Well that clears everythin up.
University issues statement on sexual misconduct policy
I know a lot of people are still concerned with the supposed 3 day gap between Gibbons being notified and the Iowa game, but has anyone considered the possibility that he actually HADN'T been notified? The only thing the article says about that date is that a LETTER was signed and dated that date. Letter, along with the fact they also mailed him his expulsion notice, leads me to believe that it's entirely possible that they wrote that letter the 20th of November, mailed it out on the 21st, and Gibbons/Hoke/Brandon etc. didn't even receive it until AFTER the Iowa game.
If you think a university's chain of command or game of telephone doesn't inform the Ath Dept the minute a finding is determined, you're crazy. They HAVE to or else you could constantly play ineligible players who failed to open their mail.
They used the benefit of him not being officially out. It's ugly and dirty and embarrassing. Don't make excuses that are ridiculous and make us look like any garbage excuse will suffice our partisanship
Especially with football who leaves campus early.
It's not about opening your mail in a timely fashion.
Look, I work in college athletics as an Assistant Athletics Director. I'm embarrassed by this story more than most. That said, everything isn't a conspiracy to cheat.
Letters get signed off on all the time, many times they get signed off on, but then have to go to the University President or some "higher up" for final approval. This process certainly could take a day or two.
Now certainly Gibbons and the team knew something was coming. But it very well may not have been received and official.
I've never seen this letter, don't know much about it, but I do know the protocol in athletics. There are many factors that you're not considering.
Did it go to Gibbons or to the Athletics Department? Did it go to the AD? Head Coach? Department Head of Student/Academic Services?
If someone on campus sent one of our students a letter, and sent it through the athletics department, it's going to go to our SWA/Associate AD for Student Services. She then is going to read it and schedule a meeting with the student-athlete to discuss what is going on. Then the coach. Then AD, parents, etc. It's a process. Now by the time it gets to the coach, the player is suspended. But if there player is on the road, you may wait until he/she is back.
Again, it depends on the nature of the letter.
Could there have been some cover up? Sure. Could it have been laziness? Sure. Could it have actually been "caught up in the process"? Sure. It could've been 4-5 things.
For you to just choose one, no matter which ONE you choose...without having the facts. It's irresponsible.
I'm far more concerned about the lying about "family issues" and hamstrings.
As Mr. Yost indicates in his last paragraph the treatment before Iowa and before the bowl game are quite different. It is possible that Hoke et al. had no knowledge of the determination before the Iowa game. It isn't believable that they had no knowledge of the expulsion - effective on 12/20 - before the "family issues" statement on 12/23. The expulsion meant that Gibbons was banned from participation in all university activities. The university should have procedures in place to enforce that edict which would include notification of relevant coaches and professors.
While I know you think that you know everything about Michigan's "chain of command," what you are vehemently insisting on here is bullshit.
There is a "fire wall' between the disciplinary system and the rest of the university, both to protect the student from premature disclosure of an investigation/resolution process that may find him or her not guilty, and to protect the disciplinary system from interference by outside forces (coaches, professors, uninvolved administrators, etc).
The letter on the 20th appaears from all the evidence to have been the letter that informed Gibbons that the investigation had found that it was more likely than not that he had violated the student conduct code. At this point, he wouldn't have had his hearing, so this was still confidential information.
Only with the completion of the OSCR process would the firewall come down and public information be available, presumably even to the coach, AD, and faculty. That was in December, sometime between the 19th (when the OSCR letter was written) and the start of the second semester (when it would be clear that Gibbons was no longer enrolled/enrollable) and thus not getting his scholly money.
In the period between the 19th and the start of the school year, the OSCR staff would have been shorthanded 9at least) due to the holidays, and Hoke had something or other going on that would have occupied his time early in that time period,
In short, i think your assurance anyone would be "crazy" to understand that there may be reasons why Hoke wouldn't know are unwarranted.
I get the anger, but this reads like a guy who is pissed off and just making accusations. I worked in a major research university's legal department out here in NYC for years and there were MANY times when inter-departamental communications were missed for days. It wasn't nefarious; it was bureaucracy. There is no evidence that a school-wide conspiracy was perpetrated to keep Gibbons eligible for an extra game or two. Yes, they didn't handle the situation greatly, but I've yet to see any real evidence that something nefarious was up.
Ok...but if I'm reading this correctly, there's still an unexplained year-and-a-half-long gap between November/December 2009 when the alleged assault occurred and April 2011 when the D0E handed out new guidelines, plus another 4 months until U of M adopted the interim guidelines.
In 2009, they did what policy required and the matter was closed until the 2013 adoption opened it back up, leading to investgation for the first time. It wasn't investgated in 2009 because procédures then required the claimant to participate, and she did not. The 4 months this year was for investigation.
that. The statement went out of its way to, in what amounts to a stand-alone nearly context-less statement, say that investigations can be commenced if new information is obtained. My guess is that there was no investigation conducted in 2009 because there was no complainant, quite possibly even that anybody outside of those close to Gibbons did not even know about it. Then the Watchdog article comes out (and contrary to what anybody says on this blog, almost everybody finds out about it for the first time - I have been on this blog everyday for 5 years and I had not heard a word about it) and the administration is like "wtf man," opens it up and boots gibbons ASAP. I think the incident itself was the new info, not the adoption of the new guidelines.
been on here every day for five years then you have missed threads about this info.
Read this thread: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/pretty-disturbing-locked
Is the article from 2013. I said I saw that one, first I had heard of it, and from how it looks possibly the first time university administration as well.
rumors posted about it before then. But they were taken down pretty quickly because of lack of substantiation and Gibbons was investigated but the case was not pursued.
The timing of this lines up with the 2013 rules change. Like others, I am guessing the new information statement is alluding to the posting of the police reports.
Agree that the ethical key here is the timing of when the staff knew about the case in relation to the Iowa game. I'll accept family concerns as walking the legal line of what could be said, but those statements about muscle problems do appear to be blatant lies.
information after the policy was adopted. The policy says you have to investigate all new information which could be almost anything. She may have provided just enough to start a new investigation.
We are all guessing and we will never know. The lawyers will not allow Brandon, Hoke or anyone else at the school to talk about this. I've never had a reason to question Hoke's integrity. He has disciplined more talented players than a mediocre kicker and this didn't happen on his watch so it wouldn't taint his reputation in any way. I see no reason why he would jeopardize his career to keep Gibbons kicking.
This has been discussed many times before. Hell, people brought it up again when the "Brunette Girls" meme broke out after the Sugar Bowl. It has been discussed numerous times, basically since he showed up, but just like Max Bullough punching a cop and running in Aspen, it tends to get lost in the shuffle years later. But this isn't really "news" to anyone who needed to know.
Sausage being made is less messy. Even with a so-called "interim" policy, there is so much training, communications, and other organizational change management activity underway that it doesn't surprise me in the least. The more I reflect on the delay and think back to my own experience in government, it makes sense. I don't like it any better, but I now realize it is a limitation of large, complex, organizations.
maybe the UM policy didn't call for any further action. They don't really give us the policy details, before or after.
Basically what we had figured out right? There's still a big time gap in there from 2011 to 2013 but I'm guessing there was a lot of analysis, protocols being put in place, and interdepartmental coordination going on before they could truly implement the new system.
"Our current process allows that, if new information is obtained at a later point, the university could commence an investigation at that time."
This could be what happened.
Also, the rule changes only became official University policy in 2013. So just because they started to look into a new policy in 2011 doesn't mean it was enforced at any point during that time. Lots of times, changes like this go through so many rewrites and alterations departments don't even consider applying them until they are codified and distributed.
I mentioned this on another thread, but if I had a son in college accused of rape given these new guidelines, I would advise him to drop out or transfer immediately, even if he knew absolutely the charges were false.
It also seems the whole "will not release the results of any investigation" has huge holes in it, since everyone in the world now seems to know about Brendan Gibbons, or it's wink, wink, nod, nod, the university won't officially release results but anyone party to the information has no penalty associated with releasing the name of the accused.
How could you know that? Do you know who released the information? Do you know that the University knows? Do you know that the University will undertake no investigation of the matter if they do know, or later find out? Are you certain that the results of such an investigation, and the penalty imposed, would be released to the public?
You're reading an awful lot into the fact that as of now we aren't aware of any penalty being levelled against a leaker.
Let's just say I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for an investigation into who leaked the information. The university not officially releasing information leaves a whole lot of loopholes . The information came from somewhere, and somehow I doubt Brendan Gibbons is the source.
If you are afraid of being wrongly accused then your safest avenue is to remain celebrant until you graduate.
There is circumstantial evidence that Gibbons was guilty of sexual assault. The new rules in 2013 allowed the University re-open the case without the victim filing a complaint.
I think you mean "celibate" not "celebrant."
If you're always in church, it certainly would cut down on time spent with women fornicating.
Even people who are "celibate" have been falsely charged and convicted of rape. (not saying that relates to this case).
Or an individual leaked the information without the blessing of the University. To me that actually seems the most likely possibility here.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't really blame her, her friends, or her family.
Any attorney is going to tell the accused not to testify before a school inquiry like this. Therefore, the accused can not defend himself. The best option is to drop out of school so the school drops the investigation before you have your record stained.
I understand the purpose of this and think the victim does deserve protection. The system may have been stacked against the victim previously. I'm concerned it may have gone too far now. I saw someone post that 90% of the cases are valid. I'm not sure how that statistic was determined since only two people really know if something happened and they may even disagree. However, I would hate to be in that 10% who is run over by a system stacked againt them. I have a daughter I want to see protected and a son who I don't want to see run over. It's easy to say don't put yourself in the position to have something like this happen, but that's only possible if you don't have sex during college. How many of us did that?
I don't pretend to know what happened here and I hope that justice was served. I think the system was far from perfect before and it still is. There are likely a lot of people on this board who would have been at risk with their behavior in college given the new guidelines.
If I read that correctly, no new facts came to light and a policy change got him kicked out of school retroactively. They either ignored facts or had a terrible policy before. Either way what the hell is going on?
Our current process allows that, if new information is obtained at a later point, the university could commence an investigation at that time.
The previous policy was that the university would not investigate any incidences in which the victim did not want investigated. Whether or not that is a "terrible policy" is up to you to decide. Personally, I think it was in good intention and as a blanket policy (I'm assuming the policy applied not just to sexual harrassment/assault related crimes, but all situations, including petty things like stupid arguments and such) worked great, but an incident like this showed the policies flaws, and it was, rightly, changed.
And, great, we respect student privacy. Super.
Do we have a policy on senior athletic department personnel lying their asses off to the public? If not, we might look into that.
I also think that the program is going to have to have some answers for how they internally deal wiht allegations of this type. Are they investigated, or does the team just punt this to whatever the University decides to do.
Time for clarity and proactivity. Don't let this drag on. If we need to make changes, make them, and acknowledge it. Fix this, and do it soon.
You do realize the student has to be protected, right? Even if the accused is not a football player...
Doesn't need to be a false excuse for missing time when you know they're facing expulsion for a sexual incident. He could've easily said personal matters. Both excuses victimized BG.
Did DB or Hoke lie? Link?
I think that's a reference to Hoke's statement that Gibbons would miss the bowl game because of a family matter.
Hoke's statement had to be cleared through the AD and University Lawyers. He could not say Gibbons was exspelled. I'm sure the words had to be chosen very carefully.
the "muscle" problem that kept him out of the OSU game and reported him questionable leading up to the bowl game after Gibbons was notified of the proceedings is the real issue.
Some people might argue that mentioning a "muscle" problem is violating a student's right to privacy.
I have no problem with Hoke saying he was missing the bowl game for a "family matter". It is not a lie. It may not be the whole truth.
Hoke, and all coaches may be best served by simply stating, "So and so player will not be playing." When asked why, they should respond, " I will not comment further".
Are coaches even required to release who will and who will not play?
is handled by the same university office. Problems arise when athletes' conduct is handled by on office under the AD.
Problems arise when felony-level accusations are investigated by non-law enforcement bodies.
if those non-law enforcement bodies were allowed to hand out prison sentences.
If the University of Michigan thinks that a person who they conclude likely raped somebody based on their own pre-established level of confidence should be expelled, that's fine by me. The legal system isn't perfect either--there are plenty of people who get charged and then convicted of a crime, but then are later exonerated once new evidence comes to light.
A prison sentance it is not, but expelling someone from a University is quite a large punishment for a body that has no investigative power and is acting completely outside of the criminal justice system.
While we all agree that further steps should be taken to punish (& therefore reduce the incident) of sexual assult, this policy (to me) has multiple large flaws.
This is a difficult, delicate situation where we are trying to balance victim's rights vs. accused rights.
Well, yes, it's the largest punishment the University can possibly impose, and they do so very rarely.
But if you're arguing that the University shouldn't be allowed to create a tribunal empowered to impose such a penalty for gross violations of the student code, I don't know where you're coming from.
Because the source of much of the info posted on this board the last couple of days is the police report.
Or don't you believe that a University should have a Code of Student Conduct and hold students accountable to it?
and was Gibbons allowed legal represetation, and did that representative have the opportunity to cross-examine the victim's and other statements against Gibbons?
OK - so the only thing I don't see is the opportunity to challenge the admissabilty of evidence. Otherwise it appears "judges" and "jurors" can be challenged for bias, and cross questioning of statements can occur.
The University of Michigan'sOffice of Student Conflict Resolution is a freaking joke, compared to a crminal court. Let us count the ways:
- No judge. We could just stop right here, couldn't we? Do we even need to go on? I shall. But in any event, we have a trier of fact whose day-job is "conflict resolution" and whose training may be in counseling or social work or any number of other things apart from the law, the rules of evidence and criminal procedure. Challenging for "bias" may not be enough, if none of the hearing officers are legal professionals. I suspect that few of them are.
- No rules of evidence. Want to stop now?
- No cross-examination of witnesses. "The great engine of truth (cross-examination of witnesses)" according to Wigmore. If the University denied that right to Gibbons, a federal court may agree that Gibbons' due process rights may have been violated. Donohue v. Baker (1997); http://www.leagle.com/decision/19971112976FSupp136_11094
- No discovery, as far as I can tell.
- I don't know how many other technical due process (procedural/substantive) violations might regualrly occur in Michigan's OSCR; it's just too opaque to be certain.
They can't say "Gibbons got kicked out for a sexual assault allegation." There was nothing criminal, and they're procluded by law from discussing private student disciplinary stuff.
We aren't owed this information, and they can't provide it.
If I'm a head coach and know disciplinary measures are forthcoming against a player, I don't play him against Iowa and don't make excuses for his departure
"Personal matter, all I'll say, next question"
This story is going to blow up into a big national story. And it's going to get ugly. If Hoke gets out of the gate slow next season (provided he makes it that far) it's going to be really hard for him to survive another season.
Lizzy Seeberg never really became a major national story, and she died.
I doubt it. There's really nothing here that's sexy from the perspective of national media.
Hoke's two comments about Gibbons being out with an injury and then a family member made this a bigger story. If they weren't bald faced lies, they were at the very least disingenuous.
The whole thing depends a lot on how they handle his signing day presser. The blood is in the water now and the reporters are going to have a field day with it. If he offers a passable explanation for the timeline and his comments then it passes. But if they go into the typical arrogant Michigan "weren't not telling you anything, how dare you ask" mode then this blows up.
I really don't think Hoke is at any blame here. The universities policy regarding this case and FERPA is pretty out in the open (http://www.michigandaily.com/sports/citing-ferpa-and-policy-university-d...) and they seem pretty insistant on withholding as much information as possible. Hoke's half-truths (both things were not outright lies, Gibbons very well could have been injured and the term "family issues" is a broad one) were almost certainly instructed from some superior.
The letter of dismissal is received by the player. This was not a phone call or an email. It had to be done by registered mail that required the signature of the student. Gibbons did not find out about it until after the IA game. I think the AD asked Hoke if Gibbons had an injury and may be he did and they used that excuse to keep him out of the OSU game. You don't have the proof that Hoke lied. In all likelihood it was the AD and that would mean Brandon would have to be the fall guy. The new AD could fire Hoke, especially if he loses 4 games again. If Brandon continues to be the AD, then Hoke may be fired based on his record.
If Hoke doesn't make it to the season, Then someone needs to get on the phone to the Arizona AD and ask why RR still has a job since he was the coach when the alleged incident happened and Gibbons didn't not miss a game because of it.
I would imagine because there was no reason to punish Gibbons. At the time, all charges were dropped, and the legal system and the University (because of the policy that refused it from) never found that he had done anything wrong. What is there to punish him for? Having someone make false claims against him? Hardly seems fair.
And before you say RR should have personally investigated into this himself, I don't believe that is the duty of a coach. That is the responsibility of both the police and the University, both of which found no problems.
Well, Rich no longer has a job at Michigan, so there's that. And Gibbons played for three years under Hoke including at least one game after he was notified he was being invested again for assault.
Also, its never the actual crime that causes media focus, but the coverup. Michigan's actions appear to show that they were trying to cover up what was really happening behind the scenes.
It hasn't yet and I doubt it will, there really isn't much of a story here (a university actually expelling a player when they could have easily covered it up is probably the main story in this case). While it may seem like the end of the world on MGoBlog nobody else seems to really care (from what I've seen). ESPN is the only major site that seems to have any coverage on it that's on any sort of main page (a sidenote on their CFB page). (For comparison, bleacherreport highlights a 'Gardner vs Morris' article and has no mention of it on a main page)
- All claims of "coverups" were and are, by any sensible reckoning, bogus. There was never any coverup.
- Questions about inexplicable delays and time lags are very different, and remain worth pursuing. The answers may be sensible, and may shed much needed light on the procedural issues that are so badly in need of explanation.
- The University's own explanation makes it clear that the Obama Department of Education Civil Rights Division's April, 2011 (Russlyn H. Ali) directive is of central importance to how this matter was handled in Ann Arbor. That feature of this story is not a fantasy of far-right extremists (a complaint lodged in earlier threads); it is now an undisputed fact.
Ah yes. It is indisputable that Obama's Department of Education is central to Brendan Gibbons' sexual allegations case.
Other indisputable things include Michigan football's current dominance, the existence of leprachauns, and the fact that you'd definitely score over 80 on an IQ test
Uh, I'd say the DoE policy directives are indeed central to the case, since they're what prompted UM to change their policies thereby leading to the investigation/expulsion. I know you read the word "Obama" and got all crazy because "no politics", but Section 1 has a point.
is why does he frame it like the policy change bad (other than the fact that it was done by the Obama administration)?
I doubt he will answer, because the answer is obviously political. But then, why is he bringing it up like it is at all relevant and interesting information?
I don't propose to settle, to anyone's satisfaction, the truth of what happened in the Gibbons case.
So setting aside the details of the case, we are left with the policy/procedure issue. What is the state of affairs for allegations of sexual assault on campus? As a matter of policy, are there problems with lowered standards of proof and relaxed evidentiary and procedural safeguards?
I think the answer is yes, and I think the trend in active litigation is that more campus males who have been subjected to student disciplinary board proceedings (in many cases after the criminal justice system invesitgated and passed on any prosecution), are suing the universities.
ability to prosecute rape cases...they are terrible at it.
Do you think it's a problem that 19% of undergrad women report being victims of sexual assault during college? I do. And I think it's clear that the justice system has been unable to curtail the epidemic. So schools are stepping up to ensure a safe environment. I think schools should definitely consider the costs of potentially expelling innocent students, but that should be weighed against the benefit of protecting potential victims.
If you were merely expressing concern about potential consequences of the new protocols I don't think most people would disagree. But you're painting this as Obama Oppresses Men.
Add in your disgusting defense of Lewan and your failure to ever even acknowledge that rape on college campuses is a real problem and you just come off as a misogynistic nut job.
I'll take a little different angle which should connect your primary concern (student safety - lower the standard of evidence) and Section 1's primary concern (due process - apply a ).
Why does UM react to a DoE standard? Why didn't UM implement a rigorous policy before and why can't UM sufficiently outline it's due process now? If a student is a risk to the UM community, what is the university's perspective on a risk knowingly existing for 4+ years?
We are supposedly "Leaders and Best", not "Followers and Politicians".
Yes, the department of education sets such policies. And ... what? Do we have an issue with these new policies? It seems totally tangential to what happened at UM. The story here is what happened, our response, and the time lag. Right?
Sec 1 just wanted to shoehorn the word "Obama" in there, really. Don't help him with it.
He does have a point. But it was unneccessarily inflammatory. I could say "The terrorist attack that happened on September 11th UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!" or I could just say "September 11th." Not sure why that was the first example my mind went to, but my point is, there is no reason to specify that this is OBAMA'S DoE directive. I'm not swayed to either side of the political spectrum, but I do hate people that choose to dangle bait for others, then act like they're shocked when they get a bite.
The policy change was a political, politicized, controversial change.
There was a policy balance to be made, and the balance was tilted against suspects, in the interest of being able to make the sort of press release seen from the White House in my preceding post.
Nothing shocks me. I don't know why you think I'd be feigning shock. I'm trying to coldly assess why we are where we are. It's a political decision. A very recent political decision.
Then why are you discussing it on a board that forbids politics?
the balance was tilted against suspects, in the interest of being able to make the sort of press release seen from the White House in my preceding post.
NOPE- IT WAS DONE B/C PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SEX ASSAULTS BEING UNREPORTED, LET ALONE TRIED & CONVICTED in court or out.
the goal of this policy is not to "politicize." You interpret it that way b/c you're a "THANKS OBAMA" conversavtive nut job who can't see anything without assuming the motives are purely political. The results of this policy change brought down by "OBAMMER'S" DoEd is that more sex assault cases are being reported, more sex assaulters are receiving consequences, and yes, that means it's easier for males to be accused of sex assault & misconduct. FUCKING GOOD AND ABOUT TIME.
Thanks, Obama, indeed.
The DOW letter wasn't a policy guidance, but a "Dear Colleague" letter that simply reiterated existing policy and reminded schools of the already-extant responsibilities. Despite the efforts of Frothy McFroth to make it seem otherwise, there was no change in policy, just in emphasis.
Step-by-step; the determinative policy issue in this case:
From the OP; the University says:
April - The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights provides additional guidance that highlights the nationwide impact of sexual misconduct on college campuses and makes specific recommendations regarding how colleges and universities should respond to allegations of sexual misconduct.
In April, 2011, as the university says, this (the Russlyn Ali letter) happened:
And an elucidation of how the policy change was driven by the Administration is here. In the White House's own words, from WhiteHouse.gov:
Washington, D.C. – Today, Vice President Biden and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan introduced comprehensive guidance to help schools, colleges and universities better understand their obligations under federal civil rights laws to prevent and respond to the problem of campus sexual assault. The new guidance, announced at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, New Hampshire, makes clear the legal obligations under Title IX of any school, college or university receiving federal funds to respond promptly and effectively to sexual violence. The guidance also provides practical examples to aid educators in ensuring the safety of their students.
Under Title IX – a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities – discrimination can include sexual violence, such as rape, sexual assault, sexual battery and sexual coercion. The guidance, the first specifically advising schools, colleges and universities that their responsibilities under Title IX include protecting students from sexual violence, also details enforcement strategies that schools and the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) may use to end sexual violence, prevent its recurrence, and remedy its effects.
Um ... alright?
So what? They altered the policy. Do you have a problem with added protections for sexual violence victims?
The story is what happened in Ann Arbor, not DC. Your weird "it's not just a right wing conspiracy, Obama is indisputably involved!!!!!!!!!!" thing was bizarre in this context.
These are thorny, contentious, hard cases. I think I want them in courts of law, not university conference rooms.
I think about the Duke lacrosse case. If there had been no defense lawyers in that case; if the players had not been subjected to criminal charges, but were instead subjected to a university committee (recalling that a whole page-full of faculty members had signed a letter condemning the lacrosse team); and supposing that the world had said, don't worry we are just protecting a sexual assault victim and we are not trying to throw anybody in jail...
Supposing all of that about the Duke lacrosse case, and supposing that the Duke three had been expelled in the same manner that Brendan Gibbons has now been expelled...
And we never got to discover what a lying crook the Durham prosecutor was, and what a dangerous nutjob the alleged vicitm was...
Yeah; I have a problem with that.
Oh, this might be your best work yet.
Duke's condemning faculty didn't have evidence presented in front of them. There's no equivalency between Duke's faculty, getting their news from the media, issuing a condemnation, and a Michigan disciplinary committee issuing judgement after weighing the evidence presented to them.
The fact that Michigan rarely if ever uses this punishments, even under these new (Obama!!!!!!!!!) strictures, tells you they felt strongly about the facts they were presented. It's not like they were under media pressure: no one had this story at the time.
But keep hiding behind Duke lacrosse, your lone, barely relevant weapon against added protection for rape victims. Goodness knows we can't help them - they're probably lying whores. Dukkkkeeeeeeeeeeeee lacroseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!1!!!111!1!!1!!!
Duke chemistry professor Dr. Stephen Baldwin, on his fellow faculty members, 88 strong, who signed on to the controversial ad in the Duke Chronicle condemning the lacrosse team: “There was a collision between political correctness and due process, and political correctness won."
That is a real danger in these cases. Duke illustrated it. Thank God for a court of law, with real rules, and aggressive counsel for the defendants, and criminal investigations. Where would those three players have been without such protections? I think about the two non-accused Duke lacrosse players who got F's from their poli sci professor who had signed the Group of 88 advertisement. They sued Duke and the prof. Duke settled the case.
You say there was "no media pressure" in the Gibbons case. Don't all of these new cases demonstrate how -- worse than "media pressure" -- there is extreme federal Title IX pressure to "do something" in these cases? What the the feds collecting numbers on the results of investigations...
Worst reply to a well-worded rebuttal ever. We all know that Section 1 has a hard time posting in a manner that doesn't piss people off, but he's just citing actual cases and laws for, you know, a point. Does he regularly come across as a know-it-all because, as people say, he uses "loaded language" (I call that a good vocabulary)? Yes. But, damn, give the guy a break. I sincerely doubt he's in favor of limiting victims' justice. Just the opposite, he probably just believes in fact and not emotion determining a persons reputation.
This is a lose-lose scenario. Either he raped a girl and essentially got away with it until now, or he is innocent and is victim himself of a lower burden of proof standard under the new system.
I just pray that justice is served , regardless. I have two daughters and this is my number one fear for their future.
And by, "he", I'm obviously referring to Gibbons.
That's why God created the edit button.
and I believe Section 1 has a very solid point of concern regarding due process and threshold.
And since you bring up your thoughts in relation to your children: I have three sons, and talking about sex (as they prepare for college) just got more complex / took on another dimension. Somewhere in then policies posted yesterday it says something to the effect of "reasonable consent". What each side claims in the Gibbons case aside, the ambiguity of what constitutes consent when you mix college students and too much alcohol, and how it is viewed by all parties in the aftermath leaves a pretty wide space for interpretation. Young men will now have to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Young men will now have to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt."
Preponderance of the evidence means preponderance of the evidence. It doesn't mean that you can be disciplined based on the slightest reasonable suspicion that you might possibly have done something.
Sounds ambiguous to me.
What do you think would have happened in the Duke case?
My point is this: there is a lot of activism to reduce sexual assaults, and there should be. However, as documented by Section 1 above, in the Duke case that activism was taken to the next level by the University staff: something that is quite possible at any university.
The police report in the Gibbons case sure reads like she was convinced she had not given consent, and her friends saw that she was acting like a victim immediately after the incident. However, this case is a study in who remembers and actually said what, and how they said it, in an alcoholic haze.
In other cases where it is unclear whether it was a consented drunken hookup or not, the male has to prove the consent was not questionable or the "preponderance" of evidence is could very well get him expelled in spite of there being a reasonable doubt or the opportunity to cross examine, etc.
So that is the risk every male has to assess.
"Preponderance of the evidence" is a standard with a long legal history. It's no more ambiguous than "beyond a reasonable doubt." And while I'm weary of the same two or three anecdotes being trotted out everytime there's a sexual assault case in the news, there's no actual evidence that a tribunal like OSCR wouldn't have cleared the Duke lacrosse team once they had an opportunity to assess the evidence.
But there's a more important point here than your confusion about the standards of evidence involved. The university doesn't want to be an environment in which female students are subjected to non-consensual sex. Period. If consent is in question, to the point where you have to worry about the preponderance of evidence possibly being against consent, then STOP.. Ask the fucking question, get a clear answer. Either you know it's consensual, or you don't do it.
You got so drunk you couldn't make that decision? Well, maybe there's an important life lesson coming your way. I've got no more sympathy for a man in that position.than I'd have for someone that shot somebody in a drunken haze.
To quote my crim law professor, "If you're worried about a drunk girl waking up and accusing you of rape, then don't hook up with random girls at bars."
"Either he raped a girl and essentially got away with it until now, or he is innocent and is victim himself of a lower burden of proof standard under the new system."
I know that this is a wildly popular misconception, but that doesn't make it any less of a misconception. It is possible that he didn't rape the girl (since he had to know that she was refusing consent, and alcohol may have warped his - Nand/or her - perception of what she was saying) and she thought that he had.
That may clear him of a criminal charge, but not of a non-criminal violation of the student code of conduct. He was found to have violated the SCC using the procedures and standards established by the university. That has nothing to do with criminal guilt.
But is that a bigger problem than teenage girls getting raped with the attacker whistling fucking dixie out the front door? Look, the Duke case sucks. And nothing is a perfect system. But if you were to guess, how many rapists are walking free right now? More than the number of men falsely accused? I'm willing to bet my house that this is the case.
There is no perfect answer, but you are completely ignoring the fact that if someone is perceived as 90% likely to be guilty of rape, they come away 100% free from a court of law. For most victims, there is no justice.
You make some excellent points.
But remember that time guys were falsely accused? Obviously we can't accuse anyone at all of rape from here on out, just in case that happens again. We can't have injustice.
The Duke case didn't involve allegations of a violation of the student code of conduct, so it doesn't have much relevance to this case the UM's procedures.
Especially when you consider that most rapists are repeat offenders.
I think the university should consider the rights if the accused, but they also have an epidemic that the justice system seems ill suited to address.
yeah, actually I'm good with that, as long as this isn't a court of law, which it's not.
Part of what makes you so frustrating as a poster - and so bad at what you try to do - is that you use loaded language and bait people into petty political fights in a way that distracts from what can be important, debatable principles underlying the issues. There are really interesting questions at the center of this whole conversation. By talking about a "feminist star chamber," forcing everything into Obama/liberals language, etc., you piss people off, drive them away from your views, and make these conversations stupid and vitriolic when they could be engaging and mature.
Well said, Turd Ferguson.
You don't think that the April 2011 policy change was a political decision?
As for what I "try to do"...
I'm not sure that even I could tell you what I am trying to do. I thought I was just trying to be right. Be accurate; supply the information that is being overlooked or ignored; in the general media, or on the Board.
I'm not trying to win friends or influence people. And I don't propose to suffer fools gladly.
Of all the dumb, sloppy, careless posts in the several threads on this subject, it is so weird that anyone would pick on me since I've been 1,000 times more accurate, careful and subsantive than most.
I don't even know what "a political decision" means. If I'm in charge and decide to do X because I believe that X is the right thing to do - and if others with a different political orientation disagree - does that make it a political decision? But honestly, I don't care, and I don't think this is the place to talk about that. If you want stupid political bickering about which side of the political spectrum is dumb/evil//lying/corrupt, then go to a news site and argue with the assholes who post in the comments section.
And your shtick about how you're just being accurate and factual - never political - is annoying and condescending. If I remember correctly, you had Ayn Rand in your signature until recently. You're the most political poster here, even if you do it in a way that you think gives you deniability.
I honestly think that you seem like a smart person, and if you toned it down a bit, I'd love talking about issues with you. In my opinion, you just make that very hard.
If I remember correctly, you had Ayn Rand in your signature until recently.
Nope. Not me. And I cannot think of you who might be talking about. You lost me with that.
You never had a reference to or quote from John Galt (or someone/something else in Atlas Shrugged)? If that wasn't you, I apologize. Then again, even if you say that you didn't, it'll seem just as likely that you found some technicality with my language that lets you deny it even though the broader point is obviously true. That's part of what I'm trying to tell you is so frustrating.
And it's very you to find the one sentence that you want to respond to, ignore everything else, and then conclude with a "you lost me with that."
I think I have had exactly two signatures on the MGoBoard. One was a Moderator-imposed punishment that lasted about 48 hours for some fight in which I admitted no wrongdoing. I think it read, "I am a pretty pretty princess." The other person got a worse sanction, as I recall.
I also put up a quote from Michael Rosenberg, for a couple of weeks. I think it was about his being offended that his work of three years War As They Knew It, was being unfairly trashed on Amazon. Just take a moment to appreciate that. Rosenberg, complaining that three years of hard work were trashed by anonymous persons.
So no word games. You're just not recalling correctly. Your apology is accepted.
I've never read all of Atlas Shrugged. I'm not even a student of Ayn Rand. You could fool me with an Ayn Rand quote. All that I know about her is that she was a friend and dinner companion of Allen Greenspan when he was young.
My mistake then. Please accept my apologetic upvote.
A site search suggests that it was probably MGrowold with that signature.
all government actions are "politics." "Politics," "policy" and "police" are all words derived from the Helenic words for city [polis] or citizen (ie, member of a city) and are more or less analagous to the Latin equivalent cognates -- "civics," "civility," "civilization," all derived from the Latin "civis." In general, the embracing idea is that it is everything involved in people coming out of the forest and abandoning the law of the jungle in favor of a community of people governed by a system of law.
In popular usage, the word "political" is also a term of disparagement used by all who have ever come out on the short end of an outcome involving decisions made by other people -- auditions, promotions, etc., as heard in the expression "it was all politics."
This is an ambiguity in the alternative senses of the word big enough to drive a truck through, and I'm not sure you're not toying with it.
Though the policy will probably not applied similarly at all Universities. FSU may not expel Winston. The DA said there was not enough evidence to prosecute. However, "The victim in this case had the courage to immediately report her rape to the police and she relied upon them to seek justice".
It will be a sad state of affairs if some university let this slide. I commend Michigan on following through with the new policy.
I know that there was a question (my question) about why it is surprising/bad that a federal change in policy regarding how rape accusations are handled by universities would change how a university (this university) would handle a rape accusation.
Observing that the DoE directive was a factor is perfectly fine. Going on rants about kangaroo courts and asserting that it's understandable that Lewan attempted to intimidate the victim (indirectly via bile statements to her friends) is what prompts the claims of extremism. That and saying stuff that's not true.
"Our current process allows that, if new information is obtained at a later point, the university could commence an investigation at that time."
What constitutes, "new information?" Is the U. allowed to determine what is considered "new information?" If a new "witness" came forward with a "my brother's next door neighbor's dog walker heard that so-and-so did it" can be classified as "new information," and, consequently, a new investigation can be launched, that is ex post facto, in my opinion.
Even so, this is the current process. It was not in effect when the incident occurred, so I don't see how this isn't ex post facto, and would hold up under appeal. If I'm Gibbons, I'm suing hard.
applies to changes in the elements of a crime (or the creation of a new crime), or increases in the penalty to be assessed. It does not, generally, apply to changes in procedure.
Whether any of this even applies to a university administrative proceeding is a separate issue, but there's certainly no reason to expect the rules regarding ex post facto changes to be more strict in an administrative proceeding than they would be in a court of law.
but filing such a lawsuit could be reason for disbarment for his attorney. Gibbons suing would be the worst possible legal strategy. He's not out of potential legal jeopardy in the criminal courts. Voluntarily testifying under oath and undergoing cross-examination is just too dangerous for him, even presuming his innocence. It's also the type of action that could spur the young woman involved to press criminal charges.
I don't see how ex post facto applies here. The rules haven't been changed in a way that applies to the permissibility of Gibbons' alleged conduct. The change is only in how the case can be investigated by the school.
...even if he and his counsel thought that they had a dandy case against the University of Michigan for denial of due process, and against his adversaries, for libel...
Just points out why any case against him in the first instance should not be conducted under lowered standards of proof and any relaxed evidentiary rules. There is just too much at stake.
If Brendan Gibbons is to be accused of rape, make the prosecution take him to court and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. And give Gibbons all of his due process rights. That's the right way to do it. That's the only way to do it.
How does this differ than a workplace sexual misconduct finding that results in termination? I'm guessing there might be a legal precedent that gives students additional protections, but from my layperson's perspective I don't see much of a difference. In both cases it makes sense that an organization would set up their own system to resolve the complaint.
He's WAY off
There's a reason there's precedent for a lower standard, ie civil court
Students opt into being students. They can leave any time they want if they don't want the rules in place
"If Brendan Gibbons is to be accused of rape, make the prosecution take him to court and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. "
Agreed, and would extend that further to any criminal case, but the point is moot because Gibbons hasn't been accused of rape.
It came from some unknown source.
The university didn't investigate. AAPD/campus police did. This is a student conduct review.
I really hope that Hoke and Brandon did the right thing. I really am undersure of what happened and I am waiting for the full story to come out before I judge anyone, but the gap in the timeline, the "brunette girls" incident, and the possible lying that was done about Gibbons's status toward the end of the season really make me wonder....and I hope to God that the whole Lewan thing isn't true...
That was probably all we're going to get. There's a huge legal responsibility for Hoke et al to protect Gibbon's privacy which goes beyond whatever information people may feel is owed to them.
That's true. We probably won't hear much more than this. It is just upsetting because personally I have always loved that even though Michigan hasn't been perfect, they have always seem to make an effort to do things the right way. I hope that hasn't changed.
I think this is a perfect example of how Michigan has made an effort to do things the right way - they could have very easily swept this under the rug and/or ignored this, especially with Gibbons being at the end of his career; instead they chose to expel him at the end of the semester and his football career (which opens them up to being scrutinized, like they are, and a whole new can of worms). If they ignored investigating nobody would have faulted them since the original incident was largely forgotten and happened four years prior and thus nobody would have known.
The real issue seems to come off of Brian's post about it - they don't like what Hoke said, but in a world where privacy (even for athletes) exists, and in a world where the Athletic Department does not rule the entire university (they don't), there's very little that Hoke probably could have said without opening up a legal can of worms. I wouldn't even be surprised if Hoke never knew about the university reinvestigating Gibbons (does being a player on a football team waive all your privacy rights?) until sometime after the committee reached a verdict. I would even hope that he didn't know before then (unless Gibbons volunteered the information himself) because it would mean that the atheletic department and football program have far more power than they should wield in the university and that they trump any individual player's right to privacy.
The university may have done what was right but the football program didn't
The football progtram may have done right, but some posters here simply will assume that, in the absence of evidence that it did, it didn't. Given that the evidence will probably never come because of privacy conerns, please go on assuming the worst of the football program, if that makes you happy.
double post =(
Gibbons played until the university found probable cause to expell him, and not after. He was at the university and on the team until the day he was expelled, so at no point could Hoke have actually said he was off the team.
Ohio State: injury (maybe it was)
Bowl Game: family matter (it definitely wasn't).
If Gibbons was having issues and was at home with his family, you could easily call it a family matter. You're splitting hairs on a "no comment" type statement that Hoke made.
This. The whole argument about how Hoke should have lied to us is ridiculous. It can be a "family matter" in the sense that Gibbons and to sit down with those close to him and figure out his life. To Hoke, "family matter" could reasonably mean "stuff that I can't/shouldn't get into that doesn't involve football."
Because at least some of us take the "family matters" response to have been misleading in a way that generated sympathy for Gibbons.
Clearly there are at least two camps here on the family matters language. One side thinks it was fine language in large part because Hoke was told he couldn't say anything else (or something along these lines). The other side thinks it was misleading. This is a judgement call ultimately, and there's no independent rule book that says which side is right. So we should just accept that each view has some legitimate arguments on its side, and we should stop slamming each other for subscribing to one or the other. We're split on this issue, we're each right to some extent, and we're highly unlikely to change each others minds.
I'm going for the third dimension. X=it was a lie, and Y=it appears to have been a lie to cover up him being expelled for rape, but Z=it was just one he told to sports media.
You know what we journalists can't abide? Being lied to in a press conference.
Do you know what matters very little in this particular case? Lying to a journalist in a press conference.
Hoke needs to explain what he thought of Gibbon's guilt, because one of the things he absolutely should be judged on is whether his team is harboring a rape culture.
The big problem that seems in all likelihood to be behind this whole sordid affair is barely being discussed: 18-year-old men come to college and listen to their peers glorify the acts of getting drunk and "hooking up" with a woman while she's drunk, and don't understand that is rape. I used to have SAPAC come in to talk to our pledges because of this, and nearly every one of them, when that scenario was described, would say it's not rape. With the benefit of fully adult brains that are capable of understanding every consequence (something many college freshmen haven't developed yet but will later on), it seems this should be obvious. It's not.
And that's why I find it terrifying, always, that Michigan's athletes are likely getting drunk, hooking up with women who are too drunk to make a decision, and laughing about it the next morning with each other as if nothing's wrong. That is what I mean by "rape culture." It doesn't require a serial rapist who belongs behind bars; it just requires uninformed young people.
Then, if you have an opportunity to pursue this line of questioning, don't mention Gibbons at all. Don't trigger the inevitable and necessary stonewall, since that's not really what you're after anyway.
Intoxicated young men with a shaky understanding of consent is a problem with students generally; there's no reason to think it isn't potentially an issue in the football program as well. Is he concerned? Are they doing anything to educate their players in this regard? You used to have SAPAC come to talk to your pledges. Does SAPAC come to talk to the football team?
He can't talk about a specific case; don't go there. But if you seem to be showing concern instead of anger/aggression something might come from it. You might even trigger some action on their part, which to me is far more important than getting an answer.
Yes, but that's just the semantics of press conferences. You're still asking the same thing but with different words. But yeah, if we get a chance the SAPAC question will be asked, and probably not by us first.
...which means semantics are everything. They're parsing every word; they have no choice. Anything you can do, when phrasing a question, to make that process easier for them will probably get you a better answer. (It'll probably be appreciated, too.) And the most important thing they're needing to avoid is giving any information on this one particular case.
I wish you luck--I think your diagnosis of the bigger problem is spot on.
"I'm going for the third dimension."
Then I'm going for the fourth dimension: I am going to assume that Hoke was tellling the truth as he knew it at the time. It is possible that he decided, for some reason, to lie, but no one has yet come up with a plausable reason. occam's Razor says to go with the answer that requires the fewest caveats. That answer is that Hoke was telling the truth (as far as he knew).
Some secondary "family matter" beyond the rape accusation coincidentally at the same time? If thats what you mean, that's quite a stretch.
What? Are you implying that Hoke is omniscient and cannot be wrong or fooled about why Gibbons never came back from Florida? If you are, that's quite a stretch.
There's a huge gap between Hoke being omniscient and Hoke knowing exactly what's going on with Gibbons.
What I said is that its a real stretch to argue that there was some other coincidental family matter going on for Gibbons at just this time.
You folks are splitting hairs. What was the purpose of the "family matters" comment? What does "family matter" mean anyway? It could mean anything. THATS THE POINT. It was a purposefully vague statement meant to not reveal any real information about Gibbons other than he's not with the team for...reasons.
We also don't know what information Hoke had when he made some of the statements. Is the coach privy to all the details as soon as the decision is made? Was he informed by Gibbons before anything official from the university about an injury and needing to leave the university to deal with some unspecified family emergency?
A clearer picture is forming of Hoke "not allowed" to say why Gibbons wasn't playing, meaning someone told him he couldn't. And that someone was either from the AD's office or the university's lawyers, who appearly to be willfully misinterpreting FERPA in order to maintain their silence. This keeps getting better and better.
I don't think anything regarding what prompted Hoke's statements is clear at all at this point. We are all speculating.
I guess maybe I don't understand the situation correctly, but how is FERPA being misinterpreted here?
And would it have made a huge difference if Hoke said Gibbons was missing for a personal issue versus a family issue? I don't have the press conference transcript or how many times he said it, but are we overanalyzing his choice of words in that instance?
The university is claiming they can't confirm Gibbons was expelled because FERPA protects the privacy of their students. According to the lawyer in the Daily article, that is a bad interpretation unless the only thing they found Gibbons guilty of is sexual harassment, in which case the penalty does not conceivably fit the crime.
It seems highly likely to me that the university is coordinating its response to this, and in doing so creating the appearance of a cover-up. Hoke called the Copper Bowl stay-home a "family matter" when we're pretty sure he knew: that Gibbons was expelled from the school for rape. Why he didn't say Gibbons was expelled for rape at that point is what's created the appearance of his complicity in a cover-up. The university misinterpreting FERPA that way in addition to Hoke's misleading comments reinforce the appearance of a cover-up. And they very worst thing they could do right now is foster the appearance of a cover-up.
Perhaps they might be able to confirm that he was expelled for a violation of the student code of conduct. Xavier went that far (and they're now getting sued). What they absolutely can't do is say which portion of the code was violated.
From the registrars office -
"Directory information may appear in public documents and may otherwise be released to individuals outside the University without the student's specific consent. The University of Michigan has designated the following items as directory information: name, address and telephone number, UM school or college, class level, major field, dates of attendance at the University of Michigan, current enrollment status, degree(s) received and date(s) awarded, honors and awards received, participation in recognized activities, previous school(s) attended, height and weight of members of intercollegiate athletic teams."
Seth, if you want me to take your claim to be a journalist seriously, you need to stop posting like this. If you have new information, then talk about that. The only way you can have a "clearer picture" in the absence of new information is because you are increasingly believing your own speculation. That's not what journalists do.
Bout time they cleared that up.
if the university does not rely on the criminal proceedings and does not wait for criminal proceedings, then--and 100% hopefully obviously pray to God this never again happens--if another situation like this occurs here or at another school, does the coach have an obligation to make a punishment decision prior to the legal ramifications of the case being handled?
That's a tough one. While we want our coach to be honorable and do the right thing, do we really expect him to do his own investigation on a criminal matter? Shouldn't that be done by law enforcement? I would think the coach should wait for that. Also, what if the coach just plain believes the player is innocent? If the law doesn't punish the player, should the coach?
"If the law doesn't punish the player, should the coach?"
That's pretty obviously not the standard, anywhere. Coaches punish players for being late, for skipping a class, for texting their friends during team meetings. The law didn't punish Carlos Hyde.
But when players are late, skip class, text during meetings, etc they clearly violated a standard. If a player is found not to be guilty then can they be punished for violating that standard? It's a tough question/situation and not as clear cut as we obviously feel in this situation.
That's the closer parallel--the police dropped charges when the victim declined to cooperate, he got a suspension anyway.
I'd say that Gibbons clearly violated a standard. Did his actions rise to the level of sexual assault? Maybe not. Were they grossly inappropriate and deserving of sanction? I'd say yes. Student-athletes are representatives of the university and are held to a higher standard. I mean, do we as a society really want to say that it's OK to take advantage of drunk chicks, but not OK to be five minutes late to practice?
...isn't just for student-athletes, but students generally. The university's definition of "sexual misconduct" is broader than the state's legal definition of criminal sexual assault. Most schools' are--Michigan's isn't particularly unusual.
Yeah. I was starting to write something else, changed my mind, and deleted all of it but that sentence for some reason.
Assume that Gibbons has told the truth. That he gave a story, to police investigators (who know very well how to question suspects for maximum effect) without the assistance of counsel. That he had consensual sex with the female athlete, and that she was into it. (I say it that way for the reason that that's how Gibbons actually described it.) That they had consensual sex, including a blow job. And that later on, the woman (for reasons personal to her) was distraught, upset, remorseful, emotional... whatever. And said to friends that she had sex with Gibbons and that she thought it was rape. She was drunk at the time. Her friends led her into the process of reporting a sexual assault. And the "system," as it were, took her down the path of an examination, a rape kit, etc.
Assume all of that. And that Gibbons was telling the truth. What, then, empowers you to suggest that Gibbons was clearly wrong and guilty of something? Your words; "clearly violated a standard"?
I'd say the fact that Gibbons was expelled is a pretty good indication that he violated a standard.
I look at what happened at Auburn (Taranto- WSJ), and I don't have any confidence in that system. Somebody -- a trier of fact -- presumably had to disbelieve Gibbons. And who is the trier of fact? We don't even know.
You're a lawyer, right? I'm not so sure that the sorts of people assigned by universities to these hearings/panels would even qualify for civil litigation "alternative dispute resolution" procedures, much less critical reputation-ruining fact-finding, or a criminal court judge.
Anyway, the defense of this system ("We're only trying to create a good academic community atmosphere, not determine guilt...") denudes this finding of all meaning. All meaning, that is, except the trashed reputation of Brendan Gibbons.
should have suspended him. If it is for 1 game or the 2010 season, once he was cleared of rape charges, he would have probably served his punishment and back on the team. Hoke did not know he was going to be investigated by the university in 2013.
How is Brendan Gibbons' situation any different than Jameis Winston, Prince Shembo, Keith Appling, Adreian Payne, or the Mizzou football player who allegedly raped the swimmer who committed suicide? I think the fooball program and university have some questions to answer about timing and release of information, but I don't know if I understand why there is so much criticism and suspicion about the university and athletic department when it looks like it is taking a much harder line stance on student conduct.
It's more dramatic this way.
Two things that I think we should keep in mind with this story:
1. At least two people have been deeply harmed by this incident and everything that followed: the woman involved and Gibbons. In at least one of the two cases, that's absolutely tragic. Unfortunately, we're in a really frustrating place where we don't have enough information to know what happened. We do know enough to be sad.
2. People who make a living getting others to talk about, read about, or listen to other people talk about Michigan sports have an incentive to make this as big and dramatic a story as possible, even if that means talking well beyond what is known and fair. We should all keep that in mind as we're listening to local radio, reading stuff online, etc. If this a story about a football player who did something awful and then we see how university bureaucracy handled it, it doesn't have nearly the media appeal as a massive conspiracy in which Hoke lied, Brandon coordinated everything, higher-ups bullied university administrators, etc. Just keep in mind that there are offseason ratings and page click interests involved here.
In simple parlance, "There are no winners here." The guy, the girl, their families, their friends, the university, the alumni - everyone has been bruised.
Hopefully everyone learns a valuable lesson and these sordid events disappear from UM and all campuses. That's a big hope.
RR lovers on here blame Hoke cause of his statements. Fire Hoke he lies!
That was a bold and intelligent statement!
...that this 30-for-30 short was posted at Grantland yesterday:
"On Saturday, July 27, 1996, a terrorist’s bomb exploded in Centennial Olympic Park at the Atlanta Summer Games, killing two and injuring 111. The toll would have been far higher if not for security guard Richard Jewell, who discovered the bag holding the bomb and helped clear the area. Yet within hours, praise of his heroism turned to vicious accusations. Jewell would be hounded for months by investigations and the media. Eventually, the FBI would capture and convict Eric Robert Rudolph for the crime. Judging Jewell revisits the scene in Atlanta where Richard Jewell, a man simply doing his job, lost the one thing he valued most — his honor."
He passed away at a relatively young age of 45. Probably due to all the stress from negativity he received from being falsely accused. When actually he was the hero as first reported!
Black's Law Dictionary defines a crime as "A social harm that the law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty treated as the subject-matter of a criminal proceeding." The elements of a crime are in bold. The key Constitutional issue here is whether Gibbons alleged socially harmful action was made punishable by law.
The current administration has provided "guidance" to schools stating that under federal law ("Title IX") schools have the responsibility to punish ("enforcement strategies") the social harm ("sexual violence") alleged to have been caused by Gibbons. From the White House:
"The guidance, the first specifically advising schools, colleges and universities that their responsibilities under Title IX include protecting students from sexual violence, also details enforcement strategies that schools and the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) may use to end sexual violence, prevent its recurrence, and remedy its effects."
This "guidance" on how to enforce Title IX amounts to the federal government punishing Gibbons by compelling the University to punish him for his alleged act. As evidenced by the timeline issued by the University, the "guidance" caused the University to change its policy: "August  - University of Michigan implements an interim policy on student-to-student sexual misconduct that reflects the U.S. Department of Education guidance."
Gibbons was convicted of a crime. Just because expulsion isn't a typical criminal punishment doesn't mean that Gibbons wasn't convicted of a crime. The issue isn't the type of punishment, it's whether the government is behind the punishment. See the definition.
Gibbons was convicted of a crime without due process. The standard of proof in his case was unconstitutionally lowered to "preponderance of the evidence." Gibbons was also denied a speedy trial and all other protections given to those charged with a crime in this country.
Brendan, if you're reading this, I would love to be on your legal team.
Don't. This is not the side of history you want to be on
If history is not on the side of innocet until proven guilty and due process, I don't want to be on history's side.
I don't even know where to start other than posts like yours make us look bad. Something indeed happened - this isn't "regret" the morning after. With everything that came out of the police report and how TL and BG conducted themselves on campus, there's zero reason to want to invent legal excuses for his defense.
Ignore the helmet for once and get off the fan cart.
My favorite aspect of this whole event on this board is that she too was an athlete at the University of Michigan. Good to know where everyone really stands on a board that up until this point feigned interest and support for non-revenue athletes as well.
If history is not on the side of the victims of sexual assault and rape, then we'd be right where we are.
falsely accused of crimes. Have you not heard of the Salem Witchcraft trials? Perhaps reading "The Crucible" will remind you of the importance of due process.
Rape is an ugly detestable crime that warrants harsh punishment. Because of this we must be thorough in finding the truth of the matter.
I suspect that he did rape the woman. I believe her. But belief does not constitute fact or actual guilt. Unfortunately there has not been a trial so we will not see the allegations presented in a court of law. As a result we are left with only idle speculation.
Oh yah, a student review finding him responsible. People keep forgetting that
He was not prosecuted. How do you know she was a victim? Statistics are irrelevant when discussing one person.
I guess we will find out soon enough. The police will reopen their investigation, due to media pressure and of gibbons is truly innocent, he has a nice lawsuit against the university on his hands. Maybe he can get a buckeye lawyer pro bono.
I guess I'm just playing the odds. false accusations happen, but not at that often (less than 10% of REPORTED assaults, apparently). I HIGHLY doubt BG did nothing wrong. Not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but based on the preponderance of evidence. which is why he was expelled from a university, not encarcerated.
And I am well aware of the Salem witch trials and innocent until proven guilty and "better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man found guilty." But, in this this case, lets amend that a bit:
"better that 100 sexual assaults go unreported at all than one innocent man be expelled (or even suspended or forced into counselling) from a university."
or, "better that 100 sexual assaulters & rapists go free than one more rape/sex assault victim feel like they have even a sliver of a chance at all for justice."
b/c this is much more representative of what happens in rape cases.
God, what ignorance.
You are willing to presume guilt based on other statistics from other cases?
I know I'd be goddamned embarassed to write something as factless and as non-legal as, "I HIGHLY doubt BG did nothing wrong." You note, I haven't written the counterpart; "I HIGHLY doubt BG is guilty." That is because I am smarter, and a more careful writer than you are.
Brendan Gibbons hasn't been expelled for doing "something." He has been declared by the university to have engaged in unwanted or unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, committed without valid consent, and that the conduct was so severe as to create a hostile, offensive, or abusive environment.
That's a big problem for you, actually. You seem to want to prevent a national epidemic of sex crimes. But the Gibbons result should satisfy no one. Gibbons wasn't found "guilty" of any crime. Mostly because the University of Michigan's administration would be a crappy trier of fact in a case like this. Even the University of Michigan would be quick to disclaim that they were in an adequate position to find criminal guilt. The University of Michigan would take a different position; that they enforced a much lower standard, with lowered indicia of proof, and relaxed procedural standards than what would be owed to Gibbons in a court of law. They do that, they will claim, in order to foster the sort of campus atmosphere that they desire. And not to find guilt or to protect the public.
But after all that, if there had been a rape, there has been no criminal sanction. The University policy isn't doing one damn thing for your hysterical whining about "rapists... going free." The University policy is doing nothing but creating a certain atmosphere on campus. That atmosphere, for better or worse, is arguably protective of women, and just as arguably chilling of the rights of the accused.
Brendan Gibbons hasn't been expelled for doing "something." He has been declared by the university to have engaged in unwanted or unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, committed without valid consent, and that the conduct was so severe as to create a hostile, offensive, or abusive environment.
don't those 2 statements completely contradict one another?
He did NOT do something, but he engaged in bad conduct? WTF, man. If you're going to feel goddammed embarrassed to write something, there's your chance you pompous jackass.
If I'm reading you right, you mean to emphasize that the U DECLARED he did something. Well yes, they did declare that: what the U declared is that they found a preponderance of evidece that leads one to believe he did something. They didn't just "declare" it and that makes it true by fiat. They declared it b/c they have enough evidence to do so.
Scientists don't just "declare" that evolution happened, and the reason they are correct is NOT b/c they are the authority and have the power to "declare" that something happened. They declare that evolution happened b/c they have evidence that convinces people that it happened.
...to write something as factless and as non-legal as, "I HIGHLY doubt BG did nothing wrong."
It is a fact that I highly doubt he did nothing wrong. It is NOT a fact that I am correct, admittedly. I have no problem writing things that are, or sound, non-legal. IANAL.
My pointed usage of "something" was the obverse of your preposterous presumption that you highly doubted that Gibbons did "nothing."
Gibbons got the worst of all worlds. He was effectively accused of something terrible -- a sexual assault -- but because the university administrators live in the silly cocoon of "conflict resolution" and "interpretive justice," the procedure wasn't designed to protect his rights as in a criminal court. Easier to "convict" Gibbons of a non-criminal offense (whatever it was), but with the effect of tarring Gibbons with a public presumption of his being a sex offender.
Of a violation of the student code of conduct. He had his due process. You're using a lack of criminal proceedings as a finding of fact. In the only proceeding that's taken place, he was found guilty. 0-1, not 0-0
Your last paragraph is completely wrong. A speedy trial and due process did occur. If you're claiming the 3 yr gap, you'd also be alleging each investigation should have a statute of limitations of a semester, which would be absurd.
If you're an attorney, that's scary
He wasn't convicted of a crime. He was found in violation of a code of conduct. People in the law would easily see that difference, specifically that crime involves a law society enters involuntarily due to residence where a code of conduct is opted into through voluntary membership
Reread my comment. Black's Law Dictionary is what the courts use to determine the meaning of words (among other things). Under Black's definition of a crime, my argument is that Gibbons was, in fact, convicted of a crime. There is a legitimate question as to whether the federal government compelled the University to punish Gibbons.
sounds like you got your law degree from the same school section 1 did- do you have a reunion coming up?
I'm not a lawyer (I just play one on the internet sometimes) so all of this is just outside observational except I used to cover how guidance is used very closely.
I doubt Gibbons would want to be the defendent in the case you are describing. It seems your argument is that the federal guidance documents created a separate jurisdiction in the United States that doesn't function on the principles of the U.S. justice system. One--trying not to get political here--you may be correct. Two, PLEASE DON'T MAKE THE INEVITABLE SUPREME COURT CASE ABOUT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ABOUT A MICHIGAN FOOTBALL PLAYER ACCUSED OF RAPE! There are plenty of environmental regulations to use for that which won't drag UM football through the gutter.
I think Gibbons would like to be compensated for the damage done to his reputation and earning capability caused by this. He is going to find it hard to get a decent job and live a normal life. His name has been dragged through the mud.
The Supreme Court takes cases where a citizen's liberty has been taken away without due process more seriously than a regulatory case. This case has huge legal and social implications. I don't see this as a scandal for the football program.
And I can confirm that whatever his theory is, he's wrong. By a lot.
Black's Law Dictionary provides a nice definition of a crime... but those arent the "elements of a crime." The government can dish out punishments of lots of sorts without it being a crime. That's just not how it works.
By your standard, most environmental regulations are criminal convictions. People lose custody of their children without criminal convictions. Shit, try telling a traffic court judge that he has to find beyond a reasonable doubt that your parking tickets are legitimate, and tell me how far that gets you.
He was expelled from a University, which does not qualify as a criminal punishment. I'm pretty sure you can be fired from a government job without a conviction.
I could go on, and I could explain the standards, but... no, man. No. just... just no.
Okay. see, I'm not a lawyer.
I agree with the logic you write but you are extremely loose/incorrect with some of those facts and assumptions that you base this off of.
Your argument is that "even AFTER letter alerting him of the finding of guilt and expulsion" that 3 things were done. First off, the Nov. 20th letter did not inform of expulsion so that is wrong but lets looks at your 3 points.
1) "played against iowa (ambiguous timeline)"...so right off you are admitting that you do not know if they knew abut the letter then and timeline is ambiguous
2) "dressed(?) against ohio state"... so by your question mark i assume you do not know the answer but are making the assertion regardless
3) "was celebrated at banquet"..for "a guy who the university expelled". the banquet was on dec 9th while the letter of expulsion was dec 20th so he was not expelled at that time.
I am not defending Hoke and Brandon here as the facts arent clear yet...but I highly take issue with you portaying your 3 points as fact as you yourself admit you dont know if 1 and 2 are true and the third was incorrect because he hadnt been expelled yet.
What they did may have been indefensible but your use of questionable assertions and fact does not help your case.
I think your points and the ambiguity really point out how much of this lies in the unknown surrounding Iowa game. There are two distinct possibilities that suggest very different views of what Hoke and Brandon did.
Possibility 1) On nov 20, letter was sent to gibbons and hoke/brandon MAY have been informed. Gibbons still played vs Iowa on Nov 23 despite Hoke knowing of letter and its initial findings.
Possibility 2) On nov 20, letter was drafted to Gibbons. It may have been sent out on 21st via registered mail. The team would have left on the 22nd most likely to Iowa so Gibbons likely would not have received it until coming back from Iowa. When he came back, he received letter, told coaches and they kept him out of OSU game.
In case 1), Hoke and Brandon would rightfully be under a lot of questioning and will be in trouble. In case 2), there is no way to fault anyone for Gibbons playing in Iowa.
Until you know this (and not sure if we will), alot of these assertions can not be made.
Regarding this Iowa issue, couldnt this be figured out through more general questions without specifically referencing Gibbon's case. It would seem that the university should be able to answer procedural questions: how are students notified in these cases? via mail? in the case of student athletes, are the coaches notified directly or does that only occur after the student is first notified regarding this? It would seem these procedural questions could be asked and would not fall under any FERPA restrictions as there would be no reference to the Gibbons case. That would be no different than the press release last night by the university that didnt reference Gibbons but was clearly because of it.
I'm not sure why you keep responding to yourself (maybe someone else's comments were deleted?), but the third possibility is that Hoke did not know about the Nov. 20 letter at all. Gibbons receives the letter, appears before the board/committee on Dec. 4, and does not tell the athletic department or his coaches. Due to privacy laws and the matter not yet having been finalized, the athletic department is not notified until explusion occurs. Thus, it seems entirely possible to me that Hoke did not know about the finding until AFTER the OSU game and that Gibbons was held out of that game only because of injury, as several posters have indicated that they saw him on crutches during that game. Now, this does not exonerate Hoke from the "family matters" comment after the explusion occurred, but I expect that he was told what to say by the university's lawyers and/or DB.
Sorry about that..i wanted to add something to my post but was using the mobile app (which doesnt allow editing of previous posts) so i just added a new post and replied to myself so that they would be seen next to each other.
Your scenario is interesting..this all comes back to the question of when they were notified and it seems like we all have come to this issue as important to judging Hoke's actions. While the univ cant address this situation, hopefully we will get info on their general procedures regarding notification of coaches for cases involving student athletes. It seems like this would allowed to disclose as long as it is general and not specific to this case.
I think it would matter to both of us as to whether the coaches knew about it before the Iowa game. Again, as you state the timeline is ambiguous and we do not know if coaches (or even the player) knew about it before the Iowa game. After that, he never played again. He met with the committee on Dec 4th to discuss the findings so there was still another round of discussions before the punishment was handed out. Again, I dont disagree with most of your logic, I just think there is some key info missing (Iowa) that really could change one's opinion on the coaches overall behavior.
Your points are fair and I respect your viewpoint.
I tried to figure out whether he dressed for that OSU game..the closest I could get is that while team was warming up pre-game, Gibbons was in sweatpants. This is per the FreePress beat reporter below on Twitter pre-game.
@Mark__Snyder: U-M K Brendan Gibbons is in sweats, not pads, watching the warmups, while Matt Wile is kicking all field goals
I havent seen this written anywhere...does anyone know how the Daily got the letter addressed to Gibbons regarding the expulsion? The main article specifically states that the document was not ontained from the university. Clearly this has held back some of the reporting from other media sources because no one else has this document. This isnt really relevant to any of the discussions in the thread but was just curious if this was determined.