profess to love and support is somehow guilty of staging a massive cover up of a crime - at best - and even complicity in a crime, a worst. A this point, I know only two pertinent dates: the original complaint (2009) and Gibbons' expulsion (2012). Nothing more. I can only guess at the origin of the OSCR's proceeding against Gibbons this year. Any explanations for the delay between 2009 and 2012 are purely speculative at this point. Hoke's explanations for his veteran kicker's absence are bewildering and even troubling, but I have no idea what he was told he could say or not say. I suspect that more will be revealed over the coming days and weeks, perhaps officially, perhaps not. However, I would sure like to get some answers, and as an alum, a regular contributor to fundraising and supporter of the team, I think I am entitled to them.

I'm not an education lawyer, but my recollection is that due process unquestionably applies to public university decisions to expel a student. It's just that not all that much process is due: notice, a hearing in front of a neutral arbiter, and maybe some reduced right to counsel and cross-examination. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think university policies don't generally comply with these. ...except, if the expulsion only resulted from a change in the burden of proof after the accusation, I think a lawyer might be very interested in whether that was adequate process. Kicking someone off a mere football team, though, requires no process. Questions about why it did not happen earlier should be asked repeatedly.

so i'm confused here having never actually attended university. was gibbons convicted of something? did he admit to rape? or is it pretty much "someone say's you raped them, and we believe them... goodbye"?

rape is no laughing matter, but i can't help but be skeptical about most rape accusations because i've personally have seen women use the accusation as a weapon for revenge.

This damning report should be obligatory reading for all incoming college freshman to gain some perspective about sexual assault:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf

Findings from this report include:

• Many women (88%) have never consumed a drink left unattended or consumed a drink given to them by a stranger (76%).
• One-quarter of the sample (25%) reported consuming alcohol or drugs before sex at least once a month, and slightly fewer (23%) were drunk or high during sex at least once a month.
• Eighteen percent experienced an attempted (13%) and/or completed (13%) sexual assault since entering college.
• Among the total sample, 5% experienced a completed physically forced sexual assault, but a much higher percentage (11%) experienced a completed incapacitated sexual assault.
• Sexual assaults were most likely to occur in September, October and November, on Friday or Saturday nights, and between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m.
• Most victims of physically forced or incapacitated sexual assault were assaulted by someone they knew (79% and 88%).
• Freshmen and sophomores are at greater risk for victimization than juniors and seniors.

Sadly most of us guys actually know someone close to us right now who will be sexually assaulted - a friend, sister, wife, daughter. And they will be very unlikely to ever have reported it, or ever mention it again.

 

 

 

 

We should all keep in mind that we still don't know for sure why Gibbons was expelled. Perhaps the school felt he was guilty of rape. But perhaps his expulsion stemmed from, say, lying to investigators or intimidating someone. We can't just automatically conclude the school deemed him guilty of rape.

The recent action of the Univ of Michigan OSCR in expelling former student Brendon Gibbons might be better understood, if you consider the recent investigations at Yale, where the fraternity DKE was suspended for 5 years along with sexual sensitivity counseling.  DKE was found to be contributory to a "hostile sexual environment" on campus.  The US Dept. of Education investigated the situation based on Title IX, threatening severe penalties. Yale had to change university policies that ensured a safe campus environment between 2011 and 2013 before the Dept of Education relented.

Let me connect the dots.  At least one member of the football team was allegedly in an incident of serious sexual harassment, if not rape.  An internal investigation using criminal thresholds for guilt initially failed to find fault.  However, as things progress in New Haven, a precedent was established and the principles tort law and civil principles of guilt / fault led to new university policies nationwide, and any cases of sexual assault or harassment were reexamined.  Why?  To avoid a Title IX investigation by Dept. of Education, and possible findings of negligence or tolerating a hostile sexual environment.  Any student organization, athletic team or social fraternity that contributed to that hostile sexual environment could be held accountable.  

So, would anyone want to see headlines involving the University of Michigan Football team possibly tolerating a hostile sexual environment, let alone covering up a sexual assault.  Can you say Penn State deja vu?  

Just search the Yale Daily News archives for Delta Kappa Epsilon to see the articles over the last 4 years.  Unfortunately, DKE has been under legal scrutiny for other reason, unrelated to this article.

Nonetheless, the current Dept. of Education will not tolerate an environment on campus that poses a possible sexual threat.  It's not just a criminal matter, but also a regulatory and civil matter, where different legal standards apply.   

I hesitated whether to comment on this or not, obviously I have decided to do so. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not, I didn't have the time to read all the comments.

First and foremost, rape is a dispicable crime that violates a person (usually a woman) in so many ways, not to mention how they think and feel for the rest of their lives. 

I'm not here to judge or declare who is guilty or who is a victim, however there seems to be a lot of smoke here and if this did indeed happen, I am sickened by this and I just wonder from a team standpoint if this hurt the leadership of the squad, since Lewan was a Captain and Gibbons was a 5th year sr., it's possible the younger players just weren't inspired by those two guys and it ended up hurting the team internally. maybe we shouldn't be surprised by the results of the season, who knows?

Maybe those two should have been reprimanded, if it did happen, Gibbons should have been expelled way sooner, like 3 years ago, and Lewan should have been suspended for however long with a chance to earn his way back on the team for his role in the matter.

However this turns out, I hope the university does what is proper and not embarrassing to the school. A persons life and how they may be violently affected is more important than football.

Nobody's gonna read this, because my comments are never shown here at mgoblog.....however it is starting to look like the Brady Hoke era is going to come to a premature and ugly end.  Rightfully, or not.

That's not a question. This is some serious shit. It's too late to hold Richrod accountable in A2, but Hoke and Brandon have some serious explaining to do. For that matter, MSC too, this is on the U at this point. If we don't have our integrity at Michigan then it doesn't even matter that we suck at football.

I think people are exaggerating the degree to which the 'family issues' explanation really elicited sympathy for Gibbons. Any time there's a vague answer like that I personally assume the player is dealing with something embarrassing; my guess with regard to Gibbons would have been a drinking problem, to be honest. It was a dumb thing to say, but the standard answer of 'violation of team rules' may have been awkward as well, since it wasn't really a violation but instead an administrative decision made by the university regarding a violation which occurred four yeats earlier that was at issue. 'Personal issues' would probably have been better, but I wouldn't find it hard to believe that's what Hoke meant to say. I don't know if you guys noticed, but he's not exactly a fluent user of word-type utterances in those press conferences. Gibbons should have been kicked off the team in 2009. The major concern with regard to Hoke and the athletic department is whether they tried to impede the OSCR process so as to maintain Gibbons' eligibility. However, I find this to be extremely unlikely, and I don't know what means could have been at their disposal to so impede said process. Also, sitting him for the OSU game doesn't really seem like a win-at-all-costs type of decision. To me, this seems much more like an ugly PR fuckup than a failure of morality and institutional control.

Rape is a heinous crime.

Lying about having been raped is an equally heinous crime.

If women want to punish a rapist, they need to go to the police, swear out a complaint and pursue a criminal prosecution, as rape is against the law.

That their behavior leading up to the alleged rape will be called into question is as it should be. We have ample proof in this world of of two distinct things, men rape women and women lie about having been raped.

It is weak and gutless for a woman who wants to punish some man for having injured her, to seek to make anonymous accusations in an effort to evade questions about her own behavior and thus reduce the burden of proof required to convict a man in a court of law.

Worse yet in this case if it is true that a rape occurred, thanks to the efforts of this and other women a rapist remains on the street.

Stand up there girls! Grow a pair! Be a man!

The good new here is that thanks to the efforts of most likely, some other gutless woman who in her personal fit of pique, selectively dumped these documents onto the public, which dumping is likely in violation of some equally gutless confidentiality agreement entered into by the University, the girl and Gibbons, this mess will hopefully land the University in court for some number of millions. At which time we can have a thorough conversation about rape, prosecuting rape, the brutal nature of men, strong women, personal accountability, alchohol, Taylor Lewan and keeping your mouth shut etc.  

It should be wonderful theatre.

alot of comments I'm a seeing about how this is on Hoke. The alleged incident happened in 09 while Hoke was coaching at SDSU. The alleged victim went to didn't persue a complaint until 2010. Still no Hoke on campus. This is on not the University not Hoke.

"University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said he could not comment on Gibbons' academic record because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act."

Perhaps this is what Hoke was referring to when he mentioned "family stuff"? Based upon above, Hoke was likely not allowed to comment either. That said, he should have said something to the effect that he couldn't comment.