Archive for the ‘justin chaisson’ Category

One Justin In, One Justin Out

June 12, 2009

Carey Murdock of Sooner Scoop is reporting that Bob Stoops has confirmed that heralded freshman defensive end Justin Chaisson has enrolled at OU and is on campus. Also, Stoops said sophomore running back Justin Johnson has left the team.

Stoops has issued a statement regarding Chaisson’s status: 

“We have thoroughly reviewed the facts and disposition of any and all allegations against Justin as determined by the independent assessment of the district attorney’s office and the court system. Based on their investigation of the facts, all allegations of the use of any weapon have been dismissed and are not the basis of any charge against or plea by him. Our decision is appropriately based on the independent determination and action of the district attorney’s office and the court system.

“We take these matters of conduct very seriously. Justin fully understands our expectations and his responsibilities of exemplary behavior and professional counseling. He knows the consequences if he does not meet those requirements.”

An Ugly Take on Athletes’ Ugly Behavior

May 13, 2009

Up to now, Homerism has tried to steer clear of the Justin Chaisson issue until the situation had reached some kind of resolution. Until I read Daily Oklahoman columnist Berry Tramel’s twisted take on the predicament, that is.

(I’m not going to waste time rehashing the particulars of Chaisson’s plight, but, obviously, it presents a thorny problem for OU coach Bob Stoops and the University of Oklahoma administration.)

If you’re looking for a good indicator of the column’s overall lameness, Tramel uses a dated allusion to Father Flanagan throughout the article, likening Stoops–or at least Stoops’ aspirations–to the saintly priest known for his work with wayward youths.
Anyway, as best I can tell, Tramel reckons big-time football coaches like Stoops believe they can put troubled recruits back on a righteous path by offering them structure and discipline. In other words, it’s just a matter of changing their environment. He points to ex-Sooner recruit Josh Jarboe and Oklahoma State standout Adarius Bowman as examples of kids from troubled homes sent to D-I Boys Town with a chance to turn it around.
To Tramel, however, Chaisson is a different case from Jarboe and Bowman, because his problem is clearly a deep-seated issue of “anger management.” It’s a flawed part of his DNA that likely requires years of therapy to address. Therefore, Tramel concludes, Chaisson presents a bigger risk.
Where to begin?

Maybe it just happens to be a matter of coincidence, but I read Tramel’s column as a tacit endorsement of a shallow stereotype that seems to have been pulled out of Crash or some other hackneyed junk masquerading as pseudo-social commentary playing on Starz over the weekend. Namely, white guys like Chaisson know better than to have screwed up so badly; they have some distinct character deficiency and are an aberration to their species. Black kids, on the other hand, are just too dumb or unrefined to be expected to live up to the expectations of civilized society. Either that, or the parents–strongly implying “welfare princess single moms”–raising these children just aren’t capable of teaching them right from wrong.
Granted, Chaisson is alleged to have assaulted and kidnapped his girlfriend before driving her to the desert and threatening to kill her. The violent nature of the charges certainly is disturbing. Is it really so different from Jarboe carrying a pistol onto high school grounds, though? What, pray tell, did Jarboe need that firearm for? Had he decided to take a detour through the school en route to the firing range? (Note, by the way, that Tramel neglects to mention Jarboe’s latest troubles since leaving OU.)
Conversely, couldn’t it be that Chaisson is the product of his environment, a juiced-up meathead whose background taught him to settle his problems in the manner that he did? Steroids kinda being a hot button these days and all.
White or black, nature or nurture; people screw up. It happens for any number of reasons. It shouldn’t make a difference in how Stoops addresses off-the-field transgressions. Yet, in Tramel’s world, somehow it does.
Jarboe’s dismissal set the precedent for just how “zero” Stoops’ zero-tolerance policy is supposed to be in such cases. Whatever his reasoning, let’s hope he applies an equal standard to Chaisson. And let’s hope that standard doesn’t rest on the same kind of offensive nature-nurture presumptions that appear to underpin Tramel’s analysis.