U.S. Department of Education investigating the University of Michigan

Submitted by gebe659 on February 3rd, 2012 at 2:07 PM

 

The U.S. Department of Education is gathering information on whether University of Michigan violated a federal crime reporting law when it waited six months to disclose the discovery of child pornography in an employee area of University Hospital.

"We are looking into this," said Justin Hamilton, DOE press secretary.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/department-of-education-looking-into-six-month-lapse-in-reporting-child-porn/

Comments

MGoSoftball

February 3rd, 2012 at 5:15 PM ^

This could be as simple as a father having a picture of his topless 2 year old daughter in the front yard pool.  According to federal law; that is child porn.

So can we wait for the facts to come out before we jump to conclusions.  Lets not be a sparty and jump to conclusions then gather the facts that support those ill-conceived conclusions.

MGoSoftball

February 3rd, 2012 at 7:20 PM ^

shows the dark spot or nipple is porn.  Anyone under the age of 18 that is photographed while topless is child porn.

For example a 17 year old married girl send a text message of herself topless to her 18 year old husband fighting in Iraq COULD be charged with a host of child porn crimes.

These laws need to be updated but it will be preceived as being "soft on child porn"  No politician wants that label.

Yeoman

February 3rd, 2012 at 11:05 PM ^

where someone in the phot department at the drug store saw a woman's (innocent, of course) picture of her child taking a bath, decided the positioning of the tub's faucet was suggestive, and called the cops. Obscenity, as always, was in the eye of the beholder, but her choice was between likely prison time or a guilty plea that now has her labeled as a sex offender.

I'd like to think the current case is something more, given the use of the adjective "masochistic", but who knows?

 

M-Wolverine

February 3rd, 2012 at 2:25 PM ^

Who hasn't said anything in weeks, but pulls up a University but non-sports scandal topic at the University and just throws it out there.  It's not even new news.

What was the motivation or point to the post? Are you suddenly concerned about the workings at the U? Or did you just want to stir shit up with a negative post about the school?  If an admitted U-M fan goes on and posts "Police investigated basketball cover up of rape" on an MSU site, how do you think that will be received?

You did it to troll.  Not actively flaming in your trolling doesn't make it not trolling.

M-Wolverine

February 3rd, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^

From an MSU fan.  This is a topic that has been deleted by mods when respected users put up the subject.  You may not have paid attention enough to see that, which is fine (at least it's not the OSU recruit rapes someone thread again), but if you're an outside fan, and you're posting this stuff, you need to do your homework. Otherwise it looks bad. 

This story has been going on for at least a week.  This is a modest addition to the story.  So it's not newsworthy, and pseudo-appropriate.  So the question is, again, why was THIS story, of all the news that has happened since the Izzo story you put up seemed more newsworthy to you than anything else that has happened?  Why is an admitted MSU fan find this item more newsworthy than the rest?  Still waiting....

Edit: And you self-upvoted your own post, so you at least have that going for you, which is nice.

gebe659

February 3rd, 2012 at 2:39 PM ^

I hadn't seen that this story had been posted.  People are usually pretty quick to post newsworthy stuff.  The Izzo story and this one were the only ones I saw that hadn't been posted or discussed here already.  I also was the first to post that JoePa was dead, but it turns out that the website that posted it had jumped the gun.

So I've "broken" three stories on this board:  one MSU, one Penn St., and one UM.  If you want to consider that trolling, go right ahead.

The only negative athletic story I've ever broken on this message board was related to MSU...

Hardware Sushi

February 3rd, 2012 at 2:49 PM ^

Congrations on being the first guy to post shitty news all the time!

Just stop. You've either been too early or late on 2/3 of your threads. You aren't going to win this one. 

Besides, rival fan + posting negative news about blog's school = everyone annoyed.

This formula works for any college football blog.

M-Wolverine

February 3rd, 2012 at 2:50 PM ^

That was first posted....and deleted here back then-

http://mgoblog.com/comment/reply/64129/1458939

And your own link has backstory on it going to at least last Sunday-

http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/university-of-michigan-officials-didnt-report-child-porn-to-police-for-six-months/

More power to ya.  You made MGoBlog see the light, yet again.

 

Seth9

February 3rd, 2012 at 3:36 PM ^

1. It is on topic and newsworthy that we are under investigation by the US Department of Education. There is no active thread to discuss this, so creating one isn't a problem.

2. There is no legitimate reason to censor this topic when we allow general UM news to be posted all the time. Especially since this is a big deal.

I don't care that there's an MSU fan posting this. He didn't gloat or even give his opinion on the issue. And the topic should have an active thread.

M-Wolverine

February 3rd, 2012 at 3:48 PM ^

you found the hole in our system. I just removed it -- really it's not a topic that this blog needs anyway. Right now the university is letting everyone know that what you don't do if you find child porn is put it back then not say anything. Sadly this is what a lot of people would do.

http://mgoblog.com/comment/reply/64129/1458939

If it wasn't appropriate for our Diarist of the Week (2 times in a row?), it's probably not a great topic for a fan of another school to be posting.

M-Wolverine

February 3rd, 2012 at 4:24 PM ^

And if they do, I'll wonder why it wasn't appropriate that CRex, one of our best users, was politely told it wasn't appropriate, but a Spartan CAN post it now. Because I still don't see how something many many Wolverines knew, but didn't see fit to post suddenly became more reasonable. And still haven't heard a good explanation why this particular user thought this particular story was suddenly more newsworthy.

I haven't knocked any other posters for discussing it in the thread.  And if it's now appropriate, that's fine (just looking for consistency so we know how to act).  But it doesn't change the fact that the MSU guy just posted it be rile up Michigan fans.  The messenger matters as well as the message in how it's going to be received.

Seth9

February 3rd, 2012 at 5:22 PM ^

1. CRex accidentally posted it as a diary, not a board post.

2. What Seth said was that the topic was simply one that the blog doesn't need, which is why he didn't feel the need to turn it into a board topic. He certainly seems to have no problem with a 70+ comment thread on the matter. Furthermore, the focus of this thread is not that an individual outside the AD affiliated with the university did somethin unconscionable, but that the university is under investigation by the US Deptartment of Education. That's kind of a big deal.

3. The messenger shouldn't matter if the topic is valid and the phrasing of the message isn't offensive. If you are allowing yourself to get riled up because an outsider brought up a serious topic concerning our school that hadn't been talked about, then you need to develop a thicker skin.

Jon06

February 3rd, 2012 at 3:07 PM ^

the people in the OGC were trained, qua lawyers, to protect the legal interests of their clients, not to do what's right. so they dropped it because poor evidence gathering early on resulted in a case that wasn't then strong enough to keep the lawyers from worrying about the university getting sued if somebody did something about it. that's just a side effect of what lawyers are taught about their obligations as a matter of professional ethics.

Mitch Cumstein

February 3rd, 2012 at 2:15 PM ^

the discovery of child pornography in an employee area of University Hospital.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the charges and the story, but this makes it sound like child pornography was actually found at the hospital, not just at the resident's home. Also, is this all electronic, and not physical (if this is the case it could have just been in the guy's email or something)? Is this accurate?

Mitch Cumstein

February 3rd, 2012 at 2:50 PM ^

I remember in a previous article it said that there had been no patient complaints of wrong doing.  Obviously its an extra sensitive subject given hes a resident in pediatrics, but hopefully the investigation will show that no wrongdoing was done to any patients (consistent with the first article on the subject). 

Yeoman

February 3rd, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^

Yes, it was allegedly found at the hospital, and yes, it was electronic (I'm not sure if that's also true of what was allegedly found at the home). From the linked article:

 

In May a medical resident discovered a thumb drive containing masochistic child pornography and documents with fellow doctor Stephen Jenson's name on them. The resident reported her discovery to her supervisor and hospital security, but the university's legal office decided to drop the case instead of reporting it to police.

 

 

MGoLifer

February 3rd, 2012 at 2:22 PM ^

One image was seen, it was on a personal thumbdrive of a resident (doctor). Another resident saw it, left the area and when she came back it was gone.