I read the whole article, but I don't see where the scandal is. I know the OP does not like him or Brandon, but there is nothing here.
I read the whole article, but I don't see where the scandal is. I know the OP does not like him or Brandon, but there is nothing here.
Have a look at the OP's posting history. Wonder what the agenda might be. Certainly not supporting Michigan.
on everything, maybe not even many things, but I don't think there's much doubt that the guy loves Michigan as much as anyone else on this site or anywhere else, for that matter.
Agreed. I don't post a ton but I visit the site everyday. I would say that Bando is not someone with an agenda.
Please go on about my "agenda." Because I'd sure as hell like to know what it is.
Your agenda is running down Michigan.
You've made dozens of posts recently trying to put the whole Gibbons situation in the worst possible light while calling Hoke a liar.
You criticized the hiring of the new president.
You told us the Woody Hayes punch was taken out of context.
You make references to Dantonio, MSU, and how you admire them.
There is little of substance that is positive
It's all wrapped in the because-I-love-Michigan backdrop, but all anyone has to do is scan your history to see that you are consistenly critical and negative.
You've got a lot of time on your hands, apparently. And a great sense of imagination.
The kind of boilerplate dismissal I'd expect when you're nailed with specifics.
Not a lot of time or any imagination involved on my part. I clicked your user name and it took about three minutes to see your MO. And it's all right there, so if you claim to not have said any of that, who's lying now?
I'm a proud Michigan alum who believes in expecting more out of my university than wins and losses. If that makes you think I have an "agenda," or that I'm not a Michigan fan, that's on you, not me.
Go Blue. I'm done with you.
I don't doubt that you're a Michigan fan in general, but it sure seems like you have an ax to grind against Brandon and Hoke. When the news broke a couple days ago, you drew the worst possible conclusion against them, claiming (pretty stridently at that) that they had conspired to cover up a rape. That was not a conclusion most fair-minded people would draw.
Amazed by how many people feel they have a "right" to answers about anything reported in today's society. I keep seeing statements of disgust and outrage that somehow these facts have not been discussed in detail down to the date/time/location and weather conditions in a second by second detail.
Based upon this story and a few other statements it appears that Gibbons was suspended upon notification of seperation by a disciplinary committee which I am glad that would not have input from the AD or coach. Given the initial investigation and findings from a police investigation, and the fact that no further actions were taken until this new policy implementation, I am not sure what more people expect.
It surely does not look like any case of cover-up or outright deception on the part of anyone. Calling it a suspension, removal, family issue, etc can be debated at length, but I am not sure why anyone believes they are owed an explanation.
To me, the only individual that should have any outrage is the victim of the case and her family.
Believes they are entitled so the rest of the public also believes they are entitled. I agree with you. People think they deserve to pry into other peoples business because they are coworkers, students at the same university or even season ticket holders. There are laws to protect even suspects, perpetrators, and those accused of acts or crimes. It seems everyone is getting off on other people difficult situation. On top of that. It seems that every time something like this happens people want everyone fired from top to bottom. That's why FERPA, HIPA and other laws of protection aren't spelled FOIA.
Brendan Gibbons missed a football game, and appears to have done something terrible that wasn't punished until much later.
But it's time to move on from the conspiracy theories and allegations of cover up. At worst, Brady Hoke didn't choose his words well. What a surprise, the guy says "physicallness."
Deepest sympathies to the young woman, and good riddance to Brendan Gibbons. But let's move on from the Hoke and Brandon hate.
"allows" a student who may pose a threat to stay on campus for years and I'm supposed to be outraged by Hoke and the Athletic Department not saying the right thing? If this issue really is about rape and the safety of female students then it seems to me some are focusing on the wrong thing.
Agreed. But we don't know that it was a rape....maybe it was, maybe it was a drunken hookup?. But the university needs to come up with a more efficient and enlightened way to handle these 'he said, she said' cases. It's a difficult issue, and it shouldn't look like like their response is being crafted on the fly.
The daily is pushing to keep this story in the headlines. It hardly even got a mention on Espn.com.
The daily and some of the posting community are trying to turn this into a freep like attack on Hoke and Brandon.
Nobody even cares that it happened when RR was in charge. Maybe he should get fired from Arizona for letting him stay on the team s/
You sir! Cooper Lilly you reading this?
The Daily is clinging to this story. The original article got an insane amount of page views so I imagine they're going to ride this horse till its dead. Then start beating it.
Sad story; it's over
Leakers aren't the problem. Leakers play a valuable role, especially when leaking information the public deserves to know. This isn't a Snowden situation. Nobody got hurt. Instead, we learned something we should have known a while ago -- that our kicker was expelled for sexual misconduct.
I'd say every female that Gibbons came in contact with in the years he was on campus had a more vested interest in this knowledge.
It doesn't look like the AD really did anything wrong.
A waiver of appeal rights is a big deal. I suspect the waiver significantly harms a student's ability to later sue on a claim of unfairness in the university process.
To me, the waiver sent from Schem Hall is the extraordinary fact of the story. If there really were some cover-up/conspiracy to preserve eligibility, this would likely not have happened. Instead, powers that be would have urged that an university appeal be pursued aggressively, even if only as a delay tactic.
If there's anything to learn from this, keep your daughters away from football players. But to say anyone did anything wrong other than Gibbons is just beauty shop banter.
Good thing only football players are guilty of sexual offenses.
Obvious to any father who went to a college with a football team
Faxes send out printed receipts that accompany the actual document that is faxed. It is HIGHLY likely that the information stating the fax was sent from the Athletic Department offfices at 4:02 pm on the 19th was so precise because this information was provided by that very receipt that accompanied the received document. That receipt from the University office that received the fax was likely provided to a Daily reporter along with a description, or copy, of the document that was received (Gibbons' signature refusing his right to appeal his expulsion).
I HIGHLY doubt anyone in the Athletic Department went through fax records (that may already be deleted anyways, by the fax machine.. no conspiracy) and either knew exactly what was contained in the document that was faxed at that time or magically conjured a vivid imagination and gave this info to The Daily. This would also explain Ablauf's unwillingness to question the fax having been sent by Gibbons from that location at that time (as he may have been questioned and shown a copy of the receipt by the reporter seeking a statement) but instead offering a possible scenario as to the events that unfolded rather than admitting that Gibbons' legal team was practically the AD's office.
What the hell's a fax machine?
"...rather than admitting that Gibbons' legal team was practically the AD's office."
LOLwut? Why should someone 'admit" such a bizarre thing?
Gibbons would have faxed the waiver of appeal from the Athletic department offices because he likely wouldn't have known of any other place that still had a fax machine.
It's insane to me that the University's own policy is to keep the Athletic Department in the dark about this stuff for this long. That choice is what is making Hoke look foolish and further adding to the University's embarrassment over this situation.
I understand the confidentiality thing when a normal student is accused, but when its a student-athlete there needs to be a synapse mechanism between offices that at least keeps them informed of what is going on.
The president makes it clear that any tampering with the investigation to protect an accused player will result in the firing of the head coach and athletic director. No one else needs to know. Coach, AD, and player talk about the situation and they cook up whatever story they prefer to spin.
I dont see why this could not or should not happen and it pisses me off that it did not happen.
I think the the massive public scrutiny that the Michigan Athletic Department receives in its handling of situations like this justifies giving cases involving *some* athletes "special case" status. Especially the football and basketball programs, maybe hockey.
Mind you not in all cases. Sexual misconduct and physical assault: yes. Vandalsim, Jaywalking, and parking tickets: no. Substance abuse, DUI: not sure but I lean toward yes. You get the picture...
Also, not for all individuals. A situation involving someone on the track or swimming team would of course be just as serious but the attention would likely be non-existant. A musician on scholarship: no. A full-ride student in a research lab: also no. Normal knucklehead student: no. A good place to start would be with an answer to the following question: are there any bloggers that focus specifically on this aspect of the University? Go from there.
It really is only the "major" sports that I think need to be reconsidered specifically becuase of the PR aspects and media attention in those instances. I would expect that the offices within the Univerity would be able to strike an appropriate balance as to where, exactly, the lines are drawn.
They also do not "enjoy" the same level of anonynity that every other student would enjoy. My position is that student associated with the revenue sports in particular are celebrities and forfeiture of *some*, I repeat SOME, privacy is the natural consequence of being a celebrity. It sucks but that the reality of modern American Society.
These guys receive extra benefits and come to Michigan specifically to represent us in a very public way. The enjoy the benefits that the public interest the University of Michigan Athletics derives, unfortuantly that also comes with certain burdens. They are given access to educational resources that every other student does not have acess to. That's OK by me. However, that access comes at the price of being held to a higher level of accountability to the people providing them that access.
Yes, these expectations should be disclosed during the recruiting process. Furthermore I believe ther are disclosed, particularly by Brady Hoke. We have a term for it: Michigan Man. I hate the way the term is applied and flaunted in the public domain, but its a real thing that I personally respect and appreciate.
"Do not accept this scholarship if you do not accept everything that comes along with it. You represent Michigan. Do not [mess] this up, son." If that means we miss out on the Brendan Gibbons of the world, cool beans with me.
Technically student-athletes do not enjoy the same privacy protections that other students enjoy. To give 2 examples, they sign HIPAA waivers to allow doctors to communicate directly with their coaching and training staff regarding medical issues, and they waive certain rights to privacy in regard to grades, to allow the athletic department to ensure that they remain eligible (and to allow coaches to check with their professors to ensure they are attending class, etc.).
Internal communications are one thing, external communications are something else, and statutory privacy protections should still apply to external communication.
Its insane to me that you think that the University would give the Athletic department special access to the student disciplinary process and so invite exactly the kinds of troubles that brought down Penn State.
There is no up side to the University giving the AD special priveleges when it comes to disciplining athletes for violations of student conduct codes. I am extremely happy that the university is following the policies I advocate, and not the ones you advocate. It would piss me off to discover that the University was risking its reputation and football program just to buy the athletic deparment some more time to consider its public response.
I'm not advocatiing that the university allow the Athletic Depertment to influence in any way the investigation or disciplinary outcome of "high profile" incidents. I'm merely saying: "hey, its in the university's overall best interest to give the AD a heads up when something like this is brewing."
The travesty that occurred a Penn State is exactly the right thing to be concerned about. What happened there has nothing to do with who was informed and has everyhting to do with how they acted upon that information. No one did anything. JoePa, the Athletic Director, the President.
Another example: the Gordon Gee Tressel thing. "I hope he doesn't fire me." Disgraceful.
I've already spelled out what I think should happen but I'll do it again:
The OSCR informs the President and Athletic Director when a case that has been predetermined to be High Profile blips the radar. The President reminds the Athletic Department that any perceived or real attempt to interfere or otherwise influence the investigation into the matter will result in termination of employment of the Coach and Athletic Director if appropriate. Any real or perceived resistance to cooperate in the investigation will result is termination.
At that point the Atheltic Director and Head Coach need to decide how they want to handle the player's eligibility. And its their responsibility to ensure the Values and Priorities of the University of Michigan are well represented: 1) Maintain Unimpeachable Integrity, 2) Win Championships. That's their job. Help them do it well.
We all want the same things, homeboy.
You don't understand what i am objecting to. The creation of a system whereby the investigation of athletes for rules violation triggers a "High profile" alert and grants the Athletic Director access to the procedings of the student disciplinary system is exactly the sort of policy that creates a perception that the Athletics Department is out of control. There is no real upside (other than a slight possibility that the PR is more polished) to allow suh access, and a huge downside: not only is the Athletic department more priveleged than, say, the Engineering School, but it is also more scrutinized. Even if the president of the university were to issue blood-curdling threats against AD interference in the process, it would not be possible to avoid the perception that such priveleged access to the disciplinary process was designed to give athletes considerations not given non-athletes - because, in fact, that is precisely the purpose of the access.
I think it far, far wiser to just treat athletes like any other students when it comes to the disciplinary process, and to maintain their privacy as far as possible. Their professors and OSCR should not have access to what happens in the athletic disciplinary process, and the athletic department should not have access to the OSCR and in-class disciplinary process.
However, the downside you mention *already* exists and is not going away. The Athletic Department is more privileged than every other area of the University AND they are already more scrutinized. That scrunity is exactly what this is all about, IMO. You seem to think the downside you fear is hypotheticalw when it is, in fact, the grim reality. There is no way to avoid the perception that athletes get special consideration, they already do in every aspect of university life. And in this case, that special consideration isn't a good thing. If you get in trouble, then you get even more eyes on you,so avoid trouble at all costs.
You also dismiss the upside as "not real", why? The negative attention that the athletic department is getting as a result of its (mis)handling of this situation is a cost everyone associated with the University is paying for: University Staff, Students, Alumni, Supporters. If you fall into any of those categories then you're dealing with this story at some level.
The Univeristy of Michigan needs to be aligned, from top to bottom, in order advance and enhancing its image as a intergalactic-class institution of higher learning. That is something we certainly agree on. The President establishes the mission and hires an Ahtletic Director that supports the mission. The AD needs to hire a coach who understands what the mission and is capable of executing it. Its that simple.
The Penn State situation occured because of an extreme lack of courage and perspective at EVERY SINGLE RUNG in the ladder within the Athletic Department. Their Athletic Department didn't have special access to the information, they had the EXCLUSIVE access to the information. I am *certain* that if Penn State's version of the OSCR had been privy to the information, the outcome would have been different. No one acted upon what they knew, so nothing changed.
You're giving the Michgan's Athletic Department more credit than they deserve and the President/OSCR/OIE less credit than they've earned. I trust all of them to get it right because there is no other choice.
That the AD and University "mishandled" the situation. Lacking all of the facts of the case (which neither you, nor I, nor most anyone else is ever going to have) you are led to the conclusion that this is mishandled because of what spin doctors are calling "optics" these days.
I'd wager that if we had all of the facts, we'd find that the AD, Coaches and University handled all of this as they had been told, and on balance, did so very thoroughly and professionally. Since we don't have all of the facts, the optics look terrible and clearly, considering the scant facts released by the University in light of the Daily articles, none of the official parties involved could care less.
I was trying to present the duality of opinions regarding the handling of it by the athletic department. Obviosuly not everyone agrees as to how well the public aspects of this situation were handled. Personally, I would have preferred that Hoke had been given the opportunity to think of something better to say but he was denied that opportunity because of the internal policy choices of the University. I agree that with the information available now, it looks like they got this mostly right. But I think they could have done better and I would like them to in the future.
I guess if you have anything to say other than unflinching flattery then you're a nay-sayer. Whatever.
All of the upsides you mention can exist without the athletic department being given any special access to the student disciplinary system. In fact, they do exist right now, because no one has ever been expelled from the University and continued to compete in athletics or receive scholarship money.
The only result of having a special "high profile" status for student-athletes would be to create the perception that the student justice system doesn't work impartially in their case.
It's the case that is high profile. All I'm saying is that accusations of violent crimes involving student-athletes as respondents should be passed along to the athletic department so they can prepare an appropriate reaction if/when the time comes.
I'm talking about a very limited territory, but that's getting snowed under by the rest of the discussion.
Look at the situation we have here. The athletic department was not involved in the investigation until the punishment had been rendered. Yet, the perception of an impartial system tilted in favor of athletes is exactly what is being bantied about by rival factions. It looks like the University delayed their reaction until Gibbon's athletic eligibility had been exhausted. No one who is unaffiliated with Michigan in some way cares to dig out the information that has been uncovered and discussed by this community. We're a sliver of people who heard the initial news. Everyone else thinks that Michigan Athletic Department is slimy and still smarmy.
The perception you are trying to avoid is unavoidable, it will exist no matter what you do. So, design your internal policies so as to maximize your objectives in these situations. Those objectives, in order: 1) maintain unimpeachable integrity, 2) appropriatley manage the negative publicity that these cases will inevitably produce.
criticizing people who have to make hard decisions just because they don't like the decisions.
Being an AD, head football coach, executive responsible for people is a very difficult thing because people do dumb, stupid and sometimes criminal things and the people in charge have to find a way to handle them.
The only 2 people who know all the facts are Gibbons and the unnamed woman.
Those criticizing Hoke fail to understand that had Hoke said anything more specific he likely would have violated Gibbons rights under FERPA.
as noted elsewhere in this blog, a "family matter" could be a vague but legitimate reference to a matter related to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) | U.S. ...
I agree with those here who believe that UM lawyers either directly (or indirectly through Brandon) told Brady to use the term "family matter". I think that the use of such a term in court would hardly be considered perjury.
IMO, there may be legitimate concerns about how this matter was handled, but his is not one of them.
I would be very grateful to Hoke for answering the question the way he did.
And I know that sounds like I have sympathy for Gibbons, I don't. But I do for his family.
Would you rather Hoke have said Gibbons was kicked off the team for a rape investigation and then have been fined/lawsuit due to FERPA.
So far it seems fairly safe to say that the school's sexual assault response system was not very good in 2009. You could argue that it was terrible. You could also argue - though I don't know that I agree or even have enough information to decide - that Gibbons and Lewan should have been kicked off the team in 2009. But the "family matters" statement just doesn't get me worked up, especially given the legal limitations of what Coach Hoke could say.
This is fucking dumb. Since Hoke knew what happened when he said the bit about "family matters" in the presser, anything less than saying Gibbons was kicked off the team for being expelled from school for sexual misconduct would also be a lie.
One acronym: FERPA. Don't let the law get in the way of your hatred, though.