Gibbons expelled for alleged sexual assault

for Hoke. 

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.

I like how this is all revealed AFTER his football eligibility runs out.

Solid job, Hoke & co.

Wow this is terrible.

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.

Let's review:

1. This matter was investigated by police, under the glare of press coverage, back in 2009.
2. Gibbons, per the police report, cooperated in the investigation, without securing counsel or claiming any privilege against self-incrimination.
3. No criminal charges were ever filed.
4. No civil case was ever filed by the alleged victim.
5. The matter has been kept alive, if that can even be the right term, in the public eye by one Douglas Smith, a retired university employee who blogs as the "Washtenaw Watchdog."  Smith has made a second career out of more or less regularly showing up at Regents meetings, city council meetings, etc. to pursue his crackpot peeves about all manner of personal grievances.

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.

...

The most striking quality of the 99-minute proceeding is its abject lack of professionalism. Imagine a courtroom with a jury and witnesses, but no judge or lawyers. Mr. Strange and his accuser had lawyers present—the only people in the room with legal training—but they were forbidden to speak except to identify themselves at the outset.

Enlarge Image

Joshua Strange in 2010, when at Auburn. Courtesy of the Family

Presiding was an Auburn librarian, Tim Dodge, the committee's chairman. The other members were two students, a staffer from the College of Liberal Arts and a fisheries professor from the Agriculture College. Mr. Dodge was confused and hesitant throughout. At one point he got lost and admitted: "I can't find the script here." On multiple occasions an unidentified voice—Mr. Strange believes it is Mr. Frye—can be heard on the recording whispering stage directions to Mr. Dodge.

 

The absence of a judge to control the proceedings left Mr. Dodge anxious for authoritative guidance. It was provided by the two Auburn administrators the accuser called as witnesses. First up was Susan McCallister, an associate director with the campus police who doubles as a "safe-harbor advocate," a concierge for purported sex-crime victims. "Any kind of services that they need access to, we provide a doorway," she explained. Such services include counseling, "academic accommodations" and help in filing police reports.

At the hearing, Ms. McCallister proclaimed the accuser "very credible" and attested to the belief that Mr. Strange was "a potential threat to [the accuser's] safety." But Ms. McCallister disavowed knowledge even of the accuser's version of events. "As a safe-harbor advocate, I really don't need to know a lot of details, and so I didn't ask her to go into great detail," Ms. McCallister said. "I don't really want survivors to have to tell their story over and over again."

...

This story is almost as typical of American universities as it is outrageous. I described the hearing in detail to Mr. Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. He told me the only element that struck him as unusual was the prosecutor's presence in the hearing room.

Yet apart from the loose standard of proof, none of Auburn's procedural infirmities are expressly mandated by the Education Department. If the due-process requirement is more than an empty promise, the department will withhold Auburn's federal funding until the university revamps its procedures and makes restitution to Mr. Strange.

It would be better still if universities could get out of the discipline business altogether, except for scholarly offenses like plagiarism, cheating and falsification of data. Ordinary civil and criminal courts are immensely more competent to adjudicate allegations of sexual harassment and violent crime, in open proceedings subject to appellate review, without trampling the rights of the accused.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023036153045791579001…

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.