Brendan Gibbons "permanently separated" from the University of Michigan for violating the University’s Student Sexual Misconduct Policy.
Brendan Gibbons "permanently separated" from the University of Michigan for violating the University’s Student Sexual Misconduct Policy.
And there's your real explanation for the bowl absence.
I met someone just over two weeks ago who works in the Daily sports department. He told me the story was going to be published on 1-13. Wondering why it was delayed....
so you met a young man two weeks ago who is roughly 25 years younger than you and he was willing to give up the gibbons story that easily? reeks of something fishy, 1989 grad.
This is one of the lamest humblebrags I've ever seen.
humble brag but whatever.
And yes there are many circumstances under which a 46 year old would meet a 20 year old.
We go to Camp Michigania every summer. All of the staff is college aged. I have friends who have kids up at U of M.
This is one of the sketchiest explanations I could have imagined out of a straight up admission of what everyone else is thinking.
it's sketchy is more a reflection on you then it is on me. And I'm not sure how you know what "everyone" is thinking.
Do you only know and/or only communicate with people your own age? In my personal and business lives I meet people of all ages and backgrounds.
I have nothing to gain by making up this story and then posting what I posted in a forum that is almost completely anonymous.
So you agree that you keep your personal and business lives separate? Because if your business life found out what your personal life was up to.. well then.
you are proving my point. You are reading a lot in to my post. Which is a reflection on you. Not me.
46 year-old: Man, I would really like to find some grass.
20 year-old: Hey old-timer, what did you say?
46 year-old: I'm looking to get potted-up.
20 year-old: ummmmm. I'm guessing you are asking if I'm holding?
46 year-old: Yes. I want to buy some illegal drugs from you.
20 year-old: eff this, man. I'm not selling to a cop.
This has been rumored for years. Unsurprising to me.
I wonder what took the process 3 years after the alleged incident?
Unless some appeal process took that long, but having this hit the streets now is curious.
The article says that a revision of sexual conduct policies after the incident may have necessitated that the university to re-review the events of 2009 years later, thus causing the delayed action.
A grandfather clause to me, or even a bit of a double jeopardy. But the article also said that it has a lower standard of guilt, so...too many issues going on with this one. I don't like it one bit.
The author doesn't seem to know whether the university actually reviewed the accusations the first time ... this could be their first actual effort at investigating it. With however the policies were previously, perhaps they didn't have to look into it. And if they don't have to, they probably rather wouldn't. So maybe that happened?
perpetrator snared by the small print?
Depends on how he was tried and what the process was. There's a crapload of stories out there of the system being abused against both men and women. Just like with Duke Lacrosse, it's always best to take a breath here and wait for the story to come out.
If this does revolve around whatever was rumored to happen in 2009 then there are two ways to look at it:
If he did it and it took this long to prosecute and for there to be consequences then it's a black mark on the university.
If he didn;t do it and got railroaded out on a technicality or so the school could push a storyline of harsh punishments, then it's a black mark on the university.
If this is down to a more recent incident, then the story changes.
My sympathies are only with the victim. Problem is that I don't know if the victim was the girl or a falsely accused guy.
I regret that I can only give this one upvote.
What? Your words, they hurt me. I am not siding with anybody here. If anything, there is a trace of derision in my comment aimed at the university because I implied that they'd rather not take any punitive action against football players if they aren't compelled to. As far as 'sympathies' and 'small print', I choose not to ascribe such emotionally-laden connotations to a complicated matter which I aim to treat as logically as possible. Naturally, I sympathize with any innocent people who were harmed unjustly. I don't know who they are, but I am sorry for what happened.
He was never tried or charged with those crimes. There's no double jeopardy. Also, the University of Michigan is not a court of law which triggers all of your constitutional rights that attach in a criminal proceeding.
as someone who was entitled a benefit from a state organization, isn't he entitled to an administrative hearing, the determination from which he would be able to appeal to a civil court? i mean, along the way he could be begging for a criminal investigation through production of affidavits from accusers, etc., but i wonder to what extent, if any, he was afforded a right to an administrative appeal?
Or whether that's what took so long (and whether the length of time from the alleged incident precludes criminal investigation at this point)?
It does not preclude subsequent civil proceedings or administrative proceedings against a person who has already been prosecuted for the same act or omission.
Law Quad Alums coming out of the woodwork.
The Feds recently forced colleges to adopt a "preponderance of evidence" standard for sexual misconduct allegations (previously most schools used a stronger standard, e.g. "Clear and convincing evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt").
Basically, this means that if 51% if the evidence points to guilt, the accused must be found guilty. What this MAY mean for this case is that the previous investigation showed that Gibbons was slightly more likely than not to be guilty, but the evidence was not strong enough for a higher standard of guilt.
Anyway, that's speculation but it's a possible reason for revisiting a previously closed investigation.
Remember when Todd Bertuzzi permanently injured Steve Moore in March of 2004? That trial court date is Sptember of this year. For some reason things take a crapload of time.
I don't even want to get started on Bertuzzi.
Not to take away from your point, but the criminal charges in that case are done. Bertuzzi was charged and plea bargained in 2005 I believe.
The upcoming court case is just a civil suit
And that is the government legal system, not the university review system, which according the the mgoblog front page quote normally takes about a semester
Having worked at the Office of Student Conflict Resolution (the "disciplinary" office that administered the expulsion proceedings against Gibbons) for two years in undergrad, I thought maybe I could offer some insight / clear up some confusion about the OSCR process in this thread.
OSCR is not, in any appreciable sense, an investigatory body. It is a passive office that acts only after receiving a complaint from some member of the University community. While any individual student, faculty, or staff member can file a complaint, the most common OSCR complainants by far are Residence Education (Housing) and DPS. In order to pursue a complaint with OSCR, the Complainant has to provide all the necessary evidentiary backing; again, OSCR does not investigate events on its own.
The process for initiating and pursuing a complaint with OSCR goes as follows:
As you can see, this is a multi-step process that requires several meetings and often many different witnesses, advisors, and arbiters. With that said, it is emphatically NOT a three- or four-year process. Given that all of the investigatory work is already completed before a complaint is filed, the formal arbitration process does not take very long at all. In my time at OSCR, I can't remember a single arbitration - including those involving sexual assault allegations - lasting more than a single semester, from initial complaint to final sanction.
Hope this helps. Happy to take questions.
Wait, let me make sure I understand this.
The Complainant doesn't even have to be alleged victim? It can be anyone who has heard about something and can accuse the Respondent? Any member of the university community, as you called it, can file a complaint against another member of the community, regardless of whether that person has any actual knowledge of the complaint?
So if I were a teacher or student at UM and read the reports about Brendan Gibbons, I could have gone to the OSCR and filed the complaint. Then the arbitrator, which is apparently unilaterally appointed by the university from a group composed of people within the university, interviews the Complainant (me, not the actual victim) and the Respondent and comes to a decision? There's no requirement they speak with the person who is the actual victim?
I mean . . . am I the only one who sees a problem with this procedure? If I'm wrong, please clarify for me. Because it sounds like a student can be accused of misconduct and effectively convicted in the eyes of the arbitrator without the accused ever having a chance to confront the accuser. Hell, the accuser doesn't even have to be there or participate in any way from the description I'm reading.
If there is enough evidence available for an independent arbiter to determine someone deserves to get punished, I don't see why it matters whether he or she spoke to the victim. And since when does an accused person have the right to "confront" their accuser? The whole purpose of arbitration is to have a third party be able to talk independently with both sides and come to an unbiased assessment
Uh . . . seriously? Since when does a person have the right to confront their accuser? It's sort of the entire basis for our justice system.
And do you really think that an arbitrator chosen by the university from a pool of faculty at the university (or students from the university) is unbiased when the entire process is a function of the university?
If you were accused of a crime (or any misconduct) while at UM, you would think it's fair that the person who made the accusation never had to actually say it to the person deciding your culpability? You'd be okay with the fact you weren't allowed to ask that person questions about their version of events?
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I'm a prosecutor by profession and even to me it seems grossly lacking in due process.
in cases of a minor (say at the high school level & lower), if a school employee overhears about a threat to minor from an Xth party (X>=1) , that employee is legally obligated to report it within 24hrs.
it sounds like the recent interpretations of the Title IX law are looking to mirror this policy to all (public?) universities who investigate sexual assault.
so, NO: the "accuser" does not have to "out" the action him/herself in order to get an investigation rolling.
But this doesn't really address my point. Regardless of who brings the complaint, do you find it fair that a person can be judged without the opportunity to ever confront the person accusing him/her? You just get to tell your version of events to an arbitrator which you had no say in choosing and that's the summation of your ability to defend yourself. You don't get to question the accuser's version of events at all.
Does this seem fair? Does this seem to be in keeping with anything we've come to associate with criminal justice in this country?
I find it pretty scary. I could accuse you of any crime or misconduct, file a police report and then go to the OSCR and demand a hearing. If the prosecutor's office rejects my case, that apparently has no bearing on my credibility. You will then be informed by the university that you've been accused and you'll get to tell your version of events. You don't get to question me. If I come across as slightly more believable than you (which is what preponderance of the evidence is), then you have committed misconduct.
Whether it's Brendan Gibbons or Joe Schmoe, this is a troubling lack of due process which can have some very severe consequences.
This is not a criminal complaint and the standards of the criminal justice system don't apply.
It's complicated by the fact that Michigan is a public university, and as we all know by now students and student-athletes aren't employees. But consider a for-cause dismissal from a job. Somebody reports some alleged wrongdoing on your part to your bosses--maybe they saw you stealing money from petty cash, maybe IT caught you watching porn during work hours, maybe you were seen accepting a substantial gift from a customer and didn't report it.
Depending on the circumstances you may be presented with the evidence gathered in their investigation and you may have an opportunity to tell your side of the story, but not only do you have no right to confront your accuser, in all likelihood you will never know who your accuser was. And if that accuser, and whatever evidence was uncovered in the investigation, is sufficiently convincing, they can determine that you've committed misconduct and you can be fired.
This is, essentially, a for-cause dismissal from the university. The student in question is certainly free to bring a civil case if he feels he's been wrongly dismissed, but if his claim is simply that the university didn't follow the standards in place for a criminal trial he won't get very far.
It appears the victim must file the complaint, so it's a moot point regardless, but I was just envisioning a situation where the victim may be traumatized and perhaps unable so someone else files the complaint instead. Of course the accused has every right to question the story of the accuser, but that's done with the arbiter, the accused rapist doesn't sit in a room with the alleged victim face to face. Maybe I took "face the accuser" to literally?
I take the processes of criminal justice pretty seriously. And yes, I find it troubling that a person can suffer a public finding that he's probably a rapist without ever having the chance to actually question the accuser.
You can see my comment directly above this to get my take on it.
It's not really a public finding, especially if the offender isn't suspended or expelled.
We know about it, so it's now public. And if expulsions/suspensions are public, then this gets us right back to my concern about this process.
Expulsions/suspensions are only going to be imposed in the most serious cases. That means the people most likely to be publicly named as offenders are only those accused of something serious without the ability to question the accuser
Ok, I see what you're saying now; I thought you meant public in the same sense as a jury verdict being public. It's a legitimate concern, but at the same time, I think holding student conduct departments to the same standard as an actual court is unreasonable. I don't know the answer, but I'd suggest that this case is an outlier for a lot of reasons, including Gibbons's relatively high profile.
Ok, I don't doubt your knowledge, but I was talking about something a little different. This is not a court of law, or part of our criminal justice system. I'm not making a comment about our justice system as a whole. This is a university organization that does not investigate crimes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they appear to be a neutral party meant to hear disputes between students. The accused gets an opportunity to share his side and question the story. This is different than a court of law, but it's meant to be an alternative option of dispute resolution. If after both sides get to share their story the arbiter deems a punishment necessary, I see no problem. I didn't say the accuser doesn't have to share his/her story, they just don't need to be subject to a cross examination, that's the benefit of having an outlet like this to resolve disputes. Maybe that's not fair, you know more and have insight I don't, but that's how it seemed to me.
While anyone can file a report, the actual language of the policy would seem to indicate that the complainant must be the victim. http://studentsexualmisconductpolicy.umich.edu/definitions
From reading the policy, it's hard to believe that Michigan (or any other university) would proceed with discipline if the complainant refuses to cooperate or if the university is unable to contact the complainant.
Thank you VERY much for this. Really puts my mind at ease about how the whole process went down. It seemed beyond belief to me that the complainant could be just any person from the UM community.
Yes, my apologies for not making that clear in the initial post. The rules on "standing" to file a complaint are a little sketchy when it comes to *institutional* complainants (i.e. there were many occasions when Housing or DPS would file a complaint that perhaps *could* have been filed by a wronged individual but was *also* a transgression against general Housing/University policies). But in a case like this, the complainant would almost certainly be the sexual assault survivor herself. No need to worry about some random student/professor/staff member reading these allegations on MGoBlog and taking it on himself to file and pursue the complaint with OSCR. Sorry again for the lack of clarity on that topic in the initial post, was trying to fit a lot of information in and missed that fairly major point.
Oh! (no, not O-H damn buckeyes -- oh as in surprise or remorse)
That's a big part I missed earlier.
Any person that partakes in sexual misconduct is a disgrace. Doesn't matter how young or old that person is. Pathetic.
I guess I'd need to know more about what happened to make a final judgment. "Sexual misconduct" is a pretty loaded term with a rather vague meaning.
But isn't public urination considered sexual misconduct? That would be stupid but not necessarily pathetic.
Yeah, but you can do that and still coach college hockey.
I was kind of thinking the same thing. I know of at least one guy in college with me who had that charge brought against him, though I think they reached some agreement. But yeah, if you are convicted you have to register as a sex offender because of it.
You don't necessarily have to register, at least in Ohio. As long as you're trying to avoid being seen, e.g. in an alley behind a dumpster, you probably wouldn't have to register, and it's likely you wouldn't even be convicted. If you were peeing next to an elementary school during recess, on the other hand...
Do these university investigations normally take 4 years?
Not sure how I feel about Hoke saying it was a "family issue" if Gibbons was already expelled before Christmas. If he was wasn't allowed to say he was expelled, don't say anything, and certainly don't cover for him.
"Not sure how I feel about Hoke saying it was a "family issue" if Gibbons was already expelled before Christmas."
Honestly, who cares? As if saying "No comment" or "It's a personal issue" changes the reality of what happened.
Here's what you should feel about Hoke saying it's a family issue:
It doesn't change the reality of what happened but it continues to fuel the coverup fire.
There is no fire besides the one you're creating in your mind.
I believe the Daily had an article on there being a potential coverup or at least insinuated that the mishandling of the accusation was fishy. 11W also had an article making similar insinuations. As long as this case has been made public there have been accusations, rumors and insinuations of a coverup or intentional mishandling due to Gibbons' status as a football player. I am not the one who created it.
You would get along great with my father in law in PA who still think JoePa was framed.
Hoke actually could not talk about it due to FERPA. Gibbons has rights to privacy over his academic records. Since there is no legal charges to date, Hoke cannot talk about it without Gibbons' consent.
I'm pretty sure he's allowed to say if an individual is no longer associated with the team.
This is probably true, but perhaps Gibbons is given some FERPA protection. Because FERPA stands for Family Education...Hoke is not lying when he calls it a "family issue".
I'd venture to say that Hoke was told specifically what words to use by someone (Brandon, Ablauf, Madej, whoever). I think such a touchy issue would certainly have been enough to call a meeting to discuss the language that is to be used.
Of course it doesn't "change the reality of what happened," I assumed we were all decent people here and are horrified by what, at least in the eyes of the university if not the police, happened in 2009. But I care in that I don't want the coach of the team I root for to be covering for a rapist.
Is it Hoke's job to announce to the world that Gibbons was expelled for alleged sexual assault? Michigan has AD's, SID's, etc. for that.
No, but lying about it isn't really acceptable either.
Saying an expulsion is a "family issue" is not exactly lying in my book. And honestly, who really gives a s*** what he says? NOTHING CHANGES if he says anything different.
The school expelled the kid prior to the bowl game. Actions were taken behind closed doors. If you get fired from your job, your boss isn't required to announce to the world that you stole $100 out of the cash register. You just get escorted out of the building and told not to come back, and your boss hires somebody to replace you.
We don't need answers for everything that goes on in the world.
No one is saying that Hoke should have announced that Gibbons was kicked off the team for sexual misconduct but there is an argument to be made that there's a difference between taking the "no comment" route and lying about the reason Gibbons was removed from the team.
How is it a lie? He said it's a family issue, and when a 22- or 23-year-old kid is probably being sent home to deal with being kicked out of school and perhaps some criminal charges, I would expect that he and his family would be dealing with it together. What goes on after that isn't anyone's business, really, except the Gibbons family, the victim's family, and the court system.
We don't matter. We are inconsequential to the equation. We are flies on the wall.
Exactly, there is a huge difference between desire to know and right to know what happened. Hoke's answer draws much less notice than throwing out a no comment on the situation. He is much more likely to field many more questions with the no comment answer than a family matter. And like Magnus said, it is a family matter. If you were Gibbons parents and had to take some time off work to handle the situation, I am sure you wouldn't say my son got expelled for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman at a frat party. I imagine you would be much more likely to say something along the lines of I need to take some time off to handle some family issues.
This seems like a very thin line. I mean if we covered up rape that is exactly what PSU did and I seem to remember our community getting up in arms about that. Is there a double standard? Very complicated situation also very sad situation.
Hope justice is done either way.
...and I repeat IF there was any attempt to cover up an assault, the coverup did not consist of Hoke's "family matter" comment to the press. How the incident was handled at the time is the issue, not the reporting of the eventual expulsion.
Hoke's comment isn't "exactly what PSU did" in any way whatsoever. What PSU officials did was fail to report allegations of sexual assault to the police. Nobody would have accused them of a coverup if they'd reported Sandusky's actions to the cops, suspended him during the investigation, and responded to questions from the press by saying Sandusky was "dealing with a personal matter."
How is it a lie?
It's a lie in that is specifically crafted to mislead. There is no one who would draw the correct conclusion from his statement, since virtually no one considers expulsion to be in the class "family issues".
Finding some technical way in which his statement could be considered true (which is quite a stretch by the way) does not mean he was being honest.
More to the point, given that Hoke had the choice to decline comment or to provide no characerization of the reason, the impression left is that he was covering for Gibbons.
Coach Hoke could easily have said that Brendan Gibbons is no longer with the team, and that it is a "student matter."
I don't like it, and I will never like it, when Brady Hoke makes dumb and ham-handed efforts to foil inquiries into things like this. Hoke is building up a modest record of repeated statements that are more "misleading" than "non-committal." Maybe you don 't care about that; maybe casual sports fans don't care about that. I definitely do.
And I am disgusted by the number of commenters willing to condemn Gibbons for a supposed sexual assault. I'll address that separately, below.
"I don't like it, and I will never like it, when Brady Hoke makes dumb and ham-handed efforts to foil inquiries into things like this."
The only inquires he "foiled" were those of a press reporter, who is insignificant. For all any of us know, Hoke was completely forthright and honest when dealing with Gibbons, the university, investigators, etc.
I don't understand the public's desire to know anything and everything that happens in everyone's lives. There are appropriate people who need to know about these things, and Section 1, Magnus, Heiko, Drew Sharp, Michael Rosenberg, Chantel Jennings, etc. are not those people.
Put the straw man down here, just because you don't understand does not mean Hoke did not deliberately give a misleading answer: he did
It's not his job to give enlightening answers to every question he's asked.
There is a difference between enlightening and lying or intentionally misleading.
I never once suggested that Hoke was not forthcoming or honest in any investigation. Far from it.
This is simply a matter of whether Hoke was actively misleading the public about Gibbons' departure from the team.
Hoke didn't have to disclose any private matters. But nothing gives Hoke license to actively mislead anybody. I have no idea what level of arrogance gives anybody the license to do that.
There are no legal charges right now. Hoke cannot comment on Gibbons' academic record or standing due to the FERPA act. Gibbons has a right to privacy over his academic record and university cannot disclose that information.
From the Daily article (and this is after we already know Gibbons has been expelled):
“We can’t comment on anything that involves private student matters in terms of student academic standings or University standing,” Ablauf said.
University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said he could not comment on Gibbons' academic record because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
We ALLLLL give a s*** what Hoke says!!! he is (supposed to be) the face of the Michigan Football (even though Brandon is) and it is very important what he says. This is Michigan fergodsakes. We need answers as to why Gibbons continued to play football.
"We need answers as to why Gibbons continued to play football."
Because, if this happened in 2009, why did it take this long. We need answers. There is national reporting now that there is a coverup. How do you refute that? With ANSWERS. Did they do this right or was there a coverup? Is Brandon invovled? Will there be firings? Answers will stop this talk because the negative press affects Michigan.
That members of the university community have an interest in how allegations of campus sexual assault are handled...that's clear. That they might expect the university to investigate allegations that there might have been a coverup...that's also understood.
But that they expect to get their report on that invetigation from the head football coach? That's bizarre. (Never mind that Brady Hoke was in San Diego in 2009 and anything he might think he knows about how the matter was handled is mere hearsay. The idea is ridiculous on its face, regardless.)
Because we hold ourselves up as being morally superior?
I think you're missing my point.
No, saying it is family issues is lying. It implies that someone is sick or that he was otherwise needed by his family.
The comment, as I recall, was that Gibbons was "dealing with a famly matter."
I heard that as saying that whatever the matter was, it couldn't or wouldn't be discussed outside his family. To me it didn't even suggest, what you claim it implied. It could have been absolutely anything...it just wasn't something Hoke could discuss.
yea because Hoke is gonna step to the podium at the presser and say.. Gibbons is no longer with the team because of sexual misconduct with a michigan co-ed.. What a disgrace and a headache that would be.. Gibbons brought this on himself, not hoke's job to tell the world about it either
There is another option, and it's one every Michigan fan is quite familiar with from years of "The Fort". "No comment" or "he didn't make the trip, that's all I'll say" or "he's not playing. next question" with a Lloyd Carr-esque glare at the reporter, etc. As someone noted "family issues" sounds like a death in the family or something.
shouldn't be a disgrace and a headache. I don't get these norms for football coaches and why lying is so celebrated.....
But he doesn't....have....to....LIE.
Saying "No comment" isn't being deceptive, it's telling the questioner that you aren't going to speak to the question.
Just because you copy and paste the definition of a four-syllable word does not mean your post is accurate.
The key part of the definition is "intent." The intent very well could have been to protect the privacy of those involved.
If you asked me what I got you for Christmas, and I said "A lump of coal," it wouldn't mean that I was purposely trying to deceive you. It would just mean that you didn't need to know the truth.
There are ways of rejecting questions--saying "no comment", or giving such an obviously implausible answer that it's clear you aren't answering the question--that are not intended to mislead, and which do not primarily serve to mislead. Saying what Hoke said is not one of those ways.
...Hoke is developing for himself a minor history in statements that are not simply noncommittal, but are affirmatively misleading.
For most of the general public, these are usually inconsequential things like saying at the half of the Nebraska game in Lincoln that Denard Robinson would be back in the second half.
And there's a view among some sports fans that all things -- including statements to the press -- are all part of the general effort to win games. Such that misleading the press about personnel is sort of like a fake handoff during the game.
I'm not so sure I am on any kind of campaign to end such things, or to correct such views in the public. But I will always point them out if it things were said that appear to be untrue. I like words, and their meanings. I respect words, and their power. And I like truth in all discourses.
And as they noted in the article, there are LOTS of privacy issues involved in issues like this. I doubt Hoke is in a position to announce stuff like this in the middle of a press conference, even if he wanted to.
Without getting into details, just say "violation of team rules." Family issues makes it sound like his grandmother died.
Gibbons wasn't playing because of discipline issues not family issues. Both those things have connotations. Family issues sounds like he wasn't with the team by choice or because he had more important things to attend to. Violation of team rules at least lets people know that whatever Gibbons was being held out for is not acceptable to the coaches, the team, and the university.
I agree with this.
This I agree with, but honestly it is semantics at this point. And violation of team rules creates quite a bit more uncertainty and follow-up questions that Hoke then can't answer. It was a tough situation made worse by limited options.
I agree with your sentiment.
But the first letter of FERPA stands for Family, so I could see a situation in which the powers that be decided to use "family issue" so as to avoid potentially violating Gibbons' FERPA rights.
He also seems to have been kicked out of school completely independently of the football program, so a "team rules" comment would have been inaccurate. That would seem like Hoke taking credit for a discipline he didn't enact.
Umbrella term used to encompass unwanted or unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that is committed without valid consent, including sexual assault and sexual harassment. Sexual misconduct may occur between people of the same sex or between people of different sexes. Sexual misconduct can include both intentional conduct and conduct that results in negative effects, even if those negative effects were unintended. Sexual misconduct can also include retaliation in connection with a Complainant’s or Reporter’s allegations under this policy. Sexual misconduct may include the following:
It could have been anything from a drunken tit grab to a dirty unwanted text. Under this definition he could have been kicked out of school for Lewan telling the girl to keep her mouth shut.
So lets not call him a "Rapist". Do you think A2 police or MSP would have dropped this case if it was rape? To many unknow facts. I feel for the female involed and I hope her and her family find peace from whatever happen to her. I'm also glad for what ever the reason he was removed from the team and the University.
Go read the police report, and then decide how likely you think it is that the corroborated series of events reported there, including Joe Reynolds (and another player, I think) going to the police about Lewan, would occur without a rape having occurred. Gibbons is, by all appearances, a rapist.
You think a coach is going to publicly reveal a legal issue like this at a press conference? That venue is not the time nor the place. He is not "covering" for Gibbons by failing to divulge all details at the time.
He is only "covering" for Gibbons if he is attempting to shield him from just consequences, and we do not know if that has happened or not.
I didn't say he should publicly reveal this at a press conference. I doubt he was able to say anything at the time (or at least encouraged by the unversity lawyers not to), he just did not need to say that it was a family issue.
I see it as covering for him though - providing a plausible reason, if not the actual reason, that Gibbons wasn't there. Maybe that was in the best interest of the team before the bowl game, it just didn't sit well with me.
As noted elsewhere in the comments - not the most important issue to come out of this at all.
You hate Hoke for covering why Gibbons MIGHT NOT have been there (but have no idea if it was the case at the time) but you completely understand why Hoke shouldn't have said anything at the press conference?
I feel your message is very mixed. We currently have no idea what the chain of events was in terms of timing which led to this separation. What should Hoke have said at his press conference ABOUT THE BOWL GAME when it's possible that he WAS TOLD WHAT TO SAY BY LAWYERS?
So "not sure how I feel" becomes I hate Hoke?
Also - as I said initially - if f he was wasn't allowed to say he was expelled, don't say anything.
The starting kicker on your football team is not on the field, people are going to ask question and saying "no comment" or "next question" is just going to breed specualtion and people digging into the situation which at that point was private or the university would have given a statement. And didn't he also miss the Ohio game as well (not sure if related)? So the information was public that Gibbons was going to miss the game and people would want to know why. At that point to me at least it was a personal/family matter until the university was ready to come down with a punishment.
"We currently have no idea what the chain of events was in terms of timing which led to this separation."
Those who read the article know. On December 19th the school sent a letter to Gibbons saying he is expelled effective December 20th. On the 23rd Hoke said he wouldn't play for "family reasons". When he was expelled from all UM activities he was off the team.
He doesn't have to reveal.
But he is NOT supposed to lie.
Hoke was asked directly about Gibbons' sudden absence in the pressers before the bowl game, as I recall, and the response he gave was probably good enough to deflect attention that I am sure he would not have wanted on the program if indeed Hoke knew what was going on. Not answering would have probably brought speculation that would have been unwelcome. In that respect, I don't mind Hoke giving the answer that he did, although it was not the best (or as we now know, the most truthful) - there are likely literally no good ways to answer a question about a player's absence when this is why they are absent. In no way does it excuse the inexcusable (as this certainly is), but I don't mind Hoke trying to not address this at that point, but in hindsight, there were definitely better ways to do it.
All he has to say is "No comment"
A woman was sexually assaulted. And Hokle is supposed to worry about unwanted attention if he does not lie? "This is Michigan fergodsakes". This sickens me.
It was sexual misconduct. You seem pretty picky about definitions and there is a huge difference between misconduct and assault. All i'm saying is this could have been as minor as a unwanted sexual text message. Not taking his or her side because we don't know fyi.
I don't mind Hoke giving the answer that he did - there are likely literally no good ways to answer a question about a player's absence when this is why they are absent.
Just give the generic, ever popular "violation of team rules" boilerplate answer and deflect any follow-ups. Seems pretty straight forward to me, maybe I'm not considering all fo the angles.
But that would be a lie. This was not team discipline. He was expelled by the school, the team would have been self-serving liars if they made that claim.
What they said instead seems kind of wrong, but technically true.
This is shady as hell.. Good riddance.
[ED-S: This unfounded rumor has been removed at the poster's request.]
there's no need to be going there. None at all.
(A source you can reveal, that is)
[ED-S: This unfounded rumor has been removed at the poster's request.]
How's high school treatin' ya Ace?
I'm going to go ahead and doubt the credibility of CHEESECAKE WIZARD, supposedly the man with inside info on activity in the highest levels of UM's athletic department.
"who covered up what"? Who said anybody covered up anything?? What a ridiculous jump you made.
He wasn't charged with a crime because they didn't have enough strong evidence. The school's level of evidence required for an expulsion is much lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" required by the prosecution.
He was expelled in December and it's taken over a month for that to come out. That's the shady business.
Exactly what would they gain by hiding for a month? It is not like this was never going to be public.
A "cover up" would mean that someone made sure that authorities never found out about it. Not going to the press or telling people on the street does not constitute a cover up or shady business.
There are no legal charges right now. If there were legal charges that is a different story. Right now this is considered a university matter which Gibbons has a right to privacy over. The school and anyone affiliated with it CANNOT release or comment on Gibbons' university record (which this fall under). Gibbons has a right to privacy over his academic records and who he wants to release it to. This is why in the decision letter it states that Gibbons must disclose this information to any future employer because the university cannot. There are few exceptions where the university can release this information (like a subpoena).
FERPA act. Read about it:
Somehow I think Dave Brandon is safe, considering he was, like, the CEO of Dominos at the time this alleged assult and initial police investigation took place.
Removal of Dave Brandon or William Martin?
And I thought you were making crap up, but then you said you had an anonymous source, so...
Stop ridiculous rumor mongering. Is your source voices in your head? All evidence points to this being complete nonsense.
1. The alleged incident happened a FULL YEAR before Dave Brandon was even employed by the university.
2. Based on how previous student athletes running afoul of the law were handled, I highly doubt the athletic department would make some exception for a struggling KICKER (before 2011 Gibbons was not very good) in the heart of the Penn State scandal and the incident at the University of Michigan Hospital.
Ace f'n Williams is "Cheesecake Wizard"?
It supposedly happened over 3 years ago. So, UM allowed this guy to stay on the team while it conducted a three year long investigation? Nice. I bet the victim feels comforted by the timely action.
Innocent until proven guilty.
But let's get this all solved before we start ripping things out of the shelves of the Ann Arbor Torch and Pitchfork.
What does that have to do with questioning the slowness of the investigation?
It is bizarre that he would be expelled three years after the incident took place.
Even if there was no sinister reason, the University has unnecessarily opened itself up to criticism. A football player is expelled THREE YEARS AFTER a rape allegation, coincidentally after his eligibility is all used up? Let's be honest -- what would we be saying if this happened at MSU or OSU? Not "innocent until proven guilty" I'm sure.
This is the part I find most disturbing about this. It should not take three years to expel a student who violated sexual policy. Someone from the university better explain this and fast.
Payne and Appling
From what I understand, the alleged victim has to bring an accusation to the school for the school to begin its investigation. The event occurred in 2009. Police investigated and charges were dropped. The school, theoretically, didn't do anything because it couldn't. We don't know when the accuser made her report to the school.
Hope you've never served on a jury and hope you never do.
Why? He didn't presume guilt. He questioned why the investigation took three years.
he isn't serving on the jury. Those are the only people obligated to avoid speculation or, in legalese, render a verdict based solely upon the evidence presented in court. I am quite certain that most everyone in America had formed opinions on OJ's guilt (or, cough, innocence) well before he went to trial---but that's okay cuz they weren't on the jury. And, while all of us are free to render our opinions, I suspect we aren't getting much imput here from the sex most often subjected to criminal assault.
Because lynch mobs and a lack of due progress make country strong, right comrade?
Seriously, the university followed procedure. Everyone feels for the victim, but if this the accusations had turned out to be false, you'll already expelled a kid and ruined his life without any real way to make it back up to him. Gibbons is a POS because of this, but don't confuse the result with blind justice.
Again, he's questioning the length of the procedure, not saying that he should have been expelled without any process whatsoever.
Be honest -- if an MSU or OSU football player was accused of rape in his freshman year, and then expelled in his senior year (after his eligibility was essentially expired), would you be so charitable in assuming the university was just following proper procedure.
I'm not saying UM did anything nefarious here. But at the very least by allowing the process to take so freaking long they opened themselves up to an unnecessary shitstorm.
Does the university even have the ability to slow a legal investigation like this? When a crime is reported doesn't it fall completely outside the purview of the university and instead become the jursidiction of Ann Arbor police?
Nevermind I just reread the article and it sounds like this article is only addressing the re-investigation by the University. I would be interested to see if whatever caused the university to finally expell him will be forwarded onto police for possible prosecution.
Completely agree. We should be upset and demand answers. There may very well be a reason (maybe long after legal channels didnt work, the victim chose this route), but if this was MSU or OSU people would be up in arms. Heck, weren't people saying there should be a suspension for the OSU RB who allegedly hit the girl outside the bar? If we can't hold our own institution to the same level, we are pathetic as a fan base.
Why do you have the word "allegedly" in there for the OSU running back? There is a video of him hitting her.
If it came out that it was investigated and dismissed, then years later re-investigated and found to violate a lower burden of proof, I'd definitely want to know more.
But yes, I'd wallow in the false sense of superiority over rivals for a second, until I remember how many times this University has screwed up and take off my blue-tinted glasses. And btw, I usually don't comment too often in those threads about players from other teams because they always feel like pile-ons for no good reason. Unless it is something obvious like Campbell from MSU body-slamming a security guard in the hallways, getting too deep in these weeds about other programs I only tangentally follow never works out.
"Seriously, the university followed procedure."
Seriously - at this point we don't know that.
victim reported crime then later withdrew charges later b/c consent was provided. However, I could imagine they were paid off by someone to go away. This issue is extremely complex, and I am confident no one,myself included, will ever know what happened.
It's disspointing because it lends credence to the fact that the university/AD tried to squash this when it happened, all these facts have been out for a couple years now. Someone I met who worked at the Daily said when this story first happened they were told by the AD to not print anything or they would lose their access and press passes to games and events.
Between you and the other guy, this "I know a guy" conspiracy bullshit could just be pulled out of your ass. There's no reason to go there.
Also, read the damn article. This was reviewed due to a revision in the sexual conduct policies.
and then a review of the incident that long ago...I am no lawyer and I don't pretend to know the regulations of the university, but this stinks. But my overall concern is for the victim. If something truly happened and this is what it took for the right thing to occur, then so be it. But I'm still left with a bad feeling about how this was handled.
I was involved in a misconduct issue for a virus on my computer (ITCS was painfully passive-aggressive) and it took fuckin' FOREVER to work out a solution. This was perhaps the most minor of "offenses" possible and it dragged on for months. Yes, this is anecdote, but I'm less surprised how long this took to resolve than most.
I don't like the conspiracy stuff either; "I know a guy" is a very general statement that has little or no credibility in these areas.
But it's hard not to wonder why it took a review of a case due to a "revision" of sexual conduct policies (a revision that apparently occurred in 2012, right?) to get him off the team. The information was clearly available at the time it occurred.
If you hear that one of the Athletic Department's athletes is involved in an alleged sexual assault, do you need a policy revision to investigate it? No.
I don't know a guy. I don't care about that stuff. But it is, frankly, inexcusable for this to take three years to become fully public.
This WAS investigated when it first happened. There are plenty of news articles about it. The policy change specifically altered the burden of evidence required for dismissal.
This was fully public already. It's not the fault of the university that people don't pay close enough attention. I'm not excusing Gibbons' actions by any stretch, and this was probably for the best, but c'mon son.
It wasn't that public, because this information has some as a big surprise to a lot of people every time something new has come out. A few months ago a thread on 11W (I think) brought this event up, and there was a corresponding thread about it here; it was the first I had ever heard of it.
So I looked into the actual information available, and it was mostly published by one guy who appears to have a grudge against the University and likes to stir the pot. There aren't a lot of major media sources discussing it, or even a lot of opposing blog traffic that would be associated with a larger paper trail.
It does, indeed, look suspiciously under-reported.
And, at any rate, a "burden of evidence" may be important in expulsion issues, but there is no such burden required to suspend someone from a team for a "violation of team rules." And that never happened.
It was public right after it first happened in 2009.
That's archived and I can try to find a follow-up, if you wish.
Helpful link, thanks.
Follow-ups are actually a good idea, just for our own understanding of what was and wasn't revealed. Note that Brendan's name is not revealed in that article--did it make significant news when he was identified?
I understand your point, but this stuff was well known for a while - it seems you just missed it.
Also, I wouldn't totally discount all the "I know a guy" comments. Many of the posters here are students - students that take classes with players, date athletes, attend parties with athletes, work for the AD, work for the Daily, etc.
This isn't a huge city, it's a college and rumours don't spontaneously ignite. I'm not saying to trust every "I know a guy," but there's been smoke around Gibbons and his "extracurriculars" since he got on campus. Now the fire is confirmed.
"rumours don't spontaneously ignite"
Methinks you don't understand the concept of rumors.
You can choose to not believe me if you want, its not like if i told you the name of a student who was at the Daily in 2009 it would really make a difference unless you plan on facebook stalking him to see if you find him trust worthy.
All I can tell you is that I was a student when this was happening, I had friends at the daily and one of them told me that is what the AD told them, I chose to believe him because there was no reason to lie and the facts pointed to the university trying to put down the chance of this becoming a news story, especially since it involved intimidation from othere players other then gibbons. The fact of the matter is that guilt in cases like this is nearly impossible to prove and when people are found innocent the victim recieves the backlash which is part of why sexual violence is reported at such a low rate. The woman in this case did every single thing a rape survivor would do and it got swept away, I am choosing to believe her side based on what I have seen and heard and not the university or Gibbons. That is not enough to put Gibbons in prison nor should it be, but I am dissapointed in how the university handled the entire situation.
As a Daily alum, I find it pathetic that Daily went along with the pressure tactics to keep quiet, if that is how it went down. No self respecting journalist should trade journalistic integrity for access.
If everything was done correctly IE: notified A2 PD or MSP. Taken to a local ER and had a rape kit with medical doctors exam to confirm happen then why did criminal charges get dropped?
Just curious if you have that inside info? The AD doesnt control law enforcement.
First of of all any survivor of any type of sexual violence is in fact a survivor, rape or not. Second of all from my understanding of the case she did go to the ER and have an examination done and did notify the police which is why Gibbons was arrested in 09. But here is the issue with prosecuting rape and sexual misconduct, it is nearly impossible to prove. Unlike in the movies there isn't usually a big fight that leads to bruises all over, there is usually vaginal tearing but that can also occur during consensual sex so that isn't proof. In this case both parties said they were in the room together alone, one is saying it was consensual and one is not, the fact that they had sex doesn't prove rape and so it was dropped but the fact that they couldn't prove it in a court of law doesn't mean that it wasn't rape and that the evidence would point to Giibbons lets say being 60% guilty which is plenty for the school because they aren't putting him in prison.
I call bs on that. Just stop with the idiotic accusations.
Same story that has been rumored for a while now... Story was sketchy from the beginning, and I'm really disappointed that it took the university until after his career kicking at Michigan to get rid of him. Makes those wins on last second field goals seem irrelevant and invalid... Really ashamed as a fan.
The university acts separate from the AD. Boy, people are leveling some really unfounded accusations out there and jumping to some ridiculous conclusions.
Gibbons wasn't all that special (Wile was an excellen fill-in) to the team, so they would have done just fine without him....
Well I'm sorry... Cover-ups are not uncommon in the within the NCAA these days no matter the caliber of the player. They occur to protect the image of the university. It's not like Jerry Sandusky was at any point relevant to PSU or its success once his tenure concluded yet that whole deal went unsolved for years after. Don't get mad at me or anyone else on here for being upset with the university for not taking action sooner.
And if I recall, wasn't Gibbons heralded as the most automatic kicker you guys had ever seen? You can't argue that he wasn't a critical part to the team at some point in his career.
Maybe the answer is Ft. Schembechler
Also Gibbons was a horrible kicker until after Brandon and Hoke got to A2. In 2009 why would a university risk a national news black eye for a kicker?? It's not like where talking about Charles Woodson here....
I hope there was no coverup. All I can think of is Penn State's recent problem with Sanduski and Paterno. I know this would not be as serious of a case because it was a student. However, this would be horrible if it was in fact a coverup.
Fucking disgraceful. I demand a full review of how the university handled this, who knew what, who else was involved, and then why this investigation and decision took so long to make. Lucky for MSC she's on the way out. Who else knows who could follow her?
"I demand a full review of how the university handled this, who knew what, who else was involved, and then why this investigation and decision took so long to make."
Are you in a position to make demands like this?
Yes -- I'm an alumnus and a donor to the athletic department.
Well, so are thousands of other people and they don't take order from us.
one man is one man...
but I see a lot of upset people, or rather people concerned about the fact that this player was on the field for three seasons after the alleged event and only upon graduation has anything actually been done (or rather one game from graduation)...
it makes all the brunette jokes disgusting...
and I would rather our football team deal with some scutiny, and some punishment if necessary, than let sleeping dogs lie...
You might be surprised.
Being a donor or an alumnus doesn't mean jack unless you're Stephen M Ross
I'm the least of the university's worries right now, but I have a right to know, like everyone else does, about how the university conducted this possibly damning exercise that lasted for a couple of years. It makes no sense for this to have taken so long, and so it is imperative that a clear explanation is made available to everyone. If the university has legally binding policy to not say anything about this other than expelling Gibbons, so be it, but there needs to be a statement to satisfy the multitude of questions about this sickening incident and the aftermath.
I'll start with the disclamer that I don't know anything about this particular situation. I did, however, work in student affairs for a while during my time at Michigan and I can say that there are a number of pretty strict laws regarding what a university can and cannot disclose regarding cases like this. Gibbons was punished by the Office of Student Conflict Resolution, not a court of law. This is obviously a terrible situation and I don't mean to make light of anything that may have happened but student privacy laws would be in play here.
If the university has legally binding policy to not say anything about this other than expelling Gibbons, so be it, but there needs to be a statement to satisfy the multitude of questions about this sickening incident and the aftermath.
Well, I know FERPA has a whole ton of restrictions on reporting a student's academic situation publicly. And in terms of review length, I was just in jury duty for a robbery that alledgedly took place in early 2010, and this was the first court action (so no appeals yet, etc.). Law and Order makes people think proceedings (whether legal or not) happen in weeks. They do, once they get onto a docket. Getting to that point can take years. I'm not really surprised it took this long, though I'm not sure if there was some nefarious reason it did take this long.
BB- the comparison in timelines between an armed robbery going to criminal trial and the decision to expel a student at a University is not a great one, especially if you were in NY. For all you know as a juror, the guy was an informant and the charges had been on ice for awhile. Or that the day he was supposed to go to trial came up 3 times, and on those 3 days, there was another trial in that courtroom already carried over, or the judge was out, or one of the attorneys had another trial, or some other reason, and it had been ready for trial for 2 years but had been rescheduled, etc.
Four years to decide a rape matter via quasi-judicial body at what is supposed to be a well-run university? Ridiculous. And if M enacted a new policy and then retroactively "prosecuted" a case they'd previously passed on, that's not a great way to operate, IMO. Making a policy change or statute retroactive is usually frowned upon.
You don't even have to know anything about the actual procedures involved to suspect that a process in which the maximum penalty is expulsion of a student from the university probably has a typical timescale smaller than the usual time a student attends the university.
You have a right to know? Really? Where is that right written down? What you mean is you have a wish to know. I'm pretty sure the University doesn't care about your wishes right now.
Female- files report.
Law enforcement drops case due to lack of evidence under their rules.
University keeps male student in good standing because there is not enough evidence under current rules to kick him out.
3 years later rules change.
Law enforcement still doesnt have enough to go after him.
University goes back over the case with the new set of rules and NOW has enough to kick him out of school.
Congrats. So am I. By this logic, I'd like a full report on why they don't have better concession options at games.
A vast majority of alums would share this point of view. We should not be acting like Notre Dame. This university is far bigger than a football program.
I don't know anything about higher-up issues, and there's nothing credible we can speculate on at this time.
Nonetheless, this does not look good at all. There were allegations associated with this case that included some unfortunate behavior by other, more significant players, and those allegations now look more credible. Why this happens at the end of Brendan's career is beyond me.
And we rode that guy to a Sugar Bowl win. Ugly. This is a big black mark for Michigan and its fans.
So despite there being "nothing credible we can speculate on," you have concluded that this is a "big black mark for Michigan and its fans?"
Nothing credible regarding allegations of actual administration cover-up or removal of the AD. Obviously, the allegations against Gibbons are quite credible, and the fact that this has been sitting around for three years without so much as a game missed is a black mark regardless of what comes out from the behind-the-scenes story.
I misinterpreted what you were saying somewhat. I agree that the delay here looks bad, but it seems to be a delay caused more by incompetence than a desire to shelter an athlete.
And to be honest, the delay really doesn't appear to be that long. The policies rewritten in 2011 are the ones requiring the univeristy to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct. So we're essentialy talking about two years. That's certainly not record speed, but it's not egregiously slow either.
If you're going to rape someone just make sure to do it when you're a junior or senior.
2 years is waaaay too long to resolve an issue like this.
Yes, and we all know that Taylor Lewan is a pretty low character guy after his five years on campus. This was just the first instance.
How does something like this take 3 years to resolve itself? Is there no statue of limitations?
I am going to reserve my judgement because I dont know any of the details (outside of the few, less then credible, sources claiming to know the details)
but this whole thing seems super bizarre.
Cover up to better the football team seems unlikely, when this incident occured. BG was not Jameis Winston (not an inidication of guilt to JW) he was a horrible kicker on a terrible team.
This makes me sick. The university has a lot of explaining to do.
I'll reserve final judgment until we know more. But I'd be lying if this didn't look absolutely awful on its face given what we know right now.
Sure, the facts are just flying out of this case. I'd wait, too. A follow up will probably happen in 2020. You might want to have a snack handy...
I'm sorry, but the insinuation that there was a university-wide cover-up of sexual misconduct for three years just to keep a then-terrible field goal kicker around seems a little absurd.
and back when it happened, he wasn't the kicker he is now. This is very weird.
I'm going home now and having a beer. My brain is full.
the reputation of the school and team could have been impacted right at the time of a coaching change. Sometimes people make stupid decisions for idiotic reasons.
But there were other, much more prominent players involved. Let's not oversimplify.
But back in 2009, even Lewan was not the big time All American. At that time, I don't really think you could plausibly call him a prominent player. Only the diehard fans would have known who the redshirt freshman tackle was.
Unfortunately, this story wasn't just about Gibbons. Another, very good and very significant Michigan player, was alleged to have had verbal interactions with the alleged victim that were highly innappropriate. I don't have the link handy, because I read the stuff about this in the fall when it blipped upward, but it's there.
I don't know if that has any bearing on this issue or not. And, indeed, some subsequent choices made by people involved suggest that nobody felt any of this would blow up. But it's there.
Yeah, the douchebag with a grudge made blatantly false statements and claimed the police reports contained names that they didn't. I recommend you don't get any information about this case from that "washtenaw watchdog" hack, because he went about his mission in the worst way possible.
Please delete if appropriate - I think this came up in the 11W/bucknuts "article" about the Taylor Lewan "incident" in Ann Arbor after the Ohio game and some ohio fans claimed he was the one to have spoken to the alleged victim.
Still, even if Lewan was involved, it's not often than highly intelligent and well-qualified administrators decide to jeopardize the entire reputation of the university and the athletic department to make sure a couple players on the football team finish their careers.
You're correct--that's NEVER happened before.
You win the internet tonight for that comment.
I said not often.
This doesn't have to be a cover up or any ill intention at all to have been poorly handled overall by the university.
I don't believe for a second that any administrator, coach, etc. would 'cover up' the incident. I do believe that the 'process' seems to have taken a long time to reach any sort of 'verdict'.
its not that big a stretch to think it could be done for a couple players. Im not saying thats what happened, just that worse things have happened
It also involved several players engaging in intimadation including taylor lewan supposedly threatening to rape the victim again if she said anything, Taylor lewan has always been an important player.
Just curious where you got that info? I'd like to read it to be better informed. Thanks.
The case has been out there and under review. It took a long time to reach a conclusion, granted, but I don't understand what was covered up.
I wish it had proceeded faster so that the punishment could have been more timely and significant.
What a mess!
RCMB will have a blast with this... I just hope that young lady is doing well on her road to mental/physical/emotional recovery.
How you holdin' up on the inside, Bey? Namond turned out all right after all.
all around. Should not be tolerated or covered up
I'm wondering why he wasn't charged with a crime if Michigan found reason enough to expel him.
He was arrested November 2009 I believe. You can find all the arrest papers and such online. Police investigated. Then apparently charges were dropped.
So much for the "Cover up" theory. Law enforcment knew. If the Freep can find out about to much streching and make ESPN national sports news and have the NCAA mouth breathers coming into A2 then why wasnt this picked up?
Not a proud day for Michigan, either the football program or the University. How the hell did this take so long to process? I read that this was brought up maybe 2-3 years ago. There needs to be some hard introspection and answers for everyone involved from the AD to head of the University.
I'm not cool with smearing someone's name until all the facts are in. If he's guilty, fuck that dude. But until he's found guilty by a jury, this will remain some he said, she said. And furthermore, I like how coach handled this. No one knows definitively what happened and if Hoke would have disclosed it to the public, he could have risked throwing one of his players under the bus for allegations that may be false until proven otherwise.
Well the standard here is preponderence of the evidence. If the Unveristy has decided the evidence is strong enough to warrant expulsion under this standard, which they almost never do, that's good enough for me to conclude that Gibbons is not an upstanding young man.
I understand that. But dude, like you said earlier, I have a problem with a few things. One, this girl apparently reported it to the police (that in that past haven't had ANY problems charging Michigan players with alleged crimes) when it happened. Don't you think a rape-kit was conducted? Why were no charges pressed when it happened? What resources do the University have that the POLICE do not in terms of conducting investigations? So, essentially, we're going to crucify a kid because the University, and not professionals that do this every day, say so? Just because this particular crime is so disgusting? Na, not me. I'll wait until it's proven to pass judgement. Just imagine this, you're put in a position where someone is accusing you of something. Let's now say you didn't do it. But because this particular crime is so socially and prevalently sensitive, eveyone assumes you automatically did it. How would you feel? That's what a fair trial is for. I'm not condemning anyone until I'm convinced. Unobjective folks can neg away.
The university and the police investigated, talked to witnesses, etc. you have what you read on the internet. The police did not think the could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the university believes they have enough to expel.
So if I'm reading the article correct, in December of 2013, the university decided to expel a student for a November 2009 incident that the police investigated and dropped charges? Is there more to the story, because that, um, seems like a bad precedent to set.
Regardless of what ultimately happens, this is pretty sad. I'm going to assume, based on that report, that there was at least something inappropriate done by Gibbons, and thus I feel bad for the victim. I'm guessing the legal issues will remedy themselves at some point, though I doubt we'll ever hear about them.
As others have noted, I had a sense that something was up with Gibbons when Hoke said it was "family matters" before the bowl, but I also don't have an issue with how he handled it. You can't necessarily speak about a student's legal issues in a press conference if they haven't been divulged publicly, and frankly that isn't his job to do all the press releases as well. Just a bad situation all around.
I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds similar to the burden of proof required for a civil suit.
Same burden of proof, but rules of evidence are almost certainly considerably tighter in civil court than in a proceeding at a university.
It's not similar, it's identical, although for some civil litigation the standard is clear and convincing evidence (which was also the previous standard for the university).
It isn't quite that simple but for the sake of discussion, burden of proof requires:
Beyond a reasonable doubt - crminal
Preponderance of the evidence - civil.
I am having a hard time with the timing of events. The alleged assualt occurred in November of 09 and the expulsion occurred four years later after a player's eligibility is used up?
There is no way the university escapes without a black eye unless some new fact was uncovered.
I also hope it ends with Gibbons.
While it is concerning this comes after his eligibility was up (minus the bowl game). In 2009 Gibson's was a freshmen kicker who couldn't make an extra point. If they were going to cover up something idk if it would be for this. Unless the Lewan involvement is more than appears
If the university's standard of proof changed from "clear and convincing" to "preponderance of the evidence", it completely explains why it took so long. Using the clear and convincing standard, there's virtually no way Gibbons would lose given all the problems in the initial reports. Using the preponderance of the evidence standard, it becomes much easier.
... now this board doesn't have to feel the compulsion to defend the guy everytime this issue comes up. He's scum, and i would happily trade in the wins credited to him if it prevented the assualt from occuring.
Maybe we can reevaluate our love of Taylor Lewan too, given his alleged role in the attempted cover up. Or is that still too taboo to discuss?
Pissed off that it took this long and that it looks doubly bad. Basically it appears as if we'll cover up your sexual assault, get some value out of you, then we'll throw you under the bus when you graduate. Fucking asshats running the show. Asshats.
Guess it explains why some folks were a bit touchy about the blonde and brunette jokes.
either that or you made a second account...
But did the reason for Max Bulloughs suspension ever surface? During the MMB game Saturday a Sparties said it was a DUI but I googled and didn't find it.
The revision in 'sexual conduct policies' is *potentially* related to an ongoing lawsuit:
It's pure conjecture on my part, but it could explain why the system underwent changes recently.
This thread is ripe for lockdown
If Gibbons did what they claim he may have done, then I for one am glad they cut all ties with him. Victims need to be protected from actions like this if it did happen. I would like to see the leaders of this program stand up and support he University and it's decision.
Whether or not there was a cover up, it seems clear that sexual assault is a serious problem on most college campuses. According to the CDC, 18% of women are sexually assaulted at some point in their life and 38% of victims were assaulted during ages 18-24. Additionally, 19% of undergrad women were victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault while at college. Link: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/SV-DataSheet-a.pdf
There's also substantial anecdotal evidence that the policies/procedures in place at many schools fail to protect vulnerable students and/or victims. Hopefully, this can be a catalyst that causes UofM to become a leader on the issue. That would be a great example of the Michigan Difference.
This has been "rumored" for a long time.
No one still knows what happened nor anyone ever will. Same as the Winston case.
The University doesn't need the same evidence as the legal system so I still won't say he did or didn't do anything.
I don't endorse rape (nor should anyone) but I hear so many false rape claims that the "rapist" is the actual victim about half the time. Look up Brian Banks if you want a victim of wrongly accused rape.
This is a misnomer about rape, according to a report done by UMASS over a 10 year period less than 6% of cases were classified as false accusations. Being incredibly difficult to prove does not equal a false accusation.
And consider then how many don't get reported in the first place.
He is no Michigan man - and should absolutely not be on the team.
Not gonna lie... This one leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I loved watching Gibbons do his thing, but that was without the direct knowledge of this particular event. This is a sad ordeal.
Well, if Gibbons had been expelled prior to the press conference, then Hoke was clearly dissembling re the cause of the kid's absence. Also, I'm not sure an expulsion is protected by privacy laws. Maybe the cause of the expulsion is, but not the expulsion itself. If that's the case, then Hoke was being doubly deceptive, no?
I don't think Hoke maybe fudging at a press conference to avoid disclosing something as scandalous and potentially contentious as that is a black mark on Hoke. Perhaps the University lawyers advised him not to disseminate that information. It's not Hoke's job to tell everyone about a punishment levied by the University that doesn't arise out of his playing football.
The only two answers are the truth or no comment. Anything else is a lie and will feed rumors about cover up
I want to know why this took 4 years. After Gibbons' actions, the prolonged amount of time between the incident and this is my greatest concern. That points to troublingly poor institutional handling of the case.
I'm not sure if this changes anything about the discussion of the allegations, since the Daily piece points out that everything important about the University's investigation is different from a criminal one (participation of victim, burden of proof, etc.). It reads like this case could literally have been reported by that axe-grinding professor, and the victim may not have participated in this investigation either, and the outcome is totally different because the rules are different.
Not that I don't think Gibbons probably did what he's accused of, and not that I don't think his expulsion is just and overdue; I just can't see the difference between what we *know* now and what we *knew* then. (I was disgusted and conflicted all season because I believed Gibbons was probably not innocent. Hasn't changed, in either direction of certainness.)
If we can talk about football as it relates to this nasty situation, I do find myself morbidly curious if this has anything to do with Gibbons's non-participation in the OSU game. Obviously the Daily article is just laying out everything of note that has happened with Gibbons lately, but there's a tiny bit of implication in mentioning that. The article mentions a document dated 11/20/13, so maybe the wheels had started turning already and Gibbons was sitting because of this? Would be crazy considering the effect that the kicking game could have had on the outcome.
Athletic department has a lot of explaining to do.
No, the University as a whole does.
I know people keep saying ''not enough evidence'' and everything, but expelling him right near the end of his college career...come on. Don't tell me that doesn't sound fishy.
Why wouldn't they wait until after his career, then, rather than expelling him "near the end of his career?"
It makes no sense to have a risky coverup and then not take full advantage of it.
I'd say the conspiracy nuts are falling from the trees on this one. I'd also say that I am disappointed to find that the evidence against Gibbons was a lot stronger than I believed when I first heard about the case. I wanted to believe him when he said he was innocent. I no longer believe nor want to believe.
Explains why he wasn't with the team
thank you captain obvious, your work here is done.
Not exactly a HOT TAKE but I would encourage everyone to reserve judgment on how the University handled this until more facts come to light. Obviously the delay in judgment seems strange - and may very well be due to mismanagement on the part of the University - but there's no need to weigh in now when clearly all, or even a majority of, the facts surrounding this matter have not yet surfaced.
Now it's a matter of the university and the athletic department coming clean which in all honesty, given the info we have I'm a little suspect on.
Like most everybody else, I wish it would have happened sooner. Just odd timing. I'm sure there is an explaination for the long delay and I'd love Brad Anlauf, Dave Brandon and the outgoing president to comment on it.
I've read several different versions of what happened with Lewan and I bet they all stem from 1 or 2 sources.
Is this from the original incident?
based on rumor or accusion is the accused could very well be innocent because the "victim" could lie about it which happens all to often. It's better to investigate immediately and gather all datas and evidence than just to slander the accused because that will ruin their livelihood and reputation if found innocent. This is why it was a rumor to begin with. It has not been offiically concluded.
Remember Brian Banks who had to spend several years in prison after being falsely accused of rape? This is a big reason why it's better to gather all of the evidences and datas before coming into conclusion. If found guilty, then yes, by all means, release the name of the guilty party to the public. If found innocent, it's better to keep their name out because I've seen reputations have been ruined by a simple accusion from the "victim".
I'm not condoning the actions by Gibbons, but I'm saying that the University have found sufficient evidence that he was involved in this incident. It's better to take a while and get it right as opposed to rushing and screwing it up.
It's better to take a while and get it right as opposed to rushing and screwing it up.
There is a huge difference between doing your due diligence/doing a proper investigation and waiting 4 years to take action. Speedy due process goes both ways for the plaintiff and defendant.
The question is did they really wait 4 years to take action? I'm not completely sure about it.
The evidence suggests that the matter was investigated by the police, who found insuffiicient evidence to get the DA to proceed with charges. It isn't clear when or why OSCR got involved in the case. It is entirely possible that the victim didn't go to OSCR until the rules got changed and she found out they got changed, and her perceptions of her chances for getting justice changed. It could have been just a few weeks or months before he was expelled.
The assumption that this was squelched by the university for four years, or that two consecutive ADs somehow conspired to keep the story under wraps, are ridiculous ion the face of them. What were anyone's motives for such behavior?
The simpler solution (that something chaged fairly recently that led to Gibbons's expulsion) seems much more likely to me than a conspiracy (complete with threats from one of the most non-threatening guys ever associated with Michigan football) to keep the case under wraps until just before the Ohio State game.
jumping into conclusion based on the article is silly because we don't know the fact about it and how they conducted the investigation.
jumping into conclusion based on the article is silly because we don't know the fact about it and how they conducted the investigation.
the idea that she decided to press her accusation when she learned that the standard of proof had changed - that may not be the answer, but at least it makes sense.
In general, I roll my eyes at about 90% of references to "Michigan Men" made on WTKA and elsewhere. The phrase obviously had meaning at some point, and there are obvious exceptions where that meaning holds true - the work with Mott sticks out.
But the phrase now more than ever seems to be a bit pro forma, based more upon performance on the field or star rating of a recent recruit.
Regardless of what the title means anymore, if the allegations here are true, then more than one person should give up their claim to it.
A lot of conspiracy theories and whatnot going on here. No one really knows anything. It's a lot of speculation and guessing at this point.
I'm at a loss of words.. It's sad something like this happened and nothing was done for 3 years. Feel terrible for the victim and now think the dude is quite a garbage individual.
“You will be permanently separated from the University of Michigan effective December 20, 2013,” reads a Dec. 19, 2013 letter addressed to Gibbons at his Florida residence from the University’s Office of Student Conflict Resolution, which facilitates disciplinary proceedings against students. The Michigan Daily did not obtain these documents from the University.
This explains the delay from the expulsion to the news coming out. The University will not disclose anything about student matters - The Daily obtained the documents on their own, likely very recently.
That it was not aware of any criminal charges being filed. Wait a minute! This is a sexual assault allegation from 2009 and the district attorney has not come to a conclusion about whether the facts warrant filing criminal charges?
One might then conclude that the prosecution determined that evidence of criminality was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, the circumstances may be similar to the FSU situation this year where no charges were filed against the QB but the alleged victim is pursuing civil remedies. The Daily did not report on that alternative.
The entire situation is very strange.
This was absolutely a huge fucking coverup. I have extremely close ties to the situation, and it is truly unbelievable that it took this long for action to be taken.
Put this on the front page. Thank you for solving the case anonymous internet tough guy!
In light of action taken by the university it's harder now to hold onto a claim of plausible innocence, especially as outrage is vented. I've kicked this particular hornet's nest several times and exhausted various sources, losing a good one forever over it. And I never came up with anything convincing either way.
There's a highly plausible sequence of events wherein Gibbons raped that girl, and she didn't have enough evidence to convict him, and his friends and teammates believed his protestrations of innocence (I can think of two cases historically when Michigan players were falsely accused of something bad and their coaches at the time didn't believe them) and that was that until OSCR reopened the investigation, found more than ample evidence, and finally removed him.
There's another plausible sequence of events wherein Gibbons did not rape that girl, and the case was dropped because he didn't rape that girl, but that because he's a football player her friends and self-deputized investigators ready to believe the worst made it their mission to take down a jock under protection of the other jocks, and that they managed to finally reopen the case inside the university and get what they perceived as justice from the same info.
I haven't been able to get to a point where I believe one or the other. I've been tepid in my coverage of Gibbons his entire career because of it.
The best job I can do at hazarding a guess is a college freshman boy high on being a football player and away from home and in a frat house, probably drunk, surrounded by people who trivialize casual sex and devalue women and call it "joking around," stepped over a very serious line with a woman who was also not in her best decision-making position when she got into it. And because of her own small mistakes and a justice system that overblows them, she wasn't able to get justice; in fact there wasn't enough to effect any punishment whatsoever.
And once that was the finding of the justice system, there were only two extremes for anyone to go to: 1) he's a rapist and should be in jail not kicking legendary field goals for Michigan's football team, or 2) he's not a rapist but he's under assault from people obsessed with bringing rapists to justice. If I had enough information to declare 1 or 2 I'd gladly do so. But I don't.
Rape is inexcusable. Punishing a person for a crime they didn't commit is inexcusable. Neither is really our purview. You know what is our purview? The actions or non-actions of our AD and our head coach. If we're to call for anything, I think we ought to be demanding that Brady Hoke and Dave Brandon and Taylor Lewan and even Rich Rodriguez explain what they knew, what they believed, and why they acted as they did. Rape is inexcusable. Punishing an innocent person is inexcusable. Either way not coming forth with information that could prove either one or the other is inexcusable.
I have no clue about this case so I won't comment but saying women don't accuse men of rape for nothing is crazy. Google the name Sarah Ylen. A recent story from Lexington Mi.
False claims have been made. Out of nowhere is less common than a victim who said no, then was encouraged to drink more, then didn't remember what happened next and wakes up and panics. Or a victim who winds up in a bedroom, and goes to leave and somebody is leaning against the door because it's across from the bathroom, and imagines she's been trapped and screams and jumps out the window onto the fire escape and runs right to the police station. Or the victim who is under tremendous pressure from her family and her friends from her religious group to remain "pure" but who lapses one time while drunk and the next morning she claims she was raped to cover up her embarrassment. Or or or or. There are lots of false claims. There are way more real claims that go unreported and victims who internalize their rape because justice is uncertain and extremely painful to attempt. That's why we use criminal investigators and the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute rape. And why there are other avenues to justice besides the criminal justice system and other methods within our institutions to protect us.
False accusations are made all the time. Rapists walk free all the time. Both of those things would happen less often if people with information shared it more often. That's what I was saying with that.
I can think of one reason Rodriguez would have maybe given Gibbons the benefit of the doubt; he really had no one else. Remember the comment he made prior to our trip to Penn St in (09?) about maybe "finding one on the way to the game"? It's not like he had a better guy, or he would have played...
I have, unfortunately, had some proximity to (I was going to say "involvement in" but that came out wrong) a sexual assault case a bit closer to home, and one thing that has become absolutely clear as things have gone on is that a lot, and I mean a LOT, of people have a poor understanding of the legal definition of rape, and in particular the concept of consent in that context.
It's very easy for me to imagine that these two groups of people could have exactly the same facts in hand regarding the sequence of events and, in good conscience based on their understanding of the term, reach opposite conclusions on whether there was an assault or not.
Puts a different light on "think of brunette girls" line.
Regardless, all my prayers for the victim and hope that she can recover OK.
Being expelled from school certainly falls into my definition of being a "family matter". Hoke is known for not giving out ALL the information, nor can he based on privacy laws.
When Hoke gave this explanation for Gibbons missing the bowl game in his last year I figured it must be one hell of a family matter. Sad.
It seems to me that coaches have said on several occasions, player X "is no longer attending the University of Michigan". That would have worked too.
My fiancé is in the MSW program and repeatedly told me that none of the women in the program wanted him there bc of his shady history. From her experiences I was told he was a complete jerk that had no reason becoming a therapist. From everything I heard about him it was really difficult rooting for him throughout the season and it made me question the leadership of this university
I like how this is all revealed AFTER his football eligibility runs out.
Solid job, Hoke & co.
Wow this is terrible.
This incident was dealt with before Hoke got to UM.
I thought that there might be a handful of morons who would presume Gibbons' guilt. I never dreamed that there'd be this sort of mass freakout.
So now, with no real adjudication of any kind, we see the MGoBoard (and assuredly, most of the Western World) presuming that Brendan Gibbons was guilty of sexual assault. It is sickening to me. Who needs a judge or a jury? Evidence schmevidence. Verdict now, trial later. Or maybe not. Who needs a trial?
One notable journalist has been doing a lot lately, with the brave new world of university Kangaroo Courts student discipline boards. That journalist is James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal. In a column headlined "An Education in College Justice," Taranto outlined the story of Joshua Strange, an Auburn undergraduate who was accused, and acquitted of a campus sexual assault. But that wasn't the end of it.
So Mr. Strange got his day in court and was treated fairly. But he had already been punished for the unproven crimes. Auburn expelled him after a campus tribunal found him "responsible" for committing the catchall offense of "sexual assault and/or sexual harassment." A letter from Melvin Owens, head of the campus police, explained that expulsion is a life sentence. If Mr. Strange ever sets foot on Auburn property, he will be "arrested for Criminal Trespass Third," Mr. Owens warned.
The injustice of such proceedings is largely hidden from the public, because most universities conduct them secretively. Auburn is no exception. Its Discipline Committee's hearings are closed to spectators, "private and confidential" under university bylaws. But Auburn keeps on file an official audio recording, a copy of which I obtained.
Yes, I'd like to see a much more in-depth investigation of the case of Brendan Gibbons. I'd like to know what level of proof was demonstrated against him by the University of Michigan. I'd like to know how this proceeding was conducted, under what procedural rules and with what legal protections to the accused. I'd like to know who the triers of fact were, and whether they even attempted to determine whether a sex crime had occurred, or whether they were asking a different question altogether.
All that I know right now is that the criminal justice system found no basis to charge or convict Brendan Gibbons after an investigation in which both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator were interviewed, and law enforcement knew that it was operating under the glare of press/public knowledge.
it was a strict liability policy...?