Lawmaker Proposes Bill To Punish Mizzou Strikers:

Republican wants to strip striking college athletes of
scholarships after Mizzou football protest over racism

A Republican lawmaker in the Missouri House of Representatives has proposed a bill that aims to strip scholarships from college athletes who refuse to play for non-health related issues.

The bill comes a month after University of Missouri president Tim Wolfe resigned under pressure from students and activists over a lack of responsiveness to racist incidents on campus. The university’s football team had said it would refuse to play until Wolfe stepped down .

Related: Protesters welcome appointment of University of Missouri interim president

The bill sponsors didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. But one of the sponsors, state rep Kurt Bahr, told the Columbian Missourian the bill was “obviously in reaction to the athletes who were saying they weren’t going to play to what they considered to be social issues on campus”.

“I don’t think that is an appropriate response on their part,” Bahr said.

According to the pre-filed bill, if enacted, any “college athlete who calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike or concerted refusal to play a scheduled game shall have his or her scholarship revoked”. Additionally, the bill continues, “any member of a coaching staff who encourages or enables a college athlete to engage in behavior” prohibited under the bill “shall be fined by his or her institution of employment”.
www.rawstory.com... acism/

I hear a lot of voices for the 2nd amendment for anything that goes bang bang!! here on ATS but lowered vocals when dealing with the 1st, now whether you agree or disagree with the Mizzou protest, how is it the same people who pretend to be such strict constitutionalist turn around and blatantly subvert parts of it when they see fit, these are the same people that would rake Obama over hot coals and deservedly so when he violates it..One word Hypocrites!

originally posted by: Spider879

...here on ATS but lowered vocals when dealing with the 1st, now whether you agree or disagree with the Mizzou protest...

Who on this site said they should not be able to protest?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Spider879

...here on ATS but lowered vocals when dealing with the 1st, now whether you agree or disagree with the Mizzou protest...

Who on this site said they should not be able to protest?

Making laws to stem protest by the State on a Campus is what this Law maker is doing.
No one said people should not have the right to protest , just that they don't seem to care about it if certain groups are doing it or it isn't about guns.

D.O.A.

Provides that any college athlete on scholarship who refuses to play for a reason unrelated to health shall have his or her scholarship revoked

This Bill is currently not scheduled for a committee hearing.

Big Deal

originally posted by: Spider879
Making laws to stem protest by the State on a Campus is what this Law maker is doing.
No one said people should not have the right to protest , just that they don't seem to care about it if certain groups are doing it or it isen't about guns.

Not what I asked you. You stated that people on this site are quiet when it comes to the First Amendment, who on this site does not support their right to protest?

a reply to: Spider879

I find it hysterical that you claim those here who are vocal about supporting the 2nd don't support the 1st.

If anything, those who are most vocal about the 2nd are most vocal about ALL the rights that are supposed to be guaranteed, from the 1st to 2nd, 4th, 5th, 14th and so on.

How is that one can observe strong support of one right but then strap on blinders and ignore support of all the rest?

a reply to: xuenchen

I would say the legislation makes sense, personally.

However, I am at the mindset that if you're given a scholarship to throw a ball, and you refuse to throw a ball, why would you still be at that school?

In times where college education can cost an arm and a leg, I have no sympathy for this cause.

Protesting college football in order to combat racism... I just don't get it.

These people should feel lucky at the opportunity they have/had.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Spider879
Making laws to stem protest by the State on a Campus is what this Law maker is doing.
No one said people should not have the right to protest , just that they don't seem to care about it if certain groups are doing it or it isen't about guns.

Not what I asked you. You stated that people on this site are quiet when it comes to the First Amendment, who on this site does not support their right to protest?

And I said the vocals are lower, not absent.

originally posted by: RomeByFire
I would say the legislation makes sense, personally.

However, I am at the mindset that if you're given a scholarship to throw a ball, and you refuse to throw a ball, why would you still be at that school?

So using your logic if a person receives an academic scholarship and decides to attend a protest instead of class they should lose their scholarship?

Free speech is a right.

Free money for education is not.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Spider879

I find it hysterical that you claim those here who are vocal about supporting the 2nd don't support the 1st.

If anything, those who are most vocal about the 2nd are most vocal about ALL the rights that are supposed to be guaranteed, from the 1st to 2nd, 4th, 5th, 14th and so on.

How is that one can observe strong support of one right but then strap on blinders and ignore support of all the rest?

I do support the second, I just think common sense need applying when dealing with certain weapons and who have access to them..like I donno crazy people and people who like to kill you just because you are there.

Dbl P

The law was already pulled back.

However, I will say that when you sign up to play, at least where I did, part of the agreement was that you would be an ambassador of the university. Exactly how were the athletes in question serving in that capacity? It seems they were in breach of contract.

After all, what they did helped to create a negative impression of the university in the public eye.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Spider879

I find it hysterical that you claim those here who are vocal about supporting the 2nd don't support the 1st.

If anything, those who are most vocal about the 2nd are most vocal about ALL the rights that are supposed to be guaranteed, from the 1st to 2nd, 4th, 5th, 14th and so on.

How is that one can observe strong support of one right but then strap on blinders and ignore support of all the rest?

I do support the second, I just think common sense need applying when dealing with certain weapons and who have access to them..like I donno crazy people and people who like to kill you just because you are there.

None of which pertains to anything I actually said, but kudos for trying to derail your own thread.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It would depend on what the agreement for their scholarship is.

If they are supposed to portray the university in a good light as part of the agreement, then maybe the actions they are taking to call the university providing their education a horrible, racist place isn't the wisest move.

originally posted by: ketsuko
It would depend on what the agreement for their scholarship is.

If they are supposed to portray the university in a good light as part of the agreement, then maybe the actions they are taking to call the university providing their education a horrible, racist place isn't the wisest move.

What if it is a 'horrible, racist place'? I do not attend college there so I do not know one way or another but even if they are wrong they still have a right to protest.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Spider879

I find it hysterical that you claim those here who are vocal about supporting the 2nd don't support the 1st.

If anything, those who are most vocal about the 2nd are most vocal about ALL the rights that are supposed to be guaranteed, from the 1st to 2nd, 4th, 5th, 14th and so on.

How is that one can observe strong support of one right but then strap on blinders and ignore support of all the rest?

I do support the second, I just think common sense need applying when dealing with certain weapons and who have access to them..like I donno crazy people and people who like to kill you just because you are there.

None of which pertains to anything I actually said, but kudos for trying to derail your own thread.

Oh I read your post too fast took the wrong message from it..ma bad.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It would depend on what the agreement for their scholarship is.

If they are supposed to portray the university in a good light as part of the agreement, then maybe the actions they are taking to call the university providing their education a horrible, racist place isn't the wisest move.

It need not be an issue over race, it could range from anything, the problem is the attempt to silence voices on campus.

originally posted by: seaswine
Free speech is a right.

Free money for education is not.

It ain't free they are making the Unis millions if not billions by participating in sports, it's actually big business.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: RomeByFire
I would say the legislation makes sense, personally.

However, I am at the mindset that if you're given a scholarship to throw a ball, and you refuse to throw a ball, why would you still be at that school?

So using your logic if a person receives an academic scholarship and decides to attend a protest instead of class they should lose their scholarship?

If a person missed their finals to go to a protest, then maybe they should lose the scholarship.
I would think they have to maintain certain grade point standards to keep the scholarship.