OU Trying to Suspend Frank Shannon For The Year

[CK Sooner]

He is appealing in district court.

http://newsok.com/article/5152699

1 Year suspension for something he wasn't even charged with...

[Salt City Sooner]

mods please delete




Threads merged - 8timechamps

[KantoSooner]

I agree with you CK, but there are different standards of proof and different standards of discovery when you move from a criminal court to an admin proceeding. OJ walked on murder charges but was found culpable in civil court; would be some sort of comparison. And you must admit, losing a schollie is far less onerous than going to jail.

I still consider it to be chicken ****, but that's Boren for you. By and large he's been an excellent president of the University, but he has a strain of CYA and PC a mile wide all the way up his back in place of a backbone.

[SoonerForLife92]

This is ridiculous

[KantoSooner]

Yes it is, but I'm betting that, unless they made a procedural mistake, it's a done deal. Appeal courts almost never mess with findings of fact, they just review the procedure.

I'm not clear on the penalty, however. One report I saw indicated that he's off the team AND expelled from school. That seems extremely harsh considering.

[badger]

I don't know what to think of what's going on, because I really don't understand how Title IX, federal and state laws come into play here.

What cannot be questioned is that David Boren, Bob Stoops and others must (and appear to be) putting OU's wellbeing ahead of a single player's, lest the entire team suffer the consequences for failed action under the law.

The sinister side of me suspects that this may be us lawyering a bit to make it look like we want to enforce rules, but are unable to, so guess that means Frank Shannon doesn't get suspended after all

[SoonerForLife92]

Yes it is, but I'm betting that, unless they made a procedural mistake, it's a done deal. Appeal courts almost never mess with findings of fact, they just review the procedure.

I'm not clear on the penalty, however. One report I saw indicated that he's off the team AND expelled from school. That seems extremely harsh considering.


Yeah all that is incredibly frustrating. I don't know because I wasn't there but really seems like Shannon is getting screwed over.

[8timechamps]

I think the whole thing is bull****. Based on the information that's been made available, I can't for the life of me understand why Frank would be disciplined at all, let alone kicked out of school for a year.

Pretty ridiculous. I really hope the court system can right this wrong.

[SoonerForLife92]

I think the whole thing is bull****. Based on the information that's been made available, I can't for the life of me understand why Frank would be disciplined at all, let alone kicked out of school for a year.

Pretty ridiculous. I really hope the court system can right this wrong.

I doubt they will but let's hope for the best. Putting aside all things about him making the Sooners a better team, it is completely ridiculous to do this to Frank, to his family, and to his teammates.

[8timechamps]

I doubt they will but let's hope for the best. Putting aside all things about him making the Sooners a better team, it is completely ridiculous to do this to Frank, to his family, and to his teammates.

I think that's what has me so irritated with this, by all accounts Frank is a good kid (shy even), and it feels like the school is ****ting on him. I don't think this will have a huge affect on the team's performance this year, so I don't really care about that part of it, just the way he's being treated by the school.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I don't know what to think of what's going on, because I really don't understand how Title IX, federal and state laws come into play here.

What cannot be questioned is that David Boren, Bob Stoops and others must (and appear to be) putting OU's wellbeing ahead of a single player's, lest the entire team suffer the consequences for failed action under the law.

The sinister side of me suspects that this may be us lawyering a bit to make it look like we want to enforce rules, but are unable to, so guess that means Frank Shannon doesn't get suspended after all

If the courts side with Frank, OU is off the hook. That's is what its about...

[CK Sooner]

Some people have mentioned its more of OU trying to cover their azz (PR MOVE). I think he has a good chance in the appeal process. From what I have heard recently, he has been playing 1st team. I see that as good news...possibly meaning OU coaches know that the appeal has a good chance of going through.

[SoonerForLife92]

I think that's what has me so irritated with this, by all accounts Frank is a good kid (shy even), and it feels like the school is ****ting on him. I don't think this will have a huge affect on the team's performance this year, so I don't really care about that part of it, just the way he's being treated by the school.


Wait you really don't think he'd have much affect on the team? He was a solid middle linebacker and the teams leading tackler

[CK Sooner]

Wait you really don't think he'd have much affect on the team? He was a solid middle linebacker and the teams leading tackler

No doubt he is a key piece of our defense. He played a ton last year and was probably going to start this year...hopefully evans can step up....he's suppose to be really good.

At the least frank shannon would have added very quality depth.

[soonergirlNeugene]

And here at lunch I was feeling relieved to click on espn.com and not see OU mentioned in the breaking news section.. Can we just start the season early plz?

[BoulderSooner79]

This whole process seems strange to me. How does it even end up in the title IX process? It doesn't come from the justice system since the DA declined to press charges and the alleged victim doesn't want to pursue the issue. Is there an equivalent to the DA inside the school administration that did decide to "press charges"? Did the alleged victim really pursue the issue with the school, but not the police? Then to top it all off, I don't understand why an internal school issue would get bounced to district court for the appeals process. Sigh. I guess I just have to assume there really was more to the incident than was ever made public since the internal panel decided to impose a pretty severe penalty. Maybe the good news is that since this was decided way back on June 18th, it's actually been in the district court for some time and (maybe) there will be a decision on the appeal soon.

[cvsooner]

The Title IX statute holds that since it occurs on a campus that receives federal funding, even without legal action/charges, the school must investigate. There may not be more to the case that what we already know, but OU's hands are pretty much tied on this. The committee that did the investigation determined Shannon was to be suspended for one year. Shannon is fighting that in a legal venue, and OU is trying to enforce its committee's decision. Their case looks reasonably convincing for why the court cannot prevent OU from enforcing its decision. Meanwhile, an injunction prevents the suspension, so Shannon is on campus and practicing. Until the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviews--and there was a request for an expedited review, but Shannon's legal counsel could not appear before the court prior to August 21--and either agrees with the injunction or upholds the suspension, this is where we are.

Also, Shannon did appeal shortly after the suspension ruling. That in and of itself is no guarantee nor expectation of an overturning of the ruling.

Jason Kersey is doing yeoman's work on this thing: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-football-ou-asks-state-supreme-court-to-uphold-frank-shannon-suspension/article/5154881/?page=1

More background on Title IX: http://knowyourix.org/title-ix/title-ix-the-basics/

3. Schools must be proactive in ensuring that your campus is free of sex discrimination. You are protected under Title IX even if you do not experience sex discrimination directly. Schools must take immediate steps to address any sex discrimination, sexual harassment or sexual violence happening on campus to prevent it from affecting students further. If a school knows or reasonably should know about discrimination, harassment or violence that is creating a “hostile environment” for any student, it must act to eliminate it, remedy the harm caused and prevent its recurrence.

4. Schools must have an established procedure for handling complaints of sex discrimination, sexual harassment or sexual violence. Every school must have a Title IX Coordinator who manages complaints. The Coordinator’s contact information should be publically accessible on the school’s website. If you decide to file a complaint, your school must promptly investigate it regardless of whether you report to the police, though a police investigation may very briefly delay the school’s investigation if they are gathering evidence. A school may not wait for the conclusion of a criminal proceeding and should conclude its own investigation within a semester’s time (the 2011 Title IX Guidance proposes 60 days as an appropriate timeframe). The school should use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard to determine the outcome of a complaint, meaning discipline should result if it is more likely than not discrimination, harassment or violence occurred. The final decision should be provided to you and the accused in writing and both of you have the right to appeal the decision.

5. Schools must take immediate action to ensure a complainant-victim can continue his or her education free of ongoing sex discrimination, sexual harassment or sexual violence. Along with issuing a no contact directive to the accused, a schools must ensure any reasonable changes to your housing, class or sports schedule, campus job, or extracurricular activity and clubs are made to ensure you can continue your education free from any ongoing sex discrimination, sexual harassment or sexual violence. These arrangements can occur BEFORE a formal complaint, investigation, hearing, or final decision is made regarding your complaint. It also can CONTINUE after the entire process since you have a right to an education free of sex-based discrimination, harassment or violence. Additionally, these accommodations should not over-burden complainant-victims or limit your educational opportunities. Instead, schools can require the accused to likewise change some school activities or classes to ensure there is not ongoing hostile educational environment.

http://knowyourix.org/title-ix/title-ix-the-basics/

[cvsooner]

We haven't had this much drama right before the season since the 2006 pre-season when Bomar was dismissed. I cannot recall in my 50 years of following OU football of having four such high profile eligibility matters (Shannon, Mixon, Mayfield and DGB). Unreal.

[EatLeadCommie]

The school has a lower standard of proof than the criminal courts do.

[BoulderSooner79]

Thanks for the write-up, cvsooner. So by 3), a complaint was filed, I assume by the alleged victim. And by 4) there was “preponderance of the evidence” that discrimination, harassment or violence occurred. None of the public accounts I read would lead me to believe this, so again, I must assume there was a lot more to the story that the panel did hear. If so, fine. If not, I really hope the appeal succeeds.

[cvsooner]

Under 3., I don't believe the student even has to file a complaint. Read this part again: "If a school knows or reasonably should know about discrimination, harassment or violence that is creating a “hostile environment” for any student, it must act to eliminate it, remedy the harm caused and prevent its recurrence." Emphasis is mine.

I think OU was pretty much forced to proceed with the investigation and I think OU's committee for this sort of thing is a five-person group. If it's 3-2 in favor of suspension, he's suspended. And there's no way Boren is going to undercut their decision. He'd prefer the court do it, I'm sure.

In the meantime, Shannon has the legal system on his side, but OU has appealed the injunction, saying the institution is exempt from the court's oversight, etc., etc. Looks like we'll have to wait another two weeks for a final decision...nine days before the season starts.

[cvsooner]

Remember, one way to look at this is that Shannon (yes, Frank Shannon) is also a possible victim of sexual harassment by the girl. That's essentially Shannon's story and defense, frankly.

[BoulderSooner79]

The committee's decision along with the “preponderance of the evidence” clause is what surprises me. Nothing that was made public seemed any where close to a “preponderance of the evidence”. The rest of the schools actions just seem like CYA in order to abide by title IX - which they should do.

[cvsooner]

Boren is in a no-win position here. He can't override the committee's decision or he'd have a revolt on his hands from faculty and staff. He's also worked very hard at bringing up the image of Oklahoma University as a first-rate institution of higher learning and not a football-player factory. It's likely he was hoping (purely speculation on my part) the committee would not recommend suspension, but it did and it's his job to enforce it. Shannon and his legal advisors appealed the decision, and by law the school must continue to allow him to attend classes, practice, and so on. Boren then has to appeal the appeal and seek a final determination.

This is a lot more complicated than it may first appear, but it is the law and has been since the early '70s. The Title IX stuff has mostly been really good for education, but occasionally a case like this comes up and you need the wisdom of Solomon to sort it out. Or kiss the federal funding goodbye. (And that's not happening.)

[cvsooner]

I don't disagree but as someone with semi-regular dealings with personnel matters, the information allowed to be made public is pretty much not everything. I agree there may be more to this story or it could be one deciding vote on the committee doesn't like football players and sports. Or thinks black men are oversexed monsters and we must protect the public. Who knows? And I doubt we'll ever know.

[Mazeppa]

this from cbssports.com:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24656503/oklahoma-leading-tackler-frank-shannon-suspended-one-year

[EatLeadCommie]

Preponderance of the evidence is pretty much the government standard for anything administrative, but I agree that it is extremely ambiguous and subjective.

[CK Sooner]

The oddest part about this is Frank has been running with the 1's all this time still. Interesting.

[8timechamps]

Wait you really don't think he'd have much affect on the team? He was a solid middle linebacker and the teams leading tackler

I don't think his presence is going to make or break this year's defense. Part of that is because I think Jordan Evans can provide efficient play, and the other part is because we have so many experienced guys in the front 7.

This time, a few years ago, a loss like this (if he ends up not playing) would have me extremely concerned. After seeing Corey Nelson go down last year, and seeing the defense step up and continue to play well, I feel like Mike Stoops has the guys playing at a higher level, including the 2 deep. Losing Nelson last year was a much bigger loss than losing Frank would be this year. And we were able to play through it, I think the same would happen this year.

Don't get me wrong, I DO NOT want to lose Shannon, and my comment was more about what is happening to him as a person, taking the emphasis off him as just a player.

[8timechamps]

The oddest part about this is Frank has been running with the 1's all this time still. Interesting.

My (limited) understanding is that he can continue to play since the school can't impose punishment until conclusion of the appeal.

Still, it is odd.

If Shannon is still running with he 1's this week it will be even more odd. Starting this week, the 1's typically get the majority of the reps.

[SoonerForLife92]

I don't think his presence is going to make or break this year's defense. Part of that is because I think Jordan Evans can provide efficient play, and the other part is because we have so many experienced guys in the front 7.

This time, a few years ago, a loss like this (if he ends up not playing) would have me extremely concerned. After seeing Corey Nelson go down last year, and seeing the defense step up and continue to play well, I feel like Mike Stoops has the guys playing at a higher level, including the 2 deep. Losing Nelson last year was a much bigger loss than losing Frank would be this year. And we were able to play through it, I think the same would happen this year.

Don't get me wrong, I DO NOT want to lose Shannon, and my comment was more about what is happening to him as a person, taking the emphasis off him as just a player.

Well you make good points but I think it will take it's toll leadership wise. Striker and Alexander will be fine on the outside but if they leave Evans in the middle, that's where it would really be nice to have Shannon at least in a leadership roll with gaps and blitzes, and when we use the four linebacker sets.

You have me on the fence though so i'll stay optimistic.

[8timechamps]

Well you make good points but I think it will take it's toll leadership wise. Striker and Alexander will be fine on the outside but if they leave Evans in the middle, that's where it would really be nice to have Shannon at least in a leadership roll with gaps and blitzes, and when we use the four linebacker sets.

You have me on the fence though so i'll stay optimistic.

Alexander should be the on-field leader for the LBs (as far as getting everyone in place, making the calls, adjustments, etc). Off the field though, it would hurt to lose Frank's leadership. I really hope it doesn't come to that.

Frank also played injured most of the season in 2013. That presented an opportunity for Jordan Evans to get some much needed experience. So, if he does end up being the starter, at least he will have a little bit to draw from. Unlike Alexander going into the Texas game.

Take a step back my friend, then a deep breath. We're going to be pretty damn mean on defense either way.

[Soonerwake]

What I don't get is that this alleged event took place in an off campus apartment. So, why is it a school thing?

Also, did FSU do a title ix investigation into the Winston ordeal?

[CK Sooner]

What I don't get is that this alleged event took place in an off campus apartment. So, why is it a school thing?

Also, did FSU do a title ix investigation into the Winston ordeal?

I believe they did.

If Shannon is practicing with 1st team this week and on then I would expect him to be cleared.

[cvsooner]

Absolutely FSU did a Title IX investigation. In fact they got into some trouble because their investigation procedures weren't fully set up. They got that fixed in one big hurry.

Why is this a school issue? Because both parties are students. Doesn't matter where it happened. The point is a victim of sexual assault or harassment shouldn't have to deal with the perpetrator every day going to class, etc.

Frank's 'punishment' is actually in the middle of what was possible. He could have been lectured, made to attend classes or counseling on the low end to expulsion on the other.

What a mess.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Seems like today's Jokelahoman spelled it all out. Boren is protecting OU azz from the bad ole DOE... Sheesh, when did we get so many "enforcement" arms in the FEDGOV? We will be a police state soon.

I hadn't heard a OK district judge dismissed it and said Shannon should play. Lets hope the OK SC does the same. Shannon plays and Boren has done his due diligence...

[birddog]

This whole thing has to be awkward for Frank and the coaches. I am surprised he's sticking it out when it seems like he's been betrayed by the university. Could he claim the "run off" deal like DGB and go to another school? Not sure I would blame him considering it appears OU is doing everything they can to keep him away, even though he's participating with the team.

[Pride1Mom]

"
This whole thing has to be awkward for Frank and the coaches. I am surprised he's sticking it out when it seems like he's been betrayed by the university. Could he claim the "run off" deal like DGB and go to another school? Not sure I would blame him considering it appears OU is doing everything they can to keep him away, even though he's participating with the team.

"Betrayed by the University?" If you do not put yourself in compromising situations then these things do not happen. Everyone has a "DO NOT DO THIS" message in their brain, but when you ignore it, there will be consequences.

[SoonerorLater]

Somebody tell me why this falls under the purview of the University of Oklahoma. The incident apparently didn't happen on university property or at a university sponsored event. Why do they feel compelled to interject themselves in this at all?

[cvsooner]

Somebody tell me why this falls under the purview of the University of Oklahoma. The incident apparently didn't happen on university property or at a university sponsored event. Why do they feel compelled to interject themselves in this at all?

As I explained earlier, it's because both parties are students at the university; venue is a non-factor. This has to do with individual rights of students, who are a part of the university.

The university is compelled to 'intervene' because it's the law.

[Sooner in Tampa]

"

"Betrayed by the University?" If you do not put yourself in compromising situations then these things do not happen. Everyone has a "DO NOT DO THIS" message in their brain, but when you ignore it, there will be consequences.

Come on now...that seems a just a tad bit condescending and judgmental to me...The accounts I read simply said she needed a ride home and he offered it to her. They "ended" up in the bedroom (not clear who took off her britches, one report said she did...another report said he did), he asked her if Aunt Flow was in town and she affirmed that...so he left.

I fail to see where the DO NOT DO THIS message comes into play...sounds like most Friday or Saturday nights in a ton of college towns...

[cvsooner]

NPR had an excellent story yesterday on the air about the increasing awareness and action required to address the problem of sexual assault.

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/12/339822696/how-campus-sexual-assaults-came-to-command-new-attention

Also, this column by Lt. Col. Bob Bateman about the problems at the US Air Force Academy is simultaneously disturbing and enlightening. Here's the link followed by a few paragraphs I thought particularly interesting.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Me_and_My_Brothers

"Here is the bottom line to the story you will find here. Rape and drug use were apparently common at the Air Force Academy among the members of their football team. My bet is that they still are, in pockets, and probably growing. But a few years ago there was a sergeant who took his duty seriously. Given a tearful confession by a young female cadet, he said he would try to change that culture. And then he lived up to his word.

"The sergeant recruited a football player/cadet, and together they amassed enough data to cause three convictions for sexual assault/rape. No big deal right? Just three? Well those were the first, at all, at USAFA since the 1990s. Moreover, the investigations by this straight shooting sergeant resulted in multiple expulsions for drug use. Yes, we expel cadets for drugs. Think about it people, do you want the folks with their finger on the nuclear trigger feeling cool and froody?

"That was 2012.

"After these cases went in, and the “informant” program was made known, reports of sexual assaults doubled. As most who work in the field will tell you, this is a clear indicator that the victims feel the system might work. DOUBLED. Success, and good job USAFA…oh, wait a minute.

"Then the Academy “Old Grads”, the alumni and active-duty officers, got into the game. This discredits and brings shame to the entire USAFA community, and the entire US Air Force, and the officers who spoke out and up and got involved should be directly credited with the 100% drop in rape/sexual assault reporting. Myself, I hold them responsible and would love to hear from any and all who can specifically name and shame these (and no gender mistakes here) men. Why?

"Because the next year the cadet/player who did the reporting was kicked out by the Air Force, and the sergeant who did the investigations was reassigned to the vital USAF job of emptying garbage. Want to guess which general ordered that? That was last year. Reports of sexual assault, unsurprisingly, plummeted at USAFA once again, and they are now in the sump. Of course, Congressionally-mandated report-wise, that means that rape dropped by 100% at USAFA. Which is probably what the Air Force wanted, because if there are no reports, there is no problem. Right?"

Lastly, Florida State got into some serious problems because by law they were required to launch their Title IX investigation in the Jameis Winston complaint in short order; they waited over a year.

My honest opinion: Boren is to be commended for handling this appropriately, but his hands are tied, to use the cliché. Frank is also not alone as a number of students (and they're mostly student/athletes) are using the legal system to fight the judgments handed down by Title IX reviews; he also has rights.

My own bottom line, 40 years after I entered OU for my freshman year...if any alcohol was involved and/or you didn't get an absolute 'yes' from a willing partner, you are running a huge risk of getting afoul of the system.

[SoonerorLater]

As I explained earlier, it's because both parties are students at the university; venue is a non-factor. This has to do with individual rights of students, who are a part of the university.

The university is compelled to 'intervene' because it's the law.

I read that but enforcement can't be without limits. The university should not be expected (allowed) to extend it's authority beyond all boundaries. The fact that both of the parties happened to be enrolled at the University of Oklahoma should be irrelevant. Need to get out of the Big Brother business.

[SoonerForLife92]

I read that but enforcement can't be without limits. The university should not be expected (allowed) to extend it's authority beyond all boundaries. The fact that both of the parties happened to be enrolled at the University of Oklahoma should be irrelevant. Need to get out of the Big Brother business.

Like he said it's because both of them are students. It's the university rules for anyone apparently. I agree with you that's it's a load of crap. Happened off campus, handle it off campus.

[cvsooner]

I read that but enforcement can't be without limits. The university should not be expected (allowed) to extend it's authority beyond all boundaries. The fact that both of the parties happened to be enrolled at the University of Oklahoma should be irrelevant. Need to get out of the Big Brother business.

Not to argue with you, but the law holds that students have certain rights, and the institution is dedicated to protecting and preserving those rights. At the same time, those students also have certain obligations, which include not practicing sexual harassment (which is really what Shannon is accused of, not assault). Nor should the target of that harassment be forced to encounter the practitioner of same. The TIX board, which has reviewed the case, has the obligation to select an appropriate action, which could range from counseling on the one end to expulsion on the other. In this case, the board picked something in the middle, a one-year suspension. Why one year? I don't know...perhaps the victim has only a year of school left?

Supposing this had happened on the official trip to Haiti the football team seems to make an annual event now? It would apply there. Why not on spring break? They're both students at the same institution. If they were students at different schools, I might agree, but in this case--and the law is pretty clear--they aren't, and the Title IX rules apply.

As someone who deals with personnel and has arbitrated several sexual harassment cases, these are difficult to handle. But appropriate action is required. Knowing what we know, or have heard, which admittedly is sketchy, my guess is the review board believed her version of the story a bit more than Frank's. But Frank has legal rights too, and this is only going to get more complicated before it's resolved.

[cvsooner]

OU's sexual misconduct and harassment policy.

https://www.ou.edu/content/dam/eoo/documents/Sexual%20Misconduct%207-1-14.pdf

Investigative policy: https://www.ou.edu/content/dam/eoo/documents/Investigative%20Policy%207-1-14.pdf

Reading these at some length this morning, looks like Shannon is affected by this policy because he is a student over whom "the University has control over either the alleged perpetrator or the facility, or context of the event (whether on or off campus)."

As a member of the OU football team, and the recipient of a scholarship, I'd say OU has control, and indeed a supplemental policy applies to student-athletes. From Joe Castiglione comes this bit on the Sooner recruit page:

"Throughout the department, OU's student-athletes, coaches and staff members are committed to our core values, a set of beliefs we use in making every decision. Those values include respect, accountability for self and others, passion for comprehensive excellence, celebration of diversity and integrity in all our affairs."

Shannon has himself in an interesting situation. So does Mixon. And this is also why bringing in DGB has raised some hackles, based on his past record.

Man, what a mess.

[SoonerorLater]

Not to argue with you, but the law holds that students have certain rights, and the institution is dedicated to protecting and preserving those rights. At the same time, those students also have certain obligations, which include not practicing sexual harassment (which is really what Shannon is accused of, not assault). Nor should the target of that harassment be forced to encounter the practitioner of same. The TIX board, which has reviewed the case, has the obligation to select an appropriate action, which could range from counseling on the one end to expulsion on the other. In this case, the board picked something in the middle, a one-year suspension. Why one year? I don't know...perhaps the victim has only a year of school left?

Supposing this had happened on the official trip to Haiti the football team seems to make an annual event now? It would apply there. Why not on spring break? They're both students at the same institution. If they were students at different schools, I might agree, but in this case--and the law is pretty clear--they aren't, and the Title IX rules apply.

As someone who deals with personnel and has arbitrated several sexual harassment cases, these are difficult to handle. But appropriate action is required. Knowing what we know, or have heard, which admittedly is sketchy, my guess is the review board believed her version of the story a bit more than Frank's. But Frank has legal rights too, and this is only going to get more complicated before it's resolved.

All of this is why it is such an absurd process. The incident was investigated. The District Attorney declined to prosecute. Even though the University and the Oklahoma Judicial System operate under different standards of proof the legal, logical and fair conclusion that there was no sexual assault.

It's more than ridiculous to think that some school's board of Wise Men have the ability or resources to investigate these types of he-said, she-said incidents. I hope the Oklahoma Supreme Court upholds the District Court Judges decision. Maybe this will be the case that overturns some of Title IX social engineering.

[cherokeebrewer]

Come on now...that seems a just a tad bit condescending and judgmental to me...The accounts I read simply said she needed a ride home and he offered it to her. They "ended" up in the bedroom (not clear who took off her britches, one report said she did...another report said he did), he asked her if Aunt Flow was in town and she affirmed that...so he left.

I fail to see where the DO NOT DO THIS message comes into play...sounds like most Friday or Saturday nights in a ton of college towns...

I agree with Pride1Mom. If the girl was drunk and needed a ride home, just give her a ride home, make sure she's in the door safely and leave. Like all major football programs, the players are high profile. Just do the right thing...

[Soonerwake]

All of this is why it is such an absurd process. The incident was investigated. The District Attorney declined to prosecute. Even though the University and the Oklahoma Judicial System operate under different standards of proof the legal, logical and fair conclusion that there was no sexual assault.

It's more than ridiculous to think that some school's board of Wise Men have the ability or resources to investigate these types of he-said, she-said incidents. I hope the Oklahoma Supreme Court upholds the District Court Judges decision. Maybe this will be the case that overturns some of Title IX social engineering.

Although I am certainly no legal scholar, this is the part that raises my hackles.

[SoonerForLife92]

I agree with Pride1Mom. If the girl was drunk and needed a ride home, just give her a ride home, make sure she's in the door safely and leave. Like all major football programs, the players are high profile. Just do the right thing...

There is this little service called saferide, available to all students.

[cherokeebrewer]

There is this little service called saferide, available to all students.

Yes, but she was going to walk home and he offered her a ride...

[SoonerForLife92]

Yes, but she was going to walk home and he offered her a ride...

And how exactly is doing that, and then leaving (as per reports at least) without physically, sexually, or verbally assaulting her, not "doing the right thing"?

[cherokeebrewer]

And how exactly is doing that, and then leaving (as per reports at least) without physically, sexually, or verbally assaulting her, not "doing the right thing"?

I think under Title IX it would fall under sexual harassment, not assault. You can read the link to the story and form your own opinion. I hope Frank gets to play, but he put himself in that situation.

http://newsok.com/ou-football-sooners-linebacker-frank-shannon-accused-of-sexual-assault/article/4012717/?page=1

[cvsooner]

Could even be sexual misconduct, rather than harassment, and Shannon as a member of the football team has an extra special obligation to follow the student body code as a representative of the University. Harsh but true.

[soonergirlNeugene]

Whenever I see reports on this, I can't help but think that it's one of those penumbra challenges for Title IX. If the information we've been given is accurate, this is right on the edge of behavior the school should permit or prohibit - again, depending on whose version of events you believe. These measures were put in place to avoid a situation where a student can be placed in class right alongside someone they have accused of or been accused by for rape or sexual harassment. There are plenty of cases highlighted over the past year with much clearer infractions where the school has decided in favor of the accused, but these tend to bring bad press with them. Finding in favor of the alleged victim is probably considered the safest option by any sort of oversight committee. We would not be hearing about this at all if Shannon weren't a first of second string linebacker at OU. The University can say they are proactive and concerned about safeguarding against sexual misconduct by acting as they did and forcing the final decision on the court system. Hopefully the courts can find a resolution that fits the facts of this case.

[birddog]

"

"Betrayed by the University?" If you do not put yourself in compromising situations then these things do not happen. Everyone has a "DO NOT DO THIS" message in their brain, but when you ignore it, there will be consequences.
That's my point. If he's not wanted at the university but he's continuing to bust his backside only to be blacklisted for a year, then cut him loose and let him move on. But the university is allowing him to continue pouring is heart and soul into this team fully aware boren and co don't want him around. Kinda like living with a woman that hates you but allows you to stay in her house because you mow the yard.

[cvsooner]

That's my point. If he's not wanted at the university but he's continuing to bust his backside only to be blacklisted for a year, then cut him loose and let him move on. But the university is allowing him to continue pouring is heart and soul into this team fully aware boren and co don't want him around. Kinda like living with a woman that hates you but allows you to stay in her house because you now the yard.

The legal thought I've been reading is that suspension is more easily defended in court, or might preclude a lawsuit, than an expulsion decision. Shannon might have a better case if he had been expelled, rather than suspended, is the thinking. This verdict falls somewhere in the middle. It is the murkiness of the public/private nature of all this that makes it complex.

The part that is easily understandable is Boren is not going to risk losing Title IX funding. No school can afford to, and if that means Shannon serves as something of a scapegoat, then so be it. I feel for the guy, I really do. From all reports, Shannon seems like a good kid. Whether that's the case....I just don't know. And even good people do stupid things sometimes, completely and seemingly out of character.

[cvsooner]

Let me also add I don't think Boren has any innate desire to kick Shannon out of school, per se. He is charged, as president of the University, with abiding by the decision of the panel. He can override the decision but I just don't see him doing it...well, in fact, that window has passed, if I'm reading the policy right. He could have overridden the determination, but--he didn't.

This article illustrates quite well, I think, the pickle OU is in at this point...three athletes and three complex matters.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2014-08-13/oklahoma-sooners-football-bob-stoops-frank-shannon-dorial-green-beckham?modid=http://t.co/NvldN00fvs

[8timechamps]

My honest opinion: Boren is to be commended for handling this appropriately, but his hands are tied, to use the cliché. Frank is also not alone as a number of students (and they're mostly student/athletes) are using the legal system to fight the judgments handed down by Title IX reviews; he also has rights.

My own bottom line, 40 years after I entered OU for my freshman year...if any alcohol was involved and/or you didn't get an absolute 'yes' from a willing partner, you are running a huge risk of getting afoul of the system.

I agree 100%.

Boren and the school has handled this by the book. Boren wasn't part of the title IX investigation, nor did he make the ruling.

If things weren't handled the right way, the appeal will uncover any errors.

I really don't understand how the incident caused this kind of action (granted we only know what the media has reported), however, this hopefully provides a learning experience for the young guys on the team. Nowadays, you almost need a witness to proceed with anything, so (like you said), you better get an absolute 'yes' to cover you rear.

[BoulderSooner79]

I agree 100%.

Boren and the school has handled this by the book. Boren wasn't part of the title IX investigation, nor did he make the ruling.

If things weren't handled the right way, the appeal will uncover any errors.

I really don't understand how the incident caused this kind of action (granted we only know what the media has reported), however, this hopefully provides a learning experience for the young guys on the team. Nowadays, you almost need a witness to proceed with anything, so (like you said), you better get an absolute 'yes' to cover you rear.

Maybe that's what Case McCoy was doing?

[SoonerorLater]

I hate the CYA nature of this. It seems like the administration is looking for reasons to keep players off the field instead of looking at reasons to make sure they play.

[SoonerForLife92]

I think under Title IX it would fall under sexual harassment, not assault. You can read the link to the story and form your own opinion. I hope Frank gets to play, but he put himself in that situation.

http://newsok.com/ou-football-sooners-linebacker-frank-shannon-accused-of-sexual-assault/article/4012717/?page=1

My opinion is that the DA declined to press charges, the woman declined to press charges, and both of them later stated they didn't have sex from what I read. The only thing Shannon brought on himself was trying to get laid like any typical college kid.

[cherokeebrewer]

You could be right, but unfortunately the inquiry board disagrees with your conclusion...

[Sooner in Tampa]

Court appearance today


The University of Oklahoma’s fight to keep starting linebacker Frank Shannon off the field this season will go before the Oklahoma state Supreme Court at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, according to court documents.

[birddog]

So if your Shannon, what are the benefits of staying at a university that wants you to sit for a year? Would you feel unwelcome after what's happened?

[SoonerMarkVA]

So if your Shannon, what are the benefits of staying at a university that wants you to sit for a year? Would you feel unwelcome after what's happened?

As long as the team and coaches are behind him, I think he'd be fine. And it sounds that way if Stoops is still giving him 1st (and now even 2nd) team reps.

The most likely scenario to me is, Boren/JC/Stoops sat down and plotted the necessary actions, and this is all part of the plan to satisfy Title IX. At that point, I suspect Stoops then sat down with Shannon and made sure he understood what had to happen. I really don't believe there's a legitimate undercurrent of being unwelcome. The wheels just have to grind through the process.