So we should be fixing public schools in Kansas City and St Louis so the children in those areas get better educations and are prepared for college.
Ok, I get that in the USA university football players are stars, but who are they representing besides themselves? Unless the issue is directly related to sports, why should the president sit with them (as opposed to, say, a representative body of students) to discuss the policies of the university?
And responsibility for this lies squarely on the president of a university in the same state.
Regards,
Shodan
As opposed to cross-burners, who are well known for their intelligence and sophistication?
It’s an act intended to make members of minority groups fear for their safety. The clear implication is that someone who is vandalizing property today may be killing people tomorrow. I don’t see why anyone should be reassured by the thought that the person threatening to kill them probably isn’t very smart.
Sure, nobody was actually physically harmed or even directly threatened, and the vast majority of vandals aren’t going to progress to more extreme forms of aggression. But terrorist acts, by definition, are intended to make the target population feel a sense of insecurity and danger out of proportion to the actual threat.
To say this is no big deal is like saying that, since only about 0.001% of the US population died on 9/11, there was no good reason for anyone to have strong feelings about the attack, or for high-level government officials to be directly involved in responding to it.
Good luck. The state has tried over the years dumping all kinds of money in those districts and no good.
Best bet is to find the bright ones early on and get them into some type of college track or magnet program.
Good news. A Missouri state representative has introduced a bill to revoke the scholarships of any athlete who refuses to play for any reason besides injury. This seems reasonable. If a player decides they’d rather be a social justice warrior, then they can quit the football team and go on a hunger strike on their own dime. No more extortion from a small minority of players.
I was under the impression the whole team, and coach, supported the Missouri action. Not a small minority of players. In any event, I doubt the school will want to give up its football program. I think they’d rather work with the players and address any grievances.
Poor
“Republican state representative **Rick Brattin…”
** must be a little bit dad-gummit-ly outraged that the strike produced results. He’d probably be quite supportive of:
Dalej42 says:
“I’d like to see the university revoke their meal privileges while they’re on ‘strike’ …”
That’ll show those upitty n… no good guys.
“At this time there is no hearing scheduled and the bill is not yet confirmed for the House calendar in Missouri, but House Bill 1743 is officially prefiled as of Monday afternoon.”
Missouri: A wheel on the track.
The whole team certainly did not support the strike. I imagine the strike would have fallen apart had it gone on for longer than a day.
There’s no need to make thinly veiled racial discrimination insinuations towards me. The players are there to play football. In exchange for playing, they get room, board, and tuition. They’re not obligated to play football, but they can’t keep scholarship benefits while they go off on some social justice crusade.
I, too, imagine that the strike would have fallen if it had not succeeded.
You say “social justice crusade” like it’s a bad thing. You don’t want teachers trying to improve their community, or football players trying to improve their campus. People have been organizing for social justice for quite some time, and I, for one, approve. Personally, I don’t care if the airline pilots strike for better meals for coach passengers. Whatever they think they can do to make the world a better place is okay with me.
And most likely if the matter had continued on for the rest of the semester they would have lost them. They probably do have a minimum participation requirement. So the legislation proposed is unnecessary (and asinine). Schools have academic regulations and disciplinary procedures in place, let them use them. If the school administration is incompetent at *applying *those tools, that is their problem. If the protestors win, then hey they win. Kudos and let’s go to the next game.
*
Why does this seem to offend you so damn much? * It was just a *&^% student protest. Students do protest, y’know. Or are you going to advocate stripping ALL scholarships (sport, academic merit, need-based, earmarked, legacy) from anyone who at any point stops doing whatever they are supposed to be doing, be it for one day or one month, to make or join a protest? How about for just advocating a protest?
It’s “reasonable” if the players are contracted employees with a scholarship as their compensation. But that opens a smelly can of worms for the schools if that is indeed the case, not the least of which is that nasty old wage-fixing concept.
If this silly law, which has no chance of passage, makes it onto the Missouri books, it will serve mostly to destroy the football program of the state’s flagship university. What quality players will want to come to a program in a state so openly hostile to scholarship athletes? What if the players strike in protest of the new law and the school has no leeway in how it handles the situation? Good luck filling the stands and getting the boosters happy happy happy to give give give when the walk-ons are taking on Alabama.
The schools have a big problem on their hands, one that they can’t legislate away. The harsher the rules, the more likely becomes the rebellion.
So the only allowable excuse for refusing to play is injury, according to dalej42?
I’d be interested, under those circumstances, to see what would happen when a football player had a close family member pass away during the season and wanted to take time off for the funeral. I could imagine dalej42 coming here to start a thread titled, “Get out there and play, you pussy, unless you want your scholarship revoked. It was only your grandma anyway.”
Of course, that’s not what the bill actually says. Unsurprisingly, the OP gets even the basics wrong. Here’s the relevant text from the bill:
Link (pdf)
It’s still a stupid bill, but it’s not quite as silly as dalej42’s misinterpretation of it would suggest. And it’s nowhere near the most stupid piece of legislation that Rick Brattin has supported in Missouri:
And:
So, is dalej42 Rick Brattin?
Clearly the weak, downtrodden college administration needs the government’s help to avoid being taken advantage of by the powerful, rich, influential student athletes.
Obviously student athletes are not really people and simply alive for our entertainment purposes. Dance football players, dance!
The players are provided with scholarships worth thousands of dollars. That’s also thousands of dollars they’re avoiding in student loan debt.
They can spend their free time running around and whining about a university president not checking his privilege to the satisfaction of some crybaby activist. But, they can’t threaten to cost the university a million dollars in forfeiture penalties.
The options are:
-
Take the scholarship and be bound by the conditions
-
Don’t take the scholarship.
No, I don’t usually agree with Rick Brattin. I’m strongly pro choice and his proposed abortion restrictions are silly. Intelligent design is a joke and shouldn’t be taught in any school.
What if the football players held a strike to protest gold-digging bitches who try to ruin careers of hardworking date rapists – I mean, honorable athletes?
I suspect that someone’s head would explode.
This is a lot of whining about other supposed whining “crybabies”. They protested and won. Sometimes protests succeed – this one succeeded. Boo-hoo. It also demonstrates that the schools need the athletes more than the reverse, for this level of college athletics.