Feds are investigating Mich's response to Gibbons incident
Just keeps getting better, doesn't it?
The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights is investigating whether the University of Michigan failed to promptly respond to an alleged 2009 rape of a student involving a football player, The Detroit News has learned.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140225/SCHOOLS/302250059#ixzz2uLykpNv4
February 25th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
Good. Maybe we'll finally get some answers and put this thing to rest.
February 25th, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^
Seriously, what's so wrong with the DOE conducting an investigation to get some answers? It's irrelevant who's responsible for the complaint. I, like a great many Michigan students, alumni, and fans want to know whether this serious matter was handled properly. And the University just hasn't been forthcoming. If the DOE can get some answers so we can know one way or the other, then it will ultimately put this to rest. And if the DOE finds impropriety by the University, then we'll suffer the consequences but finally be able to move on.
February 25th, 2014 at 2:57 PM ^
If the DOE finds nothing, it still won't satisfy the critics. This is Smith stirring the pot and keeping the story alive, nothing more.
February 25th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^
Exactly. This is a good thing. It's good for the students at UM and in the end it's going to be good for the football program, which is frankly a very distant second in what we should be concerned with here.
If UM has been doing things correctly, we'll now have an outside source stating that information. If UM hasn't been following the Title IX directives properly, that needs to be addressed quickly. Same goes for MSU. Same goes for every school in the country.
February 25th, 2014 at 11:57 AM ^
I still don't understand what the Univeristy is "obligated" to do once the police do not file any charges. Isn't it up to the University at that point to decide on their own what they think is best?
February 25th, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^
Well I don't think the University could just refuse to comply with their own sexual assault policy regardless of what the police do (though I'm not saying this is what happened).
February 25th, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^
Part of me doubts anything really comes of this. I can't see the Feds coming after Michigan when no charges were pressed, unless the university administration was the reason that no charges were pressed.
February 25th, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^
Aye, there's the rub!
February 25th, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^
The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights is (presumably) not a law enforcement agency. So I'm wondering what punishment they can levy if they find UM acted inappropriately.
February 25th, 2014 at 12:20 PM ^
Bad press
February 25th, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^
Lawsuit ammunition.
February 25th, 2014 at 1:42 PM ^
What lawsuit? Who is going to get information from their investigation that would support a claim in a civil lawsuit?
February 25th, 2014 at 2:41 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 3:07 PM ^
According to the article: "The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights is investigating whether the University of Michigan failed to promptly respond to an alleged 2009 rape of a student involving a football player, The Detroit News has learned."
It is further stated:"[The Office for Civil Rights] has determined it is appropriate to proceed to investigation on the following issue: that the university failed to promptly and equitably respond to complaints, reports and/or incidents of sexual violence of which it had notice, and, as a result, students were subjected to a sexually hostile environment."
The things they are looking at will not support a cause of action by either of those individuals. The victim declined to co-operate with the investigation and Gibbons' remedy would be to appeal his expulsion.
February 25th, 2014 at 5:33 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 7:17 PM ^
Where do you find that in Title IX?
February 25th, 2014 at 9:46 PM ^
didn't read the letter. If this was about the Gibbon's case it seems to me they would want information from the 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years. They did not, rather they requested information from the 2011-2012 school year onward.
February 26th, 2014 at 4:46 PM ^
The letter asks for documentation on all complaints of sexual harassment "investigated/resolved by the University during the 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 school years . . . ."
The complaint against Gibbons was "resolved" in 2013.
February 25th, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^
Money. Dept of Ed can enforce by withholding money given to Universities by the federal government or begin litigation. In 2006, the Department took Colorado to court and won millions of dollars because the court found the University acted with "deliberate indiferrence."
Federal agency power almost always comes down to money.
February 25th, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^
Am I missing something in all this? There were no charges filed and the police didn't find anything wrong. Does the university even have to respond at all? I get that they have a policy but isn't it an internal policy? Why would the feds get involved?
February 25th, 2014 at 12:08 PM ^
Looks like it has to do with Title IX. Not really sure how that factors into something like this, but there was a Title IX complaint that prompted the feds looking into things.
Jim Bradshaw, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Education, confirmed Tuesday morning that the Office for Civil Rights is investigating a Title IX complaint involving U-M.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140225/SCHOOLS/302250059#ixzz2uM2bwJaS
February 25th, 2014 at 12:18 PM ^
I wonder who brought the complaint? /s
Scary world we live in when a disgruntled terminated employee can start an investigation that will cost the university likely at least tens of thousands of dollars.
February 25th, 2014 at 2:11 PM ^
what if the complaint has merit? Should U of M not spend thousands investigating what happened?
February 26th, 2014 at 7:08 PM ^
It would have been part of the expullsion process.
February 25th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
CBS provides a tiny bit of insight into the nature of this complaint - LINK. If there is anyone who knows precisely which grievance procedure that this might be referencing, please feel free to respond with it as it might aid the discussion here. The specific passage:
According to the report, Doug Smith, a former University of the Michigan pathologist, filed a complained with the U.S. Department of Education last year. He alleged that the school refused to investigate the case and claimed that "the grievance procedure does not fully comply with Title IX." Smith has reportedly been one of the "loudest voices demanding that the university investigate the alleged rape."
February 25th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
That's what I'm wondering too. How does Title IX factor into something like this? The only thing I can figure is that maybe it has something to do with this part:
(3) subjecting any person to separate or different rules of behavior, sanctions, or treatment, including rules pertaining to appearance;
If Gibbons got different treatment and punishment because he was a football player, then you do have a Title IX argument.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/title9-sh/titleix.htm
February 25th, 2014 at 2:35 PM ^
How exactly does a former UofM pathologist have any standing to lodge a complaint? Can a random person just lodge compliants at any school they want based on half-truths and innuendo?
February 25th, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^
He's a disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Nothing more.
February 25th, 2014 at 3:07 PM ^
Except for the part where, based on existing evidence, he's likely right. If Smith is behind the complaints he becomes an annoying and bothersome nuisance, but he's an annoying and bothersome nuisance who's apparently going to help the university get better at handling sexual assault on campus, which every university in the United States with struggles.
February 25th, 2014 at 5:25 PM ^
is like when a company I worked for announced they would maintain files of any harassment allegation against you without your knowledge or notification.
I understand why the policy has changed - to force addressing of this serious issue. I don't even have a problem with the case being brought without acceptance of the victim. However, it sure seems like the alleged offender in these cases is short a lot of rights - and the very definition what constitutes sexual misconduct is pretty open ended.
February 26th, 2014 at 8:18 AM ^
You have no proof that this is "likely right:" at all. No one knows.
I have a daughter and I'm definitely on board for anything that protects her. On the other hand, I have a son, who I hope, doesn't have his life destroyed by an automatic assumption that if there is an accusaction filed, you must be guitly of something. I'm worried that pressure to avoid these investigations will make it very easy for universities to dismiss young men who did nothing wrong, because it's safer to err on the guilty side. The accused will get an attorney, who will tell him, not to talk because of possible criminal charges which leaves no way to defend against the school's charges.
Think it can't happen? You just found him guilty based on a police report and articles on the web.
February 25th, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^
I'm with the government and I'm here to help...
February 25th, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^
I can't tell you what a relief it is to have you here.
February 25th, 2014 at 2:08 PM ^
well, it seems like a large state-run university clearly had trouble properly dealing with a rape case themselves so yes, maybe the department of education should get involved to see if the university complied with federal law. Oh no - not the government!
February 25th, 2014 at 2:19 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 9:05 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 9:24 PM ^
Great professor, but he died in 2009, in case you weren't aware.
February 25th, 2014 at 2:46 PM ^
Maybe Michigan had a problem, or maybe the problem originated from the government itself when it decided to change the standards to be used for the burden of proof now required to potentially ruin someone's life.
I am very uncomfortable when you can throw someone out of a university for a sexual assault charge when a preponderance of the evidence standard is the yardstick by which you measure the veracity of a claim.
On top of that, to the best of my knowledge, there are no formal rules of evidence or subpoena powers that are available to the accused.
The more I think about the change that the government has required universities to follow, the more I believe the rule itself should re reconsidered.
As for decision not to prosecute, I;m not sure how much you can read into that. Prosecutorial resources are very finite. They typically won't spend them on a case where the accuser, the rape victim, refuses to testify. As for the disgruntled employee, he is getting his pound of flesh which, ironically, is putting the alleged assault victim back in the spotlight, something she seemed to want to avoid.
And yeah, lots of questions about dates and public statements need to be answered.
February 25th, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^
Can't say I disagree with that decision. Hopefully they find the University handled it properly
February 25th, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^
Depends on what they find. They are basically looking into whether or not Michigan properly responded to the original allegation and why the hell it took four years to do something about it. If they find that Michigan didn't respond in a timely fashion, and then can find evidence that the reason they didn't was because of pressure from the football program, then things could be very, very bad.
But, that's a lot of ifs.
February 25th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 12:52 PM ^
Given the way the NCAA punishes people (like Penn State and Miami) it would be the current staff. And since Gibbons played three of his four years under Hoke, if (big IF here by the way) they find evidence that there was some sort of discouragement it very well could have come from the Hoke era football dept. But again, big, big IF there.
February 25th, 2014 at 1:26 PM ^
The federal government checking into whether or not something took too long.
February 25th, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^
February 25th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
wrongly, you would like to see the football team punished in some way?
Isn't this more of a school related problem or at the very most an Athletic Dept problem, not a football team related problem?
I'm having trouble understanding your reasons for you hoping that the team is impacted.
February 25th, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^
If anyone from the football program staff impeded the investigation the team should be punished. I love Michigan Football as much as everyone on this board, but that doesn't mean it's more important than holding rapists responsible.
Hopefully no one from the program was involved, but if they were, they should be held responsible. There are some things more important than football.
February 25th, 2014 at 1:32 PM ^
I would think that if anyone was in a position to impede anything, it would have been the school or the Athletic Dept, not necessarily the team or the program.
At least, that's the perspective I have. I agree that if the program was at any fault, they should be punished. I just don't see them having had the opportunity to impede. Just my two cents.