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
no employer should make you lie nor are you obligated to do so if asked. A person (as an employee or not) retains personal responsibility and morality. You can only hide behind your employee status so far. I can't imagine Bo letting Canham or anyone make him say anything he wasn't comfortable with. Hoke could have simply passed the matter up the ladder.
Again, I don't know if Hoke was directed to say what he said or by whom, but it is relevant.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:36 AM ^
Doesn't make sense. If "athletic department officials did not believe the OIE or OSCR failed to notify the department" how do you reach the conclusion Hoke knowingly lied?
April 14th, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^
Unless you believe the AD is a monolithic entity and all its members share the entirety of their knowledge.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^
You don't have to prove a damn thing.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 11:06 AM ^
It's attacking the problem from the wrong end. You don't ask the athletic department for their beliefs about OIE and OSCR procedures, you ask OIE and OSCR what their procedure is.
And I think people, including those issuing the report, are reading "failed to notify" as a simple "did not notify when the investigation began." "Failed" imlies failure, as in not notifying at the time notification was appropriate. If OIE and OSCR procedures requied notification at the tail end of the process, they gave that notification as required, and somebody then asked the athletic department whether OIE or OSCR "failed to notify the department", the answer would probably be no.
The conclusion that the AD knew, through official channels, back in August isn't supported by the evidence here. (It's not contradicted, either--it doesn't seem to be addressed in a meaningful way.) it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that Hoke found out informally, but that would have put him in an awkward position as respects discipline. If a player lets you know off the record that there's a confidential proceeding going, do you take immediate disciplinary action against the player?
April 14th, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^
The wording was terrible, but I think what they were trying to say is this:
Unless there was a communications breakdown either between OSCR and the AD, or between the AD and Hoke, then Hoke definitely knew about the process from start to finish. OSCR has maintained that they kept the AD in the loopas required, and the AD has maintained that they followed all protocol correctly. So either someone is lying, or Hoke knew that Gibbons was expelled at his press conference on Dec. 23.
The "knowingly lied" phrase is thrown in their to incite reaction and get reads. Would it have been a lie if Hoke didn't know it was a lie? Can you lie without knowing it?
April 14th, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^
so is it your position that when he made that statement in Dec, Hoke did not know Gibbons' actual status?
April 14th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
What does all of this mean for the program and Hoke's job status?
April 14th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^
Unless you don't believe anything you've read, it doesn't effect Hoke's job status in the least. Maybe he could take a John U Bacon-led class on "Coaches and the media."
April 14th, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
John U Bacon opened my eyes to why this program is in the shape it is in with a certain book he wrote. I don't know what to believe anymore. It feels like this site is the only credible place to read about Michigan Athletics.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^
FIRE HOKE
April 14th, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^
Not funny.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
FIRE DAVID BRANDON?
April 14th, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^
Better.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
"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."
Wait, I thought all the bedwetters were upset because it looked like the Gibbons case was specifically delayed until he was through with football. Now it's terribly concerning that he was handled just like everyone else.
Looks like they were determined to find things to be "concerned" about.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^
It IS more concerning, for those of us that think sexual assault is a matter of more serious social importance than football and that all the other cases that are not getting resolved in a timely matter are just as important as the Gibbons case was.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^
But the bedwetters in question are the "cover up!" monkeys, not people who are upset for the reason you give.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
Easy, tiger. I was just pointing out how the "Gibbons got special treatment" talking point got blown up.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:53 AM ^
Wouldn't Hoke stil have that privacy requirement in place? Making it so that he could not really say what was going on with Gibbons, and then the vague 'family matter' claim. I don't think he can just come out and say "Weellllll, Brendon is being investigated by UM for sexual assault, so he won't be kicking in the bowl game".
April 14th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
What Hoke said is not the most important aspect of this sorry mess, but I'm not giving him—or the Athletic Department—a pass on it.
Using the phrase "family issues" is intentionally misleading, because it directly conjures up visions of a death in the family, or a serious illness, or some other Gibbons family crisis. If as you assert Hoke was told how to handle it, then either the AD dept ordered him to intentionally mislead, or Hoke horrifically bungled instructions that the AD had provided him to phrase things differently.
Given how many times Hoke has used the term "violating team rules" for other players, it's not like he had no other stock phrases to use regarding Gibbons.
The one thing I'm trying to keep in mind is this: never ascribe to malevolence that which can be explained by stupidity (or inarticulateness).
April 14th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
I immediately believed "family matter" was likely a euphemism for something potentially embarrassing. I wonder if that's a Dayton-area phrase (Coach Hoke being from the area too).
Because of that, I'm inclined to think that Coach Hoke said "family matter" with the belief that it wouldn't be taken literally. That's not to completely defend him, though, because you're doing someone a favor by using the phrase, and Gibbons certainly didn't deserve a favor more than other guys who were labeled as having violated team rules for lesser acts.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
for something potentially embarrassing."
Did you immediately believe it was a euphemism for being booted out of school for involvement in an alleged sexual assault?
April 14th, 2014 at 12:08 PM ^
My initial hunch was that he was in rehab...Like I said, Gibbons didn't deserve the favor Hoke did for him. I wish Hoke had not done it.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:05 PM ^
I brought this up at the time--the first words out of my mouth when I saw "family matter" were "oh shit." I was thinking alcohol problem at first, then I wondered about this. It was a dead giveaway as far as I was concerned.
If he'd said "violation of team rules" I'd have thought it was repeated tardies or something. "Family matter" immediately had me thinking serious personal embarrassment. Using the harsher phrase didn't seem like a favor at all, until I found out nobody else here but you had the same meaning for "family matter" and people thought there was an illness in the family or something.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^
I initially defended Coach Hoke much more until some posters helped me see that - in the eyes of many - he had minimized what Gibbons had done. My own understanding of the phrase "family matter" - at the risk of repeating myself - is that it's something an employer or school says when an employee/student/teacher is gone and dealing with anything from an illness to alcohol rehab to a criminal charge.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^
I had the exact same "oh shit" reaction when I heard "family matter." Not necessarily because I am a midwesterner like Hoke or Erik_In_Dayton, but more because I was aware of the pending case against Gibbons. In my mind the the phrase is used exactly as you describe, to imply personal issues that could be embarrasing if aired in front of the press. Now in my, albeit cynical mind, the phrasing as well as the prior information availble screamed that Gibbons was in some shit regarding his sexual conduct.
a "family matter" can only be defined in black and white as a tragedy within the family, and NOT as a significant issue that a family wishes to deal with in private (like say your son being kicked out of school for sexual misconduct).
When Hoke announced that, many suspected what he was referring to. Probably several within the press in the room.
Fact - the initial letter of finding was delivered to Gibbons address the day the team travelled to Iowa. We don't know if Gibbons read it before travelling, or if Hoke knew the finding. We know Gibbons did not play another down for the UofM after that weekend.
The decision to appeal and/or sue the University if someone believes they had been wrongly expelled would be family matters to me as well.
I think Hoke was being smart. There's no way I'm opening up myself to litigation if I were him by saying something regarding a sexual misconduct.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:17 AM ^
Like other posters have more elloquently stated, who cares what Hoke said? Would it really have made you happy if he said "no comment" or didn't say anything?
The minute the University suspended Gibbons, he did not play for Michigan. Hoke/ Brandon and the AD did not cover up anything, they did not hinder the investigation (like @ FSU) and everybody is pissed off that Hoke said "Family Issue" as opposed to "no comment".Big deal.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^
So if you were a family member of the victim of this assault—or a family member of any of the other assault victims whose cases weren't so high-profile—you'd have been totally fine with "family issues" as an explanation?
Your right as a victim or a victim's family is for justice, not for public humiliation or for the football coach to ignite a nationl media firestorm by explaining the situation to the press.
Furthermore, the assault has not been tried, and Gibbons has not been convicted. The universtiy has stated that there is enough evidence to believe that it's more likely than not that sexual misconduct occurred.
In NO way does that entitle ANYONE to a public announcement of those findings by the football coach.
says the victim wants the case handled privately.
The third party has essentially made public enough information for the victim to be identified from the information that hasn't been redacted from the police report he posted online, and then there is the ongoing sensationalized reporting (and blog debating) of the case.
I suspect the victim is relieved the case was finally reviewed quitely by the University, while everyone involved would prefer Hoke said nothing to draw attention like he did.
Isn't that the point of the OSCR process, that these issues can be handled privately without the public humiliation of either party?
Had proper procedures been followed by all inolved, the letter would never have leaked and we'd never have known for sure why Gibbons was expelled. In fact, we might very well never even have known that he was expelled.
The alleged victim did not persue the matter with the police. Even if she did, why does Hoke dodging a press conference question have any bearing? If Hoke or Brandon or anybody else in the AD interfered with the investigation, then it's a big deal. Gibbons did not play after he was suspended, the university didn't wait an extra week to allow him to play.
We are getting an explanation right now and even without any police involvement, Gibbons is going to be known as a rapist forever. If I were a victim's family, I'd be pissed that the University took so long to investigate and I'd be pissed at Gibbons (maybe Lewan, if you believe the reports) and maybe even Hoke (but not for saying it was about "family issues").
April 14th, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^
Well said, JBlaze.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
leaping to Hoke's defense on this. Hoke has pointed to player's screw-ups many times. The question of a double standard arises about something that is to many of us more egregious than drinking or marijuana. . . somehow the Gibbons issue deserve this vague language?
Having said this, it's also worth pointing out--again--that this is a VERY minor issue compared to the allegations themselves and the university's incredibly long time to take care of it. It's also hard to believe that Hoke wasn't receiving orders about how to handle it from upstairs.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:58 AM ^
is why I don't understand vilifying Hoke as if he committed the assault himself. It's extremely obvious, at least to me, that he was told exactly what he could or could not disclose. So he ad-libbed poorly. I have a very, very, VERY hard time believing anyone going nuts on here would be any happier with "no comment" or anything other than blatant disclosure of all the facts, which we were never going to get at that point.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:06 PM ^
Believe it, apologist. "No comment" or "He violated rules" would have been much better.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:25 PM ^
Exactly right. And somebody please tell me why Hoke couldn't have said something like this for example:
"In a news release sent early Thursday, Spartans coach Mark Dantonio said Bullough had been suspended for the rest of the season. He did not say what rules the two-time team captain violated.
''It is extremely disappointing for all parties involved,'' Dantonio said.
Looks to me like Dantonio got it perfect while we fucked it up royally. Saying it was due to "family matters" insinuates something far, far less than what it turned out to be and gives at least temporary cover where none was warranted or deserved.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
How do you know Dantonio's statement was the proper tone when we still don't know why Bullough was suspended?
They haven't even come clean on that, yet you continually hold them up as an example. And are perfectly okay if privacy is their reason, but it's not okay for us.
Bizarre.
I hold them up for the exact reason you state. We DON'T KNOW what happened with Bullough and Dantonio's answer effectively ended the discussion. It doesnt matter if he was suspended for having too many overdue library books or for being a serial killer - Dantonio's answer was perfect IMO for addressing the problem (Bullough's off team) without saying anything other than they were sad.
I bring it up because it's a wonderful example of how to do things right. Which we clearly did not do.
Why is that bizarre? Because State did it?
Unfortunately for Hoke, Gibbons wasn't suspended by the football team. He was expelled. This is yet another half-truth to say he's "suspended." Furthermore, since we don't know the circumstances surrounding Bullough--which may have been admitted or legally proven misconduct--you're comparing apples to oranges.
Finally, on legal grounds, Dantonio wasn't dealing with FERPA, whereas Hoke was.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
Hoke knew and he didn't do anything. Hoke lied about the "leg injury" and "family matter" when Gibbons didn't play or travel.
They're trying to have it both ways, aren't they? If Hoke knew and didn't do anything, then he wouldn't have needed to claim a leg injury and Gibbons would have played against OSU and perhaps the under handed Hoke would have taken him to San Antonio. But the truth is Gibbons didn't play in those games and even if Hoke knew, and even if Gibbons wasn't injured, it wasn't Hoke's place to inform the world of the university's investigation and decisions thereof.
Bottom line, those that were butt hurt in January because they weren't personally consulted about the inner goings on at the university level and in the football program, will probably continue to be butt hurt.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:05 AM ^
Is this gonna be the end of this?? Either charge Gibbons or move on.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
Another stain on the Michigan fotoball program. Another step downward. Hoke was intentionally misleading....scratch that. Let's be honest, Hoke lied. He should be reprimanded. And, with a new President coming in, he ought to be worried about more than that if this thing continues to blow up.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^
Schlissel is not omnipotent. Most likely, he will gladly cede decisions on all of Michigan's coaches to Brandon, who is here (curiously, I might add) at the will of the regents.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
I am excited to read Section 1's opinions on the matter.