A Gibbons timeline (and a few undisputed facts)

Submitted by Erik_in_Dayton on January 29th, 2014 at 11:56 AM

I'm creating this because it seems that people are missing some of the important facts that folks dug up and posted in the front page thread on this subject.  (Mods, no hard feelings if you take this down.)  I've done my best not to interject any opinion into what is below.  My purpose in posting this is merely to try to have everyone on the same page as far as facts and timing.

2009 and earlier:  OSCR investigates sexual assaults for U of M but only does so if the complaintant cooperates.  They find someone guilty of sexual assault only if a "clear and convincing" burden of proof has been met. 

Late Nov. 2009:  The incident occurs.  Police reports are made.  Gibbons, of course, denies any wrong-doing...Not long after, Taylor Lewan allegedly threatens the young woman involved with rape if she presses forward.  I have never been able to determine whether Lewan admitted to making this statement.  Please let me know if you know otherwise...We don't know what happened internally to Lewan and Gibbons, but neither is suspended...EDIT: In fairness to Lewan, myself and others have inferred from a police report that Lewan was alleged to have threatened the young woman, but the police report in question is redacted as far as names (at least in the report available online).

Late 2009-Early 2010:  The young woman decides she does not want to press charges, thereby ending the state's investigation.  What OSCR does at this point is unclear.  

2011:  The federal government, via Title IX, tells universities that they must investigate alleged on-campus sexual assault regardless of the cooperation or lack thereof of the alleged victim.  It also tells schools to use a "preponderance of the evidence"  standard when evaluating guilt.  http://www.michigandaily.com/news/university-adopts-new-sexual-misconduct-policy-0?page=0,0 

Aug. 2011:  U of M institutes an interim policy designed to comply with the new Title IX mandate.  (See the link above.)  It appears that the interim policy complied with the mandate to use the preponderance of the evidence standard and to investigate sexual assault claims regardless of cooperation from the alleged victim, but the university's online explanation of this is, in my opinion, somewhat unclear.  http://studentsexualmisconductpolicy.umich.edu/faqs 

The implementation of the interim policy appears to have led more women to come forward to make complaints, as the number of sexual assault complaints made on campus rose from three in 2010-2011 to 62 in 2011-2012.  http://www.michigandaily.com/news/university-adopts-new-sexual-misconduct-policy-0?page=0,1 

Aug. 8, 2013: The Washtenaw Watchdogs blog brings the Gibbons incident back into the public eye.  

Aug. 19, 2013:  U of M implements its current policy, described by the Daily as the result of a two-year fine-tuning process of the interim policy.  (See all links above.)  The current policy unquestionably calls for investigations of alleged sexual assaults regardless of cooperation from the alleged victim and unquestionably uses the "preponderance of the evidence" standard regarding guilt.

Nov. 20, 2013:  OSCR produces a document telling Gibbons that a preponderance of evidence supports the claim that he committed sexual assault.  http://www.michigandaily.com/sports/former-kicker-brendan-gibbons-expelled-sexual-misconduct 

Nov. 23, 2013:  Gibbons plays against Iowa.

Nov. 30, 2013:  Gibbons does not play in the OSU game, purportedly because he is injured.

Dec. 4, 2013:  Gibbons meets with OSCR to discuss the findings against him. (See last link.)

Dec. 16, 2013:  Coach Hoke states that Gibbons may not play in the bowl game because of an injury.

Dec. 19, 2013:  OSCR produces a letter telling Gibbons that he is expelled.    http://www.michigandaily.com/sports/former-kicker-brendan-gibbons-expelled-sexual-misconduct 

Dec. 23, 2013:  Coach Hoke tells the media that Gibbons will miss the bowl game because of a "family matter."

A final note:  Dave Ablauf, in the Daily article linked above (the last link), states that the AD cannot comment on the academics or university standing of an athlete.  University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald also said in that article that he could not comment because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).  One could quibble a bit about what Ablauf and people in the AD can say about Gibbons if they wanted to test the bounds of FERPA, but there is little doubt that U of M's legal people believe exactly what Ablauf said, namely that he could not comment on the relevant issues.  One errs on the side of caution in such circumstances...I point all of this out to say that Coach Hoke was never free to say that Gibbons was no longer at the school (save the unlikely event that Gibbons would have consented to this).  I don't state that as a comment on what he did say. 

EDIT: mackbru seemingly correctly points out that the school can at least arguably say whether someone is enrolled.  See the link below that describes a FERPA exemption for "directory information."  I highly doubt this covers saying that someone was expelled, but I am not a higher ed lawyer.  There may be some big grey areas here, and none of this post should be taken as legal advice (sorry - had to say that). 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/students.html 

 

Final final note: Credit to Don, Kilgore Trout, and guthrie for digging up much of what I posted above.  Also thanks to those in this thread who have made suggestions.

 

Comments

grumbler

January 29th, 2014 at 7:07 PM ^

These are called assumptions.  Only make assumptions when you have to.  In this case, you don't have to.  Especially, don't call your assumptions fact, "period."

Would Hoke eventually have heard about the expulsion?  Of course.  Would he have heard (except from Gibbons) between Dec 20th and Dec 24th (or the 23rd, or whenever he made the comment about family matters)?  Dunno.  Your "facts" seem conveniently contrived to suppport a conclusion you have already reached.  maybe you should take a break from the accusations and "fact" spewing until you actually know something.

Any argument that starts with "if" is pure speculation. 

 

Seth

January 29th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^

I want an explanation from the principles regarding each of these moments:
 
Late 2009: If there was a criminal investigaton of rape ended because the victim didn't want to press charges, why wasn't Gibbons forced to provide a satisfactory explanation to his coaches, and if he did, what did he say that convinced them to completely exhonerate him?
 
Hey Coach Rodriguez, you know that kicker who misses so many FGAs you stopped even attempting them? He....[FLING] GONE!
 
Jan 2010: What did the new AD say when he became aware of the investigation and its rapid conclusion?
 

Hey new AD: so one of the issues was we had a kid accused of rape and because the cops didn't prosecute RR let it go. What do you want to... [FLING] GONE!

 
Also Jan 2010: Why, when (supposedly) Lewan was (allegedly) threatening the victim and/or her friends did the coaches not react? Did they know about any of that at the time? Does the athletic department hear from DPS when one of its scholarship players is involved in a dispute?
 
Hey coach, we had this report of your players harassing a...[IN MY OFFICE NOW!]
 
Jan 2011: Was Hoke made aware upon his hiring that there had been an incident involving Gibbons, and another involving Lewan, and did he speak to Gibbons and Lewan about those things at the time? Did they ever hear the story from internet rumor and public chattering? Did anyone ever approach them with informatioin pertaining to these incidents? What did they say to convince you to exhonerate them?
 
Hey, new coach. So... [FLING] GONE!
 
July 2013: When the Washtenaw Watchdog published the rape kit and the details of the complaints, did you speak with Gibbons and Lewan? What did they say? Did you believe the case to be bogus, and why did you believe that?
 
Hey new evidence says Gibbons was lying to you...[FLING] GONE! And Taylor, you're sitting out of fall practice and if you're very very nice I might let you play by Notre Dame.
 
Oct-Dec 2013: When did the staff become aware that he was being investigated under the university's policy? Was there a discussion then? What did he say about the investigation? What did you believe about the players at that time? Were you made aware of any information regarding these incidents after the investigation began/concluded? When did you find out he was to be expelled for the 2009 incident?
 
Hey coach you know that rape thing in re; Gibbons that you thought was B.S.? I got word they reopened the investigation and you're not privy to all the new shit, man. Hoke: "Did he?" Dude: "Looks like." [FLING] GONE Presser: "Violation of team rules."
 

Yeoman

January 29th, 2014 at 2:10 PM ^

Can you think of a case in which a newly hired football coach reopened a year-old disciplinary case in which no new information had come to light, telling a player that the discipline handed out under the prior staff was too light and he was imposing a new penalty?

I'm having trouble imagining a head coach doing this, anywhere.

Seth

January 29th, 2014 at 3:16 PM ^

Dammit. There's a high-profile one I know of that I'm not supposed to; you are free to guess at it (not in replies, just in your head). Oh, got a better one: Rodriguez punishing Wermers for missing classes. Wasn't a year old case but he was meting out punishment in March-April for November things. Less high-profile one: Saban arrived at Alabama. This was in the name of cleaning up after the scandal that had Bama still on probation when he arrived.

Reopening a year-old case and punishing a student sounds unreasonable. But a new coach is an oppportunity to clear out old festers in the locker room, and new coaches like to come in like a hardass to set the tone for their tenure. Things they discover that might have got past the last guy are still things the current coach would be responsible for, say, if it was an NCAA violation, etc.

In a scenario where Hoke learns that Gibbons was likely guilty of rape a little over a year ago, I think he woud have been wary and he'd have been in a position to get all the ffacts and make a determination at that point as to how he'd approach the kid. He could have closely monitored the situation.

I can tell you what I'd do. I'd take the information to SAPAC and say "I received this information on one of my players; I believe he might have raped that girl and the last coach let it go because he wasn't prosecuted. What are my options?" And they might have suggested the Office of Student Conflict Resolution and from there...?

That's why I'd ask the question. It's fishing, which in journalism if not law is an important way to get at facts. If he says "I heard about it, I was worried, I spoke to the player who denied it, I didn't believe him, I went to OSCR, and they said their interim policy was murky on whether they could take any action without the victim." That's at least a goddamn answer!

Yeoman

January 29th, 2014 at 3:44 PM ^

"In a scenario where Hoke learns that Gibbons was likely guilty of rape a little over a year ago"

I just don't see that as a likely scenario. His contact would have been with people on the other side of the divide. He's told that no charges were pressed and no complaint had been filed with the university, and he talks to the players that were there. What would he have learned that would make him think guilt was likely? I doubt a copy of the unredacted police report found its way to his desk.

slblue

January 29th, 2014 at 4:15 PM ^

I think you are missing the fundamental point relating to jurisdiction of various committees on campus and the confidentiality that goes with those bodies.  Again, as a Higher Ed lawyer, I can state with certainty that internal investigatory bodies have strict rules regarding confidentiality that very often require those bodies not to inform others of the fact or status of pending investigations.  Would such a committee notify faculty members who are teaching students of a pending investigation relating to such an investigation?  Of course not.  The same likely holds true of investigations relating to atheletes.  Among other things, the reason why others are not advised of investigations is to prevent retaliation.  The accused is also protected by rules against disseminating information.  You would be amazed by how confidential these kinds of investigations can be.  Once a decision is made, the decision is communicated to persons on a need to know basis.  To assume Hoke or any of his staff knew anything material about the internal investigation prior to the decision is speculation.

grumbler

January 29th, 2014 at 7:14 PM ^

Thank you!  I've been making that point since this came out.  We just don't have enough facts to say anything about what Hoke knew or didn't know.  It is entirely possible that he said the exact truth as he knew it.

bronxblue

January 29th, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^

I'm having a little trouble following because of the different bolding, but here it goes:

1)  So no charges were made.  They asked Gibbons, and he said he didn't do anything wrong.  No evidence was apparently brought forward to contradict it.  You want him to provide "extra" proof he didn't do anything wrong?  Okay.

2)  Again, people looked into it and didn't find anything wrong based on what criteria was in place.  But AD, please go forth and investigate independently about a player who was cleared already, because you totally know he's lying.  Also, while you are at it, deal with this stupid NCAA investigation about stretching that helped submarine the last 2+ years of your football team.

3)  So we have a report that a guy may have intimidated a victim of sexual assault.  I'm just a guy on the internet, but I'm SURE the coaches told him "no biggie.  Defend your teammates.  Totally cool that you did that."  You have NO IDEA what was done there, and again, maybe the coaches talked to the player and others and either dealt with it internally or determined nothing incorrect happened.  Coaches do sometimes handle things internally when no other formal punishment process is known of.

4)  I know you have a billion things going on, coach Hoke, but you know how this event occurred years ago and everyone was cleared?  Well, in about a year the school will look into revising the code for review in response to Title IX concerns, at which point your kicker will be investigated by a school committee I'm sure you've never heard of.  So go into the future, find out whateever OSCR learns, then come back and deal with it preemptively.

5)  A guy on the internet released a bunch of questionable police documents about an incident that occurred years ago and seemingly was handled by the police, but let's revisit it again and this time, presume the player you've know for over a year has lied to you multiple times because if there is one thing I know, if it is on the Internet it must be true.  Also, again, just a guy on the internet who likely doesn't know what happened.

6)  I don't even know where to start with that one.  I'm tired.  You win.  Hoke, Brandon, the school, the AAPD, everyone was looking to keep Gibbons on the roster so that he could break Rivas's kicking record and beat NW.  I am know Joshua Jackson and I'm trying to stop from being shot in the chest by Paul Walker.

Seth, I usually love your stuff, but I am absolutely lost on what this is supposed to be.  People are understandably angry, but looking for a pound of flesh from everyone at UM because they followed protocols and a guy was expelled once a fair tribunal reviewed his case and allowed for appeals doesn't strike me as anything more than proper procedures.

Seth

January 29th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^

They're questions leading back to the same thing: when did you learn, if ever, that this player on your team had an expulsionary offense and how did you handle it?

Any of the answers you provided would suffice to explain the handling of the situation. Put Hoke and Brandon in front of us and have them say "we didn't know" or "we were convinced it didn't happen even through the discreditable internet guy, and when we learned there were actual university proceedings on December 19th we still believed his innocence since they had the same information the police disregarded and we disregarded from the crazy internet guy last July, and we didn't think it's fair to ruin a kid's reputation calling him a rapist from our podium when we believe he isn't."

That would be an answer. No response is not an answer.

LSA91

January 30th, 2014 at 8:39 AM ^

I agree with Seth.   I like to think that Hoke takes his role building the kids' character seriously, and I do think that he does, but this is serious enough that I'd like him to show that he thinks its serious too.

Probably, the answer is "We take this stuff very seriously.   This involved an accusation that happened before I came on board, and (if true) I never had any concerns about Brendan's conduct while I was coaching him.   I work with these kids as I find them.   We cooperated with the university process at all time, and we encouraged Brendan to do so as well.   Here's what we're doing going forward . . ."

Yeoman

January 30th, 2014 at 9:32 AM ^

That would be great, but University counsel would never permit it. To link the expulsion to any particular accusation, even in a veiled manner like this, would come perilously close to acknowledging which particular portion of the student code of conduct was violated. In the Wells/Xavier case a focus of X's defense has been that they did not ever do this. It's bad enough that the information leaked, but at least that was (presumably) without authorization.

You'll note that the one place the Univeristy did acknowledge the 1999 accusations, the "statement on sexual misconduct policy", they never mention Gibbons.

I don't know if this would work either--they're probably prepared to stonewall any line of questioning at all--but if you want anything like a response to any of these issues, the questions need to be phrased generally, with no reference to any particular case.

ifis

January 29th, 2014 at 2:26 PM ^

so... alleged rape should get you kicked off the team because you didn't play well? why does Gibbons awful kicking have anything to do with this?  to the degree that his level of play wasn't considered important, the coaches did a good job

what does a rape kit prove?  doens't it just prove that they had sex.  I thought that point was not in dispute.  I thought the dispute was over whether or not there was consent.  Maybe the rape kit pushes Gibbons above the new 51% threshold, but it doesn't seem like it comes anywhere near the old threshold that tracked the law

the coach should support the results of the investigating institutions.  kicking players off the team on the basis that they are accused of wrongdoing would be incredibly unjust. 

if someone covered up evidence or protected a player from the results of an investigation, that is a different matter.  we have ZERO evidence that that happened.  if such evidence is brought forward, I will immediately change my tune

 

 

bronxblue

January 29th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^

Great breakdown.  I think it highlights the issues and the logical timelines.  You can debate about Gibbons playing against Iowa, but otherwise it looks like he followed the general review process and (I'm guessing) made his appeal.  We also don't know when all of this was communicated to the coach, the team, etc.

Incognymous

January 29th, 2014 at 2:15 PM ^

Yesterday was an example of people putting their personal views and agendas ahead of the facts. It was frustrating to read all the back and forth of opinions without substantial grounds to support their arguments. Objectivity was clearly second to subjective feelings on the subject.
Edit: Gameboy...you are being irrational. Your conjectural conclusions on what Coach Hoke did and did not know or do is immature.

blueinuk

January 29th, 2014 at 2:12 PM ^

I just don't get what people think Hoke should have done.  Put yourself in his shoes.  

I find out that one of my players was investigated for a sexual assault in the past, but no charges were filed by the authorities who followed procedure.  What would you do here?  You would really perform your own independent investigation for something that happened under someone else's watch?  

Then I find out that my player is being investigated again for this same situation...an alleged sexual assault.  I know there are legal authorities in place to deal with it using proper procedures.  So I am supposed to suspend my player, assuming that he is guilty before the investigation is concluded?  

ilah17

January 30th, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^

According to the timeline, OSCR determined he was "guilty" on 11/20 and he played against Iowa 3 days later. Is there any source that says OSCR would not have informed Coach Hoke of the results of their investigation at or around the same time they told Gibbons? If they didn't tell Coach Hoke, there's a lack of institutional communication IMO that needs to be changed. No athlete should be allowed to practice or compete after being found "guilty" of sexual assault.

mackbru

January 29th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^

Brian briefly noted the most suspicious element of the timeline -- that the case seems to have sat dormant until just days after a blogger spills the police report onto the internet. The school's new policy, although not officially enacted until later that month, had been operational since 2011. Had the ugly details not appeared publicly, would Gibbons have ever been taken to task? 

ifis

January 29th, 2014 at 2:41 PM ^

maybe, but it seems like that just means that the media helped the institutions function.  again, there seem to be no indications this was a 'cover-up'.  Maybe it was a failure to investigate, but that seems like a stretch.  why should a coach re-open a case that was closed 3 years ago based on insufficient evidence, unless new evidence was brought forward?  if you can show me that everyone else accused of rape in 2009 had their case re-opened, but Gibbons didn't, then I think we have some better evidence.  But if Gibbons was treated consistently with every other accusation of sexual assault in 2009, then there is no cover-up/preferential treatment.  Is there any data on other 2009 cases similar to Gibbons'?

FrankMurphy

January 29th, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^

I'll be honest, this just made Hoke a lot harder for me to root for. We were all over Brian Kelly for letting an accused rapist play; how is this any different?

Spunky

January 29th, 2014 at 6:43 PM ^

This entire incident is just shameful and disappointing. The player(s) involved, the University and athletic department really let all of us down, especially the victim. With that being said, it sounds like the changes to OSCR will improve the way future complaints are handled. And I'm currently willing to give Coach Hoke (and Dave Brandon) the benefit of the doubt. He has suspended and kicked players off the team for committing lesser offenses. 

mackbru

January 29th, 2014 at 2:52 PM ^

People need to stop insisting that Hoke and the school were "not allowed" to comment on Gibbons' academic status. Information about a student's enrollment, or lack thereof, is NOT protected information, as evidenced by this report:

Ex-University of Michigan kicker Brendan Gibbons is not enrolled at U-M during winter semester, the university confirmed Wednesday.

Hoke, in December, was free to say this. But he didn't.

mackbru

January 29th, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^

Wrong. It's public information. Anyone at any time can call the school and get info re whether or not a student is enrolled. Hoke was under no obligation to "protect" this information -- especially during a freaking press conference, when he speaks as a representative of the school. He was free to say that Gibbons was no longer enrolled. But he didn't. He dissembled. 

Erik_in_Dayton

January 29th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^

...that there are indeed some exceptions.

 

Another exception permits a school to non-consensually disclose personally identifiable information from a student's education records when such information has been appropriately designated as directory information. "Directory information" is defined as information contained in the education records of a student that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. Directory information could include information such as the student's name, address, e-mail address, telephone listing, photograph, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended, grade level or year (such as freshman or junior), and enrollment status (undergraduate or graduate; full-time or part-time).  

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/students.html 

 

 

 

pearlw

January 29th, 2014 at 4:16 PM ^

He couldnt have said that Gibbons wasnt enrolled for the winter semester because the winter semester hadnt started in December. At this point, the university probably would have confirmed he was registered for fall semester but couldnt make any statements about winter semester since it hadnt started. I think the timing of this may have made it more difficult to make any statements because in reality no one was enrolled for classes at the time of the bowl game.

TheNema

January 29th, 2014 at 2:56 PM ^

I point all of this out to say that Coach Hoke was never free to say that Gibbons was no longer at the school (save the unlikely event that Gibbons would have consented to this).  I don't state that as a comment on what he did say. 

While I appreciate the timeline tremendously (the community definitely was calling for such a thing), I don't think we should be so afraid to comment on what Hoke did say. It was wrong. If I had to bet everything, I would say that the fibs were not regrettable improvised moments but rather planned after they realized they had a serious issue afoot. As I said last night, it is very hard to see Hoke's comments not coming on the advice of Brandon. With how many of us are already worried that things under DB are not above board, this obviously hits hard.

cbs650

January 29th, 2014 at 2:56 PM ^

People around here are down on Hoke and Brandon but I bet would take RR back in a heart beat and he was the coach at the time of the alleged incident. where were those calling for his job when these allegations were first levied and Gibbon was not disciplined? People thought he got a raw deal not getting a fourth year. Come on people. This situation is terrible but at least from it their is a new policy in place to help lessen these type of crimes on college campuses.

Richard75

January 29th, 2014 at 3:03 PM ^

It also should be noted that Gibbons attended the football bust on Dec. 9. He spoke there too, according to The Wolverine. That would suggest the football program still considered him in good standing with the team at that point.

StephenRKass

January 29th, 2014 at 3:10 PM ^

I want to express thanks to Eric in Dayton for putting this timeline together. It was helpful.

I am simply an Internet reader, not a lawyer, or in police work, or in Ann Arbor, or a student for a long time, or an insider. As such, I don't have much to add to the conversation. I will simply echo two things, and make one small addition:

  1. The increasing frequency of binge drinking on campuses has been reported in many places. In one way, I agree. The fact that underage drinking is now "illegal," and perhaps cracked down on more, make settings where booze is available more suspectible to binges. On the other hand, there is nothing new under the sun. When I attended UofM, 18 was the legal drinking age, and there was plenty of binge drinking . . . in dorms, in bars, in fraternities, in houses, etc. Many young adults between 17 & 21, away from home for the first time, fueled by hormones and freedom, are going to make bad decisions with alcohol and drug use. These will lead to further compromised decisions.
  2. Rape is a huge problem that thas been downplayed forever. I won't go into great detail (see other thread,) but as the father of a beautiful blond 20 year old young woman who is in the Navy, and who has been "sexually harassed," the reality of this hits close to home.
  3. I will simply note that the use of texting and tweeting and blogging (and the easier access to porn on the Internet) has vastly changed the landscape from when I was an undergrad. Somehow, perhaps with anonymity, language use has become much coarser, and sexual expectations much rougher. I don't know whether or how this contributed, but it is part of our current cultural landscape.

readyourguard

January 29th, 2014 at 3:28 PM ^

My sentiments exactly.  I have an 18 year old daughter who will be off to college this Fall.  Never before has sexual harrassment been so concerning to me.  I'd never do anything like that, nor would my son, father, uncle, or brother.  So it wasn't a topic I spent much time thinking about unitl my daughter became a teenager. 

The drinking is the same now as it was in the 80s.  I don't see it changing.

The chirping/subtweeting, Intagram, and texting have turned a lot of otherwise good people into bullies.  It's like the RCMB mentality has taken over the world.

Blue in Seattle

January 29th, 2014 at 3:27 PM ^

I know that I don't have the time, but if you really wanted to determine whether Hoke was consistent or not in managing his players who have off field issues you could compare timelines of Frank Clark and Darryl Stonum.  I did a google search on Stonum to find an article with two timeline points;

Michigan wide receiver Darryl Stonum will redshirt due to DUI plea

Stonum was arrested for DUI on May 6.  He pleaded guilty June 3rd, and the article dated Aug 7 states that Hoke has decided he is suspended for the season and will use his redshirt to return to the team if Stonum fulfils his punishment obligations given by the court.

I suspect that you would find Hoke to be very consistent in that until the player is proven guilty by the appropriate Non-Football judicial system, the player remains on the team.  Once that player is found guilty and punished by the Non-Football judicial system, then Hoke makes his own judgement on how the player will be involved with the Football team.  Gibbons clearly cannot be on the team because he is no longer a student.  Stonum could have returned to the team if he had completed his punishment from Washtenaw Courts.  He did not complete his punishment and was subsequently kicked off the team.

As I said, I don't really have the time to go further, but I expect that despite the reason given for Gibbons not playing, Hoke did suspend him during the time the judgment was given to the school, but in reality the final expelling not delivered.  Potentially Gibbens was appealing the decision.  To have stated what was going on off the field for Gibbons until the final decision was delivered would have been inconsistent with how Hoke handled the other issues.

 

 

Ed Shuttlesworth

January 29th, 2014 at 3:28 PM ^

It seems like a lot has changed but it really hasn't.  Guys and women drank a lot in the mid-80s and had sex and a lot of people knew what was going on with guys on the football team.  I lived in South Quad with the freshman/sophomore football players for two years and a bunch of us knew what was going on that had nothing to do with the team.  It wasn't even hard to find out.

I'm sure a whole bunch of people outside the team heard about this, and most if not all of the players knew.  It's hard to see how the coaches wouldn't have known, but maybe there's something I'm missing.

There's no reason to ignore reality and get bogged down in the legalistics and wording of privacy provisions.  A lot of people knew what was going on.

remdog

January 29th, 2014 at 3:53 PM ^

That's an inappropriately low bar for an accusation of criminal conduct.  Besides, if there was inadequate evidence to even press charges let alone convict, how can the university fairly make such a determination?  is there due process?  Is there cross-examination of witnesses?  There are so many questions here and the process seems to be terribly unjust.  The government's mandate is a travesty of justice and fails to recognize the importance of  a high bar for proof in these matters. On the surface, it looks like the univerity has seriously mishandled this case and possibly ruined a young man's future.  I would expect a civil lawsuit by Gibbons against the university and I hope he wins. 

grumbler

January 29th, 2014 at 4:27 PM ^

Have you been paying attention at all?  There was an accusation of criminal conduct in 2009, and the case was dropped for lack of evidence (the woman declined to participate in a prosecution).  The preponderance of evidence stadnard does not apply to any criminal charges; it is simply the standard for an administrative determination as to whether a student has violated the student code of conduct.  That's not criminal law at all.

Due process comes from an accused being able to examine the evidence against him or her, and to make his or her own case and have it heard and impartially considered.  That all appears to have happened here.

So, please, don't go barking up the standard of evidence or due process trees.  Those dogs don't hunt.

remdog

January 29th, 2014 at 5:03 PM ^

The expulsion is apparently related to a charge of sexual misconduct for which evidence was found lacking by the justice system.  Again, how can a university come to a different conclusion?  What was the violation?  Being a male and having sexual relations?  How can the university reach this conclusion 4 years after the fact????  On the face, this looks very unjust for the accused.  How can you assure due process in a non-criminal proceeding for a criminal accusation???  You can't.  Re ipsa loquitor.

And there's a nation-wide pattern of serious university misconduct and bias against the accused male in these cases.  The male is presumed guilty even without any objective evidence.

I would suggest you do some more reading on the subject.  I would suggest FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).

Wendyk5

January 29th, 2014 at 5:13 PM ^

This is why I have a hard time with this case. None of us knows the specific evidence in this case and so it makes it hard to come to any reasonable conclusions. Did the woman finally come forward? Was there another incident that we're not privvy to? Was there additional evidence and the state is now making a case? We know that in 2009 there was an alleged rape. I say alleged because he wasn't convicted of a crime in court. As a woman, I am very sensitive to the word "alleged" as it connotes the accused's innocence, and the victim's lack of credibility. But the bottom line is, we, the public, don't know the facts. There may be some in this community who know more than me, those who might be acquainted with the victim, or the case. But the information that is commonly available gives us no specifics as to what changed that made it appropriate for the university to take action.