EAST LANSING, Mich. – The writer who broke the news about sexual harassment allegations against Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker talked about how he learned about the case, why MSU waited until now to suspend Tucker, and what’s next.

Kenny Jacoby, of USA TODAY, published a story at 12:45 a.m. Sunday, Sept. 10, detailing accusations against Tucker made by Brenda Tracy, a rape survivor and advocate against sexual violence.

Tucker invited Tracy to the MSU campus twice to speak with student-athletes and a third time to be the honorary captain for a spring game.

She says Tucker sexually harassed her during an April 2022 phone call. A Title IX report was filed in December, and those results were submitted in July.

Michigan State’s interim president and athletic director held a news conference at 5 p.m. Sunday and announced that Tucker has been suspended without pay until a formal hearing scheduled for early October. That hearing will determine whether he violated the school’s policy against sexual harassment and exploitation.

—> MSU coach Mel Tucker responds to sexual harassment allegations

Christy McDonald spoke to Jacoby about the situation on Monday during the Daily+ Live. He specializes in reporting about Title IX, sexual harassment, and sexual assault cases at universities.

How did he get the tip about the story?

Jacoby said he didn’t want to dive too deep into the process of how USA TODAY got the story, but he confirmed that Tracy is the person who contacted them.

“Brenda is the one who contacted us about the piece, and then she shared the case documents with us that allowed us to write the piece,” Jacoby said.

Reaction to story

Jacoby said he’s seeing a lot of outrage from students, people who work at Michigan State, alumni, and members of the East Lansing community.

“A lot of people are very upset that this seems to have the stench of a coverup, given that this case has been going on for 8-9 months and we are just hearing about it publicly for the first time yesterday,” Jacoby said. “Then, of course, the suspension came down nine months into the case.

“So I think, given all the issues that MSU has had with sexual misconduct over the years, this doesn’t sit well with a lot of people that this is how it’s coming out and that it’s being handled this way.”

Why Michigan State waited to suspend Tucker

One of the most common questions people are asking in wake of Jacoby’s story: Why wasn’t Tucker suspended before the allegations became public?

Michigan State University was aware of the Title IX investigation in December when Tracy made the report, and then the findings of that investigation were submitted in July.

MSU officials said they knew about the investigation, but they didn’t have the details.

“MSU, I believe, is saying that the top brass at the university knew that there was a Title IX case involving Mel Tucker, but they’re saying that they did not know the details of that, intentionally, that that was withheld from them as a standard protocol for keeping the confidentiality of the case while it’s ongoing,” Jacoby said.

This was a complicated issue for Michigan State officials because if they had suspended Tucker at the start of the season, millions of people would have wanted to know the reason for that suspension. The university had to consider the anonymity of Tucker’s accuser.

“If they were to have suspended him at the onset of the investigation without giving any details about what is being alleged, that would just raise so many questions, and it could draw attention to the case in a way that victims in these situations, complainants, don’t always want,” Jacoby said. “So I think it was a tough decision for MSU, and maybe they made the wrong decision, but that’s what they did.”

Could MSU have done something different?

Jacoby said it’ll be hard to answer that question until the case is over.

“It seems like if their goal was to keep this on the down low and keep this as confidential as possible throughout the case, well they did a decent job of it for nine months,” Jacoby said. “However, it did leak out. The information did get out, and that is what sort of prompted us to go publish our story.

“I think there are a lot of questions still to be asked about how this information was getting around when it was supposed to be within a small circle of people.”

Jacoby said there were “a lot of rumors going around” before USA TODAY started digging into the story.

“We were hearing that other reporters were hearing about these sort of things, and so someway, somehow, information was getting out that probably should not have gotten out,” Jacoby said.

Where are we in the process and what’s next?

Jacoby is an expert on Title IX investigations. Christy asked him where this case is currently at in the process, and what’s coming up.

First was the fact-finding investigation. An independent investigator interviewed both sides and Tracy’s witnesses. Evidence was gathered in the form of university records, cellphone records, and other documents.

That portion of the process was completed in July.

The investigator will now deliver the facts to a neutral hearing officer, and that person will decide whether or not Tucker violated the school’s sexual harassment policies.

“There’s going to be a hearing, or at least there is a hearing planned for early October, in which both sides and their attorneys will be able to present evidence, to make arguments, to question witnesses, and once that process is done, I believe a final report will be written by the hearing officer, and that will contain their determination,” Jacoby said. “There’s an appeal process after that, but that is the crux.”

What violations is Tucker facing?

Tucker is facing two potential violations: sexual harassment and sexual exploitation

They’re both under the same policy, but they’re separate alleged offenses, Jacoby said.

‘Falling victim to same system she was trying to fix’

“The real tragedy of this case, I think, is that Brenda had come to MSU believing that she could help reform their campus culture around sexual violence,” Jacoby said. “She has made her career out of turning her pain from her gang rape 25 years ago into purpose, and that purpose is educating athletes and coaches, specifically — but men, more broadly — about sexual misconduct prevention, about victim blaming.

“So she came to MSU with that purpose, and ended up falling victim to the same system that she was trying to fix.”

Jacoby said there’s no such thing as a “perfect victim.” There’s no one way that a survivor is supposed to act, and oftentimes, what happens is out of their control.

“These are bodily responses,” Jacoby said. “Some people have asked, ‘Well why didn’t she hang up the phone?’ I think her answer to that is, ‘I froze,’ and that is not something that you can control. That is when your brain and your body take over the situation and you almost start to dissociate as if you’re watching what’s happening to you.”

Jacoby said Tracy felt like she didn’t have any control over the moment.

“It didn’t even occur to her at the time that she could hang up the phone, and so I think there’s a lot of research that could be done by folks who are interested in this and to the dynamics of trauma,” he said.

Key questions moving forward

There are still many unanswered questions in this case, and Jacoby believes there will be new developments in the coming weeks.

He said the key question right now is whether or not the case makes it to the October hearing.

“Does this hearing happen?” Jacoby asked. “If it does get to that point, is there enough evidence to find that Tucker violated school policy? The inherent nature of these cases is that there are often no eyewitnesses, no recordings, and so it is sort of a he-said, she-said, in that regard.”

He said what often happens is it comes down to whose account is more credible.

“We know from the investigation report that the investigator found some pretty key inconsistencies in Tucker’s account, so we’ll see if that is enough — if we get to a hearing — to sway the case in Brenda’s favor,” Jacoby said.

Watch full interview with Kenny Jacoby

You can watch Christy’s full interview with Jacoby here:

PR expert weighs in

Matt Friedman, an expert in crisis public relations, joined Christy on the Daily+ Live on Monday to further discuss Michigan State’s handling of this case.

He said he “had to read the story twice” because anyone who has any association with higher education or college athletics knows about Tracy and her advocacy.

“I had to read that story to make sure what I was reading was what I was really reading,” Friedman said. “I was waiting for the university to say something, because they needed to on Sunday. Then they did at 5 o’clock, and I think it resulted in — in addition to a lot of sadness by the MSU community — it resulted in a lot of confusion.”

Friedman said the Sunday afternoon press conference didn’t effectively answer many questions. He said it only scratched the surface, and it didn’t help that MSU officials only took three questions after making their statements.

“Whether it is or not, it looks evasive,” Friedman said. “And it’s obvious that whatever message they were trying to communicate didn’t come through, because it looks like the communication staff at the university spent hours in the evening trying to background reporters on what was not addressed in the press conference, and that’s a real shame.”

Friedman said these types of situations are balancing acts.

“It’s really tricky because you have the legal side of this and you have the communications side of this,” he said. “If you go too far one or the other, you end up putting the university at risk somehow. But there really needs to be a balancing act. Audiences expect to hear from leaders during tough times, during times of bad news. When leaders don’t really have much to say, it leads to that confusion that I was talking about, and now there are all these questions that are unanswered.”

He said institutions also have to remember that how they handle situations will become part of the story. That needs to be considered throughout the process, not just on the back-end.

Were Michigan State’s hands tied?

Christy asked Friedman whether Michigan State’s hands were tied or if there’s some way the university could have handled this differently.

“First of all, if their hands were tied, explain that to your audiences,” Friedman said.

There are privacy laws for education and health care. If the institution was in a position where it couldn’t say something, that should have been made clear, he said.

“I think if the university had done some of that yesterday — they are in the education business, so they need to educate their audiences sometimes — that would have helped,” Friedman said. “I think it’s still unclear if, for example, the coach could have been suspended in July when the university had the investigation report in hand. If not, explain why not.

“We don’t know why the hearing wasn’t set up until the football team’s off week. Maybe that’s the normal course of action for something like this. Maybe it was special treatment. But unless they indicate that and explain that, we don’t know when those questions are going to be asked.”

He said it’s imperative, at times, to answer questions before they’re asked.

What should Michigan State do next?

Going forward, how should Michigan State handle the communication about this case?

“They need to figure out how much they can say,” Friedman said. “How can they push that envelope without busting it open? Then communicate that internally to their vast family of employees, students, parents, alumni, donors — what do they need to know? Then communicate to the general public. I hope they’re communicating with the football players, if nothing else, because what they’ve endured over the last 24 hours in seeing what the coach’s alleged behavior has been is difficult, too.”

He said the main point is to communicate as much as you can.

“The corner could be turned. It’s not too late.”

You can watch the full interview with Friedman below.