University issues statement on sexual misconduct policy

Submitted by Raoul on

Posting this without comment: the full text of a statement released tonight by the university, posted by the Toledo Blade as an attachment to this article:

University statement on sexual misconduct policy

Jan. 29, 2014

Questions have been raised about the University of Michigan's response to allegations of sexual misconduct in 2009. Those allegations were handled in accordance with the university policy in effect at the time.

The university now adheres to the institution's policy on sexual misconduct by students, which was adopted in 2013. The Office for Institutional Equity is the designated university office for conducting investigations into allegations of sexual misconduct involving students. In implementing university policy, OIE treats all students equally and conducts fair and impartial investigations.

Our current process allows that, if new information is obtained at a later point, the university could commence an investigation at that time.

In accordance with the university's policy of not disclosing details about student disciplinary actions, we will not release the results of any investigation. The university does produce and publish annual reports on aggregate student disciplinary sanctions through the Office of Student Conflict Resolution.

http://ocsr.umich.edu

U-M sexual misconduct policy timeline

2009

Under the University's process investigations commence at the request of complainants after a complaint is filed with the Office of Student Conflict Resolution.

2011

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.

August - University of Michigan implements an interim policy on student-to-student sexual misconduct that reflects the U.S. Department of Education guidance.

2013

August - After a year-long review process, the university implements new policy on student-to-student sexual misconduct. Key changes in the policy, which also were part of the interim procedure, include how an investigation is initiated and the standard of evidence being used. These changes also are consistent with guidance from the Department of Education.

CompleteLunacy

January 30th, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^

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.

UMgradMSUdad

January 29th, 2014 at 11:56 PM ^

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?

Seth

January 29th, 2014 at 11:48 PM ^

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.

Leaders And Best

January 30th, 2014 at 12:07 AM ^

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?

Seth

January 30th, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^

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.

pescadero

January 30th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^

Bingo.

 

From the registrars office -

http://ro.umich.edu/ferpa/

 

"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."

grumbler

January 30th, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^

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.

taistreetsmyhero

January 30th, 2014 at 12:05 AM ^

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?

jericho

January 30th, 2014 at 12:23 AM ^

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?

JediLow

January 30th, 2014 at 12:46 AM ^

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.

Urban Warfare

January 30th, 2014 at 1:22 AM ^

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?

Yeoman

January 30th, 2014 at 1:29 AM ^

...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.

Section 1

January 30th, 2014 at 6:28 PM ^

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"?

Section 1

January 30th, 2014 at 8:56 PM ^

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.

GoBLUinTX

January 30th, 2014 at 9:33 PM ^

facts about the process that the general public does not?  As I understand it the proceeding took place in secrecy, or it was supposed to be in secret.  Before declaring Gibbons guilty of something because a secret tribunal said he's guilty, I'd like the proceedings to see the light of day.

uminks

January 30th, 2014 at 3:00 AM ^

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.

Leaders And Best

January 30th, 2014 at 1:02 AM ^

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.

turd ferguson

January 30th, 2014 at 1:01 AM ^

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.

steve sharik

January 30th, 2014 at 2:17 AM ^

...that this 30-for-30 short was posted at Grantland yesterday:

http://grantland.com/features/30-for-30-shorts-judging-jewell/

"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."

dsten

January 30th, 2014 at 5:18 AM ^

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."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/04/vice-president-bi…

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 [2011] - 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.

Geaux_Blue

January 30th, 2014 at 6:53 AM ^

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.

NOLA Wolverine

January 30th, 2014 at 8:28 AM ^

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.

SalvatoreQuattro

January 30th, 2014 at 7:24 AM ^

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.

jblaze

January 30th, 2014 at 7:41 AM ^

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.

Michigan Arrogance

January 30th, 2014 at 8:05 AM ^

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.

Section 1

January 30th, 2014 at 9:14 AM ^

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.

Michigan Arrogance

January 30th, 2014 at 3:23 PM ^

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.

 

Section 1

January 30th, 2014 at 6:38 PM ^

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.

Geaux_Blue

January 30th, 2014 at 8:05 AM ^

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