I've heard Beckett say (partially with tongue in cheek) that his business took a big financial hit when Mike White was fired.
Terrence Shannon Jr. reinstated
- Status
I stand corrected it seems. Illininquirer reporting he wont be starting…
§1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment have a lot of overlap. And I've only read the opinion once and a little quickly at that. Still, I saw a focus on property interests more than liberty interests. TJ is free to play basketball almost anywhere. It is the chance to make a lot of money, and not simply the liberty to bounce a ball, that was at stake here.
Not uncommon. Opinions contain all the legal background to the case as well as the claims each party has made and the timeline of events up to that point. Her actual opinion only consists of the last few pages.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Lol, I work for a valuation consulting firm. A 60-page report can have three numbers the client actually cares about, but the rest of it is still necessary to cover our a$$ against people who are frankly just jerks.
JFGsCoffeeMug
BU:1 Trash cans:0
- Chicago
§1983 is the mechanism by which you protect your civil rights.
Wednesday night is vs. Northwestern in Evanston. So that makes at least 2 road games before the end of the month. And the rest of the schedule is evenly divided, 7 at home and 7 on the road.If any of you saw the disgusting highlights of Bulls fans brining a 90 year old widow to tears...I suggest you gird your loins for what's coming on the road.
People are cruel, crude, and clueless.
Fortunately only one of the next 5 games (@OSU) is a road game with this kind of possibility.
Last edited:
There is no right to play college basketball. You have to be qualified, and so on. However, there are rights to life, liberty, and property.
I suspect in this case, we might be talking about an ascertainable right to property? TJ earned the right to play basketball at UI?
yep watch the Daddy Brad press conference this morning. He speaks to it and the reasoning behind it.
skyIdub
Winged Warrior
Daddy Brad, haha!
The U is already covered. They can always claim that they did the 'right' thing with the current policy and then what happened next was out of their hands. But through back-channels it wouldn't hurt if an 'unofficial' and plausibly-deniable 'apology' was extended to Shannon. Sort of like the old Westerns when a friend of the sheriff had to be arrested by him and the sheriff looked a little sheepish and apologized to his pal.
And for those who might think the U has nothing to apologize for... the apology would be for leveling a punishment before any guilt was determined.
And I have called for an official review of 'The Policy' from the start of this situation.
The AD is a smart man. No doubt he has already learned much from this and has a good set of raw notes written on backs o envelopes to bring to some future meetings of the U brain trust.
And how about the Hollywood ending where it comes down to a tie game in National Championship finale and Shannon takes a pass from Hawkins... time running down... defender all over him... Shannon shakes off the pest... takes an explosive step from the top of the key... elevates to the sky... releases the shot... and it's... and it's... and it's rolling around the rim... and then...
FALLS IN AND THROUGH AND HITS THE TWINE.
And Hawkins bear-hugs him and everyone else in Orange piles on into one great big group hug.
And then after that he HUGS everyone else around him... looks at the nearest camera... and just grins.
Whoops. Just saw that.
For those living on campus currently, any sense as to the reaction from the students?
I don't know the answer to this but what are the rules relating to suspensions that don't involve the conduct. Does it go through the same process as TSJ went through or can coach just suspend a player for a rule infraction or fight or somrthing?
"To state a valid claim for relief under § 1983, Plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a constitutional right or a right secured by federal law, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law"
So §1983 ties directly to the relevant constitutional right (but only w.r.t. state officials, not private school presidents, private employers, etc): "The Fourteenth Amendment prevents a state from depriving a person of “property” or “liberty” without due process of law."
The judge ruled that TSJ has some likelihood of success on both the property and liberty claims...
The property claim, however, boiled down to the scholarship contract, which alludes to additional due process that TSJ was not afforded. By itself, this would leave room for future scholarship contracts that are worded differently.
The liberty claim is broader (I see now that my previous posts glossed over this): "A state actor infringes on a liberty interest only by ‘cast[ing] doubt on an individual’s ... reputation’ to such a degree that ‘it becomes virtually impossible for the [individual] to find new employment in his chosen field." NIL and draft projections clearly show that TSJ has a career in basketball. However, I don't think the judge clearly explained how TSJ likely demonstrated "that the state inflicted reputational damage". In one of the cases cited, reputational harm occurred because "the University found [that student] guilty of sexual violence under Title IX", and in the other because of "public accusations of misconduct by state officials". In TSJ's case, the public officials (to me at least) did not find him guilty or accuse him of misconduct; they merely acted based on the criminal charges made by someone else. Thinking out loud, I wonder if the DIA panel/process gives the appearance of making a judgement of guilt, so the decision to uphold the suspension hurts his reputation.
I'm still really dwelling on just how far reaching this ruling would be if it stands. IMHO, there are going to be situations where an athlete should be suspended right away (egregious crimes with very convincing public evidence). Maybe the "balance of harms" consideration allows suspensions in those cases. The judge mentioned that "Illinois does not believe that Plaintiff is a threat to other students or the Illinois community" because he was allowed to continue as an on-campus student. So it becomes an all-or-nothing approach. If there's a threat to students/community, the university can suspend (from classes, campus, and athletics) right away while determining the threat. Otherwise they must follow due process. I think I can live with that.
Alternatively, if the university had a hard policy of suspending (from athletics) anyone charged with certain felonies, and were very careful in their public statements that they have no comment on likelihood of guilt, and are only doing this to avoid distractions to other students, then I think the university could claim that they are not inflicting reputational harm beyond what is already occuring because of the charges.
My other (rambling) post mentions some of this, but in short:
1. He has a scholarship contract, and the judge thinks UIUC might not have followed that contract appropriately (because it points to OSCR, which affords certain due processes).
2. The state (state school president) can't harm his reputation (without due process) in a way that severely affects his chosen career. The judge thinks this may have happened.
Great post. I wanted to add something to one part of it. One issue the Judge seemed to take very seriously is her mention of TSJ falling 17 places in the mock draft after the suspension. I personally don't think much of mock drafts but apparently she did.
According to his statement, it was his policy to start. JW is a great AD, but wasn't really looking after the players best interests when he created a process to punt these decisions to the administration without some standard other than the best interest of the university. Yes, it will be changed, but the standard in the student-athlete contract will probably now say if you are charged you are done. Hopefully I am wrong, and it will be something with more protections for the athlete.
RichardKeenesCousin
Richard Keene's Cousin
This didn't age well
I'll be curious to see if the TSJ billboard that used to be on Neil between Kirby and Green will go back up.
Nope. And neither did this comment when you keep reading.
Also, in case anybody's missed it, here's the 236-page document filed by Shannon's defense. I've been downloading all the files, as the news sites sometimes break their own links over time.
- Status