http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-football-players-boycott-pr...
University of Missouri football players said they will boycott team activities until the school's president resigns or is fired in the latest protest against Tim Wolfe's handling of race issues.
With the coaches and most of the rest of the team supporting them this is a story to keep an eye on in the coming days.
On Sunday, Coach Gary Pinkel tweeted a photo of him and several black and white students and faculty with the caption. "The Mizzou Family stands as one. We are united. We are behind our players. #ConcernedStudent1950 GP."
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Touchy subject and I haven't read up enough on it to really comment.
But I kinda feel for Pinkel here. He's going to get skewered no matter what he does. Respect him for standing with his players though.
Interesting, what is to stop the school from rescinding their scholarships? If they are not making the school money by playing it would be well within their rights I would think. If they want to act like employees they should be treated like them.
Maybe Bud Foster could come through and start fining guys.
Not with whit around apparently
I don't see the reason behind downvotes. I see the humor but people around here have been really touchy lately. Loosen up guys it's not Lozo's fault that his attempt at humor came on National Men PMS day on this site. SHESH!
I imagine they could, but the PR cost of doing that would probably outweigh the costs of the actual scholarships. I doubt that the scholarship has any language about them making money for the school being a requirement of their scholarship. I get that that is an implicit agreement in the sport these days, but if the university went that way I could see it serving up a nice meaty fastball for the next lawsuit about players wanting to be paid.
Your last line about being treated like employees is irrelevant because they are not employees.
I don't know enough about what they are claiming this guy has done or not done, so I can't comment on that part of it.
Well obviously it would not say that specifically but anyone that thinks college football or men's basketball players at a div I school are amateurs are fooling themselves. They are playing in the nfl and nba developmental league and bring millions into their school. Maybe once upon a time it was about school and being a student but now it is about cash money
Well right now the NCAA "thinks" that, and they are the only ones that matter on the subject.
We all know what the deal is. But for a school to take some kind of action that reinforces makes it blatantly clear would probably open the floodgates for more lawsuits, and ones that would be more likely to be successful. If schools want to claim that these guys are not employees, to then have the ability to in effect "fire" them would be a big legal hurdle to try and get around.
According to a NY Times article this all started from the fact that there's a kid or two, or three that claimed some dudes yelled racial slurs at them from the back o f a moving pick-up truck.
It won't be long before Congress is asked to legislate truck control.
I kid, but really, I see no evidence of institutional racism here being instigated by this president. There may be a few isolated incidents here or there, but that's going to happen everywhere. No university president is going to be able to cleanse everyone's heart of racism. Sticks and stones, people.
Also, I would imagine that the football team is not doing this if they are 9-0, 8-1, or even 7-2 right now.
I think the bigger problem that led to this was the president's non-response and avoidance of the racism issue when confronted by students. He basically walked away / drove away several times instead of addressing the issue immediately and denouncing the racist behavior.
That's when the protests and hunger strikes and things really got going. Basically he was not equipped to be an administrator and a college... pure businessman used to doing his own thing and not having to respond to constituents.
Whenever there is political strife on a college campus all I can think is "I'm glad that's not happening at Tech."
And if it does our luck RR would be the HC.
Obviously it's not good that swastikas are being drawn on campus (I believe there were other incidents too), but I think it's pretty cool to see a football team leverage their visibility for a good cause.
I am late to the game, but I could not disagree more with this statement. The team banding together to get someone fired for silliness going on in multiple campuses and for his "white privilege" is just absurd. I don't know what happened to our colleges in the past 5-10 years (willing to concede it may have always been this way but I was sheltered by the walls of mother I) but I could not be happier that I am as far away from a campus as possible.
So it would be nice if they say what the president did or didn't do in various issues that have come up. The only thing in the article talks about swastikas being drawn on campus or something and some type of poor handling by the president of the school. Pretty weak journalism if you ask me. Doesn't really say what happened and what the president did that upset people.
And in regards to their scholarships and acting like employees, they may not get their scholarships rescinded but the coach and his staff are employees and can be fired. Again, what good that does I don't know since I don't know anything about the incident from either side.
This article is as good as Trump on SNL last night.
What would you fire Pinkel for? Supporting his players, I think it would be a real stretch to equate that with refusing to perform his job duties.
As you said though, the article is no good. From what I gather it's more the school presidents inaction on some racial incidence that is the issue, but there has to be more than that otherwise the boycott seems a bit excessive. I am all for everyone being treated with the same level of respect and decency and feeling safe at their school, work, etc.
But it seems a bit much to tell every individual that they "must" resign unless they can solve racism single handedly.
I guess firing the guy for not coaching or being on strike, I don't really know. again, we don't even know what everyone is mad at. I'm not saying it should happen or will but just a mention to the comment above where the guy says that if the players want to be treated like employees then they should have their scholarships revoked or something to that effect. I was just saying that the coaches ARE employees and could be fired, technically. Again, not saying it should happen or will just saying that if anyone had something to lose it would appear that the coaches could be held accountable more so than the athletes.
I agree. The article goes on and on and on about the uniting of players and people to stand together against the evils of racism and intolerance that apparently the president is responsible for without touching on what he did. You'd think that might be something to include. I tried to look elsewhere but didnt find anything of substance explaining the exact origin of the unrest. I also have to agree with the above comment, thank you for not being an issue here at tech.
I have absolutely nothing nice to say here.
In what way are the problems on the Missouri campus the fault of the university president?
That's the part of this story I haven't heard.
This is shoddy journalism for sure. I think the issue goes much deeper than the President's lack of response to the racist incidents. Several events and issues have politicized this campus over the last year. In such an atmosphere, it doesn't take much of a spark. See a timeline here: http://www.themaneater.com/special-sections/mu-fall-2015/
Also, if the coach were to take a hard line against the players it would only exacerbate the situation. What are they going to do, completely empty their roster and start from scratch?
And let's be real: the billions of dollars made in college athletics is made substantially from black labor. Over 50% of MU's football team is black while Blacks only make up 7% of the school's population. I'm not saying this is part of the story here, but it should be. Black people in general are not getting back what they are putting into the NCAA.
Wow, they wanted to remove a status of Thomas Jefferson because he was a slave owner? Next we'll be wiping George Washington and Benjamin Frankin from the history books because they were slave owners too. A lot of the issues on that timeline are garbage.
Bottom line is that these players are barking up the wrong tree with their complaints. The university president is not capable of stoping a few idiots from barking racist comments; the fault does not lie with him. Their scholarships should be pulled if they refuse to play; they are there on FOOTBALL scholarships after all.
That's two different sets of fighting words up in Charlottesville.
Not trying to turn the discussion political here, but we've already seen the confederate flag cause quite a stir... it's not that much of a leap to say that slave owners where inherently racist and statues depicting them, money, etc, could be seen as a racial and political issue at some point
Those figures are racist by our current standards, but I think you have to view historical figures in the context of their times, not ours.
Our beliefs have changed, but does that mean we should withdraw recognition of historical figures for their contributions? Or should we recognize their contributions while acknowledging their mistakes?
The Thomas Jefferson issue is just one of many incidents that has stirred political discussion on campus. But as someone who studies history for a (meager) living, i'll bite on the charge of presentism. Although Jefferson made an occasional private comment condemning slavery, unlike many of his contemporaries, he decided not to manumit his slaves after his death. Edit: He also procreated with his 13 year old slave when he was in his 40s.
Are you suggesting that Jefferson's views were out of step with the views and attitudes of his time?
I'm saying that it is fair to judge him for not manumitting his slaves in an era when it was legal (before 1831) and not uncommon. For the best overview of Jefferson's relationship to slavery (and his slaves), see http://www.amazon.com/White-Over-Black-Attitudes-Williamsburg/dp/0807871419
I don't have a problem with people making their own assessments of Jefferson. I'm from Virginia, so I've got a pretty good grasp of Jefferson's accomplishments, and am familiar enough with his relationship to slavery.
He was a plantation owner in Virginia in the late 1700's. He was also a lawyer, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and had many other accomplishments. He had slaves, but failing to recognize that in it's historical context is indeed presentism; it's judging Jefferson by today's moral standards.
I dare say everyone in the 1700's would fail today's political correctness test, which is why it's not a particularly good way to judge historical figures. We can acknowledge the man's greatness, and he was a great man by any standard, while also acknowledging that he had some flaws, and recognizing that his views were reflective of the time-period in which he lived.
I daresay that many people in the 1980's would fail today's political correctness test.
Ok, I know, I'm getting way too political here. I'm stopping.
Go Hokies... It's gameweek, and it's the Yellow Jackets. Fucking -A.
That's actually true.
Look at how views on gay marriage have changed.
You hear a lot of comments by politicians like "Oh, yeah, I was for that all along, but the system wouldn't support it..."
Your inclusion of his relationship with Hemings is merely a divisive smear and doesn't add anything to your present argument. Of the children Jefferson had with Hemings (allegedly six), did he not free the four that survived?
How is it irrelevant if the discussion is about whether Jefferson can be judged by the standards of his time? Even at the time such behavior was shamed (though it wasn't uncommon) and the rumors about Hemings almost cost Jefferson more than one election. He did free two of his children upon his death, but not the rest of his slaves.
What's more historically significant about Jefferson, that he had an affair with one of his slaves, or that he made the Louisiana purchase?
Oddly enough, if you tour Monticello, you're going to hear a lot more about one of those things than the other, and it's not the one that doubled the size of the United States.
It's a relevant point if the discussion concerns Jefferson's purported sexual relationship with his slaves. The discussion, as far as I can tell, centered on Jefferson as an aristocratic slave holder and the use his likeness, as well as others of that era, in the public sphere - obviously, a point of contention. Of course, I never said it was irrelevant, you surmised that was my intention. I merely indicated it didn't add anything to the current discussion (see above) and seemed to be more of a childish attempt at mudslinging when no substantive point remains; which is not necessary considering you have plenty of substantive information.
The fact that you hear more about Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings during a tour of Monticello as opposed to his impact on the development of the United States is likely due to the fact that people are more interested in TMZ than PBS.
The fact that you hear more about Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings during a tour of Monticello as opposed to his impact on the development of the United States is likely due to the fact that people are more interested in TMZ than PBS.
I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think it's so much TMZ vs PBS. In fact, I think it's completely PBS. You'll get the same focus on slavery at Monticello, Mount Vernon, the Lincoln memorial, or most any PBS special about early American history.
But maybe it's a good thing. Racism is a pervasive problem that doesn't have an easy fix.
Boy that's a little bit of a leap to go from Thomas Jefferson, the guy who literally wrote the Declaration of Independence, and the Confederate Flag controversy, which was over a flag that was never an official representation of the rebel states, was rejected by the CSA council, and in the only form in which it was officially used was as a battle flag for a Virginian regiment, but in square form only, but was adopted by certain extremists to push a racist agenda through the last 50-60 years. Quite a leap indeed.
I'm just saying, y'all are going to go on a website all about Virginia Tech Hokie athletics and defend Thomas Jefferson?! The hell is wrong with you people?! Fuck that ginger bastard. George Washington was the REAL Founding Father. TJ just hung out in the back WRITING, and probably drinking Zima and singing that shitty New Year's Eve song and thinking up pretentious ways to refer to himself. He probably wore a frilly, lacy cravat to watch the Continental Army in action, if he even showed up. Fuck him and his loser school.
I just peed myself a little.
It pained me to write anything supporting TJ; but political correctness taken to the extreme is a slippery slope (which is disturbingly becoming the norm). Next PETA will be demanding us to remove all Hokie Bird statues in Blacksburg because they offend turkeys.
I might pick a different word other than "labor" as it is generally synonymous with – work, wage...employee. The football players are not employees of the University as they don't, at least as far as I can glean from the article, share the same gripe as the graduate student employees. I would also caution conflating the racial make-up of MU's football team and school with the entire NCAA sports population. To address your last statement, and only concerning the MU football team and university diversity statistics, what would you suggest these athletes get back in return for their service on the football field? Would you consider reciprocity given to an athlete purely on account of a single immutable characteristic to be inherently racist?
Yes, playing football is a "laborious" task; however, it's a task in which the football players as autonomous, free-thinking individuals have elected to become a participant. Granted, their participation in a school sponsored sport does not preclude their right to protest issues they feel are important, but it probably comes with certain ramifications. I'm not going to suggest any, as it would simply be conjecture.
The article in general seems to be more about sensationalism than actually reporting facts. Its purpose is to address MU's frustration with the current president's response to the three patent racial incidents, but delineates nothing regarding his actual response.
It's extremely unfortunate and disgusting that such a pejorative term is still used. Aside from not addressing the situation at all, which it appears Wolfe has done by at least meeting with campus groups and Bulter, the only way to prevent such acts from occurring would be to attempt to censor speech entirely. Something the groups currently exercising their right to peaceable assembly might want to consider.
They do get a free education and for some probably the only way they were getting to college. I hate this talk of the "NCAA athlete" is a victim. They get way more stuff than the average student. Free personal trainers, dietians, their own gyms, tutors, etc. I mean if it's so horrible they don't have to play. They can be a regular student as well as anyone else. Or they can go play for Harvard or a DIII school where money isn't that big for sports so they feel less of a victim.
Um.....Black athletes are getting the exact same thing their white/latino/asian-american/etc teammates are getting:
A free education, the amenities of being an NCAA athlete (tutors, trainers, 1st pick of classes), a stipend, a wardrobe of NCAA licensed apparel (which is damn expensive for the rest of us to get). One's race does not deprive them of any of these things.
I'm not saying that Black athletes (or Black people in general) are not getting anything from the NCAA. I'm saying if you compare the money that the NCAA makes (largely thanks to Black athletes) and the value that Black athletes and the Black population of the US receive in turn, there is a huge discrepancy.
2014-2015 Student-Athletic demographics.
Includes all divisions, conferences, and sports. Including historically black colleges. I'm not going to summarize the data, you can draw your own conclusions.
Figure:
http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/displaySaSportResults
Percentage:
http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/displayResultsPercents
Same data. Excluding historically black colleges.
Figures:
http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/saSearch
Percentage:
http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/displayResultsPercents
Website:
http://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/main
Your contention appears contradicted by statistics compiled by the NCAA. If, as you posit, the NCAA is largely (or wholly) economically successful because of black athletes I would expect the demographics to show a large discrepancy between black athletes and their counterparts.
If you have data available to support your premise and conclusion (aside from your own opinion) I would be interested in studying it. Until then, your position is just another false narrative.
woodb20, what correlation are you trying to draw from your statement (assuming its a correct statement at all)?
Are you saying that each race should be given money from the NCAA based on their representation in NCAA athletics? Would that help with the economic inequalities between races? SHOULD the average income of a member of each race be proportional to their participation in NCAA athletics?
Help me understand what you're trying to get at.
If Missouri does not have the game they owe BYU 1 million.
Not sure why this was downvoted. It's true.
In order for me to support anyone losing their job, I'm going to need to see some proof of their failure. The students want the president to step down "due to his negligence toward marginalized students' experiences."
The journalist fails to provide any specific instances of the president's negligence. The journalist mentions in passing that "Wolfe met with Butler and student groups on Friday to discuss the university's handling of racial harassment cases"... but doesn't bother to get a quote from the protesters on how they feel it should have been handled. If the article did at least that little amount of reporting I could form a tiny opinion on whether the president was negligent. All I know after reading this article is
1) Racist things occurred on campus
AND
2) Students are unhappy with the university's response.
Seems to me that the actual story (what was the university's response and was it effective or negligent) has never been addressed. Until it is, it's going to be hard for me to have an opinion.
If anyone comes across an article accurately describing what the students complaints are over the university's response, please post it. I haven't found one yet.
yes, this. i need to know more about the situation to properly form an opinion.
This article gets into it, though it's more than halfway through the story https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/11/08/why-missour...
As a summary of their point of view:
In all of these cases the college was slow to react to student's concern, or did nothing at all. Students body and leadership feel like the President's office has been more interested in sweeping things under the rug or ignoring the issues instead of taking steps to address what they see as a culture where this kind of behavior is acceptable.
All this in a state where major police shootings of African Americans has caused increased tension.
I think they have a fair complaint, but demanding the university president resigns seems a bit extreme.
To me it's more than people calling for him to resign it's how they want him to resign. Call a press conference, admit his white make privilege and then resign.
Basically, instead of doing something like our president (quoted below) who reacted immediately in a show of solidarity, he's been dismissive and borderline combative, especially considering how high tensions have been there for so long. I would agree that it seems like a lot to ask someone to resign, but you can't blow off people's concerns then expect them to play nice. Especially in an area where people have been brought to protest so recently and are understandably on edge. I don't really have a dog in this fight, as it seems like a very complex situation that I would leave to people involved, but it's the president's job to handle these things, and it seems that he hasn't.
I think Sands knocked it out of the park.
I don't know anything about the University of Missouri president, but calling for his resignation over a couple of incidents on campus seems a bit extreme based on anything I've read in the media. It may well be that they're justified, but not based on any writeup I've seen.
As usual the media is reporting headlines, not information. Amazing how much information is out there and yet how difficult it is to become educated on an issue.
I read this article earlier. While his approach is somewhat sarcastic/aloof, its a very interesting perspective.
The things that happened on campus really blow, but I think that demanding the presidents head is slightly much.
I agree, this is a mans livelihood and job. He didn't react quickly enough for a group of 18-22 year old kid's liking? I understand racism is real and it is harmful to society, there is no denying that. I haven't read anything that warrants someone to be put on the chopping block.
There are always going to be ignorant people. That includes ALL races. Will there be a point that it just turns into crying wolf? I want a fair playing field for everyone but this seems a little extreme.
I hope this mess can get sorted out, if I made a commitment to the University of Missouri I would honor it. In my mind it is much more powerful message to SUCCEED ANYWAY when the deck is stacked against you.
That being said, he is a face for his school and community and if he is not properly representing his school, by definition he should get fired. Some of the things he is being accused of are pretty bad, including hitting a protestor with his car and telling african-americans that they are responsible for their own systematic opression.
If you block someones car and they bump into you, it's sort of YOUR fault.
I think the students are correct to demand that the university come out with strong policies against racism, but I'm still not seeing what Tim Wolfe did to justify forced ouster from his job.
Regardless, the point I was making was that he has approached numeruos racial incidents on his campus with a poor attidute and or lack of tact. It's HIS JOB to engage himself respectfully with his community and there is a lot to say that he has'nt done that. If he is unable do do so, I don't think removing him from his positon would be an innapporopriate action by the school.
Has he?
The one clip I saw was of him engaging an angry mob, which probably wasn't a good idea. When people are looking to take you out of context, you have to be very careful with your words.
This gives a little insight. Apparently Wolfe was caught on camera blaming protestors for systematic oppression against themselves, expressing a rather cavalier attitude about the matter (video below.) There are also allegations that he hit a protestor with his car.
Whether or not he deserves to lose his job, this guy seems like he is dividing the school more than he is trying to help it. It's not hard to see why so many are upset.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/11/08/why-missour...
Just to clarify about the car he wasn't driving it, it was during the homecoming parade and he was riding in an open too car, protestors blocked the parade route and they claim his driver hit one of them.
Thanks for the clarification, one of my buddies posted this just saying he hit a protestor with his car and I merely skimmed through it. That video still looks pretty bad though.
The video is eh for me, he is being ambushed and being asked questions. He is a school president not a politician. Now if other facts are out there he should be forced to explain them. But the "demands" from some of these "student" groups seem way off base and out of left field. Almost like they know they can not be addressed so it stays in the public eye longer.
I agree that there is a lot more context needed to determine if and how UM should approach this situation with Wolfe. However, as a school president your a public face for the school and at least from the way I see it, you are subject very similar scrutiny such as that of a politician.
Usually when you hear about lists of "demands," it's regarding bank robbers, kidnappers, and terrorists. I get that people are upset out there, but they probably should have chosen a word with a more positive connotation. It would have probably helped their cause. Demand is starkly "us vs them"/ "my way or the highway," and it could quite easily be spun to make the group seem like opportunistic spoiled children. They have some relevant concerns, and seem to have several workable proposals, but their framing of their stance is going to be detrimental to their cause.
The fact that they demand that he accept white male privileged shows that it's not just about his "poor response" to whatever issues are raised. This letter is more to the point of meet our demands, not we think you acted poorly in your responses and believe you should rectify your responses. If you refuse to address the issues of racism that seem to permeate the campus then we believe you should resign.
So that just happened
Can't blame him. He's in a lose-lose situation.
I'm sure the university is going to give him a nice golden parachute to allow him to find a job elsewhere.
Well, let me add my two cents. My daughter went to the concession stand during the Miami game. Some drunk dude is just blocked the counter and she asked if he had ordered so she could order and get back to see her brother during the second half. Well he got a bit pissed said something about black lives matter and elbowed her. He got his food call her a Nicca and walked off. Now normally she would have made a scene, but she thought about the impact it may have on her brother and team moving forward. All I can say is, had I been there I would have beat the Maroon and Orange out of his butt. This behavior and mindsets that some folk have need to change. I wonder since nothing was done to this piss poor excuse of a Hokie, will he react the same way next time? Sometimes you have to double down and expose injustice.....
That person should be exposed and shamed but is it the universities fault. My issue is how both students and administration has handled this. Tarted information coming out, poor journalism a lot of demands. I'd like to see dialogue and exposing of the people behind the issues.
I know in my case theres no way its VT's fault, but what if the prrson was known and many more issues too. I would think at some point the issues would be addressed, as a matter of fact, i know they would. Im not saying how the president should have handled this, but he should have said or did something. To do nothing, if thats the case, is worse thing he could do.
The behavior you're describing isn't acceptable, and it is worth doing something, but I'm not sure what exactly.
The main thing is not to escalate the situation in the heat of the moment, so I'm glad at least it didn't get worse.
I"m sorry I couldn't help. This by no means condones that guys actions but again what should be done?? We expect the university or the government or whomever else to "do something" about individual behaviors. The president of Mizzou should have denounced the actions and state that that is not what Mizzou stands for etc etc. But there isn't much else he can do. As in the case to Mr. Reynolds daughter. The guy who said it is obviously wrong and the alcohol probably didn't help. However, what is one supposed to do? Shrug it off and move on really. President Sands addressed the graffiti appropriately but what else can he do?? Let people know if they hear something relating to it to talk with campus security. But now does anyone who doesn't agree with muslim faith fall under this scrutiny??? It's a slipery slope. Universities are supposed to be a bastion of free speech (not talking about threats to students)....until it's speech you don't like. Does that mean we agree with racists?? No but do we silence them because we don't like it?? Or do we try to have honest dialogue about it?
I think the university can do things like reminding students and fans that they represent the university, and that we respect people and judge them by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
If we all hold the line against prejudice, and maintain that it's unacceptable in statement, action, and thought, I think we reduce it.
Sometimes you just have to remind people to take the correct stance.
Maybe they should institute something like this......but then again people felt they were being talked down to with it
This is ONE issue, by no means systemic. But the very moment it becomes common place. Something should be said to let folk know that this isnt the belief system of the university. But to have MULTIPLE incidents which are down played, never addressed and the university never does anything to separate itself from the sick minded ones, then the cancer festers. He pretty much said he didnt do anything in his news conference.
yup, and that ultimately was the biggest problem - the mizzou president not doing anything in response to the incidents is really what got the student body upset. No statements denouncing the behavior, no encouraging the student body to accept each other and respect each other, etc etc.
This is ONE issue, by no means systemic. But the very moment it becomes common place. Something should be said to let folk know that this isnt the belief system of the university. But to have MULTIPLE incidents which are down played, never addressed and the university never does anything to separate itself from the sick minded ones, then the cancer festers. He pretty much said he didnt do anything in his news conference.
I'm sorry your daughter had to deal with that garbage. I'm impressed she showed restraint but wish she didn't have to. I realize that no matter what you do there will always be idiots out there; however, I wish someone who was standing nearby and might have overheard the incident stood up and said something.
When someone has that mindset there is probably nothing your daughter could've done to change them, but I like to think if everyone else stands up and says something, that could get through to them.
At first when I read this, I thought about how the game was in Miami and how perhaps that person was actually a Miami fan. Then I remembered how many Miami fans show up to games and realized it likely was someone who was cheering for us. Sorry your daughter experienced that, but bravo to her for keeping her cool and being mature. And kudos to you for, I assume, teaching her how to properly handle those situations.
Disappointed but not surprised. There are definitely still some 'good ol boys' in our fanbase (and student population, sadly) who definitely would embarrass the hell out of anyone with their antics.
that being said, I've experienced those kind of people everywhere. UNC, NCSU, ECU, App St, UGa, UVa... I've been around groups from each who have said some pretty indefensible things. I keep hearing that racism is no longer an issue in the US, and that is just patently false. Worst thing, is that the ones who are the worst behind closed doors are also the ones who will turn around and act like any person of color is their best friend in public. Hypocrites.
As already stated, details are hard to come by in this situation. I may be oversimplifying here, but it feels like a case of college kids who think they're smarter and more socially aware than they really are.
Well looks like hes resigning. Couldnt see him doing that if his teactions were appropriate. At least now some positive conversation and addressing of concerns can occur. Ignoring the issues was his demise.
Sometimes it's better to give the mob what it wants.
If he stayed on, this was going to get worse before it got better.
Not really. Mobs used to hang people.
I said sometimes.
In this case, the guy on a hunger strike can go get a cheeseburger, and the protestors have to actually think of a solution rather than rail on about the university president.
If you're that out of touch with the current social landscape in the US, where there is a push to uncover corruption in every avenue of public work, from law enforcement to the university system, and especially when it deals with stories and events with a racial undertone, or rape, or domestic violence, and you're still doing everything you can to essentially cover up these kinds of stories, you deserve to be canned.
If our president was that out of touch, I'd expect a resignation as well.
Missouri was taken Hostage by a group of protesters. There was no fair trial, there was no digging for evidence. People took an angry mob of students word as whole truths. He had no choice but to meet their demands, which is exactly how they worded it.
Like I said before he could be the worst person in the world but from where I sit, seems to be a little unfair.
he had 6 years to make things right and failed time and time again. These students didn't feel safe at their school and felt like the administration was content with allowing the hostile environment to continue. So they took matters into their own hands and forced him out.
I can't argue with their intent and actions.
Exactly this. Maybe he didn't respond good enough to these "incidents" but these protesters did hold the school hostage, especially once they got the football team (or part of the team) on their side.
However, the Mizzou president may have gotten the best of the deal depending on what his compensation may be and no longer has to deal with this while these protesters are in no better of a position and as they said are "continuing to fight..."
Well they forced the Duke Lacrosse coach to resign and the officer who shot Brown and the DA
who said there was no case in the Martin murder . All the Players who protested hands up don't shoot were wrong as were the congressman. Do you think they set the record straight after the facts came out and it was a lie. How about all those lives were upended by the lies in those cases do there lives matter . That was mob rule.
So they are willing to sacrifice and innocent to protect the perception of not being racist or sexist or whatever the latest political correct stuff that is happening .
I'm sorry, but this is not a constructive post. These arn't simple issues to address.
The term "mob rule" means something really different depending on your perspective.
Underrated Black Sabbath album?
Not complex at all . Michael Brown was not shot in the back with his hands up those were the facts . The Rape accusation at UVA was a lie . The case at Duke a lie also . Many people lives were screwed because a bunch of people wanted to believe what they wanted to believe even if the facts and truth did not support it . They persecuted the men in the sorority at UVA all kinds of nastiness see multible suits filed yesterday . They burnt, beat the innocent in Ferguson
They fired the coach at Duke and the guys on the teams reputations were damaged as a result of trying to push a racism charge that was later proved false. So the innocent were sacrificed to to appease the mob because they didn't want to hear the truth they wanted action regardless.
As I recall, mob rule WASN'T allowed free reign in the Michael Brown case.
The investigation of Michael Brown concluded that he was moving towards the officer when he was fatally shot.
EDIT: Sorry, misread your post.
It's hard for me to sit back and tell students from another school how they should be acting. It's my understanding that this stuff has been going on for 6-7+ and that the campus atmosphere is pretty toxic.
If a grad student is willing to say, "I'm not eating food until something is done, I don't care if I die over this", I'm liable to believe it's pretty serious.
My mistake. The DOOOOKIE game. How could I forget THAT game. #IhateDOOK
Using your own poop to draw a swastika on the dorm wall
I'm not really sure how to define "pays off" in that situation...
how do they know it was their own excrement? I mean sure it most likely was, but we don't actually know that for sure....
Why can't I find any specifics of what this guy did do / didn't do to warrant such a response from the student body and football team? Did he create policies that promoted systemic racism? Did he (or his subordinates) fail to have police investigate acts of vandalism? I'm guessing he wasn't ousted for failing to end racism during his tenure (b/c that'd be a little ridiculous).
He heard no evil, saw no evil and spoke no evil. Even though he heard and saw evil.
An interesting update to this story:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14369127/missouri-legisla...
Should be an interesting case study, and touches on some of the points we discussed on here. Especially interesting because according to the University of Missouri, athletic scholarships are paid out through department revenue and not state funds.
To me the most telling quote (and really one that encapsulates football at the college level) comes from one of their defensive leaders:
One of the leaders of the football players' stand, safety Ian Simon, said the bill wouldn't deter student-athletes from a strike, according to the Missourian.
"They want to call us student-athletes, but they keep us out of the student part of it," Simon told the newspaper. "I'm more than just a football player. ... As soon as we're done playing at the University of Missouri, the University of Missouri does not care about us anymore. We are not their responsibility. ... Our sport is just a small part of who we are."
That bill is the biggest knee-jerk overreaction. So now, if student-athletes should strike, universities won't just have to forfeit a game or two while the strike lasts, but essentially the entire season, since, you know... all the players just had their schollies pulled. No scholarship players means no team, means no games. Either that, or they try to whip up a roster of scrubs real quick. I hear Scott Bakula has a hell of an arm.
I didn't bother to read the bill, but (and this applies to my comment below as well) maybe it is only a temporary scholarship suspension for the time they are on strike rather than a full on boot from football?
So basically the equivalent of, "You can't fire me, I quit!" Sounds about right.
Aaaaaand the Missouri recruiting class will be jumping ship even faster than after the coaching change. Threatening student athletes, who already feel (correctly or not) that they are earning the university much more than the value of their scholarships, is not going to help this situation. I get it, if they aren't performing the thing their scholarship is based on, they shouldn't get to stay for free, but there are many more ways these players can lose than ways they can gain. Does a player get anything more for being an All-American? The university certainly does.
There is the aspect of being proud to represent your university in sporting contests and being a benefit for the school, but what if the schools actions make you ashamed? Should you have to forfeit your livelihood to say so?
Welcome to the clown college that is the Missouri university system right now.
I'm confused. If the state isn't giving them the money for the football scholarships, how is it they can direct how they spend it?
They can't. This is just another state legislator introducing a bill they know will get nowhere, simply to earn points with his electoral base and get his name in the news.