He is appealing in district court.
http://newsok.com/article/5152699
1 Year suspension for something he wasn't even charged with...
He is appealing in district court.
http://newsok.com/article/5152699
1 Year suspension for something he wasn't even charged with...
mods please delete
Threads merged - 8timechamps
Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb.
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.
"I don't know karate, but I know ka-razor!" - James Brown
This is ridiculous
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.
"I don't know karate, but I know ka-razor!" - James Brown
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
Originally Posted by KantoSooner
Yeah all that is incredibly frustrating. I don't know because I wasn't there but really seems like Shannon is getting screwed over.
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.
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.
If the courts side with Frank, OU is off the hook. That's is what its about...
Everything progressives do is aimed at weakening democracy, capitalism and the social and cultural institutions that support those things...... They are about subjugating people and being a ruling class.
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.
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.
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?
The enduring image of Oklahoma was that ridiculous double–middle finger of a game-icing kick. It was probably an accident, which somehow made it more, not less, insulting. It was as though Stoops had partied so hard on the corpse of the SEC that he woke up with an unplanned tattoo.
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.
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-...154881/?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/
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.
The school has a lower standard of proof than the criminal courts do.
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.
Posting Permissions
