Our tale begins with one Bradley Patterson, who demonstrated his priorities and general character in this tweet sent in response to President Obama preempting part of a football game with his Sandy Hook memorial remarks:
[QUOTE=Bradley Patterson]
Take that n****r off the tv, we wanna watch football.
[/QUOTE]
It turns out that Mr. Patterson was a member of the Division II University of North Alabama football team – the operative word being “was”:
[QUOTE=Mark Linder, UNAA Athletic Department]
Thx 2 everyone who brought to our attention. @UNAAthletics does not condone. He is no longer a member of the team.
[/QUOTE]
And so now he’ll have plenty of extra time to watch football, which I suppose is as happy an ending as can be expected.
I’m wondering whether he got kicked off the team for calling the president a nigger or for wanting to watch football instead of some more, as a smart FB friend put it, grief porn.
Just another reminder, kids: the little gadget you carry around in your pocket— you know, the one you use to play “Angry Birds,” text your Mom and jerk off to porn—also allows you to instantly ruin your own life. Try not to forget that every time you’re drunk.
There’d better not be anything wrong with stating that you do not wish to continue to drown in grief porn, lord knows I quit watching on Friday, but stating so as publicly as possible, as obnoxiously as possible, and throwing in a completely gratuitous slur on the president isn’t going to win too many people over.
Stupidity is stupid. But I still don’t think he should be barred from playing school sports, especially at a public university, for holding abhorrent views or using taboo terms.
Considering that his teammates are likely mostly African-American, He should get down on his knees and thank the AD for kicking him off the team. Else dead whitey.
Exactly what I was thinking. If there was one career path more likely to get a person to dispel their racist notions much less learn to control speaking them I’d like to know what it is.
Oh, I’m sure there is. And there shouldn’t be. So long as the behavior isn’t criminal and isn’t done in a moment where he is explicitly representing the school.
The school’s response should be some form of “We apparently have an idiot on our team and he said some pretty stupid shit on his own time. As a university we are always embarrassed to learn that we have admitted an idiot. We encourage everybody to tell him what an idiot he is.”
I’d naively assume that, for a university, “We have an idiot. We know that. Whataragonnado ? shrug” is somewhat bad press, since I’d further naively assume that most parents don’t want their kids to spend altogether too much time around idiots if they can help it. And that most college-age kids would be uncomfortable with the notion of studying/spending the best years of their lives in a racist-friendly environment.
Behaviour and conduct clauses in scholarships make sense; more sense than your proposed response anyway. The reason they make sense is because there’s more than bad press that results from allowing bad behavior. For instance, think how many alumni would cease donating to a program that was known for condoning racist behaviour.
They invited this idiot to represent their school, and gave him a scholarship to do so. They certainly have the right to say “I’m not going to continue giving him a scholarship to represent my school in athletics.”
I’d be troubled if they kicked him out of the school. I mean, that IS why he’s there, right? To go to class? Presumably he’s still allowed to go to class, pay for his tuition, and pay for his room & board, just like everyone else.
That’s the greatest, most wonderful thing about Facebook and Twitter (which are so fricking unbearable otherwise): before the dawn of ubiquitous social media people said bigoted, hateful, vacuous or self-incriminating shit only to their closest relatives who’d cover for them, or on forums under assumed screen names. Now they plaster that shit right next to their own photo ID, full name, location and place of employment.
If it wasn’t so schadenfreudelicious, It’d be reprehensible. Entrapment for the brain damaged and the inebriated.
I’d be more uncomfortable being in an academic environment that punishes people for expressing thoughts with which the establishment disagrees.
Of course they do. I just don’t think they should.
I missed the part where I suggested the behavior should be condoned. I’d just prefer that universities, especially public ones, not be in the business of policing and punishing the speech of its students. I’m perfectly fine with the expressing disagreement.
That strikes me as absurdly broad. Are there limits on what thoughts the school can decide they disapprove of and punish him for? Or is it just those thoughts you find distasteful?
