UPDATED: 9/13/23 12:30PM

Author: While David Harns, publisher of Spartans Illustrated, knows me and can vouch for my bona fides, I am choosing to remain anonymous. I know these are very emotional topics for many, and am well aware of the potential for a social media firestorm that has collateral damage. I am choosing to be nameless to protect those with whom I do business and work with and for. My goal here was to be of service to the Spartan community and be agnostic as to whom is innocent or guilty. I hope it is received in that vein.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

In the immediate aftermath of the USA Today story about Mel Tucker and the now-public allegations by Brenda Tracy about him, I came across several stories and posts insinuating (or even alleging) that MSU’s administration had behaved inappropriately.

Such as this one from the Politics Editor at the Detroit News:

Given my professional experience of 30+ years, I know this field well and beg to differ with Mr. Politics Editor. Based on the facts as we know them from USA Today and the MSU releases, I think MSU largely acted entirely within reason, other than really botching a press conference.

Rather than just taking my word for it (this isn’t Twitter/X), I want to share with the reader what a typical process looks like – and why – so that s/he can make up their own mind – in an informed way – whether MSU reacted appropriately.

First, a note on why I think I am credible. As a Masters graduate of the MSU School of Human Resources – by the way, did you know that MSU’s Masters in HRLR is widely acknowledged as one of the best in the world? – and as a multiple-time Chief Human Resource Officer for major, multi-billion dollar organizations, I have created and overseen corporate systems to adjudicate claims of sexual harassment (and other forms of misconduct), and stewarded hundreds of people through them. I have been in this arena since my first job out of graduate school, in the Equal Opportunity Office for one of the world’s largest US–based companies.

Second, I am not a reporter.

Next, it’s important to acknowledge that the laws governing MSU (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) and private enterprise (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) are different statutes. However, they are substantially similar, especially in the principles that underpin them. There is even a question whether Title IX applies here, in which case Title VII certainly would. Therefore, I think that point is largely moot in the broader context of this conversation, especially as they are both rooted in the same legal and ethical principles.

Enough preamble. Let’s dive in and start with a simple premise, but one that hasn’t been discussed at all in the media and is extremely important: when allegations of sexual harassment are made, organizations do not know if they are true, false, and/or different interpretations of the same facts. Seems simple, eh? So, we protect the identify of both parties as much as possible.

As we all know, the identity of the accuser is protected because of the stigma, ridicule and other repercussions that can follow. That said, the identity of the accused is also protected in the event that the allegations are found to be false. This is because being accused of sexual misconduct can also lead to ridicule, career disaster, and being judged in the court of popular opinion, regardless of the ultimate facts.

Do people get falsely accused of sexual misconduct? While it’s not as common as finding fault, the reality is, “yep, they sure do.” And it happens enough that one has to devise a system to protect both parties.

Remember the Duke Lacrosse episode in 2006 when three players (and by extension the whole sport) were lambasted, kicked off the team, expelled … and later the rape charges were dismissed? I once witnessed a situation where three women “framed” an executive and we fired him on their testimony … only to discover their plot because they were celebrating their accomplishment at a bar, the bartender overheard them, and he was willing to testify in court about their statements.

So let’s examine the MSU situation in that context. Keep in mind that all of what we know is based on the USA Today article.

- The school learned about the accusation in December.

- By all accounts, they immediately contracted an independent investigator to look into the claims.

- Consistent with the principles of protecting both parties, the Office for Civil Rights informed only Tucker’s direct line of command that there was a charge and only that it was being investigated … and that’s it. That is appropriate because of the principle of protecting both parties until such time that an investigation is conducted, and the veracity of claims can be determined.

- That person only reports the facts as they find them, they report them to both parties and a third-party decides if a hearing is required.

- That hearing is scheduled at the mutual consent of all parties, and Oct. 5 & 6 were chosen by all.

- Jumping ahead, it also explains why the University did not suspend Tucker until Sunday when the investigation became public. The people doing the suspending appropriately did not know the details of the investigation until they read them at the same time we did. To their credit, they reacted within hours.

For those wondering why the two-month gap between the investigation closing and the hearing, I can easily imagine that lawyers for Tucker wanted time to digest a massive (USA Today cited over 1000 pages) investigative report and likely stalled for time, or just stalled period. Or perhaps there are other loose ends that had to be chased down by the Office for Civil Rights … we won’t know until the hearing.

Which brings me to another point: Until Tucker briefly responded via his attorney on Monday night, all of the information in the public domain has come from one side of this complaint. I have no reason to believe that things were left out of the investigative documents or altered in that disclosure … but none of us know that as a fact.

Late Tuesday, after the original draft of this article was posted, Tracy announced on X (Twitter) that she made the choice to disclose this information and her identity before she had intended because “someone outed me to the media.”

This situation is now in the public eye and has moved into a public relations battle for hearts and minds. I get that – the protagonists are protecting their reputations and have deep emotions about the matter. However, it’s not relevant to the ultimate outcome of the process other than, of course, that those statements are potential evidence in the proceedings.

The very reason we have due process in this country is so that the accused and accuser face either other (even if in 'Zooming' from separate rooms), often under oath and rule of law, and have a sober and fair chance to charge and defend. It’s not clear to me how “court-like” the MSU hearing will be (an organization’s process is not a court of law), but you can rest assured that this case will eventually end up in either the civil or criminal legal system. MSU knows this and is handling it accordingly.

The hearing, appeals, and eventual court cases have not yet happened, and until they do, we have no idea if the “whole story” has been told. So MSU suspending Tucker now pending the hearing is not only appropriate, but also essential given the moral turpitude clause in his contract.

Which brings us down Farm Lane to my last point. A LOT is on the line here. A highly prominent career. A woman’s psyche, reputation and her business. A ~$70m remaining contract. The reputation of a University still reeling from the Nassar crimes. Potentially an AD's (and others) career. No matter which way the hearing goes, there are going to be subsequent lawsuits and appeals.

MSU has to get this right the first time to withstand the years of litigation to come, and it will come. It is hardly surprising that the Office for Civil Rights and/or the University were taking the time to get this done thoroughly considering that reality. Sportswriters and social media pundits just want immediate resolution and gratification and will move on in a few weeks or months … but organization leaders have to have the long view and work backwards from anticipated future events years down the road.

These allegations strike all of us in the Spartan community in a personal, emotional way. Despite that, I would urge people to put the pitchforks down in their rush to burn down the entire University administration, and rather understand the painstaking work that takes place in these situations along the path to resolution. Could other choices have been made? Sure. But from my professional experience, the path that MSU chose to date is entirely reasonable.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Discuss this article in our premium forums by clicking here.

You can also follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

For video content, including our Red Cedar Radar podcast, find us on YouTube and consider subscribing.