Student Government releases findings about Gibbons case
"The university was regularly missing its 60-day deadline to investigate sexual misconduct," Proppe said Sunday night. "The main reason, at least initially when the moved to the new policy, was that the university didn't have the bandwidth to handle all these investigations. They took about a year to hire a second investigator to look into this.
"So that was probably the most surprising and most concerning finding, that the delay in the Gibbons case was really not an exception but kind of the norm with these investigations."
Per the CSG's report, the task force claimed that athletic department officials did not believe the OIE or OSCR failed to notify the department "when a student athlete was accused of sexual misconduct." As a result of that finding, the task force concluded that "Brady Hoke knowingly issued false statements in December 2013 concerning the status of Gibbons."
The CSG's task force did not work in concert with officials from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which will be on campus this week to launch its own investigation into the university's sexual misconduct policy.
Quoting MLive
April 14th, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^
On a much broader level than the way it affects the football team. These are issues that should be resolved much more quickly for everyone involved, not just the high profile cases.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^
What exactly is the lie Hoke told?
April 14th, 2014 at 10:41 AM ^
I don't care about whether Hoke was lying. I care about the fact that it took the University this long to dole out consequences for a terrible event. The whole point of my post (which you missed) is that this is disturbing completely separately from football. It has nothing to do with Hoke or the team.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^
This hits the nail on the head. Everything else is rhetoric from an angry mob.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^
why would that be?
April 14th, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^
he was talking to the media, not an investigation board. Who gives a shit what he says to a bunch of reporters?
April 14th, 2014 at 12:37 PM ^
If you were to read the coverage, what he did was tantamount to peeing on Bo's grave.
But yeah, Hoke doesn't have to tell a bunch of reporters the inner workings of his team. If Gibbons isn't playing, then that's all the coach needs to say.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:40 PM ^
He handled it very poorly and I won't claim that he should have said one thing or another, but his responsbility at the time was to the individual and the team and the school, in that order. I think he may have said what he did because saying "he isn't playing" and that's it wouldn't satisfy a bunch of reporters.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^
I totally agree. My point is that Hoke said all he needed to the press, and I agree that anything more would have just opened up a bunch of issues. I'm fine with how he handled it.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
well of course thats true, but is anyone really arguing that? That more important issue should be dealt with in a very serious manner by the appropriate folks. But this is a Michigan sports board and we're going to discuss issues that relate to the head football coach.
And this is certainly the place for discussing it. My original comment, though, specifically was trying to address the broader issue, and then someone turned it into a discussion about Hoke. This thread as a whole is a fine place to discuss the impact on the football team. This particular subthread, less relevant.
But they couldn't do anything under the old rules (when the incident occurred) because they needed the accuser to bring the charges. It was not until the new rules were established that they could bring them without the authority of the accuser. Therefore, it seems fairly reasonable that they did not think about a 2 year old case the instant the new rules cam into effect. Nothing would have happened if the article had not come out bringing it to light again, because everyone had likely forgotten about it (understandably so, given the number of incidents like this during a given year, it seems absurd to expect them to reinvestigate and try every old case in the ex post facto manner they did here).
Basically this is a hissy fit to try to make the university look bad and show the Student Government should be involved in this when they really have no reason to be involved.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^
He said something along the lines of "Gibbons isn't travelling with the team for family reasons." Now, one could argue that it's technically true, but the clear implication was that Gibbons' absence had nothing to do with his own conduct.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
Was that the time and place to say "Gibbons has been expelled from the University of Michigan and is no longer a part of our program."
I'm asking seriously because I don't think it was.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^
I answered this below. There's a huge range between "family reasons" and your proposed statement, that he legally couldn't say. "Violation of team rules" would have been infinitely more appropriate.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^
I agree. "Violation of team rules" would have been much more acceptable.
But that's the extent of Hoke's failure in all of this. He fucked up his word choice.
He would still be criticized here for hiding the truth unless he said he was kicked off the team by the university for inappropriate sexual conduct. You can not convince me that would not be the case.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
Gibbons didn't travel to San Antonio because he was no longer a student at the University of Michigan, not because of a violation of team rules. In fact to imply that he was still enrolled by stating he didn't travel because he violated team rules is arguably a greater lie.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:58 AM ^
is that it's a who-gives-a-shit lie. I could not possibly care less that I was "misled" to believe that Gibbons was still enrolled. Honestly, I can't fathom why Hoke's wording is such a big deal to some people. Once the ruling on Gibbons was handed down he was off the team. That's the important part.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:15 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^
if he wins four games. Hoke's choice of words is an insignificant part of this story and his resume.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:15 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:10 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 10:56 AM ^
I don't believe Gibbons had been officially expelled by the time Hoke made the "family matters" statement. I just want to make sure we don't entrench a misconception that Hoke not only (may have known) that Gibbons was under investigation, but actually knew he would definitely never be coming back.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^
He was expelled effective Dec. 20 (told on Dec. 19), Hoke released the "family matters" statement on Dec. 23. I think it's pretty safe to say that Hoke knew then why his kicker hadn't made the trip.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:03 AM ^
OSCR mailed (or at least produced) a letter to Gibbons saying he'd been expelled four days before Coach Hoke made his "family matter" comment.
Now I'm not saying this is ideal, but it strikes me as plausible, at least as plausible as Hoke choosing to use "family matters" as a deliberate cover up, as he is being accused of. Hoke has dealt with several serious disciplinary issues, rarely stating the violation explicitly, and as far as I know this is the only time he's referred to a violation as a "family issue".
This is my position as well. The only new information we have in regards to this is the statement that "the task force claimed that athletic department officials did not believe the OIE or OSCR failed to notify the department which is about as feeble a statement on which to damn a man as one could find. No one is claiming Hoke was notified; what they are saying is that they don't know he was not notified.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^
Why was that a bad time and place to simply tell the truth?
April 14th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^
I don't think Hoke's wishes were material at that point. it was in the hands of the lawyers by then and nobody was going to say anything that hadn't been vetted, whatever their personal feelings might have been. If he drops "gibbons has been expelled for rape" he's violated FERPA (and possibly libel law as well, since the expulsion wasn't for "rape") and he's got much bigger issues than his discomfort at having to go further into the subject.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 10:23 AM ^
Confusion...chaos.
These findings are disturbing.
This university has shown us all it's full of people ready to believe in good.
I believe in them. I believe in the commissioner. I believe in Harvey Dent.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^
Dude, seriously. It's amusing having a random Batman guy in here posting, but this isn't the first time you've made light of a terrible situation. Not to mention that you're defending the university that's dragged it's feet on rape cases. I know it's a joke, but this isn't the place. There are 10 threads on here a day and almost every other one of them is fine to make some Batman joke.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
*its
April 14th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:37 PM ^
the ever illusive quintuple post. Impressive! Have some patience dude.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^
Holy shit dupe
April 14th, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^
Wow. Does anybody know if the rumor that 60 minutes was interviewing DB on this issue is true?
If so and if the allegation that Hoke "knowingly issued false statements" are true then our inability to block anyone on the line may be the least of his worries.