Daily: AD Aware of Gibbons Decision 12/19

Submitted by Bando Calrissian on

According to a Michigan Daily report, including information confirmed by Dave Ablauf via a phone interview, Brendan Gibbons met with Athletic Department officials and faxed a letter waiving his rights to appeal his expulsion from a Schembechler Hall fax machine on December 19th. Four days later, Brady Hoke announced Gibbons would miss the bowl game for a "family matter."

http://michigandaily.com/article/gibbons-document-faxed-athletic-depart…

"At the latest, the Athletic Department was made aware of the permanent separation on Dec. 19, 2013, and it is unclear whether the football program or Michigan coach Brady Hoke were aware of the Office of Institutional Equity’s earlier finding that Gibbons was responsible for sexual misconduct. The Office of Student Conflict Resolution notified Gibbons on Dec. 19 that he would be permanently separated from the University.

“December 19 is whenever the letter was sent and the kid came to talk with the Athletic Department,” said Athletic Department spokesman Dave Ablauf in a phone interview with the Daily on Wednesday.

He later added: “That could have been the time that Brendan Gibbons talked to coach Hoke.”

Gibbons’ separation stems from an incident on Nov. 22, 2009, according to documents. This corresponds with previous media reports that Ann Arbor Police carried out an investigation of a Michigan football player related to an incident on that date.

The document was sent at 4:02 p.m. on Dec.19 from a fax number associated with the football program. Gibbons signed the document, waiving his right to appeal the sanction. It’s not clear from the markings on the document who received the fax transmission.

The letter was faxed from the offices of the football program four days before Hoke told reporters at a Dec. 23 press conference that Gibbons would not travel to the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl in Tempe, Ariz. due to a “family matter.” It’s not clear whether Hoke was involved in the Dec. 19 meeting described by Ablauf."

Schmoe

January 31st, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^

There is a lot of good discussion here.  But what has me all sad is that Hoke lied.  he went out of his way to lie.  There could be other issues we may find out, but Holke LIED.  He did not have to lie.  But he certainly did.  Violation of Team Rules is all he needed to say.  We can discuss if he could ahve said more or not.  Fact is he LIED.  I am making a very reasonable assumption that Dave Brandon told Brady Hoke around the 19th.  And it is also reasonable to assume that Hoke had a reason to lie beyond FERPA and all that (I am thinking it is embarrassing that Gibbons played all year, but that is speculation on my part)

When you lie, you know what that makes you?  A liar.

I feel sad.

Erik_in_Dayton

January 31st, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^

I could say, "Who's to say Hoke isn't a spy for North Korea?  After all, he said Gibbons had a family matter."  

Have you ever told someone that her/his cooking was good when it wasn't?  Have you ever said a friend was sick when a more accurate statement was that he was hung-over?   People lie.  It's not ideal, but it's not always a problem either.  The question here is who, if anyone, Hoke hurt.  I'm open to argument on that, but to suggest that all lies are morally equivalent or that anyone who ever tells any lie of any kind is automatically suspect of unquestionably bad behavior is - with all respect - very simplistic. 

Erik_in_Dayton

January 31st, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^

But the poster above is making into a moral problem, which is different. 

As I posted way up above in this thread, there is a problem here of form but not of substance (as long as we're just talking about the "family matter" comment, anyway).  Remember that Hoke could not say that Gibbons was expelled b/c of sexual misconduct.  He could only have said that he was expelled. 

Erik_in_Dayton

January 31st, 2014 at 1:22 PM ^

Lewan may have, but that's another story.  But how did Hoke do that?  Gibbons was expelled.  The police had already looked into it and seemingly would have gone forward if the young woman had wanted this (it was very much her right not to - don't get me wrong). 

Hoke - again - could not say that Gibbons had been found to have violated the student code re: sexual assault.  Why is saying "family matter" instead of "expelled" intimidating to victims?

FWIW, I've represented survivors of sexual and domestic violence.  There is a continuum of what is and is not a problem in those situations.  All events connected to those situations are not equal.  This is very, very low on the continuum, and as I said, I don't see any intimidation.   I can imagine the young woman in question being frustrated by Hoke not saying that Gibbons was expelled (because why should he have any favors?), but I have to believe that the far more important thing to her is that he was in fact expelled.

Erik_in_Dayton

January 31st, 2014 at 1:55 PM ^

Hoke could not have said anything like "sexual assault" or "rape."   He could at most have said, "expelled," and it wouldn't have been clear why the expulsion happened. 

Another way of looking at this:  If I am the young woman, I might want Gibbons publicly labeled as a rapist.  I am personally not too far from being on board with that myself.  But Hoke could not do that without violating Gibbons' rights under federal law. 

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 31st, 2014 at 1:56 PM ^

one more time

Hoke could not have said anything like "sexual assault" or "rape." He could at most have said, "expelled," and it wouldn't have been clear why the expulsion happened.

And, again, that's not true.  After the expulsion, Hoke could say that he was expelled, that he was expelled for sexual misconduct, that the university tribunal  found "[insert language from November 20 letter]," and he could describe the facts supporting the university's finding.

We all know that isn't how football coaches talk, and he never would have said it even if he was told he could.  But in fact he could.

 

Voltron Blue

January 31st, 2014 at 2:26 PM ^

I agree with you that's it's a very minor point (but again, even very minor points about such serious issues are meaningful).

A future victim of rape by a member of the football program will see a coach that was willing to protect his player by (a) calling his issue a "family" matter rather than a "personal" or "private" matter, which minimizes its importance as articulated above, and (b) letting him get on stage and address the team at the banquet.  That creates the perception of an environment that disincentivizes a victim from coming forward.  

Anyway, I'll let the dead horse be now.  

Yeoman

January 31st, 2014 at 10:16 PM ^

No, Erik, I think you were right. The claim that the University can release the cause of the expulsion was based on a misreading of FERPA. It's only true in the case of a violent crime (or statutory rape or incest, which obviously isn't the issue here), and the University's definition of "sexual misconduct" doesn't meet the FERPA definition of a violent crime. (It's basically the same issue discussed many times on various threads--the University looks at lack of consent, but to meet the FERPA definition there would need to be force involved.)

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 31st, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^

"Remember that Hoke could not say that Gibbons was expelled b/c of sexual misconduct. He could only have said that he was expelled."

Depends what time period we're talking about.  Before the final determination of expulsion, he couldn't have said that.  After it -- around Decembe 19 -- Hoke could have said both things.

I'm sure he was told not to, and he obeyed the order, but that's a different issue.

grumbler

January 31st, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^

The "fact" is that you are making up "facts."  What Hoke said may have been misleading, but it wasn't untrue.  However, if you want to categorize it as "Hoke LIED," (including the emo use of all caps) then feel free to do so,  If making Hoke's statements into lies makes you sad, then enjoy the sadness you are inflicting on yourself.  Just don't expect much sympathy from the non-emo crowd.

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 31st, 2014 at 10:28 AM ^

It's amazing that the Free Press published that long, multi-day "expose" about maybe a few extra practice hours and then, after the Watchdog gave them the documents and info about sexual assault and witness threatenting on a silver platter, neither they nor the News did or published a thing about them.

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 31st, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^

Here's what a media law professor says about FERPA, as reported by the Ann Arbor News:

"(One exemption) is one that specifically exempts (FERPA protection) of records of the outcome of disciplinary proceedings when a student has been found guilty or responsible as a perpetrator of a crime of violence, including sex offenses.

"The law explicitly says that those types of records are not protected by FERPA. As a result, if the university there is claiming that FERPA is its justification as to why it can't release information, and they did in fact find the student responsible for this behavior ... then it is, they're wrong. That's all there is to it. They're just simply wrong."

So there it is.  The U doesn't have to reveal any information, but they can reveal information.  We shall see if that policy holds over the coming days. 

Schmoe

January 31st, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^

Oh, one can rationalize a lie if one so chooses.  Still a lie.  And still making rounds on the national media circuit.  If it continues to get legs, Hoke will have to come clean and rationalize out loud.

Plus there is the whole Gibbons-playing-after-it-was-determined-he-did-something-wrong thing.  Iowa.  Lies.

pearlw

January 31st, 2014 at 12:16 PM ^

Yes - the Iowa issue is important. But I think its clear that no one knows yet if Hoke/Brandon had knowledge of that finding prior to the game. All we know is that the letter was dated nov 20th but not sure who if it was only sent to Gibbons and when it was received given that gibbons would have been out of town from 22nd on. Still alot of details needed to comment on the Iowa game.

Section 1

January 31st, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^

I'd like very much to see a .pdf of the letter.

I don't think that the Daily is letting that out.  It may have been a condition of disclosure.  The Daily may have only seen the letter (and confirmed the provenance).

This may be like the July, 2009 CARA-report letter, that turned into Mike Rosenberg's jihad against Rich Rodriguez.  That report was published as a .pdf; but it was cc'ed to about a dozen people.  (No way to pinpoint a leaker.)  But in that case, the identity of the leaker was probably more important in this case.

In the Gibbons case, the leak suspect might just be a feminist/activist who wanted to advance the cause more generally advanced by the Department of Education's Civil Rights Section.  The pool of such people in Ann Arbor is only about 95,000.

pearlw

January 31st, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^

I guess it's pretty clear that we dont know...as one of you (Yeoman) thought we could be pretty sure it was sent to Gibbons only while the other (Section 1) said they would be surprised if it wasnt CC's to several UM admins. Others (not the two I mentioned) just make an assumption one way or the other to support their criticism or support of Hoke. We dont know.

Even outside of privacy laws, there is also a VERY GOOD case for NOT including the coaches on any information of the progress of the case...in order to avoid any appearance of the athletic department being able to influence the decision.

We dont know yet.

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 31st, 2014 at 1:20 PM ^

Sure, but there's very good reason for the AD and coaches to keep on top of university proceedings -- so they don't wake up one day and find that a player has been expelled from school for murder or rape.

The disiplinary process people may be under orders not to tell the AD, but that sure doesn't mean people in the AD and coaching staff can't find out.

Nor is it hard to find out:  "Brendan, I've read the police reports of your interactions with a female student, tell me what happened" is a perfectly fine starting question -- and one we should have expected Hoke/Brandon to have asked last August. 

The football team should have conducted its own inquiry and it looks like they didn't do anything. 

B1G_Fan

January 31st, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^

 Does it really matter what was said ? A family matter to me is a private issue, unspecified team rule is a football issue. He could have come out and said it's none of your business or he could have said he was suspended for an alleged sexual assault in 09 ( which is none of your business).

If it was you or your kid how would you want to coach to handle it?

B1G_Fan

January 31st, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^

I'm just saying, Noah Spence didn't travel to the bowl game with Ohio due to Family issues. That turned out to be a failed drug test. A family issue is just something private that should only concern the family of the student at that time.

 

pearlw

January 31st, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^

Exact quote from Meyer I see to be "he is working on some personal issues at home"

I know we on this board have in this case argued over the precision of terms like "personal issue", "family issue", "family matter" so I just wanted to clarify the quote from Meyer.

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 31st, 2014 at 1:25 PM ^

Hoke created an intimidating environment by keeping Lewan and Gibbons as members of the team in good standing.   A man who the police contemporaneously documented made violent threats to witnesses and the victim -- threats that very well may have worked -- was made a captain.

The football team closed ranks around these guys and kept hush-hush about all of it.  End of story.

 

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 31st, 2014 at 1:44 PM ^

Regarding the intimidating environment, I'd simply ask what the football team did to indicate that it supported the process.  They didn't actively interfere with it (as far as we know, and I don't think they did), but that's a pretty low bar.  Certainly the gravity of it, and the gravity of the acts surrounding it didn't impact the involved players' status with the team -- until very, very late, when there was no choice.

Danwillhor

January 31st, 2014 at 2:24 PM ^

but if he knew Gibbons more than likely did rape a woman and called his missing of the osu game, etc "family issues".......I have an issue with that. I get 13 was a torment of a year for UM FB but if Hoke knew he was gone on a suspected rape charge and didn't make this public for the sake of the school/program, I've lost a bit of respect for him. A lot, really.

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 31st, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^

Rich Rod kind of got lucky.  The arrest was on November 22, 2009 -- after the season was over.  No bowl game. 

Then, no charges were brought and whatever the school did in Round 1 was over even before spring practice.

As I understand it, the police records re Lewan didn't come out until August 2013, so there's really nothing to act on there either (though word likely had already started to spread on the team and some students.)

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 31st, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^

The Daily rightfully editorialized today that this was a "shameful response," rightly noting that if the University knowingly delayed Gibbons's expulsion in any way, it's an "atrocity of the highest order."