Michigan Explains Sex Misconduct Policy

January 30, 2014 at 11:20a    by DJ Byrnes    
100 Comments
Brendan Gibbons / Associated Press

In yesterday's Skull Session, Vico brought you news of Brendan Gibbons being "permanently separated" (which is Michiganese for "expelled") from the University of Michigan due to sexual misconduct. It raised a lot of questions because the alleged event took place during Gibbon's freshman year... in 2009. The burning question is mainly: WHAT TOOK SO LONG?

Today, Michigan released an explanation; it's assumed it's about the Gibbons case even though the former kicker is never mentioned by name:

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.

Now the burning question becomes: if school policy didn't allow Michigan to immediately remove a student it thoroughly believed committed something as heinous as sexual misconduct, WHAT TOOK SO LONG TO CHANGE THE POLICIES?

Not good enough, Michigan. This simply is not good enough.


100 Comments

Comments

OSU_1992_UFM's picture

Seems like everything now takes years to "investigate". Probably to buy some time to come up with a reason as to why it took so long, this Gibbons thing just doesn't seem right,like something is missing from the story IMO

UFM_Renewal

toad1204's picture


So they took a page from the ND playbook on assult... 

Nothing like dancing on the field in 02... 

Buckeye in Illini country's picture

Couldn't Hoke have kicked him off the team for the everything-under-the-umbrella "violation of team rules/ conduct detrimental"?

Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours.  We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!

Jugdish's picture

This is a big issue like the PSU scandal in that it was ignored by the administrators. Would this be a failure that the NCAA will penalize UM?

Remember to get your wolverine spade or neutered. TBDBITL

The Rill Dill's picture

This simply can't be true---they do things the right way at Michigan.

Bucks's picture

"If new information is obtained at a later point" is what jumps out to me in this.

sharks's picture

Absolutely. New evidentiary material? Yes please.

The postgame show is brought to you by... Christ, I can't find it. The hell with it...

razrback16's picture

Laughable. Urban suspends players for simply "being there" when a bad situation is reported. You don't even have to be found guilty of doing anything. Just putting yourself in a bad situation and you get a 3 game suspension. Hoke will make sure to keep you out there on the field unless you're physically behind bars. Terrible.

M Man's picture

Sorry, 11W.  This one is dumb on your part.  Dumb, dumb, dumb.
You seem to have not even read the Univeristy's press release.
Since this is the internet, I am going to keep this is simple as possible, at least to start.
What "took so long" to expel Brendan Gibbons was that they employed a standard, in a system, that didn't exist in 2009.
Here's what happened; painfully short version.  In April of 2011, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new standard under the heading of a "Dear Colleague" letter.  The gross simplification of that letter was that the federal government, utilizing powers under Title IX, was going to pressure institutions recieving federal funds, to enact policies and procedures that would make it easier to report and punish any alleged sexual assault under standards and procedures that were vastly reduced, from standard criminal procedures.
The policy change was met with lots of criticism; from civil libertarians like law prof Jonathan Turley, to conservative opponents of the Obama Administration like James Taranto.  And of late, the Title IX pressure has led to some discipline and expulsions (under the lowered 2011 standards) of male students who then countersued, for denial of their substantive due process rights under the newly relaxed procedural standards.
I have actually posted all of those links in other Gibbons-related posts here at 11W.  Somebody hasn't done their homework.
In any event, by all accounts, this was a new policy, not in existence at the time of the original event, and the police investigation that led to no charges at the time has never led to the referral of any charges to the prosecutor's office.
It appears, pretty clearly, that Michigan's OSCR took this matter up recently, based on a new reporting of the incident.  A new report, of a 3+ year old matter that had been thoroughly investigated by the Ann Arbor police.
This "Buckshot" really fails to meet the usual standard of high quality on the part of 11W staff writing.
Oh and thanks for linking to the Detroit Free Press; one of the least credible sources of news on Michigan football that I can imagine.  Note the Freep's choice of what surely is one of the least-flattering file photos of Gibbons that anyone could find.  That the 11W staff chose to use as its own for this post.

tennbuckeye19's picture

Just curious, do you have any idea why was there a new reporting of the incident?

M Man's picture

Great question.  Thanks for asking.
Short answer:  I don't know.
Short list of clear, almost self-evident possibilities:

  • The alleged victim.  I suppose that she is the most likely individual.  Of course, she seems to have elected to stop pursuing the matter with police.  Why she would puruse a sub-legal complaint is worthy of explanation.
  • The "Washtenaw Watchdog."  The new rules don't require reporting by an alleged victim.  Third parties can do it.  Washtenaw Watchdog Doug Smith is a local blogger who is a retired university employee who now spends his days pursuing all manner of complaints against the University, city government, county government, state authorities, etc.  His favorite target is the Michigan football program.  He's the eccentric gadfly who shows up at Regents' meetings, etc., to complain about all sorts of pet peeves.  This case was one of them.  He went to a Regents' meeting and tried to hand out copies of the police reports to the members of the Board.
  • Someone else, possibly a University staffer or community activist, who wished to make a case under the "Dear Colleague" provisions.  Quite possibly inspired by the Washtenaw Watchdog.

I'd welcome any other ideas; as I say, the shorter answer is that I don't know.  But I liked the question.

Jack Fu's picture

I would bet almost anything that the "Washtenaw Watchdog" was the impetus.

+1 HS
M Man's picture

Me too.  I wish I could prove it.

DJ Byrnes's picture

What does it matter who started the ball rolling? There was a "preponderance of evidence" that Brendan Gibbons had committed sexual misconduct. (Those are UM's words, not mine.) Even if it was this watchdog, shouldn't he have been applauded for getting the ball rolling on justice? 

 

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

Jack Fu's picture

DJ, TennBuck asked the question (essentially "what made UM revisit this after several years of dormancy?") and we just tried to answer it.

Jugdish's picture

I think you are wasting your time on this MMan. Assault was a charge in 2009 as well as now. I always thought you were a voice of reason until the attack on Dontre. There are two events that make me ill that I have viewed. One is the mugging of Luke Witte and team in Minnesota and the mugging of Dontre at UM. One was worse than the other but neither should have happened. Lack of control by coaches.

Remember to get your wolverine spade or neutered. TBDBITL

M Man's picture

Somebody has to answer for Santino Dontre...
lol.
Sexual assault was never charged in this case.  That to me is a very big deal.  Never charged.  No charges filed.
I don't know what to say about the OCSR proceedings.  Can I ask you a question?  Did you read James Taranto's long column in the Wall Street Journal?  It is recent, and I commend it to all who are interested in this issue.

D. Anthony's picture

Why didn't the team suspend him after reading the report? Didn't they suspend Fitz before he was proven guilty/ had his day I'm court?
you are taking everything UM is saying as if gospel...yes this is completely different from the PSU case BUT, you do sound like the defenders who said Joe Pa did what was required of him by law... Yes it was reported in he paper, yes there was some digging and they can say we used the guidelines in place at the time. Seems like know body dug too deep or did anything more than the minimum required to cover their ass.
you seem convinced that everyone did their job and there's nothing to see here. 

D. Anthony

Hello_Heisman's picture

If anything, then wouldn't your beef be with RichRod and/or Bill Martin?  They were the coach and AD in place at the time the accusation and police investigation went down.  Maybe if Hoke had been coach at the time he would have suspended Gibbons until the police investigation was completed - who knows?  But to compare the Fitz vs. Gibbons treatment as an inconsistency doesn't make sense. 
Hoke was the coach when Fitz ran afoul of the law but not when the Gibbons investigation took place.  By the time Hoke arrived, the police investigation had already concluded.  What else would you expect a head coach to do at that point?  It's not like JoePa, who was aware of some critical piece of information about a crime and didn't take stronger action about it. 
The only people who really know what happened are Gibbons and his accuser.  Hoke wasn't there in 2009 so you can't blame him for Gibbons not being suspended during the police investigation.  You can blame him for the stupid comments to the media in 2013 for sure, but not for the lack of suspension in 2009.

60% of the time it works.....every time

BukFan's picture

Gricar investigated  Sandusky in 1998 and NEVER filed charges. That took 14 years!  So there ya go.  Yet we blame JoPA and school officials. 

Hello_Heisman's picture

I'd say the whole Ron Artest-Malice at the Palace brawl in 2005 was way worse than anything you're talking about, as was the Todd Bertuzzi hit on Steve Moore in 2004.  Those were actual assault-like activities.  The stuff you're talking about is child's play by comparison.

60% of the time it works.....every time

Jugdish's picture

HH I don't care about those other events. I was talking about OSU and the treatment received by other universities. We should hold our student athletes to higher moral character.

Remember to get your wolverine spade or neutered. TBDBITL

Scarlet_Lutefisk's picture

What HH refers to as 'child's play'...

Unfortunately the clip ends before you can see the Minnesota fans storming the court & attacking the Buckeye players.
 
 
 

countrybuckeye's picture

it ended with the Charlie Bauman clip.  No conspiracy here, just coincidence .... :-\

"Momma told me there would be days like this."

NEBuckeye's picture

I could see downplaying the Dontre Wilson incident (for lack of a better way of putting it) compared to the Pacers/Pistons brawl or the Todd Bertuzzi hit.  But the 71-72 Gophers turned into a bunch of extremely violent criminals in a split second and got little more than a slap on the wrist.

Scarlet_Lutefisk's picture

Exactly NE. People tend not to understand how bad it was because it occurred before the cable news era.
And yes Hoke's Hooligans from this past year don't belong in the same conversation.

Young_Turk's picture

You would seem to have a bright future in politics.  Curious to me how a letter from DOC from 2011 impacts how passively UM investigates a rape from 2009.  Fast forward to 2014, and now they expel the alleged?  
 

osu07asu10's picture

Can you explain why Hoke lied to the media for Ohio State and your bowl game?

"They don't know what they don't know." - Coach Mick

M Man's picture

Nope.  I have criticized Hoke pretty severely for that.
But that's gamesmanship for the public and the team.  There isn't even the slightest intimation that Hoke was involved in any decision, or any investigation, or any obstruction of any investigation.

DJ Byrnes's picture

"Gamesmanship" involving your KICKER and a sexual assault? 

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

M Man's picture

No.
"Gamesmanship" on which kicker will be playing; "gamesmanship" on protecting your players from the press; "gamesmanship" on quashing stories that might distract the team.
Did I really need to write all of that?

Deadly Nuts's picture

So this means Penn State was using "gamesmanship" while covering up the Sandusky scandal, right?

LEBRON

M Man's picture

Downvoted.
Let's just hammer all the ways that the Gibbons case wasn't even remotely covered up.
The police investigated the matter, immediately.
Gibbons cooperated in the investigation.  He made a full statement to the police, on his own.  He said clearly that it was consensual sex.
It was covered in local newspapers, on MGoBlog; everybody knew about it.
There was no interference in anything by anybody in Michigan football.
The police concluded their investigation and did not refer any charges to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor.  There isn't the slightest hint that anybody interfered with that investigation.
A local blogger rode the story as long as he could.  He FOIA'ed the police reports; he campaigned; he took the matter to public meetings of the Board of Regents.
Unlike Sandusky, there was never a trial of Gibbons.  Gibbons has never been found guilty of anything, and judging by the police and prosecutor actions, they don't think they'd get a conviction.  
But the University, operating under the newly hyper-sensitive and hyper-vigilant rules of Department of Education, with low standards of proof and relaxed rules of evidence, later undertook an OSCR hearing and -- belying any "cover-up" notion -- expelled Gibbons for a violation of the student code.  (All that they could do under the circumstances.)
So your stupid Penn State analogy is stupid.  Sorry to say it that way.  I don't know of a plainer way to say it.

Oyster's picture

MMan,
Do you hold the same opinion when discussing the incident concerning MSU athletes that is somewhat similar? 

May you R.I.P. Otsego, but know this. Gaylord Rocks!

Deadly Nuts's picture

Upvote to M-Man just to balance it out.
I wrote that post regarding the fact that Hoke straight up lied to the media and you wrote it off as "gamesmanship".

LEBRON

BukFan's picture

Sandusky wasn't charged until 14 years later.  So.....since charges weren't filed until 2012, why vacate wins back to 1998?   Its all good I guess up until the point actual DA files charges.  PSU is in the clear than!
 

Hello_Heisman's picture

I don't think there's a good explanation for that piece of it, other than it was juvenile and had no bearing on Gibbons' actual status with the team.  Only thing I can think of is that Hoke is pretty protective of his players and tries not to say too much to the media, but why he didn't just go with the generic "violation of team rules" is beyond me.

60% of the time it works.....every time

buckeyestu's picture

Didn't a certain head coach at TOSU lose his job for lying? Maybe Hokey loses his job now?

Hello_Heisman's picture

I think the circumstances are a little bit different.  Tressell lied to his bosses and the NCAA about player misconduct and then covered up what they actually did.  Hoke lied to the media about why Gibbons didn't play, but he didn't lie about or withhold information that pertained to the Gibbons investigation. 
The incident in question happened 2 years before Hoke arrived and once he became the HC, the police investigation had long since concluded.  Until the recent re-review of the case by UM's Administration under its new policy, Hoke would have had no reason to think this was even still an issue from his or the team's perspective.  Thus, he would have had nothing to lie about or cover up in the first place. 
 

60% of the time it works.....every time

M Man's picture

Tressel (you all know that I am an instinctive fan of coach Tressel, right?) lied on the record, on a matter of substance in an NCAA investigation.
I know I read that transcript once.  (It's heavily redacted.)  Was he under oath?  I seem to recall that Coach Tress was not under oath.  But he was effectively under an operational oath, with the NCAA.  You can't lie to the NCAA.  You can't lie under oath.
Brady Hoke:  Said that Gibbons missed the OSU game because of an injury.  True?  I doubt it, but I don't know.  It might be true.  Said that Gibbons was not going to the bowl game because of a "family" issue.  It's true, if you can possibly twist those words into; "Brendan's off the team, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act prevent me from discussing it."  The more I think about that, the funnier that part (not the underlying matter) is.

osu07asu10's picture

Note the Freep's choice of what surely is one of the least-flattering file photos of Gibbons that anyone could find.  That the 11W staff chose to use as its own for this post.

Actually, if you roll your mouse cursor over the picture...it gives credit to the AP for the picture. 
Also, what do you consider a "flattering" picture of the guy?



He's a tough dude to get a "flattering" picture of...

"They don't know what they don't know." - Coach Mick

M Man's picture

I know it's an AP photo.  There are a hundred file photos to choose from.  Indeed, it is a cropped photo:

 
If anybody was interested in not making him look sloppy or disheveled, they could pick one of the photos where he hadn't just played a game or a practice, like so (with Freep writer Mark Snyder in the foreground):

osu07asu10's picture

Cropping a photo doesn't make Gibbons look any different because his two teammates look somewhat more put together.
Also the second picture there appears to be fairly dated, prior to the 2011 season.
 

"They don't know what they don't know." - Coach Mick

Scarlet_Lutefisk's picture

Yes because it's reasonable to sift through hundreds of photos of Gibbons looking like a derelict to find the single instance where he shaved & had short hair.
Alternatively one could just use his official photo from the team website:

Clearly the athletic department is just trying to make him look bad.

hansman's picture

No offense, but how are you going to call someone dumb when you've been repeatedly standing in this guy's corner? If he didn't do anything, then they why did they take these steps and do it in this fashion? But, you seem to believe that just because the police found nothing, that automatically means nothing wrong happened and there was no cover-up. Michigan doing this is an admission of his guilt and their own!

M Man's picture

Now you are being dumb.
This Buckshot post was premised on there having been an inexplicable "four-year" delay in addressing the Gibbons case.  That isn't close to being true, and I think I explained that.  Why there was no criminal case (the police referred no charges); why there was no investigation initially (the victim may not have pursued it, under the old rules that required her to initiate a proceeding); why the much-belated claim might have been opened (federal government pressure to change rules and standards for such cases).
You won't trap me into declaring Gibbons' substantive innocence, because I don't know.  And I just bet that you don't know one way or the other, either.  But if you have a transcript of all proceedings in the OSCR, and a copy of Gibbons' file, let's get together and talk it over.  My guess is that you don't have anything close to that, and that you have no business using a term like "guilt" in this context.

tennbuckeye19's picture

I have no idea if Gibbons is guilty or not, but the concern I would have is that with this OSCR, it seems that a student could end up being dismissed based on allegations only. It seems like this could be the case moving forward. 

Whoa Nellie's picture

The OSCR still conducts a hearing, hears witnesses, considers evidence, and then applies the "preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof standard, i.e. is it probable, or more likely than not that the charges are true.  Allegations alone would not be sufficient in a contested case.  This is the same burden of proof standard as is applied in most civil lawsuits, e.g. the OJ civil case where he was found liable for damages for killing Nicole and Ron Goldman.

“Don’t fear criticism. The stands are full of critics. They play no ball. They fight no fights. They make no mistakes because they attempt nothing. Down on the field are the doers, they make mistakes because they attempt many things.”

M Man's picture

The OSCR still conducts a hearing, hears witnesses, considers evidence, and then applies the "preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof standard, i.e. is it probable, or more likely than not that the charges are true.  Allegations alone would not be sufficient in a contested case.  This is the same burden of proof standard as is applied in most civil lawsuits, e.g. the OJ civil case where he was found liable for damages for killing Nicole and Ron Goldman.

No.
What about a right to counsel?  Discovery?  Confrontation of witnesses?  Cross-examination?  What about the hearing officers?  Trained judicial officers who know the rules of evidence?  Or moonlighting sex-assualt counselors.
Nope; not even close.  Your point helps me show the overwhelming need for explosive quasi-criminal cases to be in courtrooms, not "conflict resolution" conference rooms.

Whoa Nellie's picture

Sorry had not read the procedures.  Here they are: http://m.oscr.umich.edu/article/procedures
There are some important differences from civil court, but the respondent may have an attorney present at every stage of the proceeding.  There is a presumption of innocence.  A hearing can be requested by the respondent.  Evidence is provided to the parties prior to a hearing.  Witnesses may be asked questions.  Parties may call witnesses and submit evidence, make arguments.  The school should certainly ensure that the person conducting a hearing is legally trained.  The decision of the hearing officer or panel is appealable.
And, interestingly, the burden of proof adopted by UM is more stringent than a preponderance of the evidence.  The allegations must be proven by "clear and convincing" evidence.  This is a higher burden of proof, one typically applied in civil cases alleging intentional wrong-doing, e.g. fraud.
 

“Don’t fear criticism. The stands are full of critics. They play no ball. They fight no fights. They make no mistakes because they attempt nothing. Down on the field are the doers, they make mistakes because they attempt many things.”

M Man's picture

I have no idea if Gibbons is guilty or not, but the concern I would have is that with this OSCR, it seems that a student could end up being dismissed based on allegations only. It seems like this could be the case moving forward.

 
Oh yeah that's the whole point.
Tremendously reduced standards, for the due process rights of the accused, in these OSCR cases.  And in the end, "guilt" could well be premised on nothing more than creating a "hostile environment"; nothing criminal.
Can you just imagine -- this is a pure hypothetical -- a star Buckeye football player being expelled from the university (and thereby removed from the team no matter what Meyer and Smith might think) on the basis of a sexual harassment claim or a deeply disputed sexual assault claim?  A case in which Columbus police and Franklin County prosecutors agreed that they had insufficient evidence to charge the player with any crime?
 

hansman's picture

Actually, you are still being dumb. Which sounds more likely to you for why you suddenly want to separate yourself from a guy four years after the fact.....because he is innocent or because he is guilty? You're telling me and everyone else they are dumb, but you are also telling me that there is a chance Michigan would suddenly separate themselves from an innocent man (whether you 100% declare it or not doesn't mean you haven't been sticking up for him and saying that it could still be true) four years after the fact....that's cute. Guess what the four years bought them? A kicker and an "investigation". This is their backwards way of saying they are sorry.

hansman's picture

The four years isn't even the point. All that does is make them look even more shady. The fact that they separated themselves from him at all is the point. And, the fact that after they did this, you are still leaving innocence open as a possibility. 

Hello_Heisman's picture

I have no idea whether Gibbons is guilty (he very well might be) but even if he is, how would you draw the conclusion that there was a cover up?  A cover up would mean that Michigan personnel deliberately withheld information from or impeded the police investigation.  There have been no accusations of that from anyone.  A full police investigation was conducted following the report of the incident in 2009; ultimately the policed deemed there wasn't enough evidence to press charges. 
That this issue is now being revisited by the UM Administration under a different standard than the police/court of law isn't indicative of a cover up.  It may well be indicative of Gibbons' guilt, but not of a cover up.  I think the real failure here (other than the big picture issue of a Michigan football player potentially committing sexual assault/rape) is the lack of transparency by UM Administration officials around why they chose to revisit the issue now - what prompted it and what they discovered that made them think it was worth expelling Gibbons. 

60% of the time it works.....every time

hansman's picture

I stopped reading after your first sentence that talked about how he might be guilty. So, my idea of a cover up is far fetched, but the idea of saying a guy could possibly still be innocent when his school just permanently separated themselves from him isn't? The reason the cover up theory is just a tad bit more plausible is because of the little FOUR YEAR thing. They can cite a school policy all they want, but if their reason for taking so long was supposedly a policy and an investigation that turned up nothing, then whey are they separating themselves from him at all regardless of the time it took?? Focusing on how policy didn't allow it sooner is just a last ditch attempt to deflect something that can be seen as nothing other than an admission of guilt.

Hello_Heisman's picture

Arguments are generally more plausible when you read them in their entirety, rather than just the first sentence.

60% of the time it works.....every time

hansman's picture

Withholding judgment on guilt or innocence is generally more plausible when your school didn't just separate themselves from a player after a four year investigation that supposedly turned up nothing.

Hello_Heisman's picture

Reading comprehension might not be your strongest suit.  You make it sound like there was this ongoing 4 year investigation, when in fact there was no such thing.  There was a police investigation in 2009, and then a re-review under a lower burden of proof through a different review body in 2013.  Each investigation/review took a matter of weeks or months.  There wasn't anything else happening in between the two reviews. 
If you want me to say that I think he's guilty then fine, he probably is guilty of something based on the University's recent decision.  Just stop with the stupid cover up angle because there isn't one.  The people most likely to have the incentive to cover something up (head coach, AD) weren't even employed in these positions in 2009 when the police investigation originally occurred.  So whose tracks would they even be trying to cover up in the first place?    

60% of the time it works.....every time

hansman's picture

Thank you for this. I've already said I'm done. Shake?

M Man's picture

You keep talking about "guilt."  And the implication of a sex crime.
By its own terms, the OSCR doesn't do that.  It would be an outrage if they attempted that, because none of them are judges or anything like judges.
They are making determinations about "hostile atmosphere" kinds of things.  They can expel a student on the basis of his making others uncomfortable.  That's their own standard.
Now I don't know the details; and I take it you don't either.  I'd like to know all the details, including all of the substantive details, but that is some of the most guarded FERPA-protected information anyone could hope for.
I'll be satisfied if we can just figure out what the procedure was; because I am pretty sure that whatever it is, a good and skilled criminal defense lawyer would laugh at the lack of protections for the accused.  The university/DoEd. response is no doubt, "Well, we know it isn't a criminal proceeding.  It isn't intended to be a criminal proceeding.  We aren't sending anyone to jail."  But of course the public consequences for a Brendan Gibbons is GUILT in all-caps, in the court of public opinion.

hansman's picture

At this point, I've said what I feel I needed to and am ready to let sleeping dogs lie. If you are still holding out hopes for Gibbon's innocence and getting his back, while at the same time supporting your school for separating themselves from him and how they went about it then that is your choice.

hansman's picture

I'm sorry but you and M man can't ride the fence and have it both ways. That is exactly what is wrong with what your school is doing. If you believe the guy is innocent and you believe you have an investigation that turned up nothing, then don't separate yourselves from him. If you think he is guilty, do separate yourselves from him. Instead, they are trying to make themselves look good by cutting ties with him while at the same time acting like he didn't do anything.....the same way you guys are trying to get your school's back and your player's back at the same time.

Jack Fu's picture

You realize that MMan and HelloHeisman didn't make the decision, don't you?
And they're not saying they think he's innocent. They're saying they don't know. And neither do you. But by all means, keep trolling. It's a great look for you.

hansman's picture

1. I never said they made the decision but thank you for putting words in my mouth. Just because someone doesn't make a decision, doesn't mean they aren't standing by it.
2. They are saying they don't know while supporting something that can be seen as nothing other than an admission of guilt. If you have doubt about his guilt/innocence and have a four year investigation that DOESN'T PROVE HIS GUILT then WHY SEPARATE FROM HIM?
3. I haven't trolled anyone. 

M Man's picture

Hansman do you realize that it wasn't "a four year investigation"?  There was a swift, thorough police investigation.  No charges.
Then nothing; no further investigation, at least not by OSCR.  There may have been an inquiry by the football staff and some punishment, that we don't know about.  But that's an aside.
Then in 2011 the rules of the OSCR changed.  Their standards got significantly lowered, under pressure from the Department of Education's Civil Rights Section.  And they invited a review of old cases, under new standards.  And so, after many years, this case got revived, under standards that would make a judges and defense lawyers roll their eyes.
And that is how Gibbons was found to be in violation of student conduct rules (NOT criminal sexual assault laws) and expelled (NOT found guilty).
With that, I think I am done with you for today.

Hello_Heisman's picture

This is my mental state every time I read one of his posts on the subject:
 

60% of the time it works.....every time

M Man's picture

I think you don't understand my position.
I am not enamored with what Michigan has done administratively in this case.  I don't llike the new Department of Education Civil Rights Section rules.  I am suspicious of what was done in the Gibbons case, in the effort to comply with Title IX.
Most of your fellow Buckeyes in this thread seem to get that part, and it has otherwise been an interesting discussion.
I don't know what happened in Gibbons' case.  I'd be a lot happier, if his case had been handled and disposed of in the criminal justice system, where such cases naturally belong.  In that realm, Gibbons; case was not prosecuted.  I don't like the secretive, unclear administrative proceeding, and its sub-legal rules.  If people are going to be declared "guilty" as you are now doing, I want there to be a trial under the rules of evidence and with full due process rights for the defendant(s).
 

hansman's picture

Fair enough. This post gives me a much better grasp on your opinion. I am going to get out now though, because this fire has now gotten too hot for my liking.

OSUStu's picture

Just a point of clarification M Man:

...enact policies and procedures that would make it easier to report and punish any alleged sexual assault under standards and procedures that were vastly reduced, from standard criminal procedures.

Are you saying that in 2009, the standard by which Michigan football players might be disciplined for this type of issue where the same as those for conducting criminal investigations?

If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.  ~ Bruce Lee

M Man's picture

Not quite; no.  I don't know how or in what way Gibbons (then a true Freshman, redshirting) might have been punished privately within the football program.  He didn't play in any 2009 games, as a RS.  He wasn't suspended from any games that I recall, in 2010 (the following year, but I am not 100% sure about that.)
But as the 2009 football season concluded, without Gibbons playing at all, by the time spring, summer and fall football rolled around in 2010, there had been no charges, and there was no other administrative proceeding(s) concerning Gibbons.

DJ Byrnes's picture

M Man. I'll keep this short, as I'm the author of this post:

 

  • The fact Brendan Gibbons wasn't charged with sexual assault doesn't prove in the slightest Brendan Gibbons wasn't guilty of sexual assault. If we're talking about people doing homework, I'd start with an examination of sexual assaults in general, let alone those that occur in small football towns.
  • He was eventually expelled from the university, so even using your timeline, it took over two years. He was allowed to play football and represent the university during this time.
  • Brady Hoke let him play on the team, and lied about it to the media on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.
  • The AP photo falls under fair use and is credited in the mouse-over. It's not my fault Brendan Gibbons naturally looks like a guy you'd find in a smoke-filled bar high on Xanax and shooting pool. Doubt me?

Brendan Gibbons

Brendan Gibbons celebrating. This was on 2012.

If I wanted to grind a hatchet, this is prly the pic I'd have chosen.

And these are just some of the top returns for a Google Image search of "Brendan Gibbons."

 

... I like you, M Man. You're a fantastic commenter. But it's clear you're a little sore over this. Don't take your cognitive dissonance out on me. You're smarter than that.

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

osu07asu10's picture

I'll leave this one right here to enjoy as well....

"They don't know what they don't know." - Coach Mick

M Man's picture
  • The fact Brendan Gibbons wasn't charged with sexual assault doesn't prove in the slightest Brendan Gibbons wasn't guilty of sexual assault. If we're talking about people doing homework, I'd start with an examination of sexual assaults in general, let alone those that occur in small football towns.

If you are saying that Gibbons was found guilty of sexual assault, that's false.  Sorry, it's just false.  The OSCR is judging on lesser standards, with lowered standards of proof and relaxed rules of evidence.  You seem like a nice guy.  Just because you haven't been charged with sexual assault, doesn't mean you aren't guilty of sexual assault.  I'll just bet that there is a library copy of Franz Kafka's The Trial at the OSU library.

  • He was eventually expelled from the university, so even using your timeline, it took over two years. He was allowed to play football and represent the university during this time.

Yes; he had not been found guilty, hadn't been charged with a crime, and hadn't been brought up on any OSCR charges.  Upon what basis should he have been kicked off the team at that point?

  • Brady Hoke let him play on the team, and lied about it to the media on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.

I have stated too many times to count, Brady Hoke's press statements are inexplicable. They are also unrelated to any substantive issue in the case.  If you think there was any coverup on the part of Hoke, let me know.  Be specific.

  • The AP photo falls under fair use and is credited in the mouse-over. It's not my fault Brendan Gibbons naturally looks like a guy you'd find in a smoke-filled bar high on Xanax and shooting pool.

I have no "fair use" concerns.  You probably knew that.  And I was primed to attack on that one, because I was mad at the Freep for using it just as you did.  That's part of my Free Press grudge, which is a deep one.  Newspapers and websites do it all the time.  Pick a nice picture of your hero, and an ugly picture of your enemy/rival.

BucksfanXC's picture

The only credit I can give Brady Hoke, because there is no way he didn't know about everything, every step of the way, is that he's not allowed to comment on student review investigations for non-disclosure law reasons. So anytime he uses, "he's out with a tweak type injury" or "family issues" it might not be a lie, but it also is possibly at best a half-truth. But either way, it was probably as much as he was allowed to say, and obviously better than saying, "I can't comment on an on-going investigation" because that's just as bad as saying something he's not allow to say.

“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.”  - Woody

Hello_Heisman's picture

DJ,
I get/agree with most of your points except the Brady Hoke lying thing.  Other than his BS excuses to the media for why Gibbons didn't play in the OSU game and the bowl game, what was Hoke lying about?  It was public information that there had been a police investigation into the Gibbons matter during 2009 that was resolved prior to Hoke's arrival.  Is your point that regardless of the results of the police investigation, Hoke should have suspended Gibbons at some point after he took over just for being involved (a la Carlos Hyde earlier this year)? 
Not looking to argue with you, just trying to get better clarity on your view as to my knowledge, there were two investigations/reviews that took place - one by the police in 2009 and one late in the season through the UM Administration in 2013.  There wasn't anything else that occurred in between, so what would Hoke have been lying about?

60% of the time it works.....every time

NitroBuck's picture

With all due respect, the standards for enacting disciplinary measures in sexual misconduct cases may have changed, but it appears they changed in 2011.  That was approximately 2-1/2 years ago.  Why no disciplinary action until now?  Also, are new national guidelines required for a coach to be able to suspend or remove a player from the program?  I think not.  Seems to me a coach could rid the program of an undesirable player by citing a "violation of team rules" for far lesser issues than this one.  In short, Michigan could have done the right thing, with or without the new guidelines.  

Ferio.  Tego.

Hello_Heisman's picture

What makes this a little more complicated is that Gibbons was cleared in a police investigation 2 years before Hoke got to UM.  I can definitely see where Gibbons should have been suspended in 2009 until the legal investigation played out.  But once it did and he was cleared, what would the basis have been at that point for suspending him/kicking him off the team after the fact? 
This is where some more transparency from the UM administration would help, as it would be good to know what specifically prompted them to review the case in 2013 as opposed to say, 2011 or 2012.  Because if you're the head coach in this situation, what kind of message are you sending to your players if you boot Gibbons off the team in 2011 when he's:
a.  already been cleared of any legal wrongdoing
b.  Not under any other investigation or review by the university administration
At that point, you would literally have no cause for taking action. 
The analogy to this for OSU would be if Carlos Hyde had eligibility for next year, yet Meyer suspended him or kicked him off the team next summer for the bar incident from last year.  What basis would Meyer have for doing so in 2014, since Hyde was already cleared from a legal perspective and has no other investigations/reviews are pending? 

60% of the time it works.....every time

NitroBuck's picture

Plausible explanation, yet here we are 4 years after the incident and Gibbons is being expelled.  If as you say UM had no reason to part ways with him in 2009, or even 2011 after the policy changes, then what reason do they have to expel him now?  There is still a major disconnect here.

Ferio.  Tego.

Jack_Q_Football's picture

How long it's taking so long to investigate Jim Tressel's decade-long raping of M*ch*g*n football?!?

Hello_Heisman's picture

'em if you got 'em?  
 

60% of the time it works.....every time

CALPOPPY's picture

..on the waaah-tehhr!
Duh-Duh-Duuh. Duh-dh-d-duuh. Duh-Duh-Duuh-Duh-Duuuh.

I'm a hurtin' buckaroo.

Hovenaut's picture

Rock on, dude.....

Whoa Nellie's picture

Apparently, the OIE cannot simply re-open old cases and proceed under the new rules and standards.  "New information" must be received to do so.  Surely, simply resubmitting a new report of an incident without any new information would not be sufficient to trigger a new investigation under new rules.  What new information in this case permitted the OIE to conduct an investigation using the new procedures?
Also, the UM press release states that it adopted the new procedures in 2013.  The US Dept. of Education issued its letter in April, 2011.  Why did it take 2 years to enact the new procedures?
 

“Don’t fear criticism. The stands are full of critics. They play no ball. They fight no fights. They make no mistakes because they attempt nothing. Down on the field are the doers, they make mistakes because they attempt many things.”

BucksfanXC's picture

Basically the cops said a long time ago, there is no case here, for whatever reason: not enough evidence, no testimony from the victim/no desire to press charges, etc. The university has changed their policies to comply with Federal law changes and now believes, beyond a preponderance of evidence (basically 50.1% sure) that he committed some act that may fall short of sexual assault, but was at least violent and against the conduct code.
So, that could mean he is getting screwed and is guilty in the public eye because there were some allegations, whether or not he did anything wrong. Or it could mean he raped someone, but because of witness intimidation/failure by the police or victim to establish a case/etc, and he's only being expelled for it, after receiving a degree and playing out his eligibility. OR, it could be anything in between.
Good to know.

“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.”  - Woody

M Man's picture

It's gratifying, to read someone who gets it.
I don't expect anybody here to suddenly like Brendan Gibbons.
What I do hope all of you understand, is that my policy-level concerns could some day be OSU football concerns.
It's been a good discussion and I just have to say again how much I appreciate being given space on 11W.

Jugdish's picture

Shake. It has to be unnerving to come onto an opposing site and explain your case. I am gaining in respect for your opinions and especially your fact presentation. Time may tell what really happened. Let the greatest rivalry in sports live on.

Remember to get your wolverine spade or neutered. TBDBITL

NitroBuck's picture

What I really like and appreciate about both M Man and the Eleven Warriors crowd is that the entire discussion has been respectful.  It takes guts for him to debate the issue here, but it easier and far more productive when the discourse is mutually respectful. 

Ferio.  Tego.

BucksfanXC's picture

This is a classic case of the more we know, the more we realize we don't know. We will never know the whole story on these kinds of things. You never see the closed door meetings, the discussions, the punishments of running stairs, etc. etc. and so you only get the PR point of view. I try my best to never lambaste anybody over these things because we really only get one side of a story, the public side. It's all PR crap.
I just really hated when OSU went through Tatgate and Clarett and all those things, there was the common defense from Buckeyes that "it happens everywhere" which is both true and false. And I hated the pompous UofM snooty response of, "not at Michigan." Because it happens, 150 college aged kids make stupid mistakes, they get DUIs, they get free beers at the bar, they get caught sometimes, sometimes they don't. I don't think either school covers-up anything. I see how it looks to biased outsiders getting half the story like a cover-up, but I don't think it ever really is a cover-up thing. I don't think UofM was covering Gibbons up, I just think everyone tries to keep these things as quiet as possible and dealt with internally as much as possible. And good for UofM for doing it in this case and for trying to get better going forward, really that's all you can do. Was it handled perfectly? Probably not, but is anything ever?
M Man, I enjoy you here and I'm so glad we don't have the kind of commenters here that downvote you to hell and make you want to leave. I know at MGoBlog I've had some good experiences and some outright attack experiences and it's to be expected, but I'm glad we all are doing well here, and I don't expect anything less of these great commenters.

“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.”  - Woody

Young_Turk's picture

Really that's the point.  UM is trying to distance itself from this pred, when in my mind's eye, he is now the poster child for what a "Michigan Man" looks like.  I'm not entirely sure he isn't the guy that got maced in happy valley.  

osu07asu10's picture

But Gibbons wears #34!

"They don't know what they don't know." - Coach Mick

Knarcisi's picture

Fat coach, fat kicker ...

hetuck's picture

Wonder when FSU will convene one of these panels for Winston? His case went to the state prosecutor. And his act took place while this policy was in effect. 

Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.

Vince Lombardi

Oyster's picture

Bobby Bowden is all over it.

May you R.I.P. Otsego, but know this. Gaylord Rocks!

tennbuckeye19's picture

Dadgummit, you know he is.

buckeyedude's picture

I don't know the facts in this case. Did he get caught playing with himself in public? Or was he using one of those shake weights?

 

 

ScarletNGrey01's picture

The will to win is not as important as the will to prepare to win. -- Woody Hayes

ScarletNGrey01's picture

Oh I get it ... it happened WAY back in 2009.  Whew, that explains everything, if it had taken place in MODERN times he would have been swiftly dealt with and summarily dismissed of course.

The will to win is not as important as the will to prepare to win. -- Woody Hayes