Student Government releases findings about Gibbons case

Submitted by TheDirtyD on

Mlive Article

Student Government's Link

"The university was regularly missing its 60-day deadline to investigate sexual misconduct," Proppe said Sunday night. "The main reason, at least initially when the moved to the new policy, was that the university didn't have the bandwidth to handle all these investigations. They took about a year to hire a second investigator to look into this.

"So that was probably the most surprising and most concerning finding, that the delay in the Gibbons case was really not an exception but kind of the norm with these investigations."

 

Per the CSG's report, the task force claimed that athletic department officials did not believe the OIE or OSCR failed to notify the department "when a student athlete was accused of sexual misconduct." As a result of that finding, the task force concluded that "Brady Hoke knowingly issued false statements in December 2013 concerning the status of Gibbons."

 

The CSG's task force did not work in concert with officials from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which will be on campus this week to launch its own investigation into the university's sexual misconduct policy.

 

Quoting MLive

maizenbluenc

April 14th, 2014 at 5:25 PM ^

Not just the juicy headlines.

It covers the change in the policy from 2009 to 2011 to 2013, and how it went from a Sexual Assault policy to a Sexual Misconduct policy, and the changes made, and the specific input CSG gave on the 2011 policy that was not incorporated into the 2013 policy - including clarification around the definition of consent, the uncertainty regarding due process in sexual misconduct cases, and the uncertainty regarding whether students could retain a lawyer throughout the resolution process. Then they were unable to clarify whether Gibbons was expelled for violation by the old definition of consent in place in 2009 (which did not include specific language about knowing someone was impaired) or the new one.

Of course no where is this mentioned in the M-Live article.

So, based on the police report and at least the current policy, it appears what happened warranted Gibbons' expulsion. However, we have to keep in mind he was not tried with full rights, and convicted in a court of law.

Basically it comes down to the University applied an interpreted guidance from the government established at least two years after the incident. They can process a student out. That student doesn't have the same rights as they do in a court of law. And even if they never are convicted, much less tried in a court of law, the only protection that student gets in exchange is it is not made public why they are no longer enrolled at Michigan (which obviously has not happened in this case).

That is the pre-brief for any pending Section 1 fisking.

Shakey Jake

April 14th, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^

It's just that simple. Win and nothing else matters. As for the university and like many institutions, it has created a system that is very difficult to follow and adhere to due to all the policies it places upon itself. It's easy to write regs and rules but if you don't have the people to properly follow, enact and enforce them, they are worthless. But that is what a bureacracy is.

3rdGenerationBlue

April 14th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^

I would like to know when exactly Coach Hoke found out that Gibbons was expelled and understood the reasons why. If it was before his "family matter" comment then I am in favor of this leading to a much deeper investigation. Since a new University President will be taking over soon there may be an opportunity to get this resolved by someone that can't be accused of giving orders regarding the situation as it unfolded. Personally, I don't care if Hoke was told by Brandon or anyone else to make the "family matter" comment - he needs to explain why he thought that was the right thing to say if he knew Gibbons was expelled for sexual misconduct.

RoxyMtnHiM

April 14th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^

My perspective on Hoke's statement on Dec. 23 is that the football program was protecting one of its players (and itself, out of covenience) at a point when it should not have been. Lame.

GoBLUinTX

April 14th, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^

that Brady Hoke doesn't do well with extemporaneous speaking?  His use of "Ohio" instead of Ohio State and then quickly covering up that faux pas with "That's what I call them" is a classic example.  So is it a stretch to believe that when he said Gibbons didn't travel because of a family matter he really meant Gibbons didn't travel because of a Family Educational Rights and Privacy (FERPA) matter?  Which is the truth.

 

bronxblue

April 14th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^

So this was an investigation by a student group with limited access to information?

I understand that there are accountability issues, but I guess I'm just holding a negative view of student-run organizations performing limited investigations and then stating definitively something happened or didn't happen.

And I guess I don't get the big hub-bub about Brady Hoke not telling people Gibbons was kicked off the team because of reason X or Y.  He has not shown any fear of addressing big issues with players - Stonum with his drinking, Hagerup with the pot - and I still don't see how much more information people needed from him regarding Gibbons.  As soon as he was deemed ineligible he didn't have him play, and that's enough for me.  

pearlw

April 14th, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^

The main takeaway from the CSG report is the university wouldnt help them with any info so the CSG report has alot of assumptions. Luckily, the university will comply with the Federal civil rigths investigation and will have to provide them with all the info and documents so this incident is actually looked into with facts as opposed to assumptions.

The CSG report makes some guesses and assumptions due to the lack of info...at one point, they state that if an unresolved 2012-2013 incident was related to the Gibbons case then it took 445 days instead of the targetted 60 days. Of course, they failed to mention that if that unnamed case was not related to Gibbons then it has nothing to do with any of their report.

The 60 day thing was not a hard rule but a guideline that the university is encouraged to investigate complaints within 60 days of notification. I think it would be interesting to hear the circumstances as to why it took longer. The federal investigations will get these facts and make their conculsion whilt the CSG was not given this info so just assumes it was because of lack of staffing.

Finally, I would think the federal investigation will have zero interest on statements Hoke made to the media. The investigation will focus on UM's policy, their transition policy, and whether the case was handled appropriately within this policy. The Feds would care if Hoke made statements to internal investigators about this...but I cant see them caring at all about a "family matter" statement to the MEDIA.

 

white_pony_rocks

April 14th, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^

People are looking at it from the perspective that Hoke lied to help Gibbons but they don't realize that regardless of what Hoke said or did the reason Gibbons didn't play was going to be released eventually.  So what great foavor did Hoke do?  Hoke said those things to help the football team, the other 108 players who had nothing to do with it.  He knew justice had been somewhat served, that it wasn't going to be covered up, and that eventually people were going to find out why, it just didn't need to be right then and there.  There is a different between lying to cover something up in the hope that it never sufaces and lying to prolong news that will affect others who had no part in it when said news will come out eventually

ADogNamedBo

April 14th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^

If you don't think Hoke was advised prior to the press conference as to what his response should be, you are mistaken.

Any company and certainly the University would consult their attorneys in a situation like this in order to protect themselves from a potential lawsuit.

Shitty situation all the way around but getting mad at Hoke is asinine.

Cold War

April 14th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^

Wonder if I'll see a headline like this?

CSG task force finds no special treatment for Gibbons in sexual misconduct case

 

bronxblue

April 14th, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^

I mentioned this above, but is 60 days really that long of a period to investigate sexual assault cases?  I presume the person(s) tasked with investigating the assaults have other duties as well, and as a sometimes-lawyer I've seen lots of delays occur in legal proceedings not due to negligence or malevolence but simply being overworked and understaffed.  I agree that in a perfect world this would have been investigated earlier, but lots of companies and government agencies have similar issues meeting certain deadlines, especially with sensitive issues like this.  All this report proves to me is that UM is about as bad as anyone else at investigating sexual assaults, and the bigger issue should be how this is a not-uncommon outcome.

PeterKlima

April 14th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^

Are people here trying to discuss a controversial subject without addressing some fundamental questions that need to be asked?

These things make this report virtually meaningless:

1. How are most sexual assaults dealt with? The police? It's not like the police are ignoring rape allegations at all. The university is just another place to lodge a complaint, but they are not an. Investigatory or police body. Their delay in meeting recommended time frames is annoying and a little troublesome, but not even close to an impediment to real justice for victims.

2. It is the student government report concerning their beliefs regarding public documents. Who cares?how uplifted is the student government to make an analysis? Is this similar to a Roundtable of college kids looking at documents and then issuing a finding? Do they have any idea how normal this is at schools? Do they know anything about evidence preservation and whether it is a concern? I just think a group of people specially unqualified means little. Maybe this is why their findings have basically been the same content as newspaper reports in general.

3. The real issue in all of this is how the school responds to sexual misconduct allegations. This student body, however, focused on Gibbons. It's newsworthy and they want to to seem active on it. It is sad that it takes the involvement of a FB player for a "task force" to be convened, but it symbolizes the important issue to them - football. They wouldn't have done this otherwise. What does that tell you?

4. With respect to Hoke's comments - we know he didn't come out and say all he knew. We know that was good for his own liability and for Gibbons. It was a smart move. People who think he should have said something know nothing about legal liability or privacy.... Let alone anything about being on a team and not airing other's dirty laundry for no reason.

You guys want to talk about rape allegations and the football program and whether it is even worth discussing seems Liston some of you.

Blue Mike

April 14th, 2014 at 1:22 PM ^

I find it amusing that the same fanbase that continues to hold a grudge because the media called the football team out on too many practice hours is now raking the head football coach over the coals because he said "family matter" rather than "violation of team rules."  

Bottom line should be this:  did the team immediate action when it found out that Gibbons was expelled?  Yes.  Did it do anything to impede the process of the investigation?  No.  Close the book.

How about focusing on the fact that the University took a year and a half to complete an investigation its own policy mandates must be completed in 60 days?  

Tha Stunna

April 14th, 2014 at 1:42 PM ^

Family matter was a lie in that it should only cover subjects that mainly affect Brendan Gibbons and his family.  If it's just "a matter that his family would care about", then that covers everything that affects Brendan Gibbons, which would only make the statement true in politician land.  I don't understand the need to rationalize Hoke's statement because he was only lying to reporters, or something.  Say that he was wrong and move on rather than try to torture words into fitting a more benign interpretation.

Seriously, some of the comments here state that it's good that Hoke lied because it got reporters to not ask more questions.  That is stupid.

PeterKlima

April 14th, 2014 at 1:54 PM ^

I am sorry if you call word choice a "politician" thing, is that supposed to mean it was a lie? It just wasn't a lie. I am sorry if you want him to offer up more information than requested, but that is a stupid thing to want. It would have been a bad choice to offer up more than that.

GoBLUinTX

April 14th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^

what Hoke was thinking on December 23rd, and for that matter neither do you, but it is quite possible that by "Family matter" Hoke meant it was a Family Educational Rights and Privacy (FERPA) matter.  That would be the literal truth just about any way you want to discuss it.  The student victim wanted it kept quiet (FERPA), Gibbons' expulsion was the result of a confidential investigation and finding (FERPA).  Hoke is in no position to release information protected by FERPA unless affected parties give consent.

Jimmyisgod

April 14th, 2014 at 2:12 PM ^

Ugh.

Defend Hoke all you want, but is there anyone stupid enough to think that Gibbons had an actual injury for the Ohio game?  Hoke is a good man, but he handled this wrong.  And as far as not having anythiing to do with the team.  Are you all crazy?  The team I pay to go see every fall, the program who I donate money to, the school whose gear I shell out hundreds to wear lied to me about one of the players being found guilty of sexually assaulting a fellow student and fellow Wolverine because it was easier for them and better fo the program I am assuming.

Gibbons had some undiclosed muscle pull so he couldn't pay against Ohio?  I'm not buying that for one second and neither should anybody who supports U of M athletics.  And if by chance it comes out they knew of the verdict before the Iowa game and played Gibbons anyway...

This all stinks to high heaven and Hoke and the administration behaved like they thought it was never going to come out.  If not for a leaked document, we all just would have went on thinking Gibbons had pulled a muscle and had to miss the last 2 games of his career.

Yeoman

April 14th, 2014 at 2:39 PM ^

Why do you have any right to know why Brendan Gibbons, or any other student, was dismissed from the university?

People "behaving like this was never going to come out" is people acknowledging their legal responsibilities as regards the privacy of one of the university's students. If you think this case or the University's handling of it was so heinous that whistleblowing was required to bring it to light, fine, but it seems a bit much to expect that whistleblower to be the head football coach.

gbdub

April 14th, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^

As far as I'm aware, "public shaming" is not part of the OSCR dictated punishment. So no, I don't think we necessarily have the right to know. And given the severity of what he was accused of, but the lack of a formal legal investigation, maybe "expel him, but do it quietly" really is the best approach, I don't know.

In any case, Gibbons was not formally informed his expulsion was finalized until at least December 19th, well after the Ohio game. It seems odd that Hoke would punish him, but not tell anyone he was being punished, even vaguely. If he was trying to cover it up, why sit him at all? Why change the story for the bowl game? Wouldn't a coach trying to cover it up just let him keep playing? Or at least maintain the injury story?

Several other players have had serious, potentially embarassing legal issues that caused them to miss games. As far as I know, Hoke has never claimed a fake injury to cover it up. It's always been "violation of team rules" or "he's not playing, that's all I have to say about it". Those taking the "Hoke was bad" line here don't seem to have a plausible reason for why Hoke changed his MO for this one particular case.

Avon Barksdale

April 14th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^

I didn't waste my time reading every single comment in this thread, so if someone has already said this I apologize in advance. On that note, Brady Hoke "lying" to reporters is not a big deal. For one, if it was an ongoing investigation, he was probably told by university officials that he could not speak about the topic. Secondly, there are privacy rights involved, and anything Hoke said could have been construed as defamation.

As most of you know, I'm not exactly a huge Brady Hoke fan; however, I don't think he did anything wrong in this case - unless he knew this was coming all season and continued to play Gibbons. I don't believe that to be the case, because what sense would it make to play Brendan Gibbons vs Akron, UConn, ect. ect. and then sit him out in the biggest game of the year.

gbdub

April 14th, 2014 at 3:49 PM ^

This strikes me as right. A Hoke knowing this was coming, not wanting Gibbons playing, but wanting to keep it quiet would probably have sat him earlier. A "win at all costs" Hoke wouldn't have sat him at all (at least until he was actually expelled). A "wait and let the investigation complete" Hoke would probably do the same.

I just don't see the line of reasoning that says, "I am worried enough about the outcome of this investigation to suspend Gibbons proactively, but not worried enough about being caught in a lie to tell even a partial truth about it. So I am going to voluntarily sit Gibbons for the biggest game of the year, lie about the reason why, then change to a totally different lie right before the bowl game".

slimj091

April 14th, 2014 at 5:51 PM ^

i still don't see how hoke lied. he just didn't tell the full truth on something he wasn't at liberty to tell the full truth on.

do people really think it would have been better if hoke said at the presser "yeah gibbons isn't playing because apparently he raped a girl a few years ago". no coach in the world would say that. especially before the official report of the incident was released.

Mgoscottie

April 14th, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^

a lot of the problems people have could easily be remedied by Dave Brandon to be honest, if he came out and said that Hoke was instructed to say what he said and apologize for the difficulty of the statement and that they would try in the future not to mislead but that there are complicating legal factors it would remove the burden from Hoke completely.  

However, in my experience Hoke comes off as dishonest in his comments, I understand that it is celebrated in the sense of "coachspeak".  But to me he takes things that are straightforward and to me he makes them shady.  I felt this way prior to this incident and don't expect many others to agree, but I don't like Hoke's comments.  I certainly don't associate them with the level of rape or really much above minor rudeness, but I wish he was different personally.  I think it's insensitive to insinuate with the family matters comment and it was a poor choice of words.  If he misspoke I would certainly forgive, but it would be correct to apologize, and if he was instructed to say it, DB should apologize.  

Ed Shuttlesworth

April 14th, 2014 at 6:15 PM ^

The football team's failure is what it has been since the story broke -- allowing Gibbons and Lewan to play for the team for four years when Gibbons had sexually assaulted a student and Lewan had threatened witnesses in the potential criminal case involving that sexual assault.

Hoke and Brandon are responsible for three of those years.

The university's screwups -- such as they are --aren't relevant.  The football team and athletic department have independent "jurisdiction" over the matter.

Ed Shuttlesworth

April 14th, 2014 at 6:19 PM ^

And on the "family" thing, I don't want the football team making themselves a "family" separate from the rest of campus, whose primary loyalties are to other players and then and only then to other students and the campus generally.  That's part of how college football teams have become filled with criminals committing crimes against civilian students -- a truly odious development over the past 20-30 years.

I want the football team creating a group of student-athletes who excel on campus and on the football field -- as it used to do.    If that setup can no longer compete with the colleges who regularly recruit criminals to their campuses, so be it.

tdcarl

April 14th, 2014 at 8:04 PM ^

You can sure as hell bet that if I was to get expelled due to a sexual conduct case that I'd have some "family matters" to handle with my parents. Was he telling the whole truth? No. But why did he need to? People need to just chill out.