LOGAN — In a “notice of noncompliance” sent by the U.S. Department of Justice last month to Utah State University, the government agency outlined what it deemed “an ongoing hostile environment within its football program” and criticized the university for a failure to “take prompt, equitable, and effective steps” to address those issues.
Utah State sent a response Tuesday outlining the steps it would take to conform to the demands of the agreement with the DOJ.
The DOJ has been “compliance monitoring” Utah State since a Feb. 2020 settlement in which the university signed a resolution that it would address systemic issues with handling cases of sexual misconduct that were exposed due to multiple incidents in the previous decade, including the case of Torrey Green, a former Utah State football player who was sentenced to 29 years in prison over convictions in seven cases of rape. Those crimes occurred while Green was at USU but did not come to light until he had left the university and signed a professional contract in the NFL.
This latest communication from the DOJ, dated Aug. 21, informed USU of its noncompliance with the 2020 resolution, implicating not only the athletics department, but also the USU Office of Equity. The concerns stem from the 2023 incident involving a USU football player, the fallout of which eventually led to the firings of head football coach Blake Anderson, deputy athletic director Jerry Bovee, senior woman administrator Amy Crosbie and director of player development Austin Albrecht.
Previous Reporting on the Utah State firings
“Four and a half years after our initial notice to the University of our findings regarding the football program, there continues to be alarming evidence of a pervasive, sexually hostile culture and climate within the football program and in (now former) senior leadership in the Athletics Department. This environment has been allowed to grow and fester due to repeated ineffective, inequitable, and untimely responses by the University, including the (Office of Equity) and the Athletics Department.”
The 14-page letter from the DOJ outlined its findings, which relied somewhat on the report conducted by the Husch Blackwell law firm but also included details obtained independently by the DOJ. Like Husch Blackwell, the DOJ heavily criticized the actions of Blake Anderson and Jerry Bovee over their “fact-finding mission” into the events from April 2023 in which a Utah State football player was arrested for domestic violence. It also voiced concern over Anderson and Bovee’s lack of proactiveness in reporting information they gained initially and what they obtained through their own investigation.
One implication the DOJ brings up near the beginning of its report is that Anderson did not have a thorough enough knowledge of USU’s policies that he was supposed to be trained on. The arrested football player, per USU policy, was supposed to report the incident within eight hours, but failed to do so. According to the DOJ Anderson told investigators he didn’t think players had to report, of which the DOJ said “this raises questions about whether Athletics Department staff and student athletes are appropriately trained on or otherwise made aware of” USU policy.
Of the investigation Anderson engaged in, the DOJ also brought up how it violated USU Policy, something also heavily focused on in the Husch Blackwell report. The DOJ further noted that Bovee was “at a minimum…aware of Anderson’s investigation and, as his direct supervisor, did nothing to stop it” while also pointing out Anderson’s remarks to investigators indicated that Bovee was an active participant in the fact-finding mission. The letter also clarifies that Crosbie was at least aware that Anderson obtained statements.
Even aside from its violation of USU Policy, Anderson’s gathering of statements as part of his investigation drew condemnation from the DOJ for multiple reasons. Firstly by potentially upsetting the established methods of investigating these cases.
“By interviewing and soliciting statements from witnesses to an alleged crime outside of the proper University process and without coordination with law enforcement, Anderson potentially jeopardized a criminal investigation and infringed on the benefits conferred by the Agreement as related to the University’s Title IX grievance process,” the DOJ letter said.
The DOJ also expressed concern at multiple points in the letter about Anderson’s position of power over the individuals he was taking statements from.
“Anderson’s interviews and requests for exonerating statements may have felt coercive to the witnesses due to a power imbalance between Anderson – a prominent and powerful individual in the USU and Logan community – and the individuals he interviewed,” the DOJ letter said. “Indeed, the accused and one witness were football players, over whom Anderson had a great deal of power and authority.”
Another point of concern was Anderson’s lack of training in taking statements from alleged victims of traumatic incidents, such as domestic abuse or sexual misconduct.
“Trauma informed interviewers, for example, bring with them an understanding that sexual assault and domestic violence survivors often feel reticent to pursue criminal or other charges against their perpetrator for a variety of reasons and often have a difficult time recalling certain aspects of their assault or abuse,” the DOJ letter said. “Such interviewers also work to minimize secondary trauma often experienced by a survivor who must relive their experience of assault or abuse during the interview. The alleged victim here was subjected to questioning about a potentially traumatic event by her alleged perpetrator’s coach without the benefit of trauma informed techniques.”
Since Bovee and Crosbie we aware of the statements being obtained, the DOJ also took aim at their lack of intervening in this process or addressing the issue with Anderson.
“Bovee and Crosbie not only failed to report what they knew to the (Office of Equity), they also failed to address with Anderson, their supervisee, the inappropriate nature of his actions and the harm he could have caused not only to the alleged victim, but the active police investigation,” the DOJ letter said.
Both the Husch Blackwell report and the DOJ noted that the statements obtained never made it to any report to the Office of Equity, which only found out about Anderson speaking and texting with the alleged victim through a different, unrelated, report it received.
Another significant critique from the DOJ regarded the failure of USU to suspend the player who was arrested. Anderson and Bovee’s accounts were both consistent in saying they felt there was no need to suspend the player, partly due to the fact that no football activities were occurring at that time of the year and partly due to said player entering the transfer portal. The DOJ said that because of a failure to suspend the player, it meant that football players were subject to “special treatment” as Anderson and Bovee sought to prove the innocence of the player who was arrested instead of suspending him and letting a criminal investigation and the Office of Equity handle the matter.
In asserting that football players were subject to a different standard, the DOJ brought forward an example of what it believed to be a result of this type of special treatment and how players on the team were given a “sense that they were special, subject to a different, more favorable set of rules.” In October 2023, an incident involving some of the USU football players took place during a training meant to inform the players USU policies on sexual misconduct and about consent. The instructor of this training later filed an incident report with the Office of Equity, reporting inappropriate and disrespectful behavior on the part of several players there during the training.
According to the incident report, when discussing potential examples of sexual harassment, the players “joked and laughed, engaging in numerous inappropriate side conversations” which the report said “suggested the football players normalized the treatment of women as sexual objects, the engaging in sexual contact without consent, and the idea that Title IX did not apply to them.”
The report also indicated an apparent unapologetically unhealthy attitude toward relationships.
“When the trainer turned to a discussion of behaviors in healthy relationships, the same football player disrespectfully shouted ‘sex’ in response to every question or scenario posed. When asked about healthy ways to deal with breakups, the same football player yelled ‘I just go and have sex with more women. Like so many. That is how I get over it.’ When discussing incapacitation and consent, one football player yelled ‘when in doubt pull it out.’ The trainer tried to pull the training back together to emphasize that if there is any doubt about their partner’s consent, they should not engage in sexual activity in the first place. The presenter explained that if coercion, force, or incapacitation are present, then consent is not present. In response, one of the football players who had been repeatedly disruptive said, ‘So we should all just be celibate. No sex for any of us during the season.'”
The report also indicated an attitude that the training was something for the players to simply get over with. At the beginning of the training one player asked how long it would take and, upon being told it would take roughly 75 minutes, “held a timer in the air, which he said he would set to let the presenter know when she needed ‘to wrap up.'” The report noted an unnamed football staff member was there but did not intervene with any inappropriate comments, only telling the players “let’s just get through this” or “let her move on.”
Afterward, the trainer said she asked the football staffer how he felt the meeting went, to which he said “About how I expected. These guys are just like that.”
While the DOJ had its share of criticisms of Anderson, Bovee and Crosbie, it also cast blame on the USU Office of Equity not being proactive in handling the matter.
“The (Office of Equity) failed in its obligation under Title IX and the Agreement to respond promptly, equitably, and effectively to notice that Anderson may have been in contact with the alleged victim of the Spring 2023 incident. Certainly, the University may seek an impartial external investigation as part of its Title IX response. The University had an obligation, however, to respond promptly to the information it received, which would have required it to take steps beyond merely referring the matter to an outside investigator and waiting a year for the investigative report before taking any action.”
Similar to what it said of the Office of Equity’s response to the April 2023 incident, the DOJ was critical of how it handled the conduct of football players during the October 2023 training. None of the staffers or players were apparently disciplined in any way and nothing was done to address the behavior aside from an apology from an unnamed member of the football team two days after the training-gone-wrong.
The letter from the DOJ gave Utah State 45 days to “submit in writing to DOJ a summary of all actions taken to correct the areas of noncompliance identified, as well as any supporting documentation.” On Tuesday, the university did just that, publishing its response and outlining, with some detail, six key areas of emphasis.
- Updated Training Materials
- Internal Protocol to Guide the OOE’s assessment of and response to Culture and Climate Issues
- Directly and Promptly Communicating with Athletics Staff
- Engaging Athletics leadership in the development and delivery of training and customizing and tailoring training for Athletics staff and student-athletes
- Ensuring that leaders of the football program send clear, consistent, and firm messaging
- Establishing criteria and process for determining appropriate interim measures