This guy is a damn fool if he thinks Hoke is going to answer any questions about a past player on a day where the future can officially be talked about.
ESPN's Rittenberg Says UM Must Answer Gibbons Questions
And you're a damn fool if you don't think that every reporter there isn't going to pepper Hoke with question after question about it. None of those reporters care about signing day. The class has been set for six months. But this Gibbons story? That's something new and juicy. Now does Hoke have to answer their questions? No. But if he refuses or if they ask him enough and he gets feisty about and channels his inner Lloyd Carr and snaps at them, that's going to make things worse.
Hoke and Michigan's best play here is to offer a statement about it and hope that kills the story then and there. Refusing to answer is only going to add fuel to the fire that they are covering something up.
Hoke has some statement at the beginning, then says he has no further comment on the issue, then answers all the Signing Day questions.
Maybe that kills the story, maybe it doesn't, but it's the "best play" as you say.
Refusing to offer ANY answer is the "worst play" to try to kill the story. It just invites further columns that call for a further escalation (some no doubt penned by the likes of Drew Sharp): "Michigan's being evasive! Mary Sue Coleman needs to launch an internal investigation into who knew what and when!"
than in what the standard is for booting players off of the squad. And this goes back, as some of the smoke begins to clear now, to RR. If the washtenaw blog is right then there was plenty of evidence of serious wrong-doing on Gibbons's part, possibly on Lewan's, too. People can and should debate this, but I (speaking personally) want a higher standard for the football team than "he not a convicted criminal." And I think it can be argued that when serious charges are lodged against a player and there is some strong indication of wrongdoing they should be suspended until the issue is settled. It's worth repeating that Michigan won games because these two guys were on the squad.
And you want them to be suspended until the issue is settled? What if it is like the Duke case? And they don't play for over a year (if it takes that long) and it ruins their future and possible career choice? What then?
I'm with you, in a perfect world, I'll take a million Kovacs, Denard, and Matt Wile playing for my beloved team. But even if you picked 100 of the most wonderful upstanding young men you can find, something could happen during 4 years of college. Sadly.
Let's be real: the Duke case is an exception. False accusations of this sort are so exceedingly rare that it's almost not even worth mentioning.
Lets be real, young people making bad decisions when alcohol is involved will always make these things murky and deciding one side is always in the right and putting the burden of proof on the accused isn't the answer.
yeah--I know which side my sympathies fall on.
that people can be falsely accused??? Oy.
Brian Banks begs to differ.
2-8% is what I'm seeing. there's also a 35% rise in false reports in the millitary(washington times). It's scary either way.
Mealy-mouthed hand-wringing. That article, which I'm conflicted about having clicked on, flies in the face of all credible research regarding the miniscule percentage of false rape accusations. By the military's own estimation, there are relatively many unfounded accusations of sexual assault? Well fucking paint me green and call me Gumby. I can't tell if you're willfully ignorant about this or if you're just that fucking gullible.
Also, the Washington Times is your source? The fucking Moonie newspaper? What did the National Enquirer say? I'm just not comfortable with this unless we hear from the Executive Intelligence Review, either. Can we make sure this is corroborated by Scientology News?
I was just trying to add some numbers to his statement. Not taking any sides. You and mglobules need medication.
The credibility of numbers matters not. Any numbers advance a discussion in a helpful manner.
The first numbers were from a case study the military numbers from Washington. It's easier to be lazy and an asshole. You've proved that point quite well. What percentages do you come up with? It's an interesting discussion as a Michigan woman just went to prison for false accusations the guy did 10 yrs. I'm done doing you're homework.
The credibility of the military numbers is dubious, as they are generated by an entirely internal process. To take at face value the military's numbers about military sexual assaults as determined by military tribunals is either credulous to the point of being the slow kid in class or willfully ignorant. You didn't do any damn research worth the eight letters in the word - you found one hack article from one disreputable rag and picked one bullshit statistic out of it. But killer job finding one anecdotal example and pretending it supports your whole argument. You win this month's Recruiting Rankings Don't Matter Because Mike Hart Award. Bonus points for doing it in the service of casting doubt upon rape victims, obvs.
to go through the shame and humiliation of accusing military colleagues of raping them. It's a new fad.
I struggle to understand what makes guys think they need to rush to the defense of this kind of ugly. But it's real.
Everyone says this until it is them or someone in their family.....
Accusations can be weapons to destroy people - that's why this stuff has to be dealt with as best as possible in the criminal justice system (as imperfect as it can be). It isn't the place for Universities and their internal boards to decide.
The Duke case would almost certainly have not turned out the way it did, if it had been handled as a purely administrative matter. Those three lacrosse players would have been expelled. No, they wouldn't have been put in jail. They would never have had a trial. But they would have been judged simply on the basis of whether they created a "hostile environment" in the view of their accuser. And they would likely have been judged by one or more representatives of that class of faculty/administrators like the "Group of 88," who condemned the players and the team based on a knee-jerk reaction to incomplete information. Because the defense lawyers would have had little substantive involvement and their legal tools would have been very limited.
I say again; if there is a real case of rape, mere expulsion from the University of Michigan (or Duke) is a grossly inadequate remedy. If there is a phony allegation of rape, expulsion from the University of Michigan is an outrageous offense to the accused. The important thing is to make a complete investigation of the facts, with serious consequences, while protecting the due process rights of the accused.
The criminal justice system is the place we all look to, for that kind of resolution. An administrative proceeding is a lousy substitute. Administrative proceedings are intended only to serve the needs of the institution, not the parties.
The Gibbons case is just one of a great many cases we might see going forward, if the current "Dear Colleague" policy on Title IX enforcement continues. There are going to be problems; guaranteed.
she was internally injured. She had bruises. Read the police report, or listen to the former Pathology Professor who exposed the case:
I'm really hoping that people here are speaking out of ignorance, rather than just mean macho stupidity.
Here, here. While so many are going through mental contortions to justify the actions of the university, forgotten are a campus full of women who count on administration to do the right thing and protect them.
What were her "internal injuries"?
What exactly makes you say she was "badly injured"?
Her alleged "bruising" is a subject of considerable debate; by my reading of the police records, it is not clear what the nature of the supposed bruising was, and was by no means evidence of an assault.
"Vaginal tearing" is not, by itself, evidence of a sexual assault. If it were, then no one would be able to explain why the AAPD never referred any charges to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor.
The only thing that Doug Smith has done of any consequence was to FOIA the records. All of his writing, all of his other reporting, has been riddled with errors.
He called Gibbons -- who has never been charged or convicted -- a "rapist." No self-respecting professional journalist would make that mistake. I think it could be the basis for a defamation action by Gibbons against Smith. Not that Gibbons is likely to do that.
But one look at Doug Smith's wierd history at Regents meetings, at city council meetings, on his blog; it is remarkable when any serious news outlet takes him seriously at all.
I really want to know what Smith's role might have been in the reopening of this matter within OSCR.
Everything sounds great in a perfect world, but you are introducing an immense amount of uncertainty when you are subjectively determining how "strong" an indication of wrongdoing occurred based on accusations.
This is a bad situation, but bad facts tend to make bad law, and creating blanket suspensions because it "looks" like you did something wrong isn't beneficial to anyone.
So Meyer was wrong to suspend Carlos Hyde?
It's not really all that uncommon to suspend a player on the basis of an accusation, even if the accuser eventually chooses not to cooperate with the investigation.
Do you mean the event where they have video of him striking a woman? That suspension was probably justified.
the phone from San Diego and told RR to suspend him because the matter was brewing?
As far as we know, the accusation was the criminal matter in 2009. The matter was supposedly settled (ie, no charges) when Hoke showed up.
IF Hoke knew the OSCR was re-opening the case, the I see a question of Gibbons' playing. Nothing has surfaced as a fact that Hoke should have done anything different.
I was responding to comments on what RR should have done back in '09.
I have no problem with how Hoke has handled the situation, or at least what I know about it. I've never been comfortable with RR's lack of visible response at the time, as respects both Gibbons and Lewan.
refute your comment but pile onto the point of when & who. RR might not even have been aware, so it's just more of a stretch to start poking at AD and HC responsibilities 4 years ago.
From the facts so far, Hoke's only "shortfall" was a 2-word statement to a reporter in AZ - and that's only because a bunch of bloggers expected a full elocution. I have no issue with Hoke or RR.
Assuming guilty before proved innocent?
If a police officer is accused of a crime and is place on adminastrative leave while the accusation is being investigated - is that "assuming guilty before proved innocent"?
the accused player could still remain on scholarship (paid) until the issue is resolved...or transfer.
Being a division 1 scholarship athlete is a privilege, playing for Michigan is a privilege and these kids should be held to a higher standard than just "well, he's wasn't charged by the police so it must be ok."
If you read through the stuff that was leaking out onto the internet and the police reports then it becomes rather difficult to defend the behavior of Gibbons & Lewan. At the very least, these guys should have been suspended from the team indefinitely until the situation was cleared up. And the University should have promptly investigated then and settled this stuff years ago.
The fact that the case was delayed/ignored until right about the time these athletes finished their eligibility is very embarrassing and reeks of a coverup whether intentional or not.
Gibbons better hope that he never runs into a "Girl w/Dragon Tattoo" vigilante type...or he'll be wishing he was in jail. (And oddly enough, that actress is from families that own two NFL teams.)
It's not going to be pretty but I think Michigan needs to get some heavy blowback from this case.
"BLONDES>BRUNETTES?: Since Michigan redshirt sophomore kicker Brendan Gibbons finished an impressive season (13-for-17 on field goals) by hitting a game-winning 37-yard field goal in overtime to defeat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl, there’s been a lot of talk about brunettes.
After the game on Tuesday, Gibbons said that before the kick, he simply envisioned brunette girls and it helped him relax. He said it was a strategy that Hoke suggested to him.
On Thursday, Hoke gave his side of the story.
At the end of practice each Thursday, Hoke has Gibbons line up for a kick. Usually, Hoke calls a couple timeouts to ice the kicker.
The first time Gibbons lined up for the kick with Hoke at the helm, Hoke pulled him aside during the time out.
“What makes ya happy?” Hoke asked him.
“Well, I like the sand, the water and pretty girls.”
And, according to Hoke, “That’s the end of the story.”
The University's investigation concluded that he committed crimes (maybe not rape, but crimes nonetheless) but the police/prosecutors aren't pressing charges. LOL law enforcement. What a joke.
maybe its because the two bodies exercise different burdens of proof? The law obviously deeming not enough evidence to argue against a 'he said, she said' argument. Nobody knows what happened that night except Gibbons and the girl, and potentially, alcohol may have effected even that understanding...murky waters
I'd bet a dollar or a donut that there are different evidentiary standards at play. Furthermore, I believe the UM board can look at both violations of law and violations of codes of conduct. So to coldnjl's point, it's not apples to apples. It's more like apples to chainsaws. As it should be, it's easier to get expelled than convicted for bad behavior.
On the "nobody knows" point, I think that's right. But while false accusations do occur, experience has taught me that it is much more common that the accusations are sincerely made, but many cases aren't brought to trial because (i) the burden of proof is high, and (ii) victims get weary of reliving the experience, especially through the lens of the press and aggressive defense lawyers. The bottom line is that a rape case is a difficult one to prosecute.
Further, it appears that the reason UM found against Gibbons in 2013, but didn't in 2009 is because the burden of proof was "clear and convincing" in 2009 before being reduced to a "preponderance" in 2011 or 2013. (The US Dept. of Education required the different standard in 2011. It's unknown to me what was happening in the interim).
If the University didn't think there was sufficient proof to meet the clear and convincing standard I don't know why a lawyer would think that means the prosecutor should have tried to convict someone under the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
nobody but you CE sees it for what it is. You win.
The University can sanction a student for an act that is “so severe as to create a hostile, offensive or abusive environment,” Creating an offensive or abusive environment isn't a crime.
bruises, vaginal tearing, and Gibbons's semen. I know that this is a football board, and you don't expect the most enlightened crowd here. But 'm hoping that people here are writing in ignorance of the actual case; otherwise. . . scary.
Prosecuting a CSC case without a witness is almost impossible, unfortunately.
Edited to change abbreviation for Andrew! See below...
LOL your lack of knowledge about law.
FWIW I'm pretty sure Cooper Lilly has a pretty keen understanding of the law (what with him being an attorney and all that) but my guess would be he disagrees with the outcome of the police investigation.
difference between the two investigations? That would be enough for me to cast a sideways glance. Perhaps he sees that and is just here pushing a personal agenda?
You got it right. I've got a problem with the way rape/sexual assault allegations are treated. I could bore you with my opinion but I chose to simply make an obnoxious emotional statement and leave it at that.
If that's really the case, he should probably take his CLE seriously this year and do some brushing-up.
I suspect your deduction is correct, but this is not the attorney I want representing me were I charged with a crime. First of all, the issue of a civil admiminstrative body concluding that "crimes were committed" is certainly not dispositive for law enforcement, who decides through prosecutorial discretion whether criminal conduct can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If they don't believe so, or if witnesses are recalcitrant, they will usually not issue.
I'm just...whatever. You don't care about following the actual issues, so yes, all law enforcement screwed up because they are incompetent and a school review body was the only one that followed protocols.
The University's investigation concluded that he committed crimes (maybe not rape, but crimes nonetheless) but the police/prosecutors aren't pressing charges. LOL law enforcement. What a joke.
No they didn't. The OSCR is in no freaking position to make any sort of criminal judgment. Even the OSCR would agree with that. They'd NEVER crawl out on any limb of "criminality." They know that they would be venturing far above their pay grade in that.
It is an office of conflict-resolution counselors. Not judges and trial lawyers.
And the fact that their non-judicial "conclusion" has been made public, to the life-altering detriment of Brendan Gibbons, without a trial, is a monstrous offense to Gibbons. The whole world will now surely view him as a sex offender. Based on a proceeding that, even if it was conducted by the book according to the University's own rules, is a "joke" (your word) compared to a serious criminal court proceeding.
Easy on the "life altering" part, there buddy. He has a degree, he hasn't been convicted of anything, he's not on SORA or any other similar list. There's a better than average shot that all he's going to miss out on is whatever graduate credits he was completing and maybe an NFL training camp invite.
I suspect he'll have some tough interview questions to answer if he pursues a career in social work. Or, for that matter, if he tries to enroll in another school of social work to finish the degree.
This makes the point of my comment above even more forcefully, and correctly so. . Gibbons now has "publicity" problem for sure, but he only has himself to blame.
Bruises, vaginal tearing, and the guy's semen just isn't enough for you. And you're actually malicious enough to come on a football board and keep pushing it. You've fallen beneath your own sorry standard this time.
Rittenberg: Coach Hoke what do you have to say regarding to the sexual assault allegations surrounding former University of Michigan kicker Brendan Gibbons?
Coach Hoke: Have you seen John Beilein's basketball team?
If being a ninja has taught me anything, its that sometimes you have to deflect the tough questions.
This would be an atrocious answer. Seriously. Like, on the level of he should be fired. You don't joke about stuff like this.
well no shit.
I was being sarcastic
as to rehashing stories with nothing new to report
while our basketball team is undefeated and in first place in the B1G.
kindly lighten up
or back away from the internet.
to or should say anything more than they already have. And even if they do by some chance, it's not going to be by Hoke on NSD. I can guarantee Brandon and the pack of U-M lawyers have told Hoke to make no comment whatsoever.
There are a lot of unpleasant aspects to this whole case, but most of them are what they are at this point. Unless, there is new evidence that will enable the police to open a criminal case, none of the parties involved have anything to gain (and a lot to potentially lose) by commenting on it. That may not satisfy some people, but you don't get everything you want in life.
What did Hoke/Brandon/etc. know and when did they know it. The fundamental questions in all scandals.
To me it strains credulity that they weren't aware of the process going on, but maybe no one (including Gibbons?) told them. The whole thing looks terrible and that's sometimes as damaging as it actually being terrible.
the incident occurred in 2009. I have a feeling both DB and BH have been aware of the incident for a long time. For whatever reason, BG was allowed to keep playing, so as far as DB/BH are concerned, gibbons could play until he was no longer eligible, which appears to have technically occurred on 12/19
Will Rittenberg actually ask the questions though? Something tells me he won't.
Rittenberg is a huge hack. He never says anything positive about UofM. He was citing drew sharp last week. In his mailbag questions he was talking about how our offensive coach hire was not impressive because anyone would look good with Alabama personal.
Is the Daily's editorial board a bunch of anti-Michigan hacks?
They're not anti-Michigan, but they (and Rittenberg) know a story that generates page views when they see one. The Daily will milk the crap out of this story if it can. (I say this as a former Daily writer myself.)
It has nothing to do with clicks. Its fundamental news coverage. You cover and report on issues and topics that people are going to care about. The fact that people click/read/watch the story means you're covering what people want to know more about.
Not everything is some insane media conspiracy.
Implying or even outright stating that the media exists mostly to sell itself and that any Jeffersonian ideals about the role of the press have long since gone by the wayside isn't conspiracy talk.
I wrote for the Daily, and it has the same emphasis on views and page counts as any other publication. There are plenty of undergrads who are going to need a good portfolio if they want to get jobs or freelance gigs after college. High profile stories are just as valuable to them as they would be to Zoe Barnes at The Washington Herald.
It's no conspiracy to say that journalists have an incentive to be widely read.
definitely has an agenda. It did back in the 1980's too. But I'm glad this story DID finally get out - an event did happen - and the TRUTH is better coming out in the long run, whether you believe Gibbons is fully guilty or not.
There is a problem with that article. We don't know when the OSCR decision-making process ended. Saying it was on Nov. 20th is a statement that ignores the fact that OSCR then met with Gibbons on Dec. 4th and didn't expel him until Dec. 19th. So the Iowa game may not be a problem.
U of M also can't say much about the investigation, but The Daily seems to mean to imply otherwise.
20 USC 1232g(b)(6)(C) says this:
(C) For the purpose of this paragraph, the final results of any disciplinary proceeding-
(i) shall include only the name of the student, the violation committed, and any sanction imposed by the institution on that student; and
(ii) may include the name of any other student, such as a victim or witness, only with the written consent of that other student.
Case close, this was on RR watch!
Case close, this was on RR watch!
Of course, translating your butchered English, you meant to say, "Case close[d].."
And guess what, homey? The case was closed under Coach Rodriguez's watch. The police investigated. The never referred a charge to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's office. Case closed.
There was no OSCR hearing or finding under Coach Rodriguez's watch. Case closed. No, wait; in that regard, there was never a case opened!
Exactly what do you think that Coach Rodriguez should have done in 2009-10? And whatever you think Coach Rodriguez should have done; is Brady Hoke subject to the same obligation(s)?
I mean really. This is all pasting over the same set of crap. When something new comes out wake me up but enough already.
Winston is still playing for FSU! He likes FSU!
UM and Hoke don't have to say anything. The media will get a whole bunch of "no comment, next question" on signing day.
Sometimes though, "no comment" is still news. Or in the words of Drew Rosenhaus "NEXT QUESTION" Regardless of what everyone on here thinks, this is a juicy story waiting to be cracked open. There will be several questions about it, and the story isn't going away anytime soon because you'd better believe the FOIA requests have already started.
ESPN spearheading anything even loosely related to integrity is a joke.
I'm aware that I'm attacking the soap box instead of the words coming out of his mouth but I also don't care.
PLEASE do not refer to Michigan as "the U." Just, don't.
Also, nothing new here. Another guy saying (rightly so) that there are now more questions than answers that need to be brought to light.
and members of three generations before us. I grew up in A2, and that's what many of us townies always called it; I'll call it that if I damned well please.
and maybe we'll never know the proess well enough to know Gibbons' rights under this set of rules.
But did Gibbons' meet with (or was he given the offer to meet with) the OSCR investigating body BEFORE the November 20th conclusion?
His only REPORTED meeting was in early December. Was this a meeting to challenge the charges or was this a meeting where he could either accept or appeal?
My main complaint about Hoke were IF he knew about the November 20th meeting/decision, why did he play Gibbons at Iowa?
As for the "family issue" thing - "personal issue" would have been better but the fact was Gibbons wasn't going to play anyway.
Based on the police report I read...while the woman decided to NOT bring legal cahrges against Gibbons, it looks like she could have had this go to trial and maybe won.
This is all on the OSCR web site. The Nov 20th letter was the result of the OIE investigation. Because the investigator concluded that there was more evidence for the accusation than against it, Gibbons got a hearing (had the investigator concluded differently, the process ends unless the complainant appeals). OSCR sent the letter to Gibbons saying, essentially, that he had been indicted.
The Dec 9th meeting was the hearing, where Gibbons could present his case (beyond what he told the investigator). OSCR's ruling came after that. Exactly when isn't knowable, because the ruling had to be vetted by one of the administrators, but it was before the letter went out on Dec 19th saying, in essence, that the OSCR was concurring with the conclusions of the investigator, and announcing the sanction imposed.
Gibbons could have appealed to a panel compriosed of an administrator, a faculty member, and a student, but he declined to do so.
Only his decision not to appeal ended the OSCR process and made the results available to anyone not involved in the process, if what we have been told on this board by people who have been involved in such processes are to be believed.
The above is how I square the procedures on the OSCR website to the information we have. I could have gotten details or timeframes wrong, because I haven't seen any actual correspondence.
but... i've been hearing from Michigan State fan's that Brady hoke not only knew of this incident in 2009. he actually helped Gibbons by holding her arms down, and then drove the get away car across county lines.
but that isn't the worst of it. OSU fan's say that Hoke kept Gibbon's on the team because beating OSU was more important than punishing a rapist like Zed from pulp fiction.
I am still trying to figure out the "no appeal" angle. Would an appeal "stay" any separation decision? I think so. So I don't understand that part if it would have delayed everything until we were well into 2014.
Perhaps Gibbons just figured, "To hell with it, I am out of here. I'll be looking at NFL tryouts in February. I am not going to walk myself into a perjury trap if they later attempt to try me in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court for this mess. As of now, they told me that I'm free to go. I'll keep it that way. Good bye Michigan, thanks for nothin'."
I bet Coach Hoke told him CFB was over, and tried to protect his former player's privacy, legal rights and career opportunities. That does not mean a good character reference.
Administrative hearings do sound a lot like mock trials. In a way, that's precisely what they are.
I agree that gibbons likely didn't appeal because he wasn't coming back anyway. A few extra credits in grad school (at least in his major) weren't going to get him a master's degree, so why return for the winter term? An appeal would just mean paying for another trip to Ann Arbor, and likely would have been denied anyway. If Gibbons was still injured, an appeal wouldn't have gotten him to play in the bowl (and, perhaps, the expulsion wouldn't be delayed until the appeal was finished, so he couldn't play anyway).
The lack of an appeal makes perfect sense to me.
Gibbons is his hero. Something about Section 1's constitutional makeup moves him to identify with the kicker. Hope the women in your family approve, too, buddy.
most of your criticism in this thread---but geez. This seems straight ad hominem and not board material. This whole damn thing has got people writing and thinking unreasonable things. /resumeslurkingontheboardlikeusual
Since we're talking (again) about it, was gibbons actually hurt for OSU? Do we know if this was when the AD/Hoke knew something was amiss?
They went for it when they may have kicked if he had been available, but in all this mess it hasn't been clear if he was hurt or if that was a lie all along.
I agree with benching him as soon as any notice of administrative action was known about, just purely curious about the most 'football-related' aspect of this case
just whom they obtained the copies of the letter from.
They said that it didn't come from the University (which, to mean, means formally released by the school).
Does the victim get a copy of this form too as evidence (I hope she would as proof of the explusion!)?
Did someone near/around the fax machine copy surrepticiously [I've been looking for a time to use that word this week :>)] get a copy and leak it out?
I don't blame Hoke for not taking action when he arrived in 2011 (at that time, to the best of our knowledge it was a closed case)...but either he got and took bad advice from someone OR dumbed down was he was supposed to say when the November 20th decision was made. It'll come out soon enough.
Perhaps next time you could even learn to spell the word.
I don't think coaches should be required to say exactly why a player is not allowed to be playing or even travel with the team.
But keep in my that by the time of some of Hoke's comments, Gibbons had already been expelled from school and was presumably no longer on the team.
True, but perhaps the time was not right to break that news. I'm not sure why we, the public, are so entitled to real time developments. He's about to coach a bowl game, he wants the focus to be on the bowl, the player is no longer with the program, which I can only assume was the right thing to do, so why is Brady Hoke obligated to pull attention away from the actual team? This is a football player, not a government official.
One thing you can be SURE about is that UM's Legal team has been involved in crafting any comments and decisions taken by the Department. I suspect Brandon has been more involved in these discussions as Hoke's boss, than Brady has been. There is NO WAY these guys having been getting coaching and clarification from the Legal team since at least November/December.
Fortunately I've never been involved in something this bad in my private sector career, but I recall at least one harassment accusation in our work area. Legal was involved all throughout, including telling people in leadership position what they could/could not share and when and how they could share it.
I must admit that I, at first, thought the Washtenaw watchdogs group was partly full of it when they publishing stuff a year or two ago, sounding like a lot of innuendos. Looks like they were more in the right than I thought. Sigh
I must have missed something..Was anyone charged with anything?
this would be news. if this was the only account of a college athelete alledgely comiting a possible act of rape in 2009. apparently rape is so rare now that women can stop using those penis trap vaginal inserts.
Not sure that this worthy of its own thread, so I'm posting it here as an FYI. Another U-M statement, this one from Mary Sue Coleman.
University statements on sexual misconduct policy
Comments regarding recent news reports have suggested that the university’s Athletics Department played a role in the investigation of an internal complaint filed with the university.
Statement from President Mary Sue Coleman
Jan. 30, 2014
Athletics has no influence over sexual misconduct investigations or the academic standing of student athletes.
No unit or individual on our campus has any influence over the investigations carried out by the Office for Institutional Equity (OIE).
OIE is charged with conducting fair and impartial internal investigations involving allegations of discrimination and harassment, including allegations of sexual misconduct.
Our policies and processes mandate a thorough and fair handling of any allegations of student sexual misconduct. The University of Michigan takes this responsibility very seriously.
to the Group W Bench tout de suite.
Again, I don't really see why this is a Hoke or Brandon question. He should go call up Rodriguez and Martin. How people think the terminology that Brady Hoke used in a press conference is far more egregious than RR's total disregard for this situation is truly baffling.
...and is not available for comment. (I don't remember which article I saw that in, but I know I saw it in the last day or two.)
Maybe the man learned something at Michigan after all.
Committed without valid consent is a key phrase. A person who is under the influence of alcohol or another substance that impairs good judgment cannot give valid consent. Nor, for that matter, judge the validity of a consent. In this case, it's likely the preponderance of evidence (from witness accounts, physician's clinical assessment, blood alcohol level, etc.) proved the complainant had enough alcohol on board to impair good judgment, so no valid consent could have been given. In the words of a Navy master chief, in a course I was teaching on sexual assault, "Doc, you're telling me that if she's drunk, then I'm screwed, and if I'm drunk, too, then we're both screwed!"
Indeed. I pointed this out several threads ago. Gibbons was never charged with, nor convicted of, any sort of "rape." What he was expelled for was behavior that created a hostile environment at the university, which was to engage in sex without getting valid consent from his sexual partner.
The extent to which consent was actually given/implied/whatever is a matter we cannot know. What we can know is that (1) the competent authority ruled that the consent was not 'valid" and (2) Gibbons's behavior in the absence of that valid consent, whether there was a crime involved or not, was suffieciently egregious as to make his continued presence at Michigan a threat to others.
I am confident that, had the policy for investigation been the same in 2009 as in 2013, Gibbons would have been expelled in 2009. I am further confident that the new policy represents a significant improvement in the ability of OSCR to do its job of protecting other students from people who are willing to violate the code of conduct. In cases like this, it isn't just about the victim, it is also about the people who could become victims.
and i hope this is the policy going forward.
What evidence does the competent authority have access to? The University of Michigan owns UMMC and (at least in theory) all its privileged records, and employs physicians, psychologists, social workers, counselors, etc.
I don't like the idea of yielding privileged information without free and informed consent from all parties.
That statement is very slippery slope for me. I understand the law that an intoxicated person cant consent to a sexually act. The problem for me comes when both are intoxicated. Who's to say in the scenario of both being drunk, that sex was consentual but the next day, one of the participants was upse and files a complaint. In this case, either person could say they didn't consent or one could say my intoxication impaired my ability to understand consent/non consent.
Drunken sex isn't safe for many reasons. One is that alcohol impairs the ability to accurately assess a partner's willingness, truthfulness and motives. It's involved in reports of sexual assault more often than not.
The whole thing stinks.
Is a well-thought-out, carefully constructed, insightful comment.
Thank you. While I recognize the sarcasm (though I assure you I take no offense), that is how I feel. The whole thing stinks. The fact that the event occurred in the first place stinks the most. But everything about this situation appears to have been a clusterfuck. I'm not blaming or judging anyone of the people involved at any level, because I just don't think we have all the pieces yet. Sure, there are enough for some, but the ongoing incendiary debate just shows that neither side has all the facts. My fear is that there is probably as much information that we don't know as there is that we do. Maybe not in the quantity of info, but it's unsettling to think that any day now, a bomb my drop. I'm sure that no one here wants to see that. Most of the people here are bright, level headed, reasonable folks. It is obvious that everyone has put a lot of thought and good deal of emotion into this, and it shows in their posts. However, believe it or not, after days and days of watching our fanbase go nuts over this, that is really all I have to say about it. The whole thing stinks.
Why his absence was attributed to a family issue: because Hoke isn't going to do your job for you?
OIE was under no obligation to tell anyone and neither was GIbbons. That includes the athletic department. Everyone is making the assumption that the athletic department knew before everyone else did and there is literally no evidence to support that assumption. None.
To be clear, what I meant to say was tell no one outside of the University administration directly involved in the processing of his expulsion.
Sigh.....thank god this school has a top-10 basketball team to focus on. Otherwise this entire blog would be a fucking mess.
"So how early did Michigan officials know that Gibbons had been found responsible for violating the sexual misconduct policy? It might have been as late as Dec. 19. It might have been in November."
The problem with this article (and many other people posting on this topic) is that it starts with the premise that the athletic department, and specifically Hoke, knew about this AT THE LATEST on December 19th, thereby making Hoke's "family matter" comment somehow misleading or a lie (since it was made after December 19th). It could have been much later than December 19th and after Hoke made the comment. In fact, it's just as plausible that Hoke found out about it when Rittenberg did: when it hit the media. So much of this stems from Rittenberg's (and all of the other media writing on it) ignorance of both FERPA and how internal communications work (ie just because one part of the university (administration) knew about this, doesn't mean that another part of the university (athletics) knew about this, nor did they have any obligation to tell them or anyone else). His generic use of the term "Michigan officials" is a clear indication of that. The placement of December 19th as a bookend is completely unfounded. There is literally nothing to bass that on.