South Florida’s administration is moving quickly – and forcefully – to review some pretty ugly charges against head coach Jim Leavitt.

To recap: Monday, former Bulls beat writer Brett McMurphy wrote on AOL Fanhouse that Leavitt grabbed sophomore walk-on Joel Miller by the throat and then hit him twice in the face during halftime of South Florida’s Nov. 21 game against Louisville. McMurphy wrote that five witnesses corroborated that allegation and he quoted Miller’s father Paul, a former Tampa police officer as saying, “You do something like that (on the street), you put them in jail. Somewhere (Leavitt) crossed the line.”

Tuesday, current Bulls beat writer Scott Carter wrote in the Tampa Tribune that Leavitt told him the allegations were “untrue and completely false.” Carter wrote that Paul Miller also refuted the original AOL story, and said Leavitt only grabbed his son by the shoulder pads and did not strike him in the face.

“That’s absolutely not true,” Paul Miller told Carter of the AOL allegations. “As a father, that’s absolutely not true. That’s all I can really tell you. Joel wasn’t having a very good game. I guess Coach Leavitt noticed he was just sitting there all by himself and wasn’t responding.”

Now, today, USF President Judy Genshaft told her school’s board of trustees that the school’s associate VP of human resources, Sandy Lovins, and private labor lawyer Tom Gonzalez are going to spearhead a review of the AOL piece’s charges. President Genshaft told the board Leavitt met with Lovins and Gonzalez at 9 a.m. yesterday and that the pair would be conducting other interviews.

I’ve said it several times before and I’ll say it again: an assault that happens in the halls of a football complex or the bowels of a football locker room is still an assault. I’ve also said that in our generation, it’s become far too much of a reflex to question the credibility of a writer when the news reads unfavorably. I know I certainly wouldn’t write something so explosive, and so potentially damaging, if I didn’t have complete faith in my sources. However… and it’s a big however… I am not so naive as to think reporters don’t get stories wrong. I am not so naive as to think people, emboldened by the spotlight, don’t sometimes embellish stories to reporters. I am not so naive to think all these allegations may have somehow been misconstrued and that’s why Jim Leavitt’s career hangs in the balance.

Ultimately, our reputation may be our most valuable possession. The first report has already done untold damage to Leavitt’s reputation. It’s attacked his character and questioned his fitness for the position he currently holds. If that’s deserving, then the report carried out one of our most noblest charges as journalists: to expose ills and abuses. If it’s not deserving, if the report isn’t correct, then it’s just as ugly an assault as the one it alleged.