I appreciate the argument you’re making (blacklists are bad), but what if his teammates refused to play while he remained on the team? What would be the appropriate response from the university? I’d like to echo Manda Jo’s comments too: what if he belonged to a private institution? This man’s sustenance doesn’t depend on his ability to handle an egg, but transport workers absolutely are dependent on cooperation from private institutions. Is union blacklisting less harmful because there are competing companies involved and said companies are not coercive actors?
Exactly. Again, I’m not talking about what is legal, saying that “rights” have been abrogated. I’m pretty sure everybody has acted well within their rights and privileges.
I’m disagreeing with how it was decided to use those rights and privileges. I’m not saying the laws should be changed. That the university or AD should be punished for having taken the action they did. That the player has any position from which to whine and bitch.
I’m simply saying that when it comes to responding to something that is purely speech, with no other evidence of actual harm, that I would prefer a different approach be taken than outright punishment, especially from any organization that is remotely an arm of the government.
Yes, because that is the light to shine in order to convince me that it is good for state actors to punish speech they disagree with. I look forward to our support of the university cutting any team member who expresses an acceptance of evolution because so many people in northern Alabama find that offensive.
Again, you seem to be operating under the impression that I view the Pit as a legislative body wherein by expressing my opinions on a subject I am expecting them to be implemented as the law of the land.
This may be shocking to you, but it is possible to disagree with a decision made without feeling the decision should not be allowed.
Generally speaking I am of the opinion that punishing pure speech is non-productive other than the visceral thrill of lashing out it provides. State actors doing it introduces a greater level of concern for me.
So I’d still disagree with the decision, but for reduced reasons.
Can you provide an example or two of the speech you are punishing? It may very well freak me out that you’re doing this. Or it may fall into the fact that I am not expressing moral absolutes. I am not saying that no speech ever should be punished. I am saying that it is something that should be done with reticence and that in this situation I disagree with it.
But it could be that you are a monster acting with the threat of state-backed violence to suppress speech you disagree with. I don’t have enough information to say.
But what if he were? Do not all the same arguments for kicking him off the team work just as well for kicking him out of school? Attending that school is equally voluntary on both sides. (And considering that odds are good that a fair number of his Twitter friends were teammates and so he likely knew the audience he was playing too, it is possible that the student body in general objects even more than his teammates.)
Without any comment on union blacklisting specifically, speech punishment between completely private entities may be more or less harmful. But it is of less interest to people outside of that relationship. As an extreme example, I don’t give a damn if you outlaw (whatever that would mean in the context of your marriage) your wife saying “pineapple” in your home. I care a lot about Congress saying your wife can’t say “pineapple” in your home.
I am not saying they’re equivalent to this story. Again, I am just disagreeing with a decision made, not whether they had the purview to make that decision.
No, the arguments don’t work for both at all. As a student, he is effectively the school’s customer. As a collegiate athlete, he is its representative. The school has no business disciplining students for legal activity that takes place off school grounds; it has every interest disciplining those it chooses to represent it for activity that reflect badly on it.
School attendance is in some sense a right; courts have consistently held that athletic participation is a privilege.
ETA:
Okay, that’s a bit different. As a matter of policy, I disagree; if you don’t want to be punished for your speech, you shouldn’t be posting it on Twitter. However, I do think the penalty was too harsh, assuming this was a first-time violation.
So, that’s just like your opinion, man!?
That’s well and good, but you’re defending your position rather vociferously for “just” disagreeing with a decision. You either feel way more strongly about it and the role of public/private institutions, like universities, than you’re willing to admit publicly or are getting into “someone is wrong on the internet” territory (which we’re all pretty much guilty of all the time on the SDMB).
What would that approach be? A stern talking to?
I suppose, but the same arguments about not “punishing” the player also apply just as well to a stern talking to. Why should the school be directing a player’s speech at all? Do they have a right to even “suggest” he not use the word nigger anymore, or is that too deep an intrusion into his 1st amendment rights?
The school’s reaction to any improper conduct from one of their students is always going to fall somewhere on a continuum:
No reaction
Discussion of conduct
Removal of special privileges
Probation
Suspension
Expulsion
You think the conduct falls on a different place in this continuum than the school did, but that doesn’t make them completely off base, they just assess it differently.
My favorite comment on the story:
Oh, I’m sure I am. I’ve already said twice I’d just leave it be then don’t. It’s not so much that I’m reacting to people being wrong in what they think, but my perception that they’re being wrong in what they seem to think I’ve said.
Then I feel all riled up to defend it again so people don’t think I’m conceding that’s what I said.
I gave it above in this thread. My approach would have been to publicly state that one our football players said something that we all find reprehensible and as saddened as we are by this we do not police the speech of our students. Everybody else is free to treat him as they would any other racist idiot they come across.
I suspect if Bradley Patterson has been a quarterback and not a third-string long snapper who was never even listed on the roster, that they probably would have found it in their conscience to take something more like my approach.
And after his first three plays from scrimmage all ended in him being sacked?
I missed that one in my list of actions, I’ll add it in now
No reaction
Discussion of conduct
Public Shaming
Removal of special privileges
Probation
Suspension
Expulsion
So, it is your belief that government employees should publicly shame people for exercising their constitutional rights. Just want to know where the next assault upon my freedom will come from.
Yes, I have no problem with government employees saying “Personally I don’t agree with or approve of what was said but as an institution we’re not going to do anything about it.”
If you see hypocrisy in that, I can live with it.
It is weird to me, though, your apparent logic that if you are able to lay out all possible responses in a linear fashion and i am fine with some of them, then it is a bit ridiculous for me to have issue with any of them? Because if that’s the way you feel, I can expand on your list:
Cut everybody on the team who disapproved of his comment
Offer him special privileges
Publicly endorse his views
Give him a handjob on live tv
No reaction
Expression of disagreement and disapproval
Private discussion of conduct
public shaming
Removal of special privileges
Require him to give you a handjob on live tv
Probation
Suspension
Expulsion
Civil fines
Incarceration
Corporal punishment
Deportation to Arkansas
Forced sterilization
Golden Girls Marathon
Capital Punishment
I’d add “ban football from the planet forever,” but in fairness that’s my solution to every problem.
My God, man! What are you, some kind of monster? Surely you meant to reverse these last two?