Started By
Message
re: Mizzou in danger of losing AAU status?
Posted on 3/24/16 at 1:20 pm to Tigersessed
Posted on 3/24/16 at 1:20 pm to Tigersessed
quote:
You keep mentioning tangible effects that have outcomes that are easily measured. It is not that simple.
Yes it is. Exercising rights do not protect you from anything arbitrary or consequential actions....like status on a football team, or scholarship.
It really isn't difficult. You have the right to say or believe in whatever you like. Your rights do not protect you from anything arbitrarily related, including scholarship, starting spot, spot on team, status with university, etc. etc.
One of the students who called the 1950 group N***** was expelled, and he was using his rights too.
University policies are purposefully vague, giving legal leeway and discretion to interpret them with a very broad scope.
1
Posted on 3/24/16 at 1:26 pm to 5thTiger
There are limits to your rights that have been challenged and upheld. Saying offensive and obscene stuff is not protected. You keep using examples that are not relevant. What did the football team do to hurt public safety, offend, etc.?
Posted on 3/24/16 at 1:36 pm to Tigersessed
quote:
You are confusing the outcome to the cause. The football team missed one practice, what should be the appropriate result? If you are disciplining because they said something on twitter, what should be the discipline? You keep mentioning tangible effects that have outcomes that are easily measured. It is not that simple.
They threatened to miss one game. That's why they only missed one practice. The university caved to their threat to boycott a game. If the university had not caved and they had boycotted the game, losing their scholarship would be a completely justifiable consequence. And no, it wouldn't go to the Supreme Court.
Unless you think they were all lying and didn't really intend to follow through. I could see that aspect.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 1:45 pm to the808bass
If they had boycotted a game, the conversation would be different. We are discussing what happened. You and others have said they should be punished for protesting.
Anyway I will check in later, but I have to go...
Anyway I will check in later, but I have to go...
This post was edited on 3/24/16 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 3/24/16 at 1:47 pm to Tigersessed
I agree. They had no intention of actually boycotting the game and the administration should have called their bluff.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 2:01 pm to Tigersessed
quote:
Saying offensive and obscene stuff is not protected
Impossible to determine.
quote:
There are limits to your rights that have been challenged and upheld
I don't think you understand the difference between criminal law and university policies.
quote:
What did the football team do to hurt public safety, offend, etc.?
Doesn't matter, although promoting and spreading lies and misinformation is more than enough to meet your criteria.
Bottom line, the University has the legal room (including within the athletic department) to do pretty well whatever they please, including revoking scholarships and expelling students.
This post was edited on 3/24/16 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 3/24/16 at 3:00 pm to Tigersessed
No it won't ever get to the Supreme Court. They wouldn't be disciplined for peacefully protesting. They can peacefully protest all they want. As long as they are also living up to their obligations to the team and under their scholarship.
Using your logic, what if they refused to play because the student center has Pepsi and not Coke? Should they be allowed to skip games without repercussions because of their right to voice their opinion?
I don't care as much as many that they skipped out on the program but I also wouldn't have had a problem if they were disciplined
Using your logic, what if they refused to play because the student center has Pepsi and not Coke? Should they be allowed to skip games without repercussions because of their right to voice their opinion?
I don't care as much as many that they skipped out on the program but I also wouldn't have had a problem if they were disciplined
Posted on 3/24/16 at 4:33 pm to reedus23
They should have suspended them from the game for threatening to boycott it. Course then we would have lost one of our only decent wins 
Posted on 3/24/16 at 4:59 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
Impossible to determine.
There is plenty of precedent to generally determine. If it is unique enough it could end up at the Supreme Court.
quote:
I don't think you understand the difference between criminal law and university policies.
Everything we are discussing is civil, not criminal. The fact it is a public university makes it worse. I feel like you are so far in the weeds, it is hard to continue the discussion.
quote:
Bottom line, the University has the legal room (including within the athletic department) to do pretty well whatever they please, including revoking scholarships and expelling students
I give up.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 5:06 pm to reedus23
quote:
They can peacefully protest all they want. As long as they are also living up to their obligations to the team and under their scholarship
What obligations did they not fulfill?
quote:
Using your logic, what if they refused to play because the student center has Pepsi and not Coke? Should they be allowed to skip games without repercussions because of their right to voice their opinion?
More of the bad examples that are not relevant.
quote:
I don't care as much as many that they skipped out on the program but I also wouldn't have had a problem if they were disciplined
To discipline them, are you punishing for the protest or the missed practice? I think one could be found unconstitutional and the other could be excessive. Either way would probably cost a lot of money in settlement. Running stairs seems more appropriate than pulling a scholarship.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 6:08 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:
They should have suspended them from the game for threatening to boycott it. Course then we would have lost one of our only decent wins
Yeah and implode Mizzou Football for at minimum of a decade. No and I repeat NO decent black athletes would come if they would have done that. Plus the University would have been crucified nationally. Sure the red-neck's and hard asses would have loved it but would have fricked us over for years.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 10:28 pm to Tigersessed
quote:
To discipline them, are you punishing for the protest or the missed practice? I think one could be found unconstitutional and the other could be excessive. Either way would probably cost a lot of money in settlement. Running stairs seems more appropriate than pulling a scholarship.
I was speaking on the hypothetical that they actually did miss a game. In that case they would be punished for missing practices/game(s), not for protesting. Like I said, if they want to protest on their own time, they can protest their hearts out.
In reality, they're not going to get suspended. Having said that, if I were BO, I would have a heart to heart with the whole team and let them know...if you want to be a crusader, be a crusader on your own time (and I'm talking whether it's protesting perceived racism, abortion, the lack of Coke in the vending machines) but each and every guy, from hear on out, that does not live up to their obligations to the program (participating in all required team activities), then they are gone. Just that simple. Want to skip practice to go join a hunger strike. Good bye. The player can then determine for themselves which is more important, the team or the cause. And if it's the cause...so be it. Wish you well in your endeavors to bring about change.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News