Gibbons expelled for alleged sexual assault
Brendan Gibbons "permanently separated" from the University of Michigan for violating the University’s Student Sexual Misconduct Policy.
https://michigandaily.com/sports/former-kicker-brendan-gibbons-expelled…
January 28th, 2014 at 10:25 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^
...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.
January 28th, 2014 at 5:42 PM ^
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 5:57 PM ^
Without getting into details, just say "violation of team rules." Family issues makes it sound like his grandmother died.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:16 PM ^
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:15 PM ^
I agree with this.
January 28th, 2014 at 8:38 PM ^
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:22 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 11:18 PM ^
Sexual Misconduct
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:
- Sexual Assault: Unwanted or unwelcome touching of a sexual nature, including hugging, kissing, fondling, oral sex, anal or vaginal intercourse, or other physical sexual activity that occurs without valid consent.
-
Sexual Harassment: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature if: (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s education, living environment, employment, or participation in a University-related activity or University Program; (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for or a factor in decisions affecting that individual’s education, living environment, employment, or participation in a University-related activity; or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive, or abusive environment for that individual’s education, living environment, employment, or participation in a University-related activity.
- Examples may include, but are not limited to, the following: unwanted sexual statements; unwanted personal attention including stalking and cyber-stalking; unwanted physical or sexual advances that would constitute sexual assault, as defined in this policy; electronically recording, photographing, or transmitting intimate or sexual utterances, sounds, or images without the knowledge and consent of all parties involved; touching oneself sexually for others to view; and voyeurism (spying on others who are in intimate or sexual situations). More information about sexual harassment is available on the sexual misconduct policy website.
- Conduct reported as sexual harassment will be evaluated by considering the totality of the particular circumstances, including the nature, frequency, intensity, location, context, and duration of the questioned behavior. Although repeated incidents generally create a stronger claim of sexual harassment, a serious incident, even if isolated, can be sufficient. For example, a single instance of sexual assault can constitute sexual harassment.
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 5:29 PM ^
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 5:39 PM ^
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 5:47 PM ^
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?
January 28th, 2014 at 5:56 PM ^
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:23 PM ^
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:47 PM ^
"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.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:03 PM ^
He doesn't have to reveal.
But he is NOT supposed to lie.
January 28th, 2014 at 5:28 PM ^
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:05 PM ^
All he has to say is "No comment"
He lied.
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:38 PM ^
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:10 PM ^
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.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:43 PM ^
