Black Missouri Football Players Boycotting Team Activities Until School President Leaves Office

... and speaking of proof ...

Head football coach Gary Pinkel seemed to be more direct, tweeting a photo Sunday of dozens of white and black students standing arm in arm with the message, "The Mizzou Family stands as one. We are united. We are behind our players."

I'm sure Coach Pinkel doesn't have any evidence for any of the students' claims either. Probably just wants to play football, eh?

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon insisted Friday that the issues must be addressed. Wolfe agreed, but he appeared unwilling to give in to demands that he resign, saying in a statement Sunday that he is "dedicated to ongoing dialogue to address these very complex, societal issues."

Dang, looks like the Governor of Mississippi is in on it too! Yeah, there's obviously absolutely nothing to see here ...

LOL @ Wolfe's pathetic whining "complex, societal issues"

CNN - Black football players at Missouri: We'll sit out until system president resigns

a reply to: Gryphon66

But should we cater to demands because somebody said something happened?

Should a university president be forced to resign because of unsubstantiated incidents?

I'm not saying they didn't happen. I'm saying there seems to be a rather extreme demand levied in response to what is, in essence, a story.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

But should we cater to demands because somebody said something happened?

Should a university president be forced to resign because of unsubstantiated incidents?

I'm not saying they didn't happen. I'm saying there seems to be a rather extreme demand levied in response to what is, in essence, a story.

Have you read any of the news stories? The issue is hardly based on a one or two time "we said they said."

Should a university president be forced to resign if the students' allegations are true?

... and I'm not saying they did happen. Something is happening. I find it hard to see how anyone reads the OP or any other news about the situation and thinks that this is the equivalent of a bunch of overly-sensitive kids merely looking for attention.

Shamrock, you haven't said anything resembling my last statement there; I am referring to other comments in the thread.

It looks like the students have the support of Black and White players on the football team, the Head Coach, and the Governor of Mississippi ... let's see what the investigations show.

a reply to: Gryphon66

To be fair, I read the timeline that was provided (seemed the quickest route). There were a few incidents, but two seemed to me to be exactly "we said they said" incidents. Particularly the first one. Guy walks down the street and a guy drives by and yells at him. And then he posts about it on Facebook.

Like I've said, maybe they really did happen. I'm just at a loss as to what the students expect the university to do about people yelling at random people.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I still think people are overreacting to something that was likely done by drunk college students. Probably these were freshmen boys that will flunk out and not even be back in the new year.

Regardless, what can the President do to control what people think and do? What is the big deal with any of this?

Gryphon, what specifically would you do to address these supposed issues? You seem to think this is a big deal and that the administration isn't addressing the issues because you support the students so what is it exactly would you do?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You need to read better.

This is Mizzou, not Mississippi. And Nixon is our pathetic excuse for a governor, not Mississippi's.

a reply to: Metallicus

If you say it doesn't have to do with the President being white then you are more naive than I thought you were.

And if you think the only reason why they are protesting is because he is white then you just want to blame blacks for daring to say something to a white man. Now go back to FOX and Rush and daydream about the good old days when the black man knew his place.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

I still think people are overreacting to something that was likely done by drunk college students. Probably these were freshmen boys that will flunk out and not even be back in the new year.

Regardless, what can the President do to control what people think and do? What is the big deal with any of this?

Gryphon, what specifically would you do to address these supposed issues? You seem to think this is a big deal and that the administration isn't addressing the issues because you support the students so what is it exactly would you do?

1) Drunk college students should not be allowed to harass or terrorize other students.

2) The university president cannot control what people think and do. Obviously. And neither he nor the university should try to do so. But, the university can respond to the incidents in ways that demonstrate they are concerned about such possible abuses, they can meet with scared or angry students to discuss the matters, etc.

3) I would have met with the students to hear their grievances. I would have had the relevant parts of the university administration begin investigations into the reported events. I would have made it a public issue long before the kids had to and assure the entire campus community that the university was acting in behalf of student safety as well as to determine the reality of these reports. That'd be my starting place at least.

a reply to: buster2010

Since I haven't actually heard or seen any demands beyond that he resign, I think they're basically just protesting to protest and to destroy someone to prove they can. Explain how this is not a modern lynching.

If this is actually systemic oppression, simply removing one person is not going to remedy it, but that's the only demand I've seen.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That is a very fair and measured response.

Thank you.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

You need to read better.

This is Mizzou, not Mississippi. And Nixon is our pathetic excuse for a governor, not Mississippi's.

You have an excellent point! I did call the wrong state out in my comments.

Well, that settles it then, the kids don't have anything to complain about at all because I made a mistake.

You don't like the governor, well, that's even more evidence that the whole thing is made up.

What's wrong with the Head Coach then? Since you are going to desperately try to obfuscate the actual issue here with anything else you can conceive of.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is a very fair and measured response.

Thank you.

We try.

I think that's two tacit agreements we've managed today ... aren't these signs of the Apocalypse???

If Ketsuko agrees with me, I'm going down into the bunker, just in case. LOL

(I'm not worried about the last. Thanks Metallicus!)

a reply to: Gryphon66

Pinkel? Aside from the fact that he can make a game plan and then has no ability to make any relevant half-time adjustments which is partially why Mizzou was never more than mediocre at best in the Big 12 ...?

He has to make a choice here. He can either boot his team or pretend he's taking their side. The coach has to try to stay in charge or he's not going to be their coach anymore. The very fact that this is what we see is an indication that he is not in charge. When the players stepped this far out of line, we knew he was out of control. If they were going to protest, it should have started with him as the head of the team, not the team.

Would he have started this on his own or after meeting with the team? Don't know. Maybe. But we'll never know now. The horse is out of the barn.

a reply to: Gryphon66

1) Drunk college students should not be allowed to harass or terrorize other students.

Are you recommending we try to return to prohibition?

Short of finding a way to stop all drinking which leads to idiotic behavior of all kinds that sometimes finds its outlet in very bad ways, even criminal, I'm not exactly sure how you get to "allowing" college students to drink or not.

Would it have been more acceptable if he was stoned?

Terrorized? Would I have liked it? No. I worked an inner city classroom and got called all manner of nasty things, but I can honestly say that despite being a minority, I was not "terrorized" by the obviously racially motivated treatment.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Pinkel? Aside from the fact that he can make a game plan and then has no ability to make any relevant half-time adjustments which is partially why Mizzou was never more than mediocre at best in the Big 12 ...?

He has to make a choice here. He can either boot his team or pretend he's taking their side. The coach has to try to stay in charge or he's not going to be their coach anymore. The very fact that this is what we see is an indication that he is not in charge. When the players stepped this far out of line, we knew he was out of control. If they were going to protest, it should have started with him as the head of the team, not the team.

I knew we could depend on you to find some way to make it about anything other than the matter at hand!

So, no chance that the Coach or the Governor is actually concerned about the students then, he's just in on the race-baiting whining too, in your estimation?

Yeah, we can all see you're all about the "proof."

a reply to: ketsuko

Only you could take that comment and spin it into something as absurd as "returning to prohibition."

Then of course you try to further avoid the actual matter at hand by extemporizing into wild generalizations about all drinking all college students, etc.

And you even worked drugs into it! Bravo!

Aren't someone's religious beliefs that permit them to commit hate crimes against others at stake here too?

You're just not trying hard enough, LOL.

As far as your personal anecdote goes, I'm sure you're a very strong individual and I'm sorry folks weren't nice to you.

There's going to be an investigation. We'll see what happens.

a reply to: Metallicus

Yet another post insinuating that black people are opportunistic attention seekers and have no real grievances. Ever.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You want me to agree with you on something, you are going to have to stop with the hyperbole.

Since the original two incidents are allegedly things shouted at students by other students who were drunk ... what is the solution to that?

Drunk college students should not be allowed to harass or terrorize other students.

These are your words. What do you suggest is done to prevent students to who are drunk from engaging in harassing or terrorizing behavior? How do you "not allow" that? Generally in my experience, drunken students are more or less beyond rational control, especially their own control. This is why preventing drunken driving is so difficult.

So ... how do you stop them short of preventing drinking altogether, hence prohibition.

Perhaps my leap of logic was too great for you, but I'd always considered you to be fairly bright.

Being a proud small town Missouri white boy, there are some out there that need to realize that racism is alive and well in 2015. Did y'all know one of those stars on the Confederate flag was for Missouri. My brother is an MU alum, there are a couple of fraternities on campus that have a serious bad rep, unfortunately all of the Missouri rich kids pledge those fraternities.

I lived in central Florida for 6 years, the racism there was f'n horrible, then I move back to Missouri, and have members of my own family using the n word, good christians they claim to be. Before I left the state 35 years ago, an old boss took me to have breakfast with the Grand Dragon of the KKK, he seemed to be a nice guy, but I am a white boy.

All is not what it seems, and there seems to be some racist crap going on at MU, they need to step up and solve it, no matter how many little rich kids they need to boot.

What ever happened to colleges having free speech?
How about any student caught using a racial slur gets suspended?