Unrest in Missouri
- Thread starter IRISH_FRIAR
- Start date
I think the answer lies in your "different group of players" response. Also, I don't think people need to protest against every injustice in order to protest against any injustice.
Obama, or any President regardless of party, cannot ever win in these issues. If he speaks up he is attacked by one side, if he remains quiet he gets attacked by the other.
I am not privy to why we are seeing the protest at Mizzou, but believe the President, any President, has the obligation to intervene if he feels he can do some good.
I am not privy to why we are seeing the protest at Mizzou, but believe the President, any President, has the obligation to intervene if he feels he can do some good.
Obama has involved himself in virtually every aspect of American life. I believe he should, he has the bully pulpit and the President should speak out. He most certainly has been an advocate for continuing education, student loans and advocacy on behalf of expanding secondary education for all, so it's difficult to he hasn't supported the never ending protests by many.
I'd pull their scholarships then ask for the current semesters tuition. If they don't have it.. out they go. They signed a deal; the university picks up your tuition and you play football. If they renege on their end of the agreement the university should cancel their end
Ya know..in a move with their thinking is to stand for ...on.....behalf of a lot if people.
In turn this has become more selfish than expressing for the damned.
You can bet a lot of players are angry they can't practice correctly with a skeleton squad, etc etc.
Moreover this is NOT the way to go about making a stance.
This is a two way street here though. If the players want to cite their freedom of speech right to be able to do this, then the why are they going ape shit as that faculty member should also be extended the sane right. No?
I say if you aren't going to play then I'll make you a deal. If we dismiss the school employee then we also revoke your scholarship. Is that a fair trade off?
In turn this has become more selfish than expressing for the damned.
You can bet a lot of players are angry they can't practice correctly with a skeleton squad, etc etc.
Moreover this is NOT the way to go about making a stance.
This is a two way street here though. If the players want to cite their freedom of speech right to be able to do this, then the why are they going ape shit as that faculty member should also be extended the sane right. No?
I say if you aren't going to play then I'll make you a deal. If we dismiss the school employee then we also revoke your scholarship. Is that a fair trade off?
I agree NDE. I know not what the circumstance are, but it appears there is enough going on that it seems there is a lot of support against the school president's action. While I don't like the fact that this has become part of the football program, injustice must be stamped out wherever and whenever it exists. If this is the case, I will support the players like their coach does.
or they could let the inmates run the asylum, win the battle but lose the war.
They don't necessarily have to give into their demands, but if they pull scholarships, the negative impact on the university will be difficult to recover from. They already apparently have a problem with how they handle race relations on campus. Like it or not, pulling their scholarships will be seen as exacerbating that issue, not remedying it. I guarantee you (while acknowledging that my guarantee is pretty much worthless, but it seems to make sense to use that verb...) that pulling the scholarships is not a realistic option that the university is considering. Nor should it be.
That's the problem with this whole situation. Just because a minority group claims there is racism, that doesn't make the claim true. You are giving too much benefit of doubt to the protestors.
A whole can of worms has been opened up. By giving into the players demands, expect this kind of thing anywhere, anytime, for any reason the players seem wronged. The fact that the student newspaper, faculty, and student body all were one with the protest is not all that amazing. Birds of a feather flock together. The "organizers" and agitators have all been watching Missouri and now see a crack in the armor using athletes as the front men.
I don't think I stated it as fact (hence, "apparently") but if a substantial number of students believes there's an issue, then the university can't ignore the claim and a discussion should occur.
I don't care if you stated it as a fact. Your second sentence proved my point. Yes, the university can ignore the claim. The claim has to be backed up by evidence. Just because enough people believe something doesn't make it true, especially when you are talking about forcing a man to lose his job.
If you think that concern is vastly overstated then you aren't paying attention. This Missouri thing is only the beginning whether you like it or not.
If you think that, as a university administrator, you can just ignore the claims of a substantial amount of students that there is a race relations issue, then more power to you. I think you'll also find that you'd be terrible as a university administrator.
Yes, I might actually get things done.
You can't let one segment dictate how the rest of the group functions, particularly when that one segment has not proven a basis for its claims. In other words, the university can't bow down whenever any group claims racism. Racism is a serious charge, and when you level that claim, it better be more than somebody making comments on a phone call.
If you're not going to be open to a discussion about it (which is the only thing I've been suggesting), then you can't prove whether there is a basis or not.
The two documented incidents are reason enough to at least open up a discussion that probably should have occurred much sooner than recently. I don't think anyone has declared the president of the university to be racist.
And according to the vast majority of scientists. But who cares what they have to say?
"According to the left"
Are you stating that Global Climate Change is a hoax? Come on man! Do you also believe that pyramids were built to store grain?
Are you stating that Global Climate Change is a hoax? Come on man! Do you also believe that pyramids were built to store grain?
There has to be a basis for the discussion. The basis can't be unsubstantiated claims. That said, the protesting students have no interest at all in a "discussion." Their idea of a "discussion" is, "You give us everything we want." That isn't a "discussion."
No, two "documented" incidents are not reason enough. Not even close. Here are two of the incidents. A group of guys supposedly yelled at the student body president from a car. 1) That hasn't been "documented." The guy just claimed it happened and you are accepting his claims on faith. 2) There is no practical way to prevent that. You don't even know if the guys in that car were even students, or dumb hicks joyriding through the campus. The other incident was that a guy walked up to a group of minority students. Then when he walked away, he was heard to make a racial slur on the phone talking to his friend. 1) Again, not "documented." Just a claim by one side that you are accepting at face value. 2) Again, no practical way to deal with that. You simply can't have the phone police running around monitoring everyone's phone conversations. There was a third incident in which someone drew a swastika on the wall of a dorm. That's a legitimate concern and is being investigated. However, that's not enough to warrant a protest and a demand for the president to lose his job.
As to your claim about the claims against the president, he and the university have been accused of discriminatory practices. They are demanding he apologize for and acknowledge his "white male privilege." That's just foolishness.
I wonder who got the NYC, "what do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now," protests going last year?
I think the anecdotal evidence speaks for itself in that racism is present on campus, whether systemic racism exists is up for debate I suppose. This issue is if there wasn't enough validity to the position that systemic racism exists on campus I don't think you would see the amount of support from the faculty you did.
If you think this is only the beginning I think you are forgetting about the 60's and moving forward. This is just one entry on the timeline of racial protests in America
Does entering into a dialogue with the students requesting action be taken automatically mean you are bowing down to their desires? The President got himself into this because he ignored multiple reports of racism that occurred on campus and then refused to talk to campus leaders about the events.
I'm waiting, then, for the 911 dispatcher who gets a call from a person who says that their spouse threatened to kill her, to respond "Well, there's no documented evidence that that happened - just your claim - so let us know if something more concrete occurs and maybe we'll take a look at it."
Your posts on social issues are as idiotic as your posts on Notre Dame football and Brian Kelly. Again, let us know the connection between that statement and the Missouri incident.
They are an embarrassment Pinkel is a jerk. there are ways to make a statement and make progress on issues without jeopardizing the schedule and agenda of other schools.
They should lose their scholies. they should be sued for financial loss. They should learn a lesson in college about commitment and follow through.
By all accounts that I've read, the university's administration has bungled a number of things, and not only the racial issues from the past couple of months. Pulling scholarships and suing student-athletes would not have helped their cause.
Latest posts
-
-
Recruiting Notre Dame lining up junior day visits for Jan. 25- Latest: SubwaydomerDFW
-