Kansas State Football Players Boycott All Football Related Activities
I think we’re about to see just how much power the players can exercise because they just put K-State over a barrel.
A K-State student tweeted something in poor taste regarding George Floyd and the team want the administration to take action.
The tweet.
Really? In what utopian version of the United States has the ability to vote been universal?
"Life isn't black and white." Are you being sardonically humorous here?
There is no way to teach a US History, or any history, course free of politics.
What you're saying is that you want a course that is taught to follow your specific political positions.
This is where this convo gets trickiest, bogs down, and generally ends, due to intransigence on both sides as to what the definition of "political" even is.
The case is now being made, perhaps louder & more insistently than ever in our nation's history, that teaching Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, et al without context is itself "political"!
We just were never taught that way of looking at it ourselves, as we memorized names, dates, battles & amendments.
A plaque of Woodrow Wilson was recently pulled down. I wasn't taught the pro-KKK sentiments he expressed in my school, but I learned about WW1 & The League of Nations. Context!
The Andrew Jackson statue outside the White House should have been removed 50 years ago, but if you weren't taught of his racism & his terrible crimes against Native Americans, you're not alone! Context!
The things Thomas Jefferson wrote & did should always be taught, but when we know he wrote "all men are created equal" while holding slaves himself, that gives our Founding context!
Had you even heard of the Tulsa massacre before 2020? I had not! Is teaching that now "politics"?
@Marvin.....Depending on what you read and when you read it, liberals and/or Democrats outnumber conservatives and/or Republicans in college professorships by anywhere from 6-to-1 to 10-to-1. And it varies by discipline. A Harvard Crimson study found that 84% of political donations from Harvard faculty went to Democrats or liberal causes. In their College of Arts and Sciences, it was 96%. The most right-leaning faculty was the business school, which was still 62% Democrat.
Silicon Valley is said (mainly by liberals) to have a severe sex diversity problem, because it's pretty male-dominated. But it's less male-dominated than 84-16. Why is diversity important, once we get past for diversity's sake? Different perspectives, different ideas, and so on. You theoretically get a greater richness of thought.
I think we can assume that academia in general has similar thought ratios to Harvard. If Harvard's demographics were skewed that badly in any other way - race, sex, you name it - imagine the uproar. But when they're skewed that badly in actual thought? Well, to borrow a phrase, the only people who see the problem are the minority - in this case, conservatives.
I believe most of the professors who say they try to present both sides of a debate, but a liberal professor presenting both sides is presenting the liberal view, and what a liberal thinks the conservative view is - not the conservative view itself. If liberals believe it would be impossible for the black perspective to be presented fairly by a hugely white-dominated faculty, it's similarly impossible for left and right viewpoints.
I think it's clear that if its incumbent on Silicon Valley to expend a ton of effort recruiting female engineers, the same is true for academia in recruiting conservative professors. More so since we're talking education.
Always hated this line of thinking. “Because dumber shit has been done before, it’s okay to be stupid now.”
I believe this is one of the plagues of modern politics and society at large.
modern politics is a plague...well said
But there are some tweets that are so odious that they would warrant punishment, right? It's up to the institutions to decide where that line is. We might be (justifiably) worried that the "slippery slope" could lead to someone being punished when it's not deserved. But doesn't a slippery slope in the other direction mean that a college might let this tweet slide, and therefore they would let a more offensive one slide, and so on and so on, with the end result being that there is literally nothing that would be punished.
I guess that's a convoluted way for me to say: colleges and universities can and should make these calls, and I would hope that they do so judiciously.
A private school has more leeway. A state university like KSU is a "state actor" in legal parlance (i.e., they are the government for First Amendment purposes, meaning their options are severely limited, though there is a line of 1A cases in which public schools can restrict speech if it is so disruptive as to interfere with the basic educational mission of the school).
The SCOTUS case is Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Here's an interesting writeup from the ACLU on the case if you're interested.
From the court's 7-2 opinion, which is still valid law today:
A student's rights, therefore, do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without 'materially and substantially interfer(ing) with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school' and without colliding with the rights f others. Burnside v. Byars, supra, 363 F.2d at 749. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior—materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Cf. Blackwell v. Issaquena County Board of Education, 363 F.2d 749 (C.A.5th Cir. 1966).
Tinker is largely seen as being applicable to K-12 schooling, where the students are mostly minors trapped in the same building all day. I don't think that precedent has ever been successfully used to defend speech suppression at the University level.
Interesting point. I took a dive and it was successfully applied in Tatro v. University of Minnesota (and upheld in the MN Supreme Court). A mortuary sciences student (guh?) posted some stupid things on Facebook that included things of a stabby nature (she said in jest) and was expelled and later sued. The school defended using the substantial disruption test from Tinker and the courts agreed.
Here's the money quote from the MN Supreme Court's opinion:
We also reject Tatro’s contention that the Tinker substantial-disruption analysis does not apply in a university setting. We discern no practical reasons for such a distinction and note that other courts have acknowledged Tinker‘s broad applicability to public-education institutions. See, e.g., DeJohn v. Temple Univ., 537 F.3d 301, 315-20 (3d Cir. 2008)(analyzing a university’s policy against harassment using the Tinker framework while acknowledging the differences between primary schools and universities). We observe, as the Third Circuit did in DeJohn, that what constitutes a substantial disruption in a primary school may look very different in a university. See id. at 318 (recognizing the need for “caution” in applying Tinker to student speech on college campuses). But these differences do not per se remove the Tinker line of cases from the analysis. Accordingly, we apply the Tinker substantial-disruption standard to determine whether the university acted within the boundaries of its authority to discipline student expression.
Apparently the student later died so there was no appeal for cert at SCOTUS. I didn't immediately see any other treatment of the issue so it may remain an open question for now in the Fed Courts.
That's really interesting. Thanks for the heads-up.
Thank you. And I seem to recall that the “Bongs for Jesus” case expanded the rights of schools to discipline some speech, but I may be misremembering. Do the courts apply a different standard for colleges/universities than elementary or secondary?
Yes, they do.
Logged in to upvote Jack Be Nimble and Sopwith for bringing much valuable insight to this conversation. Thank you.
It's not a slippery slope the other way though. Presumably K State has a code of conduct that's a hard backstop on bad behavior, and failing that legal definitions of hate speech, inciting violence, etc.
If the tweet violates the code of conduct, fine, punish the kid, but I highly doubt it does. In which case they'd be punishing someone simply because they said something they disagree with.
You shouldn't be negged for this. The slippery slope argument is an established fallacy of informal logic. We can't infer the justification for any subsequent issue based solely on the fact that the previous issue was decided one way or another. Think about the principle of stare decisis ("Let the decision stand.") It creates only a presumption that similar cases should be treated similarly. That means each case must be decided on its merits. (Hence the saying, "general cases do not decide specific cases.") Sometimes precedent will be upheld (if the later case is found to be relevantly similar to the previous one); sometimes it will be "distinguished"; and sometimes the principle will be "overthrown." All we can so is reason clearly and carefully and arrive at our best judgment, a the time and in the circumstances.
This got negbanged all to hell, but I sincerely think you're right here.
Not only a slippery slope, but unconstitutional to boot.
It definitely is a slippery slope, but administrations have been making decisions around issues like this forever. If this kid posted something like this (and then doubled down) at a job, nobody would care if they fired him. It's some students taking issue with other students. I don't know how it'll resolve, but his right to say an offensive jone is equal to the right of other students to call him out on it.
He could have a claim filed against him as a violation of the student conduct code. That means, looking quickly at KSU’s process for violations, that the student would have to defend against a charge of breaking the code though Student Government judicial hearing.
The tweet is horrendous, but a public university expelling or reprimanding a student for poor taste or being offensive seems like a pretty slippery slope.
It's more than a "slippery slope." It is actually unconstitutional for a public college to expel a student based on his speech outside of a few very limited exceptions like an actual threat of violence.
Is it a constitutional right to attend a public university? If so, that’s news to me.
No, there is no constitutional right to a university education. This actually touches on an interesting application of the First Amendment that confuses a lot of people.
The courts have repeatedly stated that even if there is no constitutional right to a public benefit, the First Amendment still largely prevents the government from engaging in viewpoint discrimination with regards to the distribution of that benefit.
The government does not have to give anyone a university education, but once they create that public benefit, they are not permitted to deny it to some people based on their speech. This has been established repeatedly in the courts.
In a recent case, a band applied for trademark protection for their band name. The Trademark office initially refused because they found the name offensive. The Supreme Court ruled that this refusal was unconstitutional and ordered the Trademark office to grant the mark.
There is, of course, no constitutional right to have a trademark. But once the government starts handing them to some people, it cannot deny this benefit to others based on their viewpoint. That is one of the core guarantees of the First Amendment.
Bill, you're fired!
I'll be seeking legal representation elsewhere!
Well, it was only a couple of years ago that Oklahoma expelled a couple of students for a racist chant. People are trying to act like expelling the kid from Kansas State would set a new precedent, but students being expelled for saying something racist is not something new.
The tweet was dumb because Floyd represents more than himself. But I am surprised his disgusting behavior has been so overlooked. They guy sounds like scum if he broke into that woman’s house and beat her and robbed her as I understand it. That’s evil.
No, there isn't much said about his past behavior, but he was convicted of committing that crime and did serve his time.
Writing a bad check and or resisting arrest (if he actually did resist) shouldn't carry a death sentence in a trial by a policeman on the street.
Literally no one thinks writing a bad check should result in a death sentence by police. That’s a problem.
what "Action" should the school take? It's a joke
It's a disparaging comment about a dead black man who has become the symbol of racial injustice in this country made by a dipshit who affiliates with white supremacy groups. Slightly more than "a joke".
America has become that household where the parents never said "no" and instead gave their kids everything they wanted. Now those kids are teens who hate their parents and scream at them in public
"America" hasn't - but maybe your household has?!
Nope, no KSU athletes or perpetually offended sjw in my house
They can do whatever they want, up to and including expulsion.
But they'd probably be better served having him take some African American Studies courses. You know, use higher education for its actual purpose. Expelling him would simply make him a martyr to fellow douchebags.
From the link I posted just below,
McNeil first caught the internet’s attention in August 2019, when he said in a now-unavailable tweet that K-State was “forcing” him to take a “diversity class.”
“I can’t decide which anti-white male class to take,” McNeil wrote, listing Queer Studies, Politics of Women of Color and African American Perspectives as class options.
“Not too fond of the idea of being lectured by some Satanic Professor about why it’s totally okay and normal for men to want to chop off their d*cks or why every problem facing our society is because of the ‘white man,'” McNeil added in the now archived tweet thread.
So I’m guessing this guy is probably too filled with hate to be reached at this point.
Good point. I would like to agree with Mr. Putin on this one, but it seems the kid might be too far gone as this clearly isn't a one off.
I like to think we are all redeemable from stupid/racist/hateful commentary if educated, but some individuals probably just have it too far embedded into their psyche.
The question really becomes if his POS views and if being a POS in general here rise to the level of threatening other students on campus.
Is he hateful and dangerous? - then it's an easy expulsion
Is he just hateful and abhorrent? - then it's a tough call on how damaging/dangerous he is to the other students and campus environment.
That said, if he's costing a P5 CFB team practices and the ability to field a team, he's pretty damn damaging to the campus and the University's bottom line.
Really fascinating to see how the University handles this.
Those classes are bullshit tbh but all you woke folks don’t want to admit it.
Those classes are bullshit if you are pathologically ego/ethnocentric. Otherwise, they can be very useful in developing a well-rounded, empathetic human being.
Not so much hateful as self-pitying narrow minded blathering.
K State has a young Stephen Miller on campus.
I mean, yeah, after this his only career options are:
1. Work for the current administration if it's still there after January 2021
2. Work for a white nationalist/supremacist org
3. Run for Governor of Louisiana
I'm pretty confident that white supremacists views don't close many employment doors
Nope, I wouldn't hire one and if I tried or did, I'd probably get fired for the attempt.
4. Fox News
They have Satanic professors at Kansas State now? Man, that place is a lot more rock'n'roll than it used to be.
Lazy as fuck argument that has become so common to defend racism by those who share the sentiment. A quick google search shows the history of the “jokester”. He basically runs a white nationalist organization, with a coded name.
Okay, Comrade. Your authoritarian lust to control what can or cannot say is duly noted.
Racists have as much right to attend school as anyone.
Yes but that's what the SEC is for. Or, you know, Dartmouth.
Harsh, but fair.