It's a good question. I am not sure I have a principled answer but I am OK with taking down the Confederate flag on a state capitol as it's such an overt symbol. Removing monuments and renaming things though strikes me as feel good political correctness that achieves nothing for the most part.

Maybe you can, but if you have contractual protections such as may be found in collective bargaining agreements, there are often obstacles to such firings. An owner would likely have to claim that the "protest" violated a morals provision in the CBA and convince an arbitrator that certain broad and likely amorphous language governing player conduct precludes gestures (kneeling) during the anthem. Then he would have to show that such conduct is so outrageous that the punishment is not fine or suspension, but termination of the contract. Good luck with that, even at the arbitration level. Never mind what a judge would do with that thereafter if the player appealed. Go for it.

BTW, it should be remembered that the great Jackie Robinson, who served in the military during a time of World War, also protested the flag:

In his 1972 autobiography, I Never Had It Made, Jackie Robinson -- who broke baseball’s color line in 1947 -- wrote, "As I write this twenty years later, I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag; I know that I am a black man in a white world."

I don't think you can be fired for fulfilling your jury duty obligation, for example. There are public policy limits to the unfettered right to fire an at will employee.

It should also be remembered the actual oppression he suffered through, and that he served in a time where the draft was still active.

So his military service should be discounted because he was drafted instead of enlisted, and he had a right to protest because he could prove, in a manner satisfactory to you and/or others, that he was an actual victim of oppression.
Got it.

[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706298]So his military service should be discounted because he was drafted instead of enlisted, and he had a right to protest because he could prove, in a manner satisfactory to you and/or others, that he was an actual victim of oppression.


I really feel sorry for these poor oppressed football players. Maybe we should set a fund to help them through their oppression

[QUOTE=cammb;1706309]You are missing the point entirely.

Did Jackie ever get down on all fours and raise his leg pretending to piss like a dog in celebration?

Yeah, I'd like to be the lawyer on that one there. After an hour reviewing players who weren't fired for abusing their wives in public, beating their kids senseless, punching police officers, participating in sexual assaults of every stripe imaginable who weren't terminated on the morals clause, I'd then get around to the guy who too a knee quietly during the national anthem. I'd live for that.

Wtf??? lol

Dude, what are you on?

Never said his military service should be discounted.

People didn't really have the choice to serve or not to serve back then. When called upon, you served. Additionally, because he was a person of color, he probably served in a lesser position. Do you really think he wanted to serve a country that truly oppressed him? No. But he did, and for that, I thank him dearly.

The second part of your comment was along the lines of what I am saying, which is he did have good reason to protest the country. He had to use different bathrooms, different drinking fountains, stay in different hotels or crappier hotel rooms. He was heckled by all sorts of fans, going through emotional Hell day in and day out. If he was assaulted, he couldn't fight back, because the story would become that he attacked someone else and the white person was in self-defense mode. Compare that to today, when you have these athletes (many of them black) assaulting others and either having the charges dropped, or getting off with a slap on the wrist.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/fo...icle-1.3518225

Wtf??? is right. We have black athletes wanting to kneel for the National Anthem to bring awareness to their perceived racial injustice and be taken seriously, but then later get down on all fours and raise their leg pretending to piss like a dog. The NFL has become a joke. Agree or not, you can't dispute the fact their ratings are down. I can honestly say that I didn't watch a single game today, not even any highlights.

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1706326]He's not alone. The ignorance in this thread is breathtaking, although I suspect some of it isn't just ignorance.

Then you missed a terrific game by your local team.

No tell Odell

Do people of color face discrimination from law enforcement? If so, how can we stop this discrimination?

Show concern for those two questions and the protests stop (edit- maybe not, the unity against Trump might continue to inspire). But we'd rather argue over flags, anthems, and protesting at work. Whatever keeps us from the real issue.

If there is data that shows discrimination, but then no collective will to fix it, what might that say?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...ce-racial-bias

I guess it depends on the data you pick and choose. Can we use my data from a black man?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/559303622...#sp=show-clips

So you carefully read the 15+ citations and then had time to respond with a single link all within 8 minutes of my post?

So you carefully watched the video and heard straight from the lips of a black man that if these thugs would comply with lawful commands they wouldn't be shot?

Again, that's the one common denominator that all the shootings have in common - FTC.

Edited to add: For some reason, over the last few years, young black males have taken it upon themselves to decide they don't have to follow an officer's command.

Just did. Now it's your turn.

[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706371]The ignorance is on your part. And your suspicions are that I am a racist? People like you like to throw that word around when you have no answers.

The ignorance is on your part. And your suspicions are that I am a racist? People like you like to throw that word around when you have no answers.[/QUOTE]

Can you edit the quote? It makes it appear that Peter Spaeth said it when it was actually nolemmings. ETA, now it's doing it to me unless it's just my computer.

[QUOTE=cammb;1706404]There is no ignorance on my part, of that I am certain. Answers? You can't handle answers--they escape you, you deflect them, or they are simply beyond your comprehension. So let me see if I can make this more clear.

There will be no firings for kneeling at the National Anthem.
There could be no firings absent formal action taken through the CBA, which the owners would lose. Following along so far?
Whether the players are themselves oppressed is irrelevant. I'm a 58 year-old white guy who never served in the military. Do I have no right to join those who have been oppressed and protest with them at what I believe to be injustice? Or do I have to pass some exam satisfactory to you that I have such a right? Who are you to tell me what causes I may protest and those I cannot? And if I'm allowed to join a protest, where do you draw the line at who else can and cannot? There are white players kneeling in these protests. Do they need to prove to you that and how they've been mistreated? Is there a Jackie Robinson test? (Apparently he earned the right to not salute the flag or stand for the anthem.) Don't worry, it was a rhetorical question--the Answer is no.

This all depends on 2 things...

1) Which data (as David stated) you choose to believe.

2) If you believe the "victims" of these law enforcement situations (Michael Brown, Travyon Martin, etc.) are truly innocent or not.

What team is Colin Kaepernick playing for?

I believe the data that is true, even if it doesn't confirm my bias. At least I try too. It's a painful thing, admittedly, to change a mind. Read the article. I'm assuming you didn't. If I'm wrong, my apologies.

Do you believe that if a police officer gives a lawful command and the suspect fails to comply with that command and the police officer fears for his life, that the officer has the right to use deadly force?

For example if the officer says "show me your hands" or "on the ground" and the suspect reaches inside his pants or jacket or elsewhere, does the officer have the right to shoot?

[QUOTE=nolemmings;1706371]scary huh? why are you and peter still in this thread? are you honestly trying to change their minds? :D

Interesting very recent piece.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-actually-say

In reality, a randomly selected black man is overwhelmingly unlikely to be victim of police violence — and though white men experience such violence even less often, the disparity is consistent with the racial gap in violent crime, suggesting that the role of racial bias is small. The media’s acceptance of the false narrative poisons the relations between law enforcement and black communities throughout the country and results in violent protests that destroy property and sometimes even claim lives. Perhaps even more importantly, the narrative distracts from far more serious problems that black Americans face.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-actually-say

But even if this is right about police violence, I think it's unrealistic to say racism has been eradicated from America. And I see nothing wrong with peaceful protests, even if ultimately token, to remind us we still need to improve.

Here is the list of people that supplied the data for your report: the New York Times, a University of California-Davis professor, the Black Lives Matter affiliated group Mapping Police Violence, the Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch led Department Of Justice, the Washington Post, retired federal and state judges tasked by the San Francisco district attorney's office, the ACLU, a Harvard professor, a New York Federal District judge, a team of professors from UCLA, Portland State University, and Boston University, a Stanford University study, a Washington State University professor, University of Chicago researchers. You honestly believe that every single one of these people were completely unbiased and didn't already have a conclusion decided before they even started?

I think Leon needs to lock this thread up. This is supposed to be the Watercooler all sports talk forum, and so far nobody is discussing sports.

When I first joined this forum, one of the first things that caught my attention was the following:

Please no politics or religion.

This was obviously put there for a reason. These are very sensitive subjects and by discussing them people go absolutely batsh*t crazy and nothing gets solved in the end. I'm also surprised how some of you spent the whole weekend just fighting over this. What kind of weekend is that supposed to be? Now there are still a few hours to go until Monday arrives, so turn off your damn computer (or tablet or cell or whatever) and do something else!

I never made such a claim about the sources being unbiased. I provided a link with 15+ reports pertaining to discrimination by law enforcement. Others provided alternative links from Fox News and the National Review. Now if we were all to read those and make informed arguments, then we'd really be doing good work. I look forward to reading the NR articles soon. I've enjoyed reading it over the years. To dismiss either set of reports as wrong because of who wrote them is an excuse to quit thinking. We need to stop politicizing the pursuit of truth and seek it wherever it is, even if articulated by an ideological opponent. But if we can't muster even a bit of epistemological humility, then discourse itself is dead, replaced by its zombified form known as power politics and the tyrrany of self-interest. Just read widely. Read wisely. I trust you to do that. Then ask people of color you know about their experience. That has been very transformative for me.

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1706501]Interesting very recent piece.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-actually-say

Thanks for the links. I look forward to reading them.

[QUOTE=Dewey;1706512]A longer piece with more statistics.
https://law.yale.edu/system/files/ar...eo16_fryer.pdf

Here is my response to this.

Athletes are using the sports stage to make a political statement and send a political message. If they want to try and bring awareness to something they feel is an issue in this country, shouldn't the issue at hand be discussed in detail to see #1 if there actually is an issue and #2 how we as Americans can improve on that issue? Our society loves to bury their hand in the sand as soon as politics and other difficult points of conversation are brought up.

Whether or not this is the right forum for that discussion is up to Leon (the line is a dot to you), but it's a matter that was brought up through the platform of sports.

I am curious as to how the people who are against protests feel about this particular issue:

http://nypost.com/2017/09/28/louisia...during-anthem/

In Louisiana you have public high schools, supported by public funds, telling students they will face discipline for protesting. However, Tinker vs Des Moines has already set the legal precedent that "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."

A leading issue for debate here has been the "not at work" perspective. How do you feel about public schools with policies that are at odds with the Supreme Court?

Public schools don't have the right to stop these students from peacefully protesting (as long as it doesn't interrupt class), especially if the Supreme Court has had previous rulings to this. I know there are kids that go out in the hallway when the Pledge of Allegiance is said (rare anymore), and then they come back in. I think their parents need slapped, but they still have the right to do that.

How do I feel? I think it's great! Here's a couple of jackasses that got kicked off a Texas high school football team for kneeling. You have to remember these are extracurricular activities, so I would guess these kids have no rights.

http://abc13.com/sports/football-pla...-knee/2473284/

Good point on that. Playing football is a privilege, not a right, and protesting during this isn't the same as protesting during the school day.

With it being an extracurricular activity, that changes things, taking away the prior Supreme Court ruling similarities/comparisons.

No it doesn't change things. The reason those students were booted is because they go to a private Christian Academy.....

Doesn't change the fact that it's an extracurricular activity. You can't take away academics, but you can punish the extracurricular aspect.

That's not correct. The Supreme Court ruling applies to public schools and public school programs. The Christian academy is exempt because it is not a public school and does not receive public school funds. A Christian Academy would, for example, not need to comply with Title IX, a public school does.

While his getting in to OCS wasn't easy, and wasn't for several others at the same time, he was eventually commissioned, and was assigned to the 761st tank battalion.

So not a lesser position, despite the entire military being segregated at the time.

The rest of his military career was a complete mess because of racism though.

Steve B

I don't really have a problem with "a" thread about this stuff in the water cooler section. It is sports related. And yeah, this is the reason we don't generally allow politics etc..... though I am not sure this is politics? I will reiterate my own position. Every player has a right to protest.
And for me, every team owner can deal with it the way they see fit. From what it looks like to me most of them are just going with the flow (of money coming in, so as not to disrupt their coffers).
IF it were my team they wouldn't be disrespecting the National Anthem by kneeling or putting some crazy arm sign in the air towards the Flag. As mentioned, there is a chance they can't be fired but they can certainly be benched, if not fired. I especifically liked the interview I saw with the Crosby TX football coach at the private school and the actions he took. To each their own, I am not a Football fan, haven't been one and this makes me not even want to watch highlights :). Screw the NFL....

.

While the ruling may or may not extend to school programs (nothing I've read specifically mentions sports or other extracurricular activities), I personally don't think it should extend to school programs. Those are privileges, not so much a right. That's what changed for me.

Interesting. Thank you very much for sharing that.

Sports programs are publicly funded they are not afforded anymore rights than any other public school program in school or after school. The law is clear. You cannot punish or otherwise dissuade a student in a public school from participating in any form of non-violent or silent protest on school grounds.

I disagree, but it's not worth arguing anymore.

Where's the law that says they coach has to play them?

What do you disagree with? You didn't identify the difference between Louisiana public schools and a private Christian academy in Texas. If you disagree with the Supreme Court, well, I have bad news for you....

Title IX applies to sports programs, which you say are "extracurricular activities" that aren't subject to Supreme Court rulings. If that is so, then how do you explain the fact that public schools are required to comply with Title IX, which is a Supreme Court ruling? It applies to sport unequivocally.

Lastly, you did not even read the article I posted nor did you digest what it says. You immediately pointed to another article that had no bearing and no relevance to what I posted.