If this had only been about a couple of incidents of shouted epithets, I don’t think the president would have been forced to resign. It seems like he had very little support–even a couple of Republican members of the legislature were calling for him to resign. I think the fact that he wasn’t an educator, but rather a business executive, is part of this story–you can’t run a university like you run a tech firm.
Re: voter ID laws
See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/ on the (probably intended) partisan impact they have.
" Voter ID laws have only one purpose and that is to prevent minorities from voting. "
Sorry, can’t let this one go. In NC, an acceptable alternative to a photo ID is the last 4 digits of your SSN and date of birth. Explain to me how this is targeting. Can’t speak for other states, but since NC was mentioned in passing earlier, I had to offer up some defense.
Because Frontline is such a bastion of fair reporting. And one could argue that any partisan impact is caused by the fraudulent votes that aren’t cast for candidates of a specific party. But that is the (probably intended) partisan reason for opposition to voter ID laws.
NC only enacted the SSN regulations because they are being sued The suit is still continuing because of the restrictions on early voting and other factors specifically targeted at minority voters. NCs own state study concluded that 300k of people did not have acceptable ID for voting before the change. I hope that provides some clarity for decidesomehow
re: Post No. 94; the comments are WAY off-topic and not germaine. Incidentally, did you miss that some of Hardy’s colleagues around the NFL (a prominent member of the Seahawks, for example) said that they wouldn’t want him on their teams?
I think Frontline which is associated with PBS is a little more fair and balanced than some reporting out there. There is probably more attempted voter fraud going on with how the different candidates portray themselves
@circuitrider - thanks for the acknowledgement on the ID. I’m choosing not to discuss the other lawsuits here, simply because it’s OT, and potentially a politically charged subject.
I think that athletes, black, white, brown or whatever are aware that they have a certain amount of political capital. I think there are examples of athletes banding together to exercise this power sprinkled throughout our recent history. The Northwestern players trying to unionize, along with the O’Bannon case, led to wholesale changes in the way Div athletics are administered not that long ago if you remember. On racial issues, Tommi Smith and John Carlos are the most visible example of athletes standing up for what they believe in, at great personal cost. Many believe that college football teams refusing to stay in segregated hotels while travelling in the south in the 1960s at least helped along the process of integration. There are plenty of such examples.
All that said, I would just caution that often times what athletes perceive to be in their interest and worth taking a stand for does not necessarily line up with a general progressive political world view. Two years ago, as an example, the Grambling football team went on “strike”, causing the forfeiture of one game and got their coach fired (along with the AD I believe). But because the subject of the protest (the players were upset that money earned by the football team was not being used for the football team but rather to support Title IX required sports) did not align with the issues of the day it was not national news.
CNN didn’t think they were off topic. The topic is football teams using their media power to address social issues.
Absolutely, Ohiodad51. Football players in Missouri backed a protest against a university president who wasn’t popular in many sectors. They also had the support of their coach, giving them additional administrative clout. So you’re right. But that doesn’t change the fact that their action was the tipping point that prompted the resignation of a university president (and evidently chancellor.) That’s a pretty major accomplishment. If nothing else, it may inspire other athletes in profitable sports to consider exerting their metaphorical muscle in addition to their physical ones. I don’t for a minute doubt that school administrators will likely simultaneously try to reign in those muscles through all kinds of regulations and/or contracts. Football players may have power, but their managers will make sure it’s limited.
@TatinG, true. But I think it is unwise to assume that because the stand taken by the Missouri football team here happened to align with a current issue of concern to progressives (racism on campus) that football players across the country will rise up and become a force for progressive change on issues like Voter ID laws.
We are talking about college student-athletes (many of whom are not yet 21 years old); not professional teams. And the subject is not “media power” per se. Obviously, in large part this is about money (lately provided buy entertainment media mega deals). If the Mizzou football team had chosen to boycott the remainder of the season, we’re talking about TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS that the university would be compelled to forfeit. I read this morning that Mizzou sports show a profit only sporadically. If the 2015 football season was lost, the financial loss would have been crippling for the Athletic Department and the university, since the university general fund covers UM sports when the AD is in the red.
I would say that is not a fair characterization of the subject of their protest, or at least highly incomplete. The facilities were shown to actually be dangerous, with black mold, threadbare carpets and dangerously worn mats that could easily lead to injuries, broken equipment, etc. It was more about working conditions I would say, and of course how much money there is and where it goes is the main factor behind these conditions.
With that out of the way (maybe), I would posit that while this does highlight the potential power of high profile athletic teams at some universities, I think the chances that it leads to a new era of leveraging that power for various causes, on campus or off, are slim. First, I think the cause has to match up in some way with their position as athletes at a university. Not playing football or basketball because of voter ID laws? That makes little sense insofar as who their strike hurts. Contrast that to this issue that was directly tied to the campus, where their influence is out-sized.
Second, getting a majority to agree to actions this severe is difficult. As the OP and others pointed out, in theory there was real risk in taking this step. Now, in hindsight it seems unlikely they would have lost their scholarships, but I bet that was far less clear at the time. And they won’t always have the coach backing them. Again, it has to make some sense. Right now they have the general support of the public, although of course there is a lot of disagreement as well. But given the relatively unprecedented nature of their action, it is amazingly positive. The fastest way to lose the support of the masses is to abuse that power on frivolous things. After all, the public does really like college sports.
In this case I think the players were right and brave and quite sincere in their convictions. The issue wasn’t so much what Wolfe could or couldn’t do about random shouts from people passing by in cars, it was his amazingly tepid response to it all. Until you have been pulled over just for driving black, or rousted at a store just for shopping there while black, etc. I think it is very hard to understand the sensitivity to the issue. But a university president of any color has to be finely tuned to this issue or risk the fate of this one. It is all about communication, inclusion in the process, and whatever actions that can be taken, even when the particulars are largely out of your direct control. Some will call it window dressing, but to those that are aggrieved on a regular basis, acknowledgement and respect go a very long way. He failed completely at both until it was too late.
@fallenchemist, I don’t disagree with you in general. And I don’t see anyone saying that what the kids at Mizzou did here was either trivial or not worthy of praise. I just would not jump to the conclusion that college athletes support the general progressive world view with a vigor necessary to turn this type of effort to other topics.
As far as the Grambling situation, I would point out two things. One, the kids clearly were in dange of getting their schollies pulled (there was talk of just dumping the program or moving to D2) and they did not really have the support of the coach or the AD. Two, one of the biggest issues involved was that the AD scooped the money paid to the university for the air travel costs of the football team to play a showcase game in Indianapolis and used that money to support other sports programs and then put the football team on a couple of buses for the fifteen or sixteen hour trip.
I think anyone who believes this type of “protest” will fly at other institutions doesn’t understand the business dynamic of major college sports. In this instance, it appears that Wolfe was disliked by enough people that once the national spotlight was shone upon Mizzou he simply didn’t want to put up with the scrutiny. As others have mentioned, he was not an academician…he’s a businessman. Not the best choice for a University president, as he doesn’t have a vested interest in the well-being of the students. It’s easy for the coaches to say “we support our players” when they’re calling for the firing of an administrator who is disliked by many faculty members (possibly the coaches themselves) as well as some prominent members of the state legislature. Try the same “we won’t play football” tactic against a University President who is well-liked by the faculty, or in support of some other issue, and see how fast the scholarship players are told to play or pack their crap and move on. No university is going to sacrifice millions of dollars in revenue when they can (short term) play games with non-scholarship players and (long term) bring in new players. They don’t have to put a fantastic product on the field each week to fulfill their contracts…they just need to put any product out there.
It would’ve been interesting to see what would’ve happened if Wolfe hadn’t resigned. How strong would their social conscience have been if they were told their scholarships were in jeopardy? How strong would the coaches “support” of the players have been if they were told their jobs depended on the BYU game being played as scheduled?
I guess we’ll never know, but I wouldn’t expect to see many (if any) copycat protests period…and I think the “success” of this one is an anomaly.
Now the Missouri UPD is going to police speech.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/university-of-missouri-police-ask-students-to-report-hurtful-speech/
An excerpt:
The Missouri University Police Department (MUPD) sent an email to students Tuesday morning urging them to call them and report any hurtful speech they encounter on the campus.
In an email that was flagged by several Missouri-based journalists, the MUPD asked “individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions” to call the department’s general phone line “to continue to ensure that the University of Missouri campus remains safe.” They suggest that students provide a detailed description of the offender, their location or license plate number, and even to take a picture if possible.
In the email, MUPD readily admits that hurtful or hateful speech is not against the law. But, they write, “if the individuals identified are students, MU’s Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action.”
In a statement to Mediaite, the MUPD confirmed that the email was real. When asked about the potential First Amendment implications, a spokesman responded simply, “We are simply asking them to report what they feel is hurtful and/or hateful speech.”
He added that the police did not consider the hateful speech “a criminal matter.” However, “We also work for the University and uphold the Universities Rules and Regulations.”
Wow, just wow. Just imagine. You can exercise your right to free speech, but you will be reported to the police. Talk about a police state.
Btw, I am very surprised that no verified photos of the poop swastika have surfaced. You would think they’d be all over social media. Did it even happen?
The MO ACLU has a statement: http://www.aclu-mo.org/newsviews/2015/11/10/aclu-statement-mu-law-enforcements-attempt-police-free-speec