Mary Sue Coleman issues statement

Submitted by me on September 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 PM

pretty straight forward…

At the University of Michigan, we place the highest importance on the welfare of our student-athletes and the integrity of our intercollegiate athletics program. Our university is widely recognized for academic and athletic excellence, and it’s something we work to achieve every day. I am proud of our unwavering commitment to that standard.

As soon as the allegations surfaced about our athletic program, I launched an investigation. Our Board of Regents is fully informed on the matter. With the help of outside counsel, we are working in cooperation with the NCAA to discover and assess the facts of the situation.

It is critical that a thorough and objective investigation is completed before any conclusions are drawn. We will then determine what -- if any -- actions need to occur to ensure full compliance with NCAA rules and our own rules of conduct.


J. Lichty

September 2nd, 2009 at 10:52 PM ^

when he was accused of covering up a rape by some of his players. The Iowa administration stood firmly by him.

It would not have hurt her to call the piece a smear job - witch hunt - while still saying that as a matter of policy such allegations are always investigated.


September 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 PM ^

I imagine she is just attempting to make the University seem accountable. After all, the most important area of the University for her job is the area of academics, so when someone accuses you of something in that field, taking it seriously is a pretty good idea.

Not that rape isn't serious or anything, I imagine this is just a logical step on par with hiring internal investigators.


September 2nd, 2009 at 11:34 PM ^

she doesn't know what happened. Rosenburg cited no facts. He made baseless allegations of violations of very ambiguous regulations. She's not an expert, but outside counsel is. An investigation should confirm that Rich did know the rules and he follwed them. Then she can call this witch hunt what it is (except by then, this will already be blown over and generally acknowldged for that which it is -- an attempt by an unethical, mediocre journalist to gain his limelight at the cost of whatever credibility he once had).

J. Lichty

September 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 PM ^

stating that while it is clear that the dishonest and malicious piece in the free press did not prove that any violations had taken place. To remove all doubt we have launched an internal investigation as is standard practice when allegations of ncaa violations are made or something that at least put the impetus for the investigation in some context. She gives the allegations imprompatur through that legalistic statement. There are ways to make such statements while still protecting your own who have been unfairly maligned.

The King of Belch

September 3rd, 2009 at 6:33 AM ^

I don't think you represent the institution well if you come out and toss darts like that at the Freep and Rosenberg. I think you don't sink to the level of the sensationalism by trying to discredit the reports without yourself knowing all the facts.

Mary Sue, Lloyd and all the rest have to take a different approach than we fans take. They must take a dignified, even-handed approach. If she gets up there and says the types of things you'd like her to say, she shows Rosenberg and the Freep got under UM's skin.

Same with pulling Rosie and Snyder's press passes. Why? Let them in. Answer their questions. Treat 'em with respect. Show hem who's the bigger man though all this.

J. Lichty

September 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^

I am having trouble getting my arms around people's thought process in negging other posters.

Do you neg someone if you disagree with them, or do you reserve it for an inappropriate post.

While I can see not agreeing with my position, is it really that far out of bounds for a negging?


September 3rd, 2009 at 1:59 PM ^

In my experience, most people seem to neg because they disagree. And then they'll indiscriminately neg you after that. I've had numerous posts since I attempted to defend the Freep on the night of the allegations that get up to +2 or +3 only to be back at zero a few hours later.

I'm not complaining, I could care less because it's so utterly obvious. But it's definitely a flaw in the system. Hopefully as it's tweaked the negs will become less free flowing. I don't think they were ever intended to create a situation where Chitown could end up -15 on a post because he jumped the gun on the Rosenberg stuff.

A Case of Blue

September 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 AM ^

Are you talking about last year's disaster with Everson/Satterfield? Did Coleman really lend support to Ferentz, or are you referring more to the Iowa response?

As a semi-related side note, having lived in Iowa and attended UI for two years, I feel comfortable saying that the program has a major blind spot when it comes to any failings that Kirk Ferentz might potentially have. The man just signed a $3 million a year contract through 2015. Not that he's a bad coach, by any stretch of the imagination, but there have been discipline problems during his tenure, and it's not like the Hawks go 11-2 every season. (For God's sake, they lost to ISU in 2007.) But there, the man is a demigod, no matter what.


September 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 AM ^

Anyone expecting Mary Sue to come out and say "Ya'll fuckers gonna pay" clearly has no idea what her job entails or how she acts in her job. This is the statement you should have expected.


September 3rd, 2009 at 12:41 AM ^

Her job is very political. She is ultimately the face for the Board of Regents, if she does something premature or stupid it reflects badly on them and they have to answer for it, both at the polls when they're up for reelection and to the state government when it's time to ask for some needed cash.


September 8th, 2009 at 7:48 PM ^

Mary Sue had no problems running her mouth in a very questionable way when the people of this state adopted Prop 2.

She all but called the voters stupid, and pledged to avoid following the constitution.

Now that the Free Press prints a smear job that looks very questionable, she is all weanie-mouthed and covering herself.

I am not impressed with her.