[Update: If you're just seeing this blog entry for the first time, there have been a couple of developments concerning this situation. The recruit in question, Dewitt Stuckey, will not be facing charges. And I have changed my position on this matter, too. Instead of a threshold of being arrested and charged with a felony as grounds for revoking a scholarship, I've raised, or lowered, that standard to being indicted on felony charges. And that change in position can be directly attributable to the discussion on this blog. Who says good things can't happen on blogs? - Jay, DSN]
Jay, here.
Yesterday, The Oregonian’s John Canzano addressed the legal issues surrounding Oregon recruit Dewitt Stuckey on his sports talk radio show, The Bald Faced Truth.
Here’s the link to the audio. It’s about half-way through the audio file. In addition to his commentary, Canzano also talks to a Stockton Record reporter familiar with the situation.
As an editorial note, I’m a hard-liner on stuff like this. Regardless of innocence or guilt, any recruit arrested for a felony should have their scholarship immediately revoked. There is no upside to a “second chance”. Maybe on the football field. Maybe. But is it worth it? Probably not.
However, there is an upside for establishing a precedent that the University of Oregon will not willingly welcome student-athletes who put themselves in the position to be arrested for a felony, or felonies. Once they get to campus, that’s a different story. They’re there, and Oregon is stuck with them. But knowingly awarding a scholarship to a student-athlete facing a felony is completely unacceptable.
Considering Oregon’s PR problem of the “appearance of impropriety” on several issues, this should be a no-brainer. Actually, I would advocate that Mr. Brand make this a stipulation across the NCAA board.
Is there a path for a “second chance”? Sure. And that begins with two steps. First, an institution has to establish itself as intolerant of this type of behavior. Second, the student-athlete in question would have to attend a community college for a probationary year.
Too draconian?
In the third hour of Canzano’s show, he talks to former Duck, Terrell Brandon.
Here’s the link to that interview. That’s a just a couple of minutes into the hour.
Only one editorial note: he has a son graduating from high school next year!
I’m old.
No, not really. That just makes me feel old.
Get all your sports news on the Oregon Ducks at DuckSportsNews.com.
Innappropriate comment? Let us know.
Spam filters are set on high. Please be patient for your comments to be posted.
Tags: Basketball, Ducks, John Canzano, oregon, Terrell Brandon, The Oregonian, University of Oregon
wheaton4prez Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 1:21 am
It’s a really good question and I’m glad I don’t have to be the one to make the call. I can’t bring myself to commit to a solution.
On the one hand, I actually find myself agreeing with Canzano. It’s important to hold a high standard of conduct for anyone given the privelidge of an athletic scholarship. I think it would be reasonable to go as far as to pull the scholly just to protect that standard and send the message that, if you have that opportunity with the UO, you need to steer way clear of this type of behavior. Even if Stuckey wasn’t part of the crime, he was hanging around the people who were directly involved with it, when it happened.
Then, on the other hand, if Stuckey proves to be innocent, it’s tough to not feel that some level of injustice has occurred if he still loses his scholarship. I think it’s arguable that it isn’t the job of a college football program to do the work of our police, lawyers, juries, etc.
In any event, even if Stuckey ends up playing as planned, I think this story will follow him and we’ll have to hear about it every year until he graduates. In some ways, the damage might already be done.
geoff Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 7:13 am
“Regardless of innocence or guilt, any recruit arrested for a felony should have their scholarship immediately revoked.”
so even if he’s innocent, you revoke it? gee, smart thinking because the DA/Police are NEVER wrong.
John Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Jay,
Perhaps you have forgotten that in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Suggesting that an arrest is tantamount to conviction is just plain stupid. Having said that, I do agree that any recruit that is convicted should automatically have their scholarship revoked…but to suggest that the U of O ingnore an American’s basic rights to a fair trial is not just draconian, it’s ridiculous.
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 8:12 am
John -
“Innocent until proven guilty” is the burden of the legal system, not a prerequisite for the privilege of receiving a scholarship.
Here’s what’s stupid: bad decision-making and risking a $100,000 education (when you consider everything).
One quick hypothetical: if every single member of the football team was “arrested, but not convicted”, would that be OK?
And how does the UO market a group of graduating seniors in basketball (which translates into character guys) at the front door and allow “arrested, but not convicted” felonious student-athletes in the back door?
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Geoff -
You’re right. The Police and DA are wrong sometimes.
But the possibility of losing your scholarship would kind of discourage you from putting yourself in a position of having anything to do with the Police, right?
I don’t think it’s too much to ask of our “Men of Oregon” to avoid being arrested for felonies. Or is that setting the bar too high?
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 8:21 am
wheaton4prez -
The job of the UO and the justice system are different.
One of the responsibilities of the UO is to present an image all Oregon fans can be proud of. And as you point out, if Stuckey ends up here, it’s going to follow him, and Oregon, for the next 4-5 years.
Considering all of Oregon’s PR problems right now, does the UO really need one more PR hit? I don’t think so.
Jay
DSN
Hank Hosfield Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 8:43 am
On one hand, Bellotti has probably gained more street love for his forgiving nature, generosity of spirit and self-serving penchant for doling out second and third chances. On the other hand, he’s been less-than-vigilant steward of the Oregon brand. I think the reputation of the program and the school trump all arguments for cutting shady characters a break, no matter how fast they run a 40. I don’t know if Stuckey is guilty or innocent, but no matter how this shakes out, it’s already a black eye for Oregon. I’d prefer they cut their losses. There’s always more players who want to go to Oregon. And there’s always another college out there eager to take a chance on a player with Stuckey’s talent. If Oregon ends up with a reputation as a school that has zero tolerance for nonsense, that’s a bonus.
TheFangjack Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Jay, remember the Duke Lacrosse players? Should they have had their scholarships revoked, and dismissed from school, because they were charged with felonies? Remember how that turned out? The “victim” lied, there was irrevocable harm to the students, scandal, embarrassment, resignations, etc.
Maybe this young man was trying to break up the fight, and was mis-identified as an assailant. From the bit I heard on the news, witnesses differed. That’s why we have a legal process, so the testimony of witnesses can be heard and weighed by independent jurors. Unless he confesses, or is found guilty by the legal system, he should not be prejudged to have committed a felony.
If he was drinking underage and admits to that, and the team or school has consequences, fine, impose those consequences.
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 9:16 am
TheFangjack -
Yes, I do remember the Duke Lacrosse case. And that was a case of great injustice.
However, while innocent, those young men were not choir boys: they hired a couple of strippers for a party. Again, I would say that is a case of very poor judgement.
And I’m not talking about convicting any future Duck arrested for a felony in the court of public opinion.
All I’m talking about is placing the stipulation on a scholarship offer that you try and avoid being arrested for a felony.
Seriously, is that really too difficult?
Duck fans, is it really that important to you to populate the team with athletes arrested for felonies, but not convicted? I think Oregon can do better than that.
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Hank -
Holy…! We agree! Outstanding.
Jay
DSN
Shaun Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Jay, You are WRONG on this. IF the kid is innocent you just ruined his life by pulling that schollie offer. The victim himself says he has never had a problem with Stuckey and can not say he was een invovled. Also don’t give that “well he should not put himself in that situation…” garbage, if he is innocent all he would then be guilty of was going to the neighborhood burger joint for a late night snack. You seriously want his schollie pulled (of course if he is innocent) because he went to a burger joint (by the way can you blame him it was In N Out). That is flat out ridiculous. Of course, if he is guilty then yank that schollie away. But too often times in the media there is a rush to judgement and a lot of people get ruined by it.
Bill Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I might be wrong, but from what I have read, once the Letter of Intent has been signed and received by the University that that is a binding agreement that can’t be broken. If the student isn’t able to report to school for the first day of school (say from being in jail), then the scholarship can be revoked. Previous to that, the scholarship can it has to be a mutual decision to rescind the scholarship.
TheFangjack Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 10:14 am
So, Jay, your test is whether or not the young man did or did not try to avoid being arrested for a felony? Without more information, how can we tell what he did, much less what his intent was?
Or is it that he used poor judgment? In what respect? Did he hit someone? Don’t know. Was he drunk? Don’t know. Did he instigate the fight? Don’t know. Was he a designated driver? Don’t know. Was he trying to break up a fight and protect the innocent? Don’t know.
If using poor judgment is the criterion, I suspect that most high school students would fail the test. Drinking alcohol, using illegal drugs, unprotected sex, speeding, car racing, and lots of other behaviors of high school students (and others) show bad judgment. The coach is on the mark in waiting to see what develops in court before there is any serious consideration given to revoking a scholarship, unless the young man confesses first.
BigDucky Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I have read lots of blogs about Stuckey and I have mixed emotions. However I have been a witness to many fights in middle school, high school and beyond, does that make me a felon? No, because i was just there. None of the people who are posting messages or writing blogs were at that fight, so why are we jumping on this kid thinking that he is a terrible person? Your right, why would you put yourself in a situation were you could lose a DREAM chance of playing for a D-1 team? But when I witnessed fights in high school I didnt drive around looking for fights because i got a kick out of kids trying to throw punches, they just did. Now I am not saying that the U of O should still give him his ride, nor am i saying they should take it away. I don’t want MY ducks to be like they Blazers of the late 90’s and early 00’s, but I don’t think we should start saying this kid is a felon and should have his dream taken away from him until he is convicted. And i have also read in a number of articles that many people are shocked that Stuckey was even involved because that was very unlike his personality.
echo31 Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Have you never been in a position where someone you know was doing something wrong, or maybe even illegal? We are all put into situations like that at times, and it isn’t always easy or possible to walk away. Until Stuckey is proven guilty of any wrong doing by his own hands, he should keep his scholarship. These aren’t the days of the witch trials, are they?
la_boun_ty Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Jay,
What you’re saying is not that the program shouldn’t offer scholarships to those who have been arrested, but that they shouldn’t offer scholarships to those that you feel are of “low character.” You’re merely using Mr. Stuckey’s arrest as the evidence that has led you to determine that he deserves your stamp as “of low character.”
This is totally unfair considering you have no clue about any of the circumstances leading to his arrest, he has yet to receive a fair trial, and you’ve likely never spoken to anyone within 6 degrees of separation from Mr. Stuckey who has even provided you any anecdotal evidence that the guy is a bad seed.
Furthermore, its clear from your post about the Duke players that you have no issue with arbitrarily convicting people with what you consider “low character.” Great argument - “they participated in the hiring of strippers, which in Jay’s estimation equals poor judgment so we can’t feel too bad that their lives are ruined.”
Do you want to apologize for that ridiculous comment now, or would you prefer not to post this on the site at all?
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am
To everyone who has left a comment I have not responded to:
I shall return after lunch.
Because you’re all GUILTY…of having an opinion.
And I will do my best to overturn your CONVICTIONS.
Until then, court is adjourned.
Jay
DSN
echo31 Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Good points, la_boun_ty.
Some of us don’t think hiring a stripper is wrong. Hiring a prostitute, yes … but stripper, no.
It’s unfair to use your own definitions of right and wrong to accuse people that haven’t broken a law.
Shaun Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Jay say what you wish but if the DA does not proceed and file formal charges therefore signfying his innocense there is nothing you will be able to say to change my mind. You have to understand cops on scene will arrest just about anybody they can possibly find if they think for any reason they were involved, whether they actually were or not. They do this to get the person into the system just in case they are the guilty party. Take it from me. I was at a house party in my teen years that the cops busted and was arrested for trespass and hindering prosecution. Charges were never filed because I did nothing wrong. I was an invited guest of the resident of the house but they took me anyway. They did it just to get me in the system.
BigDucky Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
this just in…..Stuckey will NOT face charges!
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
BigDucky -
On a personal level, that’s great that Stuckey will not face charges.
However, this discussion is not specifically about Stuckey. What I’m saying could be applied to any student-athlete facing felony charges.
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Shaun -
At the scene of a fight, cops arrest everyone, file multiple felony charges, and post $75,000 in bail, just to get people into the system?
I’m sorry, I find that difficult to believe.
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
echo31 -
This doesn’t have anything to do with breaking the law. I’m not accusing Stuckey of anything.
All I’m proposing is a simple criteria for retaining an athletic scholarship: don’t get arrest and charged with a felony.
Strippers are different than prostitutes. Thanks. I’ll keep that moral line in the sand in mind.
Jay
DSN
Chel Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
The legal standard of innocent until proven guilty is rooted in the understanding that innocent people have been and always will be wrongly or mistakenly accused of a crime. Many Americans understand this and choose not to leap to conclusions until after a fair hearing before judge or jury has determined the truth of the accusations. An exception would be the press (ie Duke lacrosse) and people like Jay who believe that if you’re arrested, you are somehow guilty of something bad.
Stuckey’s crime: Going to In-N-Out Burger where local high schoolers hang out. A fight breaks out, chaos erupts, bodies fly about. Cops show up and start making arrests.
Jay’s conclusion: Yank the scholarship. Stuckey should have known better than to go hang out with his friends at the most popular burger joint in town. He should have been home studying on a Saturday night, not out enjoying his final weeks of high school.
The DA’s conclusion: No evidence of a crime.
Jay, check out Proverbs 18:5 (its wrong to condemn the innocent) and 18:17 (any story sounds true until the someone sets the record straight). And if you find yourself in the back seat of a squad car because your car matched the description of a get-away vehicle, be thankful that the Constitution protects you, and lots of people like me won’t hold it against you!
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
la_boun_ty -
What I’m saying is that all athletic scholarships to incoming student-athletes should be contingent on them not being arrested and charged with a felony. That’s not a real high standard there.
You’re right. I don’t know Mr. Stuckey’s character. But I do know that on the surface, the promotion of a group of graduating seniors on the basketball team and the rewarding of a scholarship to a high school student facing felony charges seem to be contradictory messages. On top of that, I don’t know many people of “high character” who can claim felony charges.
While I’m on that point, let me say something about second chances and redemption. We’ve all fallen short, right? I know I have. And any student in this particular situation should get another shot. However, they should pay some type of price and assume some sort of responsibility.
This would be my solution: spend a probationary year at a CC. Keep your nose clean and you can work your way back to the privilege, and reward, of a scholarship.
la_boun_ty, I do have a problem with arbitrary convictions of people in the court of public opinion. But that’s not what this is about. This is about setting a standard for athletic scholarships.
No apology, here. But thanks for the comments.
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
echo31 -
We’re not talking about a witch trial. It’s a very simple standard I’ve already covered.
Have I been around illegal activity? Sure. But I’ve never put my self in the position to be arrested and charged with multiple felonies.
Some how I’ve managed to avoid that all too often pitfall. I guess I just must be lucky. Seems like cops are tossing out arrests and felonies all over the place like there’s no tomorrow.
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
BigDucky -
I’m not saying Stuckey, or Player X, is a bad person for being charged with a felony. All I’m saying is that there should be a very clear standard applied across the board for incoming scholarship athletes: don’t get arrested and charged with a felony. And it should be applied without preference or prejudice.
Thanks,
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
TheFangjack -
My test is simple: felony charge = no scholarship.
Using that formula, no judgement is required.
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Bill -
It looks like WSU was able to figure out a way to get out of their scholarship offer to their incoming freshman QB.
If there is not, there should be some type of morals clause somewhere there in the paperwork.
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Shaun -
This is not an incident of the media (Is DSN the media?) rushing to judgement. It’s a very simple question: Player X, have you been arrested and charged with a felony before arriving on campus? Yes. OK, your scholarship is gone. Playing at a CC for a probationary year is your parting gift. Thanks for playing.
There’s no judgement call there.
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Here are some final thoughts.
Even though Stuckey has been cleared of charges, my position is that this standard could be applied to any incoming student-athlete.
I know it’s a tough standard. But having that high standard will make giving kids a second chance a lot more credible.
Good discussion everyone. Let’s hope we don’t have to have this back-and-forth any time in the near future.
Thanks again.
Jay
DSN
wheaton4prez Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Jay,
“The job of the UO and the justice system are different.
One of the responsibilities of the UO is to present an image all Oregon fans can be proud of.”
I agree with the UO having different responsibilities. But, I don’t think it’s clear that pulling someones scholarship that was charged but not convicted of any crime would be something “all Oregon fans could be proud of.” I think there’s plenty of evidence just on this web-site that a number of Oregon fans would feel pretty strongly that Oregon would have done the wrong thing. A lot of fans could be proud of Oregon’s image in it’s association with fundamental American principles.
I’m still on the fence about it though. I agree with your reasoning. You’re right that avoiding felony convictions is really not a difficult thing to do and it’s not an unreasonable standard. But, I see the other side as having equal merit, perhaps simply on the basis that country and the laws of the land supercede the laws of a school. I think that there’s a valid argument behind expecting a school, especially a state school, to adopt and make use of the rest of the states processes, departments, laws and even principles.
echo31 Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I appreciate your point of view Jay, but I just don’t believe that arrest alone is enough to go on. Innocent people get arrested every once in a while … it’s a fact of life. This situation, where Stuckey has now been cleared, shows that such a rash penalty should be reserved until after the dust settles. Just being arrested doesn’t always mean you did anything wrong … the police aren’t always perfect.
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
“He who listens to a life-giving rebuke
will be at home among the wise.”
- Proverbs 15:31
Chel -
I’m really not jumping to any conclusions here. Just for your edification, I despised what happened in the Duke Lacrosse situation. This is a different situation, for a number of reasons. And I don’t think they are comparable.
My position is very simple and clear. It’s kind of like the George Strait song. Since signing a letter of intent, has Player X been charged with a felony, check yes or no. If there is a X in that “Yes” box, then there’s no scholarship.
If you want trade Bible verses back and forth, we could go on and on.
So, let’s call it good and consider yourself among the wise now.
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
wheaton4prez -
I know we’re close on this issue, with just a couple of differences.
But let me ask this question again: would it be OK if the entire football were arrested and charged with felonies, but none convicted?
Where do you draw the line when it comes to behavior?
Jay
DSN
Shaun Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Jay, your stance is simply not intelligent. You would right now be punishing a kid for going to get a burger and stumbling into a situation where there is a fight. It is not like what he was doing intentially put himself in a bad place, he went to the local good burger place. While you have the right to your opinion you are wrong and single minded to not view circumstances as a whole rather than simply picking out what you wish to hold a person accountable for. The reason why this is such an important issue for me is, like I said previously, I have been in a similar situation. And your refusal to believe the input from somebody who has been in a similar situation further proves your position as close minded. It is not like the kids was in a bar, nor did he throw a party where this happened or even go to a place where he thought something of this nature may happen, he went to get a burger. Whether you want to believe that police wrongfully arrest people or not, guess what, it happens and here is a prime case.
Shaun Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Jay, also I will chime in to respond to your last question for W4Prez…”would it be OK if the entire football were arrested and charged with felonies, but none convicted?”…my answer is it depends on the circumstances. Say for instance the football team witnessed an incident of police officers beating a person needlessly and they stepped up to the plate and started demanding the names and badge numbers of the officers involced so they could file a complaint. Say these officers refused to respond to these requests and demanded they leave so they could continue their prolonged beating of that person. Say these football players refused to leave and were then arrested and charged with hindering prosecution-which happens to be a class C felony. You would then say to that team, for doing the proper and appropriate thing, sorry about your luck you got charged with a felony si hit the road? If your answer is yes that is ignorant because of your refusal to consider the circumstances as a whole. FOr the record that is what happened to me. Because the DA realized I was within my rights to request that information and to try and stop the injustice I saw charges were never filed. Not only were charges never file the police never even filed their reports of the incident…meaning no one got charged to try and make the incident go away. But by your standard I would be screwed. Just plain dumb.
echo31 Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Thank you Shaun … I don’t know why I keep coming back to see what Jay has said, but I just can’t believe that anyone thinks that simply being charged with a crime is enough to take away someone’s chance at an education and a maybe a stepping stone to professional sports. I could call the cops right now and say tell them that someone had committed a crime and they would probably have to arrest the person until they found out that it isn’t true. An arrest is not an admission of guilt and I can’t believe that anyone would even suggest treating it that way.
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Shaun -
I understand your position, welcome your comments, and appreciate your experience.
As unfair as my virtual line in the sand might seem, I’ll pose the same question to you that I did wheaton4prez. For the sake of argument, let’s say that I’m wrong and no action should be taken in regards to incoming student-athletes facing felony charges, but not indicted or convicted.
How many of those are OK to have on the football team?
I’ll even reconsider my position that scholarships should be pulled from athletes simply facing felony charges.
What if Player X is indicted on felony charges?
Is that a reasonable enough of a threshold to pull a scholarship?
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Shaun -
For the benefit of this discussion, I’m going to go with your side of the story in the incident your refer to.
I think what you did in that incident was probably the right, and brave, thing to do. But I’m not sure it was necessarily the smart thing to do. Even though I have friends who are police officers, I try to avoid them at all cost. Because as you already know, anything can happen.
So, let’s say the standard isn’t simply being charged with a felony. What about being indicted on a felony?
Jay
DSN
Shaun Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I would say indictment warrants a pulling of the schollie pending the outcome of the trial. If innocent then reinstate and if guilty then make it permanent.
Jay Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Shaun -
I could go along with that. Good job. And good discussion.
Jay
DSN
John Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 8:57 am
Jay,
Are you familiar with a document known as the Bill of Rights?
Let me tell you a bit about it. It was introduced to the US Congress in 1791 by a guy named James Madison, who would later become this country’s fourth president. It was, and still is, a ground breaking document that changed the course of this country and the world. People have died to protect it and what it stands for.
Funny, but nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that an individual’s rights can be circumvented if Jay at DSN wants to act as judge and jury and convict someone based on heresay. Check it out yourself, it says nothing of the kind.
When basic rights are ignored, even by an insignificant sports blogger like yourself, we all suffer.
Go Ducks
Jay Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 9:41 am
John -
I’m tempted to get childish by asking such questions like, “What’s this Bill of Rights you speak of?”.
But I’ll refrain. Since we’re adults.
So, here we go.
Right back at you: are you familiar with the Bill of Rights?
Because the Bill of Rights ain’t got nothing to do with this issue. Sorry. But I would love to see a dissertation on the role of the Bill of Rights in the revocation of an athletic scholarship. And when you’re done, you might want to email that up to WSU. Because that’s just what they did.
No one has a right to an athletic scholarship to the University of Oregon. It is an award, honor, and privilege. And, as such, can be revoked.
Student-athletes have to meet certain qualifications in order to receive a scholarship. Athletic ability. Grades. Admittance.
And in the course of this discussion, I have revised my position, slightly. As opposed to be simply being arrested and charged with a felony, I now could accept that the threshold should be at least an indictment (although, I still don’t think it looks good to accept anyone who has been arrested and charged with anything) before a scholarship is revoked.
Why has this touched such a nerve with Oregon fans?
All I’m suggesting is a simple code of conduct that you try, really try and avoid being arrested, charged, indicted - whatever, before you have the privilege of attending the University of Oregon.
Is that too much to ask?
John, you’re right. I looked and couldn’t find my name in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Although, my family is well-represented on the Declaration of Independence. But I couldn’t make him out when I watched “John Adams”. Kind of disappointing.
But I also couldn’t find what you’re talking about, either.
Thanks for the comments.
“A man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.”
- James Madison
Jay
Insignificant Sports Blogger
DSN
Dirk Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Umm jay are you still beating your wife?
I’m a very conservative person, but I always believe in second chances. You “line in the sand” is pretty ridiculous IMO…So you’d crucify someone for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Even if they had nothing to do with the crime? all they would have to do is be arrested? Many times, the police will show up at a crime scene and arrest everyone if there is a large group ivolved, and then sort it all out later…
I would bet if it were your child involved you would want them to have the benefit of the doubt.
your “Line in the sand” is really dumb…and I’m being polite.
innocent until proven guilty! even you.
Jay Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Dirk -
Yes, I beat my wife…in Wii Bowling.
Please take a look at the progression of this discussion in the comments.
But here’s the short version:
- Athletic scholarships have standards.
- One of those standards should be not being indicted for a felony (I’ve changed my position from being arrested and charged to indicted).
- Take your logic to the extreme. Would a team full of football players indicted on felony counts be OK with you?
And I’m trying to beat my youngest sister, too…on Guitar Hero.
Jay
DSN