The protracted campus sexual harassment investigation involving former Michigan State University head football coach Mel Tucker has drawn to a close. The school, having enlisted an external attorney to assess Tucker’s appeal challenging the findings against him, released a 24-page report on Thursday, officially concluding the investigation almost 13 months after the complaint was initially filed by a rape survivor and anti-sexual violence activist.
Courtney Bullard, a Tennessee-based attorney and founder of consulting firm Institutional Compliance Solutions, who conducted the external review, affirmed the Resolution Officer’s decision in denying Tucker’s appeal. In her comprehensive report, Bullard stated, “Based on the facts outlined in the record, the (Resolution Officer) had a reasonable basis for each of the challenged findings. The RO’s Decision is upheld. This decision is final.”
Tucker, formerly one of the highest-paid coaches in any sport, faced formal discipline for allegations of sexually harassing and exploiting Brenda Tracy, whom he had hired to educate his team about sexual violence. Tracy had accused Tucker of engaging in inappropriate behavior during a phone call and making unwanted sexual advances in the months preceding the call.
With the investigation now concluded, the university’s leaders will determine the sanctions to be imposed on Tucker. Despite no longer being an employee, he could face bans from campus, future employment at MSU, or participation in school activities.
Tracy, represented by her attorney Karen Truszkowski, expressed gratitude that the challenging process had concluded. Tucker and his attorney, Jennifer Belveal, were not immediately available for comment. However, Tucker had previously accused the school of conducting a sham investigation to terminate his contract and indicated plans to sue Michigan State for wrongful termination.
University spokesperson Emily Guerrant emphasized the confirmation of a violation of the university’s Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct and Title IX Policy. Guerrant stated, “The university is continuing its commitment to fostering a culture of safety within our community, supporting those who have experienced relationship violence or sexual misconduct, safeguarding privacy, and ensuring a fair process.”
Tucker’s violation of the school’s sexual misconduct policy was determined on October 25, following a hearing he and Belveal chose not to attend. The hearing officer concluded that Tucker had sexually harassed and exploited Tracy during a phone call and subsequent incidents, leading to Michigan State firing him for cause on September 26.
Despite Tucker’s claims that he and Tracy were in a consensual romantic relationship, the university found his behavior unprofessional and unethical, given Tracy’s role as a vendor contracted for educating student-athletes on preventing sexual misconduct.
Tucker’s appeal, spanning 54 pages and presented by Belveal, reiterated arguments made throughout the case, including jurisdictional concerns and allegations of bias against him and men in general. The appeal also claimed to introduce new evidence, including text messages and an affidavit, which Tucker and Belveal contended would impact the outcome. However, the external review found that the evidence was not timely provided and would not have swayed the conclusion even if submitted promptly.
Tracy and her attorney dismissed Tucker’s claims as baseless, emphasizing the lack of factual or legal support for the allegations made against multiple parties involved in the investigation.
Investigators Rebecca Veidlinger and Amanda Norris Ames defended their work in separate letters, refuting claims of bias and improper conduct made by Tucker and Belveal. Veidlinger particularly criticized Belveal’s tactics as abusive and highlighted inconsistencies in Tucker’s arguments, reinforcing the integrity of the investigation.
With the investigation officially concluded, the aftermath continues to unfold, with potential sanctions against Tucker and the looming possibility of legal action. The case highlights the complex dynamics involved in addressing allegations of sexual harassment in high-profile positions within educational institutions.