enough is enough

KMayUSA6060 · #1 10-01-2017, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolemmings

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.

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.

steve B · #2 10-02-2017, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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.

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

Leon · #3 10-02-2017, 10:43 AM

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....

.

KMayUSA6060 · #4 10-02-2017, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

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 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

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

Interesting. Thank you very much for sharing that.

packs · #5 10-02-2017, 11:30 AM

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.

vintagetoppsguy · #6 10-02-2017, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

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?

packs · #7 10-02-2017, 12:04 PM

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.

packs · #8 10-02-2017, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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.

I don't really know what else to say other than a Supreme Court ruling is a Supreme Court ruling. Title IX is a Supreme Court ruling as well. It unequivocally applies to sports. How do I know? Because it is the law that says you must provide for both sexes, even in terms of sports teams. Now, you said that a sports program was "extracurricular" and not under the ruling. But if that is true, how do you explain Title IX and the law that says a public school must comply?

KMayUSA6060 · #9 10-02-2017, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I don't really know what else to say other than a Supreme Court ruling is a Supreme Court ruling. Title IX is a Supreme Court ruling as well. It unequivocally applies to sports. How do I know? Because it is the law that says you must provide for both sexes, even in terms of sports teams. Now, you said that a sports program was "extracurricular" and not under the ruling. But if that is true, how do you explain Title IX and the law that says a public school must comply?

Don't get me started on Title IX. That's a joke of a law in and of itself.

The Supreme Court says a lot of things. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them; I just have to abide by the laws.

packs · #10 10-02-2017, 01:49 PM

That is the exact issue I brought up. Louisiana Parish doesn't know the law, and isn't acting within it when it threatens to punish public school students protected under Tinker vs. Des Moines by the highest court in our country.

Michael B · #11 10-02-2017, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I don't really know what else to say other than a Supreme Court ruling is a Supreme Court ruling. Title IX is a Supreme Court ruling as well. It unequivocally applies to sports. How do I know? Because it is the law that says you must provide for both sexes, even in terms of sports teams. Now, you said that a sports program was "extracurricular" and not under the ruling. But if that is true, how do you explain Title IX and the law that says a public school must comply?

FYI: Title IX is not a Supreme Court ruling. They have ruled on it and clarified it, but it is a federal statute. Title IX is a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688

packs · #12 10-02-2017, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael B

FYI: Title IX is not a Supreme Court ruling. They have ruled on it and clarified it, but it is a federal statute. Title IX is a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688

Yes, but it's validity is upheld by the Supreme Court. That's what makes it federal law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You don't know what it has to do with anything?

It relates to what you said because even though the school or coach may not legally be able to punish them, they can get around that by just not playing them. They still get punished, it's just unofficial. Get it now? Need a 5 year old to explain it to you?

There is a big difference between official policy and unofficial policy. What you're saying didn't happen. What I'm saying did. So THAT is the difference. That is why what you're saying has no bearing. It is fantasy. I am talking about practice.