SerpApi.Org
Believe it or not, Maize n Brew is not my full-time job. I am also a public relations professional, so I’d like to think I know how to get ahead of a story, control a narrative and make a bad story a one-day story instead of a week-long one.
Well, what the University of Michigan has done with the Jenner & Block investigations is one of the worst crisis communications strategies I have seen from a major institution in recent memory. And yesterday’s release of what the university is calling the “principal facts” of the investigation — a carefully curated FAQ document that reads more like a press release than a genuine accounting of what happened — is the latest example of a school that continues to shoot itself in the foot while screaming “LEADERS AND BEST!”
A one-day story that never ends
Let’s start with the most basic principle of crisis communications: when you have bad news, get it all out at once. Rip the bandage off and own the story on your terms and timeline. Take the short-term hit and move forward.
Michigan has done the exact opposite.
This all began when head football coach Sherrone Moore was fired back in December. It could have ended there. Instead, it has dragged on for months — from Moore’s arrest last winter all the way through the Wall Street Journal’s bombshell report last week that revealed athletic director Warde Manuel wrote a handwritten note about Moore’s relationship with Paige Shiver leading up to the 2024 season opener. Not to mention Manuel’s odd departure announcement by interim president Domenico Grasso on the university’s YouTube channel. And last but not least, there is yesterday’s announcement that answers almost nothing of substance.
Next week are Big Ten Media Days. The Michigan football team is preparing for the first season under new head coach Kyle Whittingham. Instead of talking about football being back, we are still talking about what the school is hiding in a report it refuses to release publicly. That is a catastrophic failure of crisis management that is entirely self-inflicted.
The FAQ is nothing but spin
Let’s talk about what the university released, because it is important to understand what it actually is.
The document is structured as a FAQ page. On the surface, that might seem like a reasonable way to communicate complex information to the public. In practice, it is one of the oldest tricks in the crisis communications playbook, and Michigan students, fans, alumni and donors should recognize it for what it is.
When you write your own message, you control everything — the framing, the depth of every answer, what is asked, and most importantly here, what isn’t asked at all. There is no journalist pushing back, nor are there any follow-up questions. There is no accountability whatsoever for vague or incomplete answers.
The result is a document that tells you just enough to claim transparency, all while revealing as little as possible about the (what I believe to be) truly damaging and embarrassing details. Instead, Michigan got to claim transparency while simultaneously withholding the full report that would actually demonstrate transparency, something the university, under its current leadership structure, has not done in a long time.
Consider what it does not address. It doesn’t explain why Manuel waited a full year between his handwritten note expressing concern about Moore’s relationship with Shiver and actually firing him. It also does not address the multiple hotline complaints that were filed and apparently went nowhere. Furthermore, the document does not explain why the compliance officer reported directly to Manuel rather than to the university’s general counsel, a structural failure the Wall Street Journal’s reporting surfaced before Michigan acknowledged it. It also does not explain what Jenner & Block found specifically about Manuel’s failures that led him to request to step down.
Lastly, it also doesn’t answer any of these questions:
The FAQ says the culture review found that Manuel “identified failures to quickly and effectively act on allegations of wrongdoing.” That is one carefully worded, legally sanitized sentence describing what, by all accounts, was a pattern of inaction that allowed a deeply problematic situation to fester for years inside one of the most prominent athletic departments in the country.
The fact the university has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep it confidential — citing attorney-client privilege, witness privacy and pending litigation as justifications — tells you everything you need to know about what is in it. The witness privacy argument, in particular, does not hold up to scrutiny. Reports of this nature are routinely released with identifying information redacted. The university could have released a redacted version of the full report, yet chose not to. That choice is a communications decision as much as a legal one, and it has cost Michigan dearly in the court of public opinion.
All of that is damage control, not transparency.
The Grasso problem
There is one more element of this situation that deserves attention, and it is the position it has put Grasso in.
Grasso previously stated publicly that Manuel is one of the best athletic directors in the country. That statement is now on the record, and it stands in direct contradiction to the findings of an independent law firm Michigan itself hired and paid for.
Grasso now finds himself in the position of overseeing the implementation of reforms designed to address failures that occurred under the watch of a man he publicly praised. That is not an impossible position to navigate, but it requires a level of direct, honest communication that Michigan has not demonstrated at any point in this process.
Grasso is also an interim president, meaning he is a caretaker, not a long-term institutional leader. Tasking an interim president with implementing what the university describes as sweeping reforms to the culture and structure of one of the largest athletic departments in the country is its own kind of accountability problem. Who is actually responsible for making sure these changes happen? Who answers for it if they don’t?
The FAQ does not answer those questions either.
What Michigan should have done
For the sake of being constructive, here is what a sound crisis communications strategy typically looks like in a situation like this:
Move fast: The moment Jenner & Block concluded its work, Michigan should have released the full report — redacted where necessary to protect genuine privacy interests — alongside a comprehensive public statement acknowledging the failures, accepting responsibility and outlining specific commitments to reform. Do it all at once and answer every question before it can be asked. Whether the university believes it or not, it is possible to make things a one-day.
Choose the right messenger: A YouTube video and a FAQ page are not the right vehicles for communicating institutional accountability. Grasso should have stood in front of cameras and answered questions from local and national journalists. Accountability requires a human face, not a scripted document.
Stop hiding behind privilege: Attorney-client privilege is a legitimate legal protection, but invoking it as a communications strategy signals to the public you have something to hide. The perception cost of withholding the report has far exceeded whatever legal benefit the university believes it is gaining.
Be specific about consequences: The FAQ says the university “accepts the recommendations” and will “develop a formal implementation plan.” That language means nothing. Citing specific people, deadlines and consequences for failure would help the university accept some accountability.
Michigan has a football season fast approaching. Whittingham is trying to build something in Ann Arbor, and his players are trying to focus on winning games and going to class. Meanwhile, the university’s communications failures have ensured that the shadow of this entire mess will follow the program into Big Ten Media Days and potentially well beyond.
This a huge communications problem — one that was entirely avoidable and one Michigan made significantly worse at every turn by choosing the path of minimum disclosure over the path of genuine accountability.
In crisis communications, the cover-up is almost always more damaging than the original event. Michigan has not covered anything up in the traditional sense. But by releasing just enough information to claim transparency while withholding enough of it to avoid true accountability, the university has achieved the exact same result.
The story is not over.
