It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lawmaker Proposes Bill To Punish Mizzou Strikers:

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

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 by attending protests, then by not attending classes related to the scholarship, then yes.

If a person receives an ACADEMIC scholarship and refuses to participate in ACEDMIC behaviors then why should they continue to go to school (on someone else's done) because of said ACADEMIC scholarship.

That's just irresponsible, and believe me - I absolutely believe in the right to to protest.

However - if you're "not attending class," (skipping class), because that is your way of protesting - that scholarship should be pulled immediately, especially if it pertains to academics. I could see exemptions in extremes, but this isn't an extreme, and hypothetical scenarios have no weight here.

My point is - I think they are acting ridiculous.

Contrary to popular belief - most of the football team is not there to study astrophysics or economics - they are there to throw a football so their school can make an assload of money off of the college football craze in America.

My sympathy goes out for those who are honestly trying to receive a formal education (I'm sure some of the football players are, too) and have been affected by this non-sense.




posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No one is arguing their Consitutional rights to protest and harbor "safe zones."

People are arguing that their inability to fulfill their signed-legal contract between their scholarship and the university is therefore fertile grounds for a revocation of the scholarship.

If someone receives a Pell Grant, and protests in the form of not attending class due to racism, wouldn't their grant eventually be revoked considering the requirements to be upheld in order for the grant to stay in effect?

That is horribly flimsy, I'm sorry. Using YOUR logic, I can not show up to work tomorrow and be Consitutionally protected because my reasonings are that I'm protesting due to the unfair conditions of racism and inequality, and I will not return to work until my boss resigns.

Again - no one is arguing their right to protest.

Again, It is their right to refuse to acknowledge and abide by their own legal-scholarships, BUT be Consitutionally protected whilst doing so?

I don't think that's what protesting means.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




But I'm not sure what you actual point is here. The fact that one carries big money behind it is immaterial. You don't hold up your end of the agreement means you lose that money for someone who will.

My point is get rid of athletic scholarship all together, let them tryout for Uni teams the best get picked for the teams, pay them let them unionize, if the Uni wished to deduct tuition from their pay should they choose to go to classes that can be arranged.

edit on 20-12-2015 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: JohnthePhilistine

originally posted by: Spider879

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.

That is the real point. If a player is on strike he is not holding up his end on the agreement therefore the reward can be rightfully taken away.

Then Ok so lets do away with the so-called amateur status and stop pretending it's anything but business then they should be able to go out and unionize like other ball players.


That is a different topic altogether. As it stands today, A football scholarship requires one to play football. No play-no free ride. What I have a problem with is injured players losing their scholarships. But that is also a different topic.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.





Rememeber yes you have a right to free speech,but others also have the right to not be hear you or your opinions. Ths school has the right to suspend you for breaking your contract as well do the scholarship financiers. If you are a adult you make decisions. you can decide to keep your scholarship or decide to throw it away for a feel good moment. It s more adult to treat it a s a job and complete it.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Amen and Amen.

That means I fully agree



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
You sign a contract that says you represent the university and then you proceed to extort them for $1 million unless they fire the president and apologize for being racist all while they basically treat you like a celebrity?


Sorry, did you link this contract with all of these supposed details that they signed? Until you do we can all assume these alleged 'contracts' are just a fabrication of yours.


Yeeeaahhhh ... It's one thing to attend a protest. It's another to ask coach for permission to wear an emblem of solidarity, but to openly extort your university? You should expect to be tossed out for that. It hurts your university, especially when there is no egregious racism to protest against. You made your school look bad and you hurt your recruiting and your campus image for likely years to come.


Once again, since you seem to be missing the point, you are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to protest as this is a public university. Said protest can be for any reason, they could protest the marginal gross domestic product of Swaziland for all I care, it makes them look like idiots, but they are allowed to look like idiots. Personal sentiments on how it makes people 'look' or 'feel' is irrelevant.

I am rather surprised that you are so adamant about the curtailing of others rights. I guess Spider was correct, there are people here who will scream about some rights for some people and turn their back on others when the rights in question and how they are being used does not perfectly align with their personal world view.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
If by attending protests, then by not attending classes related to the scholarship, then yes.


Being that this is a public university the curtailing of their right to protest becomes un-Constitutional. A good attorney would have torn the state apart if someone lost their scholarship as punishment for exercising their right to protest.


t is - I think they are acting ridiculous.


They are allowed to 'act ridiculous' and I think some of their request were very ridiculous but I would wager everything I own that people thought the Suffragettes and Civil Rights activists were acting ridiculous as well.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
People are arguing that their inability to fulfill their signed-legal contract between their scholarship and the university is therefore fertile grounds for a revocation of the scholarship.


Show me this 'legal document' and how it permits a public university to supersede the Constitution.


That is horribly flimsy, I'm sorry. Using YOUR logic, I can not show up to work tomorrow and be Consitutionally protected because my reasonings are that I'm protesting due to the unfair conditions of racism and inequality, and I will not return to work until my boss resigns.


Do you work in the public or private sector? If the college in question was, say, Notre Dame they could probably toss anyone for anything they wanted since it is a private university.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Ths school has the right to suspend you for breaking your contract as well do the scholarship financiers.


What contract? Do you have a copy that everyone else seems to not to be able to locate?



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

I don't blame the players. Imagine playing football there and hearing about racism but never actually seeing it or witnessing it because they thought maybe it was shielded from them. The player got "played" they wanted to help like most people when there is an injustice. The players got caught up in the non sense and it made them look foolish. It made their coach quit. It made their school like stupid internationally after the Paris shooting. The BLM movement relay's heavily on group think and group mentality.

The bill is a bad idea
edit on 21-12-2015 by jobless1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: yuppa
Ths school has the right to suspend you for breaking your contract as well do the scholarship financiers.


What contract? Do you have a copy that everyone else seems to not to be able to locate?



Anytime you accept money you sign a paper correct? You have to live by its stipulations to receive it as well. its a CONTRACT by definition because you promise to keep a certain grade level or what have you. Its not a contract that will land you in jail or anything but you will lose its monies if you do not live up to its stipulations.

Some scholarships require you to perform in certain events as a stipulationd and DO require signing a contract as well.

Here si a Example of contracts from BYU. Read down th epage as their questions are answered.
BYU Scholarship Contracts



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Anytime you accept money you sign a paper correct? You have to live by its stipulations to receive it as well.


All of you keep mentioning the 'stipulations', what are they? Do you have a link?


BYU Scholarship Contracts


Bringham Young is private, you knew that, right?



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: yuppa
Anytime you accept money you sign a paper correct? You have to live by its stipulations to receive it as well.


All of you keep mentioning the 'stipulations', what are they? Do you have a link?


BYU Scholarship Contracts


Bringham Young is private, you knew that, right?


You know good and well Stipulations of scholarships exist. Such as Keeping a GPA at a certain level? You posted so quick I know you didnt read th e entire page on that Site i quoted. And yeah although BYU i s private they STILL ACCEPT SCHOLARSHIPS. Ive been to COllege before myself and signing up for classes is like a contract for them to provide you education and its your responsibility to pay for those classes.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
No law is needed. If the players refuse to play then it is a breach of contract and they should lose their scholarships. Nobody is being deprived of their rights, except maybe the people who wouldn't have been able to work if a game had been lost as a result of this protest.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
You know good and well Stipulations of scholarships exist.


But I am not the one inventing certain ones to try and prove a point. When you obtain a definitive list of these stipulations from the University of Missouri you can then assert which ones were broken, until then you have nothing.


And yeah although BYU i s private they STILL ACCEPT SCHOLARSHIPS. Ive been to COllege before myself and signing up for classes is like a contract for them to provide you education and its your responsibility to pay for those classes.


The fact that it is private means that your Constitutional right to protest and free assembly is something that can get checked at the door. Missouri is public which means the right to protest and assembly cannot be impeded.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
If the players refuse to play then it is a breach of contract and they should lose their scholarships.


A public entity cannot contractually deprive you of your right to free assembly and protest no matter how absurd the premises of the protest happens to be.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They wouldn't be losing their scholarship for protesting. They would be losing it for NOT playing football which is a breach of contract. Plain and simple. If I skip work to go protest Hilary, miss too many days and get fired. I wouldn't be fired for protesting, I'd be fired for missing too many work days. The fact that this is a public university has nothing to do with it.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
They would be losing it for NOT playing football which is a breach of contract. Plain and simple.


What contract? You find a copy that everyone else did not? After you find that you can explain to me how a public university 'contract' voids your Constitutional right to freely associate and protest.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Under the new SEC guidelines, schools could “cancel or not renew a student-athlete’s athletics aid if he or she does not meet institutional and/or team policies,” which could have conceivably been used against protesting Missouri players had the school so desired. But, as others have pointed out, doing so would have required conceding that the “student athletes” are actually employees working for their scholarships, which would have been a public relations and potentially legal debacle.

IS that good?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join