African-American athletes threaten to strike at Mizzou

[Chickenman Testa]

There are a lot of people, including Louis CK and some posters on this thread, who need to take a trip to Appalachia and tell some 8 year old white kids how privileged they are.

One of the defining facts of American political life since the slaves were emancipated were efforts by elites to split minorities and poor whites on the basis of race - it still happens today. Huey Long, for all his faults, tried to unite people on the basis of economic interests and got a bullet for his efforts. More modern efforts have fallen prey to the crimes of anti-communism.

I support the efforts of the Missouri athletes by the way.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Well, you see it as mob rule. Others do not. Have a nice day.

In fact, some likely see it as the mob that has ruled for so long finally being shut down.

I know which "mob" I want to side with.

 

[Obliviax]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/28/george-zimmermans-relevant-past/
I didn't say Trayvon was an angel. But you only mentioned his marijuana smoking while conveniently leaving George Zimmerman's past out. Then had the nerve to say "you actually followed the case" to try to boost your credibility. That you conveniently left out Zimmerman's past just goes to show your agenda.

I don't think I ever mentioned his MJ smoking. Not once. What I said was neither GZ or TM were correct or angels. nobody knows what started it (GZ was on a mission, TM said somebody was following him and that he was going to confront them), so IMHO, the jury was correct in their decision. What is more revealing is that it had nothing to do with race. Two kids, with troubling pasts and questionable decision making skills get into a fight and both of them have lost any shot at a normal life.

 

[Op2]

I understand the point about privilege but here's a larger point. There are many factors that determine how good of a life someone has and race is just one of them. If race was the only one then every white person would have a better life than every black person. But of course that's not true. There are other factors and in fact the biggest factors probably don't have anything to do with readily identifiable characteristics like race and sex and height and age.

So if you harp at someone about how they're privileged and they're already suffering through a crappy life it only makes things worse all around.

 

[kts136]

I know this is going to sound asinine but where can I get a few decent news articles on this situation? Every article I have read just seems to gloss over the detail and focus on the demands of the students. I'm trying to get a sense of atmosphere on campus that created this situation.

I'm with you and at the risk of sounding ignorant, I don't get any of this, was there something that the University itself did to promote this racial divide? I've read a few articles and glossed over a couple more, but all I can see that sprung this whole conflict is a few people using racial slurs, a feces-drawn swastika, and a president who didn't get out of the car when surrounded by a mob who wanted action. I absolutely don't condone any of the racial unrest, but are these the things that spurred all this?

If that's the case, what exactly do people expect the university president to do? It just appears to be a few bad eggs doing stupid stuff and that is going to happen everywhere. Before I get blasted as some sort of racist, I just want to clarify that I am in no way of condoning any of those actions, but what do any of these (the car thing aside) have to do with the University President? None of these actions seem to be anything condoned by the university and the president in questions.

I read the demands of the protestors and frankly, none of these actions would even come close to touching on the very problem they claim to be protesting. How will demanding the president "acknowledge his white privilege" help solve anything?

 

[kgilbert78]

Well, you see it as mob rule. Others do not. Have a nice day.

So I guess you were for the mob that wanted our heads back in 2011. Nice to know.

Look the issue in general is serious. No doubt. But it looks like mob rule to me. Not mob rule in terms of a riot, mind you, or anything like that. But these folks wanted the head of the University--and got it. What happens the next time? And what happens if what they want *isn't* reasonable. Will they ask for a prof to be fired the next time someone gets a grade they don't like because the prof "is racist"? It is very easy these days not to discuss but to label: anyone that disagrees is just labeled as racist or a hater--and this from both the right and the left. I looked at some of those demands. I know there's a large group of folks out there who do not believe minorities can't be racist because they are "the oppressed". But look at the language used.... If that's not racist I don't know what is.

Let's look at history. Take the French Revolution. Now there was an oppressed people with very legitimate concerns. But in the end the mob turned violent--and even the leaders ended up on the guillotine. Of course, we're not at that stage here. But it is where it can/could go. That's why I'm uncomfortable.

 

[kts136]

I am not even close to where you are at this point....I just want to know more in order to form a semi-intelligent opinion.

Sorry, didn't intend to imply you were with me in my opinion, just that I'm with you in the desire to know more about this case. Nothing anywhere seems to go into much detail about what created such a volatile situation.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Stop it because I disagree with you? What a productive dialogue!

Essentially the complaints boil down to Payton Head, the black president of the student government (which one must wonder if Mizzou is the racist hellhole some of you are making it out to be, how did he get elected?) claiming he had a racial slur yelled at him as he walked. Later, an intoxicated white man yelled the n word at the Legion of Black Collegians at 1am as they were rehearsing for a play (that man was accosted and "moved" from campus). Later the same month, someone smeared feces on a wall in the shape of a swastika (and from everything I could find this took place in a general dormitory so it's a stretch to say it targeted any group in particular). Apparently, this past weekend another incident of an intoxicated white man calling a couple of black students the n-word occurred.

Based off of that, this whole thing has devolved into an effort to destroy the university president, demand special courses and the hiring of more black staff and faculty, remove a statue of Thomas Jefferson from campus, sabotage the university at a prospective students day, and now of course threaten to boycott football.

If you think ignorant words from mostly drunk idiots warrants upending the entire university, fine. That's your right and it is the right of the people in this protest to practice their free speech. No one can or should force the football players to play or prevent the students from peacefully protesting. However, I, for one, do not think this movement is in any way a rational or mature response to what has transpired. Nor do I think it is appropriate to insinuate that an entire system and group of people are racist because of the deplorable actions (or really in this case, words) of a few. Kind of like how I don't think it is appropriate for people to deplore Penn State because of the bad actions or lack of actions of a few.

As for the chancellor, what do you think he was going to say? Number 1, of course there are racist roots at the university. Missouri was a slave state after all. Nothing is ever going to change that no matter how hard one tries. Does that mean that no progress can ever be made and that every demand made by a member of an identity group that was once harshly mistreated generations ago must be accepted at face value no questions asked? Number 2, this thing has been spiraling out of control and the chancellor has personally been a target of this movement. It's a pretty natural reaction to give some ground and try to ease tensions.

Btw, I have news for you, there are plenty of people here at Dear Old State who think it is an oppressive/racist/sexist/homophobic/horrible/no_good_place too. Do you think it's time to change this university en masse too?

psu2016: What a great post. Best and most informative post on this entire thread, at least at this point. While the black students at Mizzou may well have some legitimate complaints about the racial atmosphere there (I have no idea about that, and look forward to reading more information on the subject), the reports I have read or heard about to date are precisely the ones psu2016 noted. They indicate several disgusting, lamentable (pick your negative adjective) actions on the part of some moronic individuals (probably students). They appear to be uncoordinated; we'll see. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the worst one can say about the Mizzou President, at least at this point is that he has reacted too slowly to the complaints the black/minority student group(s) has/have voiced. (If additional information surfaces to suggest his conduct is more blameworthy, then my opinion here could and probably would change.),

The University President resigned this morning, so perhaps this thing will blow over, But the notion of the University President being forced to resign based solely on his apparent failure to react more quickly (and what should he have done other than decry expressions of racism, which I believe he did do?) establishes, IMO, a disquieting precedent. Undergraduates facing student discipline are entitled to some measure of due process at every university I am aware of. Is the University President not entitled to at least a modicum of the same due process? It seems to me that the student groups, with the assistance of the football team, just pulled a questionable power play in service of a very unilateral and summary demand.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

So I guess you were for the mob that wanted our heads back in 2011. Nice to know.

That's so special.

 

[simons96]

Sorry, didn't intend to imply you were with me in my opinion, just that I'm with you in the desire to know more about this case. Nothing anywhere seems to go into much detail about what created such a volatile situation.

here's a pretty decent (and brief) post mortem

http://www.thenation.com/article/3-...of-missouri-president-tim-wolfes-resignation/

(hyperlinking doesn't seem to be working right now)

 

[simons96]

psu2016: What a great post. Best and most informative post on this entire thread, at least at this point. While the black students at Mizzou may well have some legitimate complaints about the racial atmosphere there (I have no idea about that, and look forward to reading more information on the subject), the reports I have read or heard about to date are precisely the ones psu2016 noted. They indicate several disgusting, lamentable (pick your negative adjective) actions on the part of some moronic individuals (probably students). They appear to be uncoordinated; we'll see. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the worst one can say about the Mizzou President, at least at this point is that he has reacted too slowly to the complaints the black/minority student group(s) has/have voiced. (If additional information surfaces to suggest his conduct is more blameworthy, then my opinion here could and probably would change.),

The University President resigned this morning, so perhaps this thing will blow over, But the notion of the University President being forced to resign based solely on his apparent failure to react more quickly (and what should he have done other than decry expressions of racism, which I believe he did do?) establishes, IMO, a disquieting precedent. Undergraduates facing student discipline are entitled to some measure of due process at every university I am aware of. Is the University President not entitled to at least a modicum of the same due process? It seems to me that the student groups, with the assistance of the football team, just pulled a questionable power play in service of a very unilateral and summary demand.

well . . . if you take the word of many of the students who initially protested, Wolfe wasn't just SLOW, he was dismissive.

 

[jj410]

Demanding President resign. http://espn.go.com/college-football...ll-players-strike-embattled-tim-wolfe-resigns

I don't know who is right or wrong.
It really doesn't matter:
I do know those student/athletes are not a "mob" and have every right to organize and protest for whatever they want within the law. As do the other students.

 

[mn78psu83]

First, do your homework. I am no friend of the police. Second, Trayvon's issues are facts. Finally, I've lived in big cities and in rural areas. Both are equally prejudiced and racist. It is you that displayed prejudice, not me.

Both are equally prejudiced and racist.

Certainly my experience.

 

[Obliviax]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/28/george-zimmermans-relevant-past/
I didn't say Trayvon was an angel. But you only mentioned his marijuana smoking while conveniently leaving George Zimmerman's past out. Then had the nerve to say "you actually followed the case" to try to boost your credibility. That you conveniently left out Zimmerman's past just goes to show your agenda.

I never mentioned his MJ smoking so your post is totally invalid. peace out.

 

[jj410]

So I guess you were for the mob that wanted our heads back in 2011. Nice to know.

Look the issue in general is serious. No doubt. But it looks like mob rule to me. Not mob rule in terms of a riot, mind you, or anything like that. But these folks wanted the head of the University--and got it. What happens the next time? And what happens if what they want *isn't* reasonable. Will they ask for a prof to be fired the next time someone gets a grade they don't like because the prof "is racist"? It is very easy these days not to discuss but to label: anyone that disagrees is just labeled as racist or a hater--and this from both the right and the left. I looked at some of those demands. I know there's a large group of folks out there who do not believe minorities can't be racist because they are "the oppressed". But look at the language used.... If that's not racist I don't know what is.

Let's look at history. Take the French Revolution. Now there was an oppressed people with very legitimate concerns. But in the end the mob turned violent--and even the leaders ended up on the guillotine. Of course, we're not at that stage here. But it is where it can/could go. That's why I'm uncomfortable.

You may have it backwards with your biased analogies.
Another comparison would be a "mob" of PSU players striking and students demanding the BOT and new regime resign.
And maybe you should consider the peaceful American tea party rather than the violent French Revolution. By your "logic", no one should ever protest anything because it can turn violent.

 

[kgilbert78]

Students organizing to try and make a change makes you feel uncomfortable?

Not at all

here's a pretty decent (and brief) post mortem

http://www.thenation.com/article/3-...of-missouri-president-tim-wolfes-resignation/

(hyperlinking doesn't seem to be working right now)

Well, I'm not sure I buy all of his premise--especially the "poor exploited athlete" meme.

But I saw something really interesting in this (italics mine):
"Don’t treat them (i.e.athletes) like they exist in their own space. Don’t accede to the way schools already attempt, with separate dorms and cafeterias, to create an environment where they are segregated from normal campus life."

You, know that *was* part of the Grand Experiment. Athletes as students and part of campus life. No athletic dorms. This is a very good point.

 

[Obliviax]

You may have it backwards with your biased analogies.
Another comparison would be a "mob" of PSU players striking and students demanding the BOT and new regime resign.
And maybe you should consider the peaceful American tea party rather than the violent French Revolution. By your "logic", no one should ever protest anything because it can turn violent.

I really haven't followed the details so don't have any strong opinions or conclusions. However, this can be problematic down the road. I love kids getting together to exchange healthy ideas and use the group think to gain needed and necessary change. So that's great. But here's the deal, I'll guarantee someone, either there at MO or someplace else, takes this too far and starts to do damage. We'll see....

 

[LafayetteBear]

well . . . if you take the word of many of the students who initially protested, Wolfe wasn't just SLOW, he was dismissive.

If that was the case, then Wolfe's conduct moves from omission to commission, and seems stupid to say the least. This is the kind of I information that, if confirmed, makes Wolfe's forced departure seem more palatable. I just have some disquiet about the football team being used to effect the summary dismissal of a University President..

 

[simons96]

Not at all


Well, I'm not sure I buy all of his premise--especially the "poor exploited athlete" meme.

But I saw something really interesting in this (italics mine):
"Don’t treat them (i.e.athletes) like they exist in their own space. Don’t accede to the way schools already attempt, with separate dorms and cafeterias, to create an environment where they are segregated from normal campus life."

You, know that *was* part of the Grand Experiment. Athletes as students and part of campus life. No athletic dorms. This is a very good point.

well by the strictest definition of the word, athletes are exploited.

they receive an education (limited food and SOME housing options), but their work product generates millions of dollars for the University

I agree 100% with the rest of your post

 

[kgilbert78]

You may have it backwards with your biased analogies.
Another comparison would be a "mob" of PSU players striking and students demanding the BOT and new regime resign.
And maybe you should consider the peaceful American tea party rather than the violent French Revolution. By your "logic", no one should ever protest anything because it can turn violent.

So all you have is name calling? Seems to be where rational discussion has gone in this country. Exactly how--other than that I disagree with you--was my comment "biased" in any way.

And you might know that the reason we have a republic rather than an out an out democracy is that our founding fathers were quite concerned about "mob rule". Not that our Revolution wasn't violent--it was after all a war.

 

[simons96]

If that was the case, then Wolfe's conduct moves from omission to commission, and seems stupid to say the least. This is the kind of I information that, if confirmed, makes Wolfe's forced departure seem more palatable. I just have some disquiet about the football team being used to effect the summary dismissal of a University President..

well again, if you've followed this story for a few weeks, the football team was the nuclear option. they stood up and supported the cause when all other forms of protest didn't seem to be moving the needle.

 

[kgilbert78]

well by the strictest definition of the word, athletes are exploited.

they receive an education (limited food and SOME housing options), but their work product generates millions of dollars for the University

I agree 100% with the rest of your post

Well we *all* are--by a strict definition.....

I was a grad student once.....

 

[Op2]

well by the strictest definition of the word, athletes are exploited.

they receive an education (limited food and SOME housing options), but their work product generates millions of dollars for the University

I agree 100% with the rest of your post

That depends on what you mean by the word "exploited" but if by that you mean they generate more revenue than they're given in exchange then most college athletes are the exploit-ers, not the exploit-ees. Most college athletes are nothing but a financial drain on the school.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Just gonna go ahead and put this right here...

The University of Missouri Football Team Forced The President to Resign. It's Time to Cut College Football.

In the aftermath of the University of Missouri football team and its $3.1 million coach threatening to boycott games, forcing the resignation of the university president over shadowy “institutional racism,” one thing is becoming increasingly clear: it’s time to do away with college football.

College sports are a relic of a time when students actually engaged in being, you know, students. As in studying things. Studying, perhaps, to gain a skill set besides kicking a football or tackling another man or tossing a sphere through a hoop.

It soon became clear, however, that loyalty to universities centered around loyalty to sports performance. Donors began giving cash to football programs in order to generate enthusiasm about the university more broadly. And in order to boost those football programs, universities began recruiting the best players without the best academics.

The fly in the ointment remained the players, many of whom had no desire to graduate from college. That fly was swatted when many major sports leagues entered into a monopolistic arrangement with colleges by which students would have to attend for at least a few years before going pro. The exception remains college baseball – where, not surprisingly, funding and attendance remain sparse.

College football and basketball, however, supposedly remain the fiscal kingmakers at the universities. College sports have now become a massive media conglomerate designed to earn networks cash and get donors to give huge sums of money to universities. The University of Texas Longhorns football team is estimated at $129 million in worth by Forbes.

Student athletes on full scholarship now demand to be paid for their skills, piercing the fiction that they’re present for the education. They’re recruited like professionals, complete with hookers and booze; they’re given privileges no other students receive; they’re routinely handed easy course schedules (or allegedly fake schedules), complete with tutors. They get in based on egregiously low scores and GPAs that would make anyone else blush to apply, and then they’re treated like campus kings.

However, athletic programs don’t generally make their universities money. There are approximately 123 members of the Football Bowl Subdivision of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the top football programs in the country – and only 20 of them earn a profit. Most of the profits for specific football programs disappear as soon as their profits are allocated to cover costs for less-profitable sports. The NCAA reported, “Of the 20 schools that made money, the median profit was $8.4 million; Of the 103 schools that lost money, the median deficit was $14.9 million.” And as Politifact notes, “According to the report, all athletic departments outside of the FBS operate in the red. In other words, only 20 of the 1,083 college sports programs in the nation are profitable.”

That would be reason enough to discontinue the athletic programs at taxpayer-funded schools. But here’s another: now the athletic programs are becoming tools for leftist social engineering. That’s true generally of sports, both professionally and in the amateur world: the left sees a popular institution it can mobilize against the right, and does so routinely. That’s why ESPN has become a propaganda network for issues ranging from transgenderism to Black Lives Matter.

But now the left’s reach has extended downward to college programs. That’s how a bunch of non-tuition-paying college football players just forced the president of the University of Missouri to step down over unsubstantiated charges of institutional racism, and why a white coach earning $3.1 million in taxpayer money could join these players in their quest against “white privilege.” The university could have revoked athletic scholarships or fired the coach. Their only job, after all, is to play football. But then we wouldn’t get to see the big BYU game on Saturday.

College athletics were never meant to override the central purpose of the universities: education. Then again, leftism overrode that central purpose long ago.

Ben Shapiro, The Daily Wire News

 

[Obliviax]

Just gonna go ahead and put this right here...

The University of Missouri Football Team Forced The President to Resign. It's Time to Cut College Football.

In the aftermath of the University of Missouri football team and its $3.1 million coach threatening to boycott games, forcing the resignation of the university president over shadowy “institutional racism,” one thing is becoming increasingly clear: it’s time to do away with college football.

College sports are a relic of a time when students actually engaged in being, you know, students. As in studying things. Studying, perhaps, to gain a skill set besides kicking a football or tackling another man or tossing a sphere through a hoop.

It soon became clear, however, that loyalty to universities centered around loyalty to sports performance. Donors began giving cash to football programs in order to generate enthusiasm about the university more broadly. And in order to boost those football programs, universities began recruiting the best players without the best academics.

The fly in the ointment remained the players, many of whom had no desire to graduate from college. That fly was swatted when many major sports leagues entered into a monopolistic arrangement with colleges by which students would have to attend for at least a few years before going pro. The exception remains college baseball – where, not surprisingly, funding and attendance remain sparse.

College football and basketball, however, supposedly remain the fiscal kingmakers at the universities. College sports have now become a massive media conglomerate designed to earn networks cash and get donors to give huge sums of money to universities. The University of Texas Longhorns football team is estimated at $129 million in worth by Forbes.

Student athletes on full scholarship now demand to be paid for their skills, piercing the fiction that they’re present for the education. They’re recruited like professionals, complete with hookers and booze; they’re given privileges no other students receive; they’re routinely handed easy course schedules (or allegedly fake schedules), complete with tutors. They get in based on egregiously low scores and GPAs that would make anyone else blush to apply, and then they’re treated like campus kings.

However, athletic programs don’t generally make their universities money. There are approximately 123 members of the Football Bowl Subdivision of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the top football programs in the country – and only 20 of them earn a profit. Most of the profits for specific football programs disappear as soon as their profits are allocated to cover costs for less-profitable sports. The NCAA reported, “Of the 20 schools that made money, the median profit was $8.4 million; Of the 103 schools that lost money, the median deficit was $14.9 million.” And as Politifact notes, “According to the report, all athletic departments outside of the FBS operate in the red. In other words, only 20 of the 1,083 college sports programs in the nation are profitable.”

That would be reason enough to discontinue the athletic programs at taxpayer-funded schools. But here’s another: now the athletic programs are becoming tools for leftist social engineering. That’s true generally of sports, both professionally and in the amateur world: the left sees a popular institution it can mobilize against the right, and does so routinely. That’s why ESPN has become a propaganda network for issues ranging from transgenderism to Black Lives Matter.

But now the left’s reach has extended downward to college programs. That’s how a bunch of non-tuition-paying college football players just forced the president of the University of Missouri to step down over unsubstantiated charges of institutional racism, and why a white coach earning $3.1 million in taxpayer money could join these players in their quest against “white privilege.” The university could have revoked athletic scholarships or fired the coach. Their only job, after all, is to play football. But then we wouldn’t get to see the big BYU game on Saturday.

College athletics were never meant to override the central purpose of the universities: education. Then again, leftism overrode that central purpose long ago.

Ben Shapiro, The Daily Wire News

Well, it is getting harder and harder to miss the fact that the tail (college sports) are wagging the dog (college education). not specific to U of MO, but it is totally out of hand. Could it be any worse to force the NFL (not sure how to do this) to have some kind of minor league system? Somebody posted about the future of PSU football. My real thought is that, as long as PSU sees our players as student/athletes, we will never compete with the tOSU's, UMs, AL's, LSU's, FL's, USC's, and FSU's....of the world.

 

[mn78psu83]

Just gonna go ahead and put this right here...

The University of Missouri Football Team Forced The President to Resign. It's Time to Cut College Football.

In the aftermath of the University of Missouri football team and its $3.1 million coach threatening to boycott games, forcing the resignation of the university president over shadowy “institutional racism,” one thing is becoming increasingly clear: it’s time to do away with college football.

College sports are a relic of a time when students actually engaged in being, you know, students. As in studying things. Studying, perhaps, to gain a skill set besides kicking a football or tackling another man or tossing a sphere through a hoop.

It soon became clear, however, that loyalty to universities centered around loyalty to sports performance. Donors began giving cash to football programs in order to generate enthusiasm about the university more broadly. And in order to boost those football programs, universities began recruiting the best players without the best academics.

The fly in the ointment remained the players, many of whom had no desire to graduate from college. That fly was swatted when many major sports leagues entered into a monopolistic arrangement with colleges by which students would have to attend for at least a few years before going pro. The exception remains college baseball – where, not surprisingly, funding and attendance remain sparse.

College football and basketball, however, supposedly remain the fiscal kingmakers at the universities. College sports have now become a massive media conglomerate designed to earn networks cash and get donors to give huge sums of money to universities. The University of Texas Longhorns football team is estimated at $129 million in worth by Forbes.

Student athletes on full scholarship now demand to be paid for their skills, piercing the fiction that they’re present for the education. They’re recruited like professionals, complete with hookers and booze; they’re given privileges no other students receive; they’re routinely handed easy course schedules (or allegedly fake schedules), complete with tutors. They get in based on egregiously low scores and GPAs that would make anyone else blush to apply, and then they’re treated like campus kings.

However, athletic programs don’t generally make their universities money. There are approximately 123 members of the Football Bowl Subdivision of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the top football programs in the country – and only 20 of them earn a profit. Most of the profits for specific football programs disappear as soon as their profits are allocated to cover costs for less-profitable sports. The NCAA reported, “Of the 20 schools that made money, the median profit was $8.4 million; Of the 103 schools that lost money, the median deficit was $14.9 million.” And as Politifact notes, “According to the report, all athletic departments outside of the FBS operate in the red. In other words, only 20 of the 1,083 college sports programs in the nation are profitable.”

That would be reason enough to discontinue the athletic programs at taxpayer-funded schools. But here’s another: now the athletic programs are becoming tools for leftist social engineering. That’s true generally of sports, both professionally and in the amateur world: the left sees a popular institution it can mobilize against the right, and does so routinely. That’s why ESPN has become a propaganda network for issues ranging from transgenderism to Black Lives Matter.

But now the left’s reach has extended downward to college programs. That’s how a bunch of non-tuition-paying college football players just forced the president of the University of Missouri to step down over unsubstantiated charges of institutional racism, and why a white coach earning $3.1 million in taxpayer money could join these players in their quest against “white privilege.” The university could have revoked athletic scholarships or fired the coach. Their only job, after all, is to play football. But then we wouldn’t get to see the big BYU game on Saturday.

College athletics were never meant to override the central purpose of the universities: education. Then again, leftism overrode that central purpose long ago.

Ben Shapiro, The Daily Wire News

Yep. Between the PSU/Sandusky scandal and this ... Let the litany begin.

 

[kts136]

here's a pretty decent (and brief) post mortem

http://www.thenation.com/article/3-...of-missouri-president-tim-wolfes-resignation/

(hyperlinking doesn't seem to be working right now)

I understand that the football team stepping in was turning point in the President's departure, but even that article doesn't go much into much detail as to why hunger strikes and Football protests were needed in the first place, which is what I'd love to hear.

Was university-wide racism actually going on? Were people being bullied away from restaurants, hang-out spots, movie theaters, etc. due to their race? Were students being denied access to classes or services based on their race? Were people stepping up at school sponsored events and making light of racial issues, or even worse, being flat out racist? These types of things I could understand.

But, not to sound callous, if it really was only a few idiots doing stupid things then I just don't get it.

 

[simons96]

I won't post it here, but google "Ben Shapiro Dr Drew" . . . hilarity will ensue . . .

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Just gonna go ahead and put this right here...

The University of Missouri Football Team Forced The President to Resign. It's Time to Cut College Football.

In the aftermath of the University of Missouri football team and its $3.1 million coach threatening to boycott games, forcing the resignation of the university president over shadowy “institutional racism,” one thing is becoming increasingly clear: it’s time to do away with college football.

College sports are a relic of a time when students actually engaged in being, you know, students. As in studying things. Studying, perhaps, to gain a skill set besides kicking a football or tackling another man or tossing a sphere through a hoop.

It soon became clear, however, that loyalty to universities centered around loyalty to sports performance. Donors began giving cash to football programs in order to generate enthusiasm about the university more broadly. And in order to boost those football programs, universities began recruiting the best players without the best academics.

The fly in the ointment remained the players, many of whom had no desire to graduate from college. That fly was swatted when many major sports leagues entered into a monopolistic arrangement with colleges by which students would have to attend for at least a few years before going pro. The exception remains college baseball – where, not surprisingly, funding and attendance remain sparse.

College football and basketball, however, supposedly remain the fiscal kingmakers at the universities. College sports have now become a massive media conglomerate designed to earn networks cash and get donors to give huge sums of money to universities. The University of Texas Longhorns football team is estimated at $129 million in worth by Forbes.

Student athletes on full scholarship now demand to be paid for their skills, piercing the fiction that they’re present for the education. They’re recruited like professionals, complete with hookers and booze; they’re given privileges no other students receive; they’re routinely handed easy course schedules (or allegedly fake schedules), complete with tutors. They get in based on egregiously low scores and GPAs that would make anyone else blush to apply, and then they’re treated like campus kings.

However, athletic programs don’t generally make their universities money. There are approximately 123 members of the Football Bowl Subdivision of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the top football programs in the country – and only 20 of them earn a profit. Most of the profits for specific football programs disappear as soon as their profits are allocated to cover costs for less-profitable sports. The NCAA reported, “Of the 20 schools that made money, the median profit was $8.4 million; Of the 103 schools that lost money, the median deficit was $14.9 million.” And as Politifact notes, “According to the report, all athletic departments outside of the FBS operate in the red. In other words, only 20 of the 1,083 college sports programs in the nation are profitable.”

That would be reason enough to discontinue the athletic programs at taxpayer-funded schools. But here’s another: now the athletic programs are becoming tools for leftist social engineering. That’s true generally of sports, both professionally and in the amateur world: the left sees a popular institution it can mobilize against the right, and does so routinely. That’s why ESPN has become a propaganda network for issues ranging from transgenderism to Black Lives Matter.

But now the left’s reach has extended downward to college programs. That’s how a bunch of non-tuition-paying college football players just forced the president of the University of Missouri to step down over unsubstantiated charges of institutional racism, and why a white coach earning $3.1 million in taxpayer money could join these players in their quest against “white privilege.” The university could have revoked athletic scholarships or fired the coach. Their only job, after all, is to play football. But then we wouldn’t get to see the big BYU game on Saturday.

College athletics were never meant to override the central purpose of the universities: education. Then again, leftism overrode that central purpose long ago.

Ben Shapiro, The Daily Wire News

LOL.

Writer knows what buttons he is paid to push.

That should turn some necks red.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

For those looking for a timeline of events at Mizzou, Deadspin has the following...

Why would the football team go on strike?
The strike is a show of support for Concerned Student 1950 and Butler, who began his hunger strike last Monday. At the start of his hunger strike, Butler had this to say:

I will not consume any food or nutritional sustenance at the expense of my health until either Tim Wolfe is removed from office or my internal organs fail and my life is lost.

The Missouri football team joined Butler Saturday, saying they would not play until Wolfe was removed. They had Pinkel and the coaching staff behind them, too.

Okay, but what is Concerned Student 1950?
Concerned Student 1950 is a group that was formed on campus in response to racially-motivated incidents. (1950 refers to the year black students were first admitted to the University of Missouri.) The group demanded the removal of Tim Wolfe, whom they felt had not handled these incidents well, if at all.

What incidents, exactly?
On Sept. 12, Missouri Student Association president Payton Head wasrepeatedly called “******” as he walked through campus. On Oct. 5, the Legion of Black Collegians (the university’s black student government) were subjected to racial slurs in Traditions Plaza. On Oct. 10, seeking to draw more attention to an increasingly tense environment, the Concerned Student 1950 group stopped the car Wolfe was traveling in for the Homecoming parade and blocked the street for about 15 minutes. The protest was broken up by police. Oct. 24 brought what has widely been depicted as the breaking point: a swastika made of shit was drawn on the wall of a university dorm.

Those are the big points, according to the Columbia Missourian, but more stories of racism are not hard to find. Journalism professor Dr. Cynthia Frisby recently told NPR about how she was approached by a white man in a truck with a confederate flag on it who called her the n-word and gave her the finger. Journalism student Alexis G. Ditaway also shared an account of being followed by a group of men who recorded a Snapchat of her and a friend after saying to her “You’re a ******.” Matt Pearce of theLos Angeles Times found more students who have experienced gutter racism while on campus:

Several black students have said some white students use the n-word or otherwise discriminated against them.

[Ayanna] Poole recalled how she was kicked out of a fraternity party her freshman year after a man used the n-word and said, “All you ... girls have to leave.”

Andrea Fulgiam, 21, a junior studying psychology and sociology, said when she sat down in a lecture class freshman year, the student next to her muttered, “I’m not about to sit next to this black girl.”

Fulgiam said a professor once told her she was at the university only because of affirmative action.

Parnell said when she transferred to the university last year, other black students warned her, “Don’t walk through Greektown,” the cluster of fraternities and sororities just off campus.

So what was Concerned Student 1950 asking for?
On Oct. 21, Concerned Student 1950 issued a list of eight demands, which included a formal apology from Wolfe and his immediate removal. They also called for mandatory racism awareness and inclusion training for all faculty, staff, and students, and for the percentage of black faculty and staff increase to 10 percent by the 2017-18 school year. The group met with Wolfe on Oct. 27, but did not reach any kind of agreement.

I spoke briefly with the executive editor of the Columbia Missourian Tom Warhover, who said of the university’s response over the past few months: “There have been several statements condemning hate speech, there have been committees formed [...], and there was a statement from [Wolfe] yesterday that enraged many people. There’s a report due out in April.”

From that statement:

My administration has been meeting around the clock and has been doing a tremendous amount of reflection on how to address these complex matters.

Clearly, we are open to listening to all sides, and are confident that we can come together to improve the student experience on our campuses.

Up until this morning, it was unclear whether Wolfe would step down.

So what about the hunger strike?
Jonathan Butler began a hunger strike on November 2. He wrote onFacebook:

The revolting acts that are occurring at Mizzou are a result of a poisonous infestation of apathy that has been spawning from the University of Missouri system leadership. [...] Let it be known that I have no ill will or thoughts of harm toward Mr. Wolfe but I do have an urgency to make the campus I call home a more safe, welcoming, and inclusive environment for all identities and backgrounds. I am a firm believer that attending to the needs of marginalized/underrepresented students is worth the time, attention, and care of administration; our lived experiences are worth acknowledging and fighting for.

In an act of solidarity, the football team announced this weekend that they would strike along with Butler.

So was Wolfe’s decision to step down all because of the football team’s strike?
The football team throwing its support behind Concerned Student 1950 and Butler was certainly a big deal, but this story is about much more than just football.

Wolfe is gone because he was forced out through the unified efforts of stakeholders across the campus and the state. Faculty began a two-day walkout starting this morning; students have been camped out on Carnahan Quadrangle in support of the hunger strike and in favor of Wolfe’s removal since Nov. 2; black Mizzou alumni, as well as a number of other alumni groups, issued a statement of support for Concerned Student 1950; Senator Claire McCaskill urged the board of curators to act; and state lawmakers, from both parties, have called for Wolfe’s removal. Even Governor Jay Nixon issued a statement, saying the “concerns need to be addressed.”

The football team is just one component of this campaign, which has been gaining steam since mid-October. This is what it looks like when a broad coalition seeks to effect change, and it’s something that the University of Missouri campus has rarely seen.

“I mean, this has been a campus not prone to protest,” Warhover told me during our conversation. “It’s safe to say we haven’t seen this kind of voice, a unified voice in decades here. It’s all the more remarkable because it’s not a campus that really does this kind of thing.”

 

[jj410]

So all you have is name calling? Seems to be where rational discussion has gone in this country. Exactly how--other than that I disagree with you--was my comment "biased" in any way.

And you might know that the reason we have a republic rather than an out an out democracy is that our founding fathers were quite concerned about "mob rule". Not that our Revolution wasn't violent--it was after all a war.

Please explain where I called you a name. You are the one calling others names, as in a "mob". I just pointed out your logic is extremely faulty as you chose to bias the comparisons to fit your disagreement. Nothing else was intended.
But you keep doing it. If people organize to protest, you say they are a mob.
BTW: This has nothing to do with a republic vs. a democracy. The founders believed that leaders should be elected. Who elects school leadership? In the days of this republic's founders, it was the students, so they would not have made your biased comparison

 

[mn78psu83]

I won't post it here, but google "Ben Shapiro Dr Drew" . . . hilarity will ensue . . .

It would appear that Zoey could "curb stomp" Shapiro.

 

[Op2]

Just gonna go ahead and put this right here...

The University of Missouri Football Team Forced The President to Resign. It's Time to Cut College Football.

In the aftermath of the University of Missouri football team and its $3.1 million coach threatening to boycott games, forcing the resignation of the university president over shadowy “institutional racism,” one thing is becoming increasingly clear: it’s time to do away with college football.

College sports are a relic of a time when students actually engaged in being, you know, students. As in studying things. Studying, perhaps, to gain a skill set besides kicking a football or tackling another man or tossing a sphere through a hoop.

It soon became clear, however, that loyalty to universities centered around loyalty to sports performance. Donors began giving cash to football programs in order to generate enthusiasm about the university more broadly. And in order to boost those football programs, universities began recruiting the best players without the best academics.

The fly in the ointment remained the players, many of whom had no desire to graduate from college. That fly was swatted when many major sports leagues entered into a monopolistic arrangement with colleges by which students would have to attend for at least a few years before going pro. The exception remains college baseball – where, not surprisingly, funding and attendance remain sparse.

College football and basketball, however, supposedly remain the fiscal kingmakers at the universities. College sports have now become a massive media conglomerate designed to earn networks cash and get donors to give huge sums of money to universities. The University of Texas Longhorns football team is estimated at $129 million in worth by Forbes.

Student athletes on full scholarship now demand to be paid for their skills, piercing the fiction that they’re present for the education. They’re recruited like professionals, complete with hookers and booze; they’re given privileges no other students receive; they’re routinely handed easy course schedules (or allegedly fake schedules), complete with tutors. They get in based on egregiously low scores and GPAs that would make anyone else blush to apply, and then they’re treated like campus kings.

However, athletic programs don’t generally make their universities money. There are approximately 123 members of the Football Bowl Subdivision of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the top football programs in the country – and only 20 of them earn a profit. Most of the profits for specific football programs disappear as soon as their profits are allocated to cover costs for less-profitable sports. The NCAA reported, “Of the 20 schools that made money, the median profit was $8.4 million; Of the 103 schools that lost money, the median deficit was $14.9 million.” And as Politifact notes, “According to the report, all athletic departments outside of the FBS operate in the red. In other words, only 20 of the 1,083 college sports programs in the nation are profitable.”

That would be reason enough to discontinue the athletic programs at taxpayer-funded schools. But here’s another: now the athletic programs are becoming tools for leftist social engineering. That’s true generally of sports, both professionally and in the amateur world: the left sees a popular institution it can mobilize against the right, and does so routinely. That’s why ESPN has become a propaganda network for issues ranging from transgenderism to Black Lives Matter.

But now the left’s reach has extended downward to college programs. That’s how a bunch of non-tuition-paying college football players just forced the president of the University of Missouri to step down over unsubstantiated charges of institutional racism, and why a white coach earning $3.1 million in taxpayer money could join these players in their quest against “white privilege.” The university could have revoked athletic scholarships or fired the coach. Their only job, after all, is to play football. But then we wouldn’t get to see the big BYU game on Saturday.

College athletics were never meant to override the central purpose of the universities: education. Then again, leftism overrode that central purpose long ago.

Ben Shapiro, The Daily Wire News

Other than the bit lurching into discussions about leftist politics, that sounds like a pretty good analysis.

 

[kts136]

Please explain where I called you a name. You are the one calling others names, as in a "mob". I just pointed out your logic is extremely faulty as you chose to bias the comparisons to fit your disagreement. Nothing else was intended.
But you keep doing it. If people organize to protest, you say they are a mob.
BTW: This has nothing to do with a republic vs. a democracy. The founders believed that leaders should be elected. Who elects school leadership? In the days of this republic's founders, it was the students, so they would not have made your biased comparison

"Mob" is now a dirty word?

How do people keep up with this ever changing list of bad words?

 

[jj410]

"Mob" is now a dirty word?

How do people keep up with this ever changing list of bad words?

No, calling someone a member of a mob is a compliment. You know, like when ESPN called the PSU students that.

 

[kts136]

No, calling someone a member of a mob is a compliment. You know, like when ESPN called the PSU students that.

I'm not one to support ESPN and people may have taken offense to it, but let's face facts here, those Penn State students protesting in the streets were a mob.

 

[jj410]

I'm not one to support ESPN and people may have taken offense to it, but let's face facts here, those Penn State students protesting in the streets were a mob.

Well, we know why ESPN characterized them as that rather than as protesters, now don't we?
Hint: It implies irrational and violent behavior and serves to demean the reason for the protest.

 

[kgilbert78]

Please explain where I called you a name. You are the one calling others names, as in a "mob". I just pointed out your logic is extremely faulty as you chose to bias the comparisons to fit your disagreement. Nothing else was intended.
But you keep doing it. If people organize to protest, you say they are a mob.
BTW: This has nothing to do with a republic vs. a democracy. The founders believed that leaders should be elected. Who elects school leadership? In the days of this republic's founders, it was the students, so they would not have made your biased comparison

You really don't understand what I said. I used the word "mob rule" which has a particular meaning in discussions of governance. I was careful to delineate that from a simple mob.

As I said

"Not mob rule in terms of a riot, mind you, or anything like that."

You may want to look at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

..and no, I'd never heard that word before (and I thought I was well read). Learned something new today.


And yes, without any proof of bias other than your assertion, that *is* name calling. Or Monty Python's "Argument Clinic".

 

[kgilbert78]

Well, we know why ESPN characterized them as that rather than as protesters, now don't we?
Hint: It implies irrational and violent behavior and serves to demean the reason for the protest.

In some contexts. In others, it doesn't--such as "flash mob". Or "mob rule". Though of course violence can occur there too.

 

[kts136]

Well, we know why ESPN characterized them as that rather than as protesters, now don't we?
Hint: It implies irrational and violent behavior.

And they weren't irrational? Flipping over vans and ripping down lamp posts doesn't seem so logical to me.

You are aware that it is possible to have a logical, thought filled conversation on a tough subject without constantly looking for other things to be offended by right?