Note that he’s still a student and that he’s suffered no other punishment for his actions - no loss of academic credit, no suspension or expulsion, and no requirement to do anything. His primary role at the university is as a student, and nothing in the university’s actions changes that.
His existence as a student-athlete, on the other hand, is a voluntary arrangement by both parties. He could quit at any time, and the school can kick him off the team at any time and for nearly any reason (i.e. they probably couldn’t kick him off due to race or religion and be ok with the NCAA). Note that the school can kick him off the team for just being lousy at football, which is certainly not a better reason than the one he gave yet carries the same “punishment”.
He’s certainly still able to join in intramural school athletics or take part in any number of other activities at the university that aren’t officially backed by the school’s imprimatur.
Are you trying to suggest that playing football for the school is his right, and not a privilege? It’s not whether we find what he said distasteful, but whether the school did. The school decided to put him on the team in the first place, should they not now be allowed to decide to take him off?
Actually, I’ll take it further. The school has a right to kick him off the team for having a cleft chin. Or one arm 1 cm longer than the other.
I’ll take this back to an earlier post.
You said “an academic environment that punishes people for expressing thoughts”. Well, guess what. A UNIVERSITY FOOTBALL TEAM IS NOT AN ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT.
Again, the broader university has given him no punishment - no loss of credit, no suspension, no requirement for an apology letter, nothing. He’s still a student and now able to pursue his studies without the distraction of football.
Are you suggesting he has a right to stay on the team? People have been kicked off sports teams for much less, so, again, how is this any kind of abrogation of his rights?
Since it’s the school taking the action, I’d say it’s better described as “expression of thoughts that the school finds distasteful,” and I think “reprehensible” would be a better word to use than distasteful. I’d bet you can find any number of distasteful tweets from NCAA athletes, but reprehensible is a much higher bar.
Where’s the line? Since it’s the school’s reputation that the kid is affecting, it’s the school’s decision on where to draw the line.
Kind of interesting that the headline calls it an “anti-Obama tweet” instead of what it was; a racist slur. “Bradley Patterson: Anti-Obama Tweet During Sunday Night Football Gets Division II Football Player Kicked Off Team” makes it sound like the guy was kicked off the team for saying something like “I wish Romney had won”, not open racism.
Of course it isn’t a right. And above you’ll see I said that the should also has the right to kick him off. I just don’t think they should just because he expressed views that they find distasteful or reprehensible or ugly. Especially at a state run school.
Again, you’ll not find me having said that the school can’t. Just that it shouldn’t.
Weird, since they have academic requirements in order to be able to play. And the people who are deciding which speech to punish are all employees of the state. And of the university.
Well, it’ll be interesting to see if that is true when more than one work day has passed since the incident. But not really relevant to my point. Just because he hasn’t received a greater punishment does not make a lighter one appropriate.
Again, when have I used the language of “rights”? It is, in my opinion, bad policy for state agencies to punish people for speech they disapprove of. I have not said he has a right to play football that the athletic director acted outside of his powers.
I have simply said I do not believe that kicking him off the team was the appropriate response.
It’s the exact same bar unless you can find some universal agreement on what is reprehensible.
The school’s reputation wasn’t involved until someone tattled on him.
Again, the man’s an idiot. I’d be happy to say that his face. I don’t want to enjoy a picnic lunch with him. His friends and family should all inch away from him and claim the empty seat at the lunch table is occupied. His grandchildren should learn of this one day through a Google search and spend the rest of his years calling him Grandpa Numbnuts McRacistalot.
But regardless of how distasteful/reprehensible/etc. the speech, I am uncomfortable with employees of the state meting out punishments based solely on speech. Even if they are allowed to and aren’t depriving anybody of a “right.”
But now that we’ve established that playing football for a public university is granting the government the same control over your life as enlisting in the army…no… I’m still uncomfortable with it. You almost had me in a rhetorical bind.
But why? If your answer is, “it just is,” then I guess that’s fine and we can all go about our business.
What, in your view, “should” the goal of a college athletics program be? What criteria should a football team (just to pick one example) use to determine whether or not a a given player should be on the team? There are a finite number of slots on the team - they can’t use every student at the school, obviously. I’m sure there are dozens of kids on campus who wanted the spot on the team that the estimable Mr. Peterson was given. What, in your view, is an acceptable criterion to choose who gets that slot, today or going forward?
I have two, and only two:
The ability to help the team win; and
(Related but not the same) The ability to help generate revenue for the team and, by extension, the institution.
Do you accept these as valid criteria?
Peterson was a walk-on long snapper. Before any of this happened, I’m sure he contributed exactly zero in terms of #2; no one bought a ticket to a game to see Bradley Peterson play except his mother. In terms of #1, he probably contributed marginally more than the first kid that got cut.
Now, though: Peterson is a locker room problem - a guy who made a racist comment who will be placed among a group of team-mates who will resent him for it. The chemistry of the team, their ability to play as a unit, will be affected. If he were allowed to remain on the team, it is possible - not certain, but possible - that other players - better players, maybe, might quit or transfer. His value in terms of Criterion #1 has gone from marginally positive to negative.
Meanwhile, his value in terms of Criterion #2 has gone from zero to certainly negative, as donors, alumni, and potential spectators will all react badly to his continued presence on the team.
So why should Peterson remain on the team, in spite of the fact that he no longer contributes to the success of the program? Why should the university retain him, giving him a position that other students surely want, when he no longer fits the main criteria for that position?
In your mind, does Peterson’s speech somehow exempt him from being forced to - as every other player on the team is, continually - earn his spot on the team, by helping it win and/or helping it earn money? Is being an asshole a shield?
Ahh…so now that we know that you’re willing, we’re just arguing over price. Got it.
Okay, so at what point does a government organization composed of volunteers get to establish a shared goal that might, in some cases, conflict with the goal of some of its members?
You seem to draw the line somewhere between the Armed Forces and college football program, but where?
Since when is a university, publicly funded or not, a government body?
Government funded or even state-administered is a different beast from an actual part of the government. Methinks you really don’t get that distinction (one that’s been upheld in court, by the way). Or the fact that intra-collegiate athletics is a still more different beast from the academic mission of a university.
No, it’s granting a voluntary aspect of that university control over their players’ public conduct because in the public’s mind, players represent the university.
So yes, your or anyone else’s right to tweet/scream/write “nigger” is depending on the context, the voluntary organization you represent, and the code thereof.
I get it. I don’t agree with it. Not sure why this is hard to understand.
No, just the first one. But then i don’t accept the idea that just because you agree to play football you should give up all privilege to ever do anything with which the university might disagree.
Since all that matters is what the school thinks will cause them reputational harm and kicking him off the team just for that reason is fine, I assume it follows that we’d be hunky dory with the team also cutting someone for expressing the opinion that Obama is a great president because the AD feels that will cut into alumni donations.
No, a university football program is not an academic pursuit but it is part of an academic institution. And, personally, I hold intellectual freedom in such environments, even that I find disgusting, to be of great value.
Again, I’m not saying he has a right to play. That they don’t have the right to cut him. I’m saying, that I would prefer that they had responded in a different way. Because, in supporting their response just because I agree that what was said was disgusting, I’d be somewhat bound to support the same when it is someone else (but not me) who thinks something else is disgusting.
Well, one bright dividing line would seem to be employment by the government. But even then I approach the government curtailing the private speech (and by private I mean on their own time, not representing the government) with great wariness. But if it makes you feel better, I’d have a problem with it if a soldier were punished for saying “nigger” on his own Twitter account. I’m not saying they couldn’t punish him. Just that I think they shouldn’t.
But again, I’m apparently kinky that way.
You’re absolutely right. Good thing I’ve not suggested otherwise at any point in this thread.
Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of speaking. Opprobrium from one’s peers is an expected consequence of voicing hateful thoughts one’s peers find not just objectionable or controversial, but abject.
Patterson is more than welcome to call any and all “nigger”. Nobody owes him an implicit endorsement platform to do so. Fuck him and anybody looks like him.
Besides, what establishment are you talking about ? The university board responded to a storm of angry offended tweets, presumably from insiders of the university as well as outsiders. They’re not exactly being the arbitrary, elitist thought police here. They’re adapting to market pressure.
I somehow doubt the rest of the team is clamouring for racist guy’s return to the roster, either.
Tough noogies. Them’s are the terms universities ask you to sign up for if you want the privilege to play football with their training, their equipment, their legal protection & media apparatus and wearing their jersey.
Don’t like it ? Feel free to start your own football league, build your own stadium. You can make up all the rules you think are appropriate there.
Would you be comfortable/approve of a private university making the same call? I am trying to understand if your objection is rooted in the idea of punishing speech, or in the idea of any form of government limiting speech in any context.
To put it another way, would you feel it was appropriate for a private employer to fire someone for comments like this?
Well, that’s okay. He wasn’t kicked out of school. They probably didn’t even take his scholarship away. He was just removed from a sports team that represents the school, as the school felt he was no longer an appropriate representative.
Since ever. State educational facilities are arms of the state. Trust me, this is not a controversial issue.