UPDATE: Coach Bob Stoops announced this week that Frank Shannon would not play Saturday in the Louisiana Tech game.
Few would have known at last year’s Sugar Bowl, when Frank Shannon was blowing up the Alabama offense, that his pivotal role at linebacker — and perhaps the success of the Oklahoma defense in 2014 — would be decided by nine Oklahoma Supreme Court justices.
Shannon is at the center of a legal battle that involves a federal government policy regarding sexual assault on college campuses that made headlines this year from the White House.
The case also risks the longtime symbiotic relationship between OU President David Boren and Coach Bob Stoops.
With less than a week before the opening 2014 game against Louisiana Tech, Shannon, a redshirt junior who led the team in tackles last year, remains on the team. But a decision by the Supreme Court on a request by Boren’s administration could effectively remove him from the team for the entire year.
This all began in the off season when Shannon was accused of sexually assaulting a female OU student. The Cleveland County District Attorney chose not to file charges against him. The complaining witness refused to press charges. But OU conducted a Title IX investigation, complying with federal Department of Education regulations that have gotten much national attention, especially since an accusation of sexual assault by Heisman trophy winner Jameis Winston was swept under the rug by Florida State officials.
Those regulations call for universities to conduct investigations into all complaints of sexual discrimination and abuse, regardless of whether police or prosecutors take action. They also call for a lower burden of proof for the school to find the accused guilty of the charges than exists in the court system.
The federal Department of Education released a report in June severely criticizing colleges and universities for failing to adequately protect students from sexual abuse on campuses. That agency’s Office of Civil Rights announced it was investigating numerous colleges believed to be lax in such protection, including Oklahoma State University. OU was not on the list, even though OU reported 21 forcible sex offenses on the Norman campus from 2010-2012.
OU’s Title IX officer investigated the complaint against Shannon. The university then brought disciplinary charges against the sophomore linebacker under the Student Conduct policy. That policy allows for a closed hearing before a panel of students, faculty and administrators where evidence is presented. However, in cases of alleged sexual abuse, the policy prohibits any students from being on that panel — so, rather than a jury of his peers, Shannon was judged by the school authority that was accusing him.
The OU disciplinary panel found Shannon guilty and suspended him from school for one year. That effectively removed him from the Oklahoma football team for that long.
But Shannon hired a lawyer who brought a lawsuit in Cleveland County District Court appealing his suspension. District Judge Tracy Schumacher issued a court order temporarily halting Shannon’s suspension, pending further court proceedings, according to local news reports. It meant that Shannon remains on the football team, at least for now.
These proceedings are all private and confidential. The Cleveland County District Court file is sealed from the public because of student confidentiality protections. However, a press release issued by Boren’s office revealed Shannon’s suspension and appeal, giving unprecedented insight into this case and his administration’s decision to ask the Oklahoma Supreme Court to set Judge Schumacher’s order aside.
The press release included this statement: “The university is unable to enforce its process at this time. The university has and is taking every legal step possible to move this process forward. The University is currently seeking to enforce its decision so that it may be in compliance with federal law requiring responses by institutions to such matters in a timely manner.”
The unusual nature of the public statement by Boren wasn’t lost on Shannon’s lawyers. Attorney Aletia Timmons took a swipe at Boren for violating the confidentiality of the proceedings.
The unusual nature of the public statement by Boren wasn’t lost on Shannon’s lawyers. Attorney Aletia Timmons took a swipe at Boren for violating the confidentiality of the proceedings.
The unusual nature of the public statement by Boren wasn’t lost on Shannon’s lawyers. Attorney Aletia Timmons took a swipe at Boren for violating the confidentiality of the proceedings.
“[I]f we see more discussion of this matter in the papers or in the press by the university, we are going to ask the court to unseal the record so that my client will be able to vindicate himself in the public media like the university has done,” Timmons told the Tulsa World.
A hearing before a Supreme Court referee was held last week. That referee will make a recommendation to the justices, who are on vacation until September 2.
The bottom line here is OU’s own administrators and lawyers in Evans Hall are working to remove Shannon from the campus and the football team.
But why? That’s a complicated question. To stop Judge Schumacher’s temporary order, the university filed a petition for writ of prohibition with the Supreme Court. OU’s legal argument is that Judge Schumacher lacks the jurisdiction to review the school’s disciplinary decisions to suspend Shannon. It is a legal argument OU has made before in other non-athlete suspensions, and so OU may be acting to protect it’s legal position to avoid a new precedent that might subject it to judicial review of any student disciplinary action.
In a previous decision by the Supreme Court in 2013 (State ex rel. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma vs. Lucas), the justices ruled that the state Administrative Procedures Act did not allow for an appeal to Cleveland County District Court of an OU student disciplined by the university. The Supreme Court said this “appeal” to district court was not available where the student was disciplined with something less than a complete expulsion from school; however, the student could file a lawsuit alleging his constitutional due process rights were violated by OU.
Shannon’s appeal to district court was not a lawsuit alleging denial of due process. Also, he was not expelled from OU, but rather “suspended” for one year.
Those facts should have the university administration feeling good about its legal arguments. They should expect the Supreme Court to act similarly in Shannon’s case and set aside Judge Schumacher’s order because Shannon was only suspended — not expelled. However, Shannon could file a separate lawsuit complaining OU violated his constitutional due process rights. His lawyer hasn’t done that, and such a case would probably not even be decided before his suspension is concluded.
What also makes this case unique is that it involves a high-profile player who was expected to have an integral part in the Sooners’ success on the football field.
If the Supreme Court grants the writ, then the district court order will be set aside and Shannon will be suspended from school — and the football team.
This pits Boren’s office against the football coaches, who obviously want Shannon to remain on the team. The fact Coach Bob Stoops has not suspended Shannon from the football team — especially since Stoops has been very strong in doing so in other circumstances (see the Joe Mixon case and countless others, including star player Ryan Broyles) — is evidence that the athletic department believes the charges against Shannon are suspect. That feeling is bolstered by the Cleveland County DA’s decision not to prosecute and the complaining witness’ decision not to press the matter.
All this suggests there is something odd going on here.
Ironically, while OU was taking this action against Shannon, it had petitioned the NCAA to allow Missouri transfer Dorial Green-Beckham, who was suspended by the University of Missouri for alleged domestic violence (for which he too was not convicted), to play football as a Sooner, immediately. The NCAA last week denied OU’s request to allow Green-Beckham to avoid the rule that would require the heralded wide receiver to sit out an entire season before playing for the Sooners.
Boren’s statement on the Shannon case expressed concern that the federal Department of Education might withdraw federal funding to OU if the university was not aggressive in its protection of students from sexual abuse. It is true that the Department of Education threatened such action against those schools it was investigating, but those schools do not include OU. To date, that threat has never been carried out. And it is unlikely any withdrawal of federal funds would occur where the university’s suspension of Shannon was blocked by a judge.
Boren may want to appear strong in the university’s desire to protect female students from sexual abuse — a noble and important policy. Or, there is some unknown reason why Shannon is to be made an example.
Throughout Stoops’ 15-year tenure, the coach has emphatically praised his president and Athletic Director Joe Castiglione. In most all respects the Boren-Castiglione-Stoops alliance has proved positive…. But that alliance seems threatened, at least to some degree, by the Shannon case.
Throughout Stoops’ 15-year tenure, the coach has emphatically praised his president and Athletic Director Joe Castiglione. In most all respects the Boren-Castiglione-Stoops alliance has proved positive…. But that alliance seems threatened, at least to some degree, by the Shannon case.
The Supreme Court may not rule on OU’s petition for writ of prohibition before the first Sooner game against Louisiana Tech on Saturday.
But given the lengths to which the university is going to enforce Shannon’s suspension, one must ask whether it will pressure Bob Stoops to withhold Shannon from playing in the meantime.
Which means Boren would be squarely at odds with his coach.
Throughout Stoops’ 15-year tenure, the coach has emphatically praised his president and Athletic Director Joe Castiglione. In most all respects the Boren-Castiglione-Stoops alliance has proved positive, lifting the football program from the dark days of the John Blake era. Boren has championed Stoops’ cause, leading the OU Board of Regents to make Stoops the second-highest paid college football coach in America.
But that alliance seems threatened, at least to some degree, by the Shannon case.
A judge cannot make Stoops play or not play Shannon, but can a university president make that decision for his football coach?
Shannon has been practicing and participating in team activities as the Sooners prepare for Saturday’s game against Louisiana Tech. However, Tulsa World reporter Guerin Emig reported that unnamed sources within the football program said Shannon did not take snaps in either first or second-team drills in a scrimmage last week. Defensive coordinator Mike Stoops refused to talk about it.
Countless university athletic boosters may favor Bob Stoops in any such conflict. He has been above reproach in all his work as head coach.
On the other hand, few want Boren to be meddling with the depth chart, especially when the validity of the alleged wrongdoing is in such doubt.
Boren has shown he can make decisions based upon pure politics, no matter whose feathers get ruffled (a case in point being Boren’s unfailing support for Pride of Oklahoma Director Jason Stolarik, hired last year at the behest of one regent, Max Weitzenhoffer, despite contrary recommendations of the School of Music selection committee and Stolarik’s failure to meet hiring criteria).
But, soon, any possible conflict between president and coach may also be decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
If the justices set Judge Schumacher’s order aside — and I expect that to happen — then Stoops will not be playing Shannon this year, because the star linebacker will not be a student at OU in 2014.
Follow
