University issues statement on sexual misconduct policy
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.
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 10:23 AM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:38 PM ^
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?
January 30th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^
and was Gibbons allowed legal represetation, and did that representative have the opportunity to cross-examine the victim's and other statements against Gibbons?
January 30th, 2014 at 1:39 PM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 6:28 PM ^
Juries aren't "legal professionals." They send people to the electric chair and gas chamber.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:27 PM ^
What?
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 1:13 AM ^
the University did just that and is now hiding behind a privacy shield. I fully realize that the leak may not have been officially sanctioned but, the University is responsible for safe guarding information and ensuring their agents do so as well.
January 30th, 2014 at 7:03 AM ^
"Personal matter, all I'll say, next question"
January 29th, 2014 at 11:21 PM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 11:24 PM ^
Lizzy Seeberg never really became a major national story, and she died.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:26 PM ^
I doubt it. There's really nothing here that's sexy from the perspective of national media.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:10 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:49 AM ^
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-…) 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.
January 30th, 2014 at 1:15 AM ^
provide us with the evidence that Hoke lied. Not merely regurgitating quotes, but evidence that he knew what he was saying was untruthful. There's an old saying, maybe you've heard of it. It isn't what you "know", it's what you can prove.
January 30th, 2014 at 2:24 AM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:27 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 12:53 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 9:50 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:53 AM ^
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)
January 29th, 2014 at 11:32 PM ^
- 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.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:35 PM ^
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
January 29th, 2014 at 11:43 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:58 PM ^
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?
January 30th, 2014 at 12:04 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:23 AM ^
ability to prosecute rape cases...they are terrible at it.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:26 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 5:45 AM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 11:59 PM ^
Ok?
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:09 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:24 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:29 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 1:23 AM ^
Asking about the policy change, where it came from, why there was a delay, and how the change ultimately resolved this issue. Since the question was asked many times, is it beyond the bounds to answer it?
January 30th, 2014 at 7:01 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:58 PM ^
Step-by-step; the determinative policy issue in this case:
From the OP; the University says:
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.
In April, 2011, as the university says, this (the Russlyn Ali letter) happened:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf
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.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/04/vice-president-bi…
January 30th, 2014 at 12:02 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:18 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:19 AM ^
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!!!
January 30th, 2014 at 12:56 AM ^
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...
January 30th, 2014 at 1:07 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 1:11 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 1:16 AM ^
That's why God created the edit button.
January 30th, 2014 at 8:22 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 9:50 AM ^
"Young men will now have to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt."
No.
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:51 PM ^
"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.
January 30th, 2014 at 1:17 PM ^
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."