Are you saying an athlete who is being sued for sexual misconduct with a drunk 16 year old has title IX rights, but if he had been charged; he would not? I don't see the logic.
I'm saying that how a different school treated a player who was not charged with any crime is not particularly relevant to the lawsuit claiming that our policy of suspending kids indefinitely when they have a pending felony charge is unfair and does not afford 'due process', whatever that really means in terms of internal discipline.
Since you and the rest of Loyalty are suddenly Title IX experts, you obviously know that Title IX only applies when an incident occurs at an event the school sponsored or had control over, and between people the school has authority over or who are participating in an event the school sponsored or had control over - you have to stretch a mile and a half to even claim that in this case, while Pop Isaacs' situation happened on a team trip. If you'd like to learn more about the Title IX guidelines you can read the DOE's summary of it here:
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-summary.pdf. Take particular note of Issue #3, which states:
"The Title IX statute applies to persons in the United States with respect to education programs or activities that
receive Federal financial assistance. Under the Final Rule, schools must respond
when sexual harassment occurs
in the school’s education program or activity, against a person in the United States.
- The Title IX statute and existing regulations contain broad definitions of a school’s “program or activity” and
the Department will continue to look to these definitions for the scope of a school’s education program or activity.
Education program or activity includes locations, events, or circumstances over which the school exercised
substantial control over both the respondent and the context in which the sexual harassment occurred, and also
includes any building owned or controlled by a student organization that is officially recognized by a
postsecondary institution (such as a fraternity or sorority house).
- Title IX applies to all of a school’s education programs or activities, whether such programs or activities occur
on-campus or off-campus.
A school may address sexual harassment affecting its students or employees that falls
outside Title IX’s jurisdiction in any manner the school chooses, including providing supportive measures or
pursuing discipline."(emphasis mine)
and Issue #6, which states (among other definitions):
"- At the time of filing a formal complaint, a complainant must be participating in or attempting to participate in
the education program or activity of the school with which the formal complaint is filed"
Title IX is not meant to have jurisdiction over things that happen in a non-school-sponsored event in a public place.
It will be incredibly surprising to most people who don't read Illinois Loyalty very often if the court declares that UIUC is not allowed to discipline a student athlete without a criminal conviction - which is the true thrust of the case.
For all the sudden criminal justice reform calls from Illini fans, I don't remember any of that in the past when the player in question was a rival (Pierre Pierce), or a bench guy (Darius Paul). I DO, however, remember how sure many Illini fans were last year that Alabama's decision to play a kid who was never charged with any crime was wrong - in that case, despite no charges being filed, I didn't see anyone arguing that suspending Miller would've denied him due process. I haven't seen anyone claim that about Michigan's weird 'road game suspension', or frankly any other team/athletic department discipline either.
Terrence Shannon may very well be completely innocent; I sure hope he is. I like what little I've seen of the kid personally, and hope he has a long successful career playing basketball (assuming he did not do this). But there is a reason the case hasn't been dropped, and that he is trying to force the University to play him on a legal technicality - it's because he recognizes that despite the LAST set of rumors pushed by the Loyalty gang (i.e., what the DIA wants leaked) there is no available evidence thusfar this is some open-and-shut case where he is being defamed, falsely accused, etc. At best, it is he said/she said barring some incriminating or exculpatory evidence none of us have seen yet.
RecentLet's talk about somethin... by KKKustard
A place to celebrate cele...
by murphstahoe WTF happened to the WTF h... by alum74
Total Members: 141