http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11...68838.html

And he is a college student. Oh, my!

Good thing universities come down on free speech. Wouldn't want students thinking for themselves or anything like that.

(02-12-2014 11:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Good thing universities come down on free speech. Wouldn't want students thinking for themselves or anything like that.

Just to clarify, are you ok with a student athlete's freedom to tweet any word? The N word?

I'm not attacking your opinion, just wondering where your line of free speech would be. I don't think Kent State was attempting to come down on his free speech or his ability to think for himself, just his choice of words. I bet if he didn't tweet the F or Q word, there wouldn't have been an issue.

(02-12-2014 11:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Good thing universities come down on free speech. Wouldn't want students thinking for themselves or anything like that.

I would have thought you understood the First Amendment better than that.

Free speech means you can't be jailed for expressing political and social views, however unpopular.

It does not mean people aren't free to react to your speech, especially when you represent an organization that certainly has the right to censure your speech. It really does not mean you can say anything you want and nobody can negatively respond.

Nobody has deprived this guy from saying anything he wants. However, it's not a right to be on a college wrestling team. Organizations have rules of behavior, by definition--that's what makes them organizations. He can continue espousing whatever beliefs about homosexuality he wants, now and for the rest of his life if he chooses. He'll just have to bear the social consequences, like everyone else does when they express whatever views on whatever issues. The idea that "I can say anything I want and there should be no consequences to me for what I say" is a strangely narcissistic point of view, though many people in this country share it, especially when someone espouses something they agree with and then get a negative reaction, e.g. them duck fellers.

(02-12-2014 11:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Good thing universities come down on free speech. Wouldn't want students thinking for themselves or anything like that.

Really?

(02-12-2014 11:40 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 11:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Good thing universities come down on free speech. Wouldn't want students thinking for themselves or anything like that.

I would have thought you understood the First Amendment better than that.

Free speech means you can't be jailed for expressing political and social views, however unpopular.

It does not mean people aren't free to react to your speech, especially when you represent an organization that certainly has the right to censure your speech. It really does not mean you can say anything you want and nobody can negatively respond.

Where did I bring up the First amendment?

Now that we have your knee-jerk straw man taken care of, let's address your other fallacies.

Why would any state institution have the "right to censure your speech"? How would that not fall into a First amendment issue?

Furthermore, my whole point was about universities originally being institutions promoting expressing varying ideas.

Quote:Nobody has deprived this guy from saying anything he wants. However, it's not a right to be on a college wrestling team.

Odd, you say he wasn't deprived, but then support the fact that he was deprived from participating on a team where he earned a position. Even using your own language, we see your notions are completely flawed.

If your idea of "free speech" you brought up in your first sentence is not informed by the First Amendment, then I have no idea what your personal concept of it is. I perhaps falsely assumed you were using the accepted American concept.

If by the "university" you mean the wrestling team and athletic department, why of course they have the right to govern what their representatives say and do while members of a team. It has been ever thus. When you join a team, you agree to be bound by the rules of conduct. Were you never on a team that had higher standards of behavior than the overall school?

He is not being restricted in any way from being a student of the university. Students express all sorts of beliefs all across the spectrum all the time. That is not the issue here.

(02-12-2014 12:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Why would any state institution have the "right to censure your speech"? How would that not fall into a First amendment issue?

They don't have the right to censure his speech. They do have the right to determine who represents the university.

(02-12-2014 01:13 PM)axeme Wrote:  If your idea of "free speech" you brought up in your first sentence is not informed by the First Amendment, then I have no idea what your personal concept of it is. I perhaps falsely assumed you were using the accepted American concept.

It's much more becoming when you simply admit you were wrong.

Quote:If by the "university" you mean the wrestling team and athletic department, why of course they have the right to govern what their representatives say and do while members of a team. It has been ever thus. When you join a team, you agree to be bound by the rules of conduct. Were you never on a team that had higher standards of behavior than the overall school?

He is not being restricted in any way from being a student of the university. Students express all sorts of beliefs all across the spectrum all the time. That is not the issue here.

So you have changed your argument. Good plan since your first post was a mess.

Now you insist that this new state-sponsored organization, "the team", is allowed to restrict what members say and do. Let's speculate on that further. Richard Dawkins has said that, " teaching a child a religion without questioning its merits is as bad as 'abuse' ". He's respected in academia, and I'm sure some faculty and administrators agree with him. Should one of these athletes choose to teach Sunday School, will they be suspended too?

You pretend that drawing arbitrary lines supporting freedom of expression becomes reasonable if enough people decide they're perturbed by a comment, or if it only deprives a person of some opportunities.

In 1970 some Kent St students had their expression suspended. I'd have hoped anyone associated with the university would have learned from that.

(02-12-2014 01:27 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 01:13 PM)axeme Wrote:  If your idea of "free speech" you brought up in your first sentence is not informed by the First Amendment, then I have no idea what your personal concept of it is. I perhaps falsely assumed you were using the accepted American concept.

It's much more becoming when you simply admit you were wrong.

Quote:If by the "university" you mean the wrestling team and athletic department, why of course they have the right to govern what their representatives say and do while members of a team. It has been ever thus. When you join a team, you agree to be bound by the rules of conduct. Were you never on a team that had higher standards of behavior than the overall school?

He is not being restricted in any way from being a student of the university. Students express all sorts of beliefs all across the spectrum all the time. That is not the issue here.

So you have changed your argument. Good plan since your first post was a mess.

Now you insist that this new state-sponsored organization, "the team", is allowed to restrict what members say and do. Let's speculate on that further. Richard Dawkins has said that, " teaching a child a religion without questioning its merits is as bad as 'abuse' ". He's respected in academia, and I'm sure some faculty and administrators agree with him. Should one of these athletes choose to teach Sunday School, will they be suspended too?

You pretend that drawing arbitrary lines supporting freedom of expression becomes reasonable if enough people decide they're perturbed by a comment, or if it only deprives a person of some opportunities.

In 1970 some Kent St students had their expression suspended. I'd have hoped anyone associated with the university would have learned from that.

Torch; you make what I will just say as valid points, but what do you think Kent Stat should do? If they do not respond, it will be viewed as the University supporting his comments. It terms of character, should the University stand behind what now appears to be a Grade A A--hole?

On the positive side, kid could be working his way up to a role as the next WWE villain.

Universities are do not exist today to defend liberties or free speech, they operate in a manner to defend their brand name.

(02-12-2014 01:32 PM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  Torch; you make what I will just say as valid points, but what do you think Kent Stat should do? If they do not respond, it will be viewed as the University supporting his comments. It terms of character, should the University stand behind what now appears to be a Grade A A--hole?

Great question. I'm curious how others would respond.

If I was his coach, I would say something like this,

"Neither Kent St nor the wrestling program agree with Mr. Wheeler's attitude regarding homosexuals (although we do agree that Sportscenter sucks). Kent State University is resolutely open to people regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation.

But as a university, we do believe individuals like Mr. Wheeler are allowed to express their ideas."

A speechwriter my explain why switching the order of those two paragraphs would be better. If so, fine by me. But say this and then ignore Huffington Post, etc. And tell Mr. Wheeler that he's making life harder on himself, and that there is a good time to shut up.

(02-12-2014 01:46 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 01:32 PM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  Torch; you make what I will just say as valid points, but what do you think Kent Stat should do? If they do not respond, it will be viewed as the University supporting his comments. It terms of character, should the University stand behind what now appears to be a Grade A A--hole?

Great question. I'm curious how others would respond.

If I was his coach, I would say something like this,

"Neither Kent St nor the wrestling program agree with Mr. Wheeler's attitude regarding homosexuals (although we do agree that Sportscenter sucks). Kent State University is resolutely open to people regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation.

But as a university, we do believe individuals like Mr. Wheeler are allowed to express their ideas."

A speechwriter my explain why switching the order of those two paragraphs would be better. If so, fine by me. But say this and then ignore Huffington Post, etc. And tell Mr. Wheeler that he's making life harder on himself, and that there is a good time to shut up.

I would say this is your better argument than your original blanket statement. Kent State has to respond in some manner and not just keep quiet in this day in age of Social Media and real time publicity.

(02-12-2014 12:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 11:40 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 11:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Good thing universities come down on free speech. Wouldn't want students thinking for themselves or anything like that.

I would have thought you understood the First Amendment better than that.

Free speech means you can't be jailed for expressing political and social views, however unpopular.

It does not mean people aren't free to react to your speech, especially when you represent an organization that certainly has the right to censure your speech. It really does not mean you can say anything you want and nobody can negatively respond.

Where did I bring up the First amendment?

Now that we have your knee-jerk straw man taken care of, let's address your other fallacies.

Why would any state institution have the "right to censure your speech"? How would that not fall into a First amendment issue?

Furthermore, my whole point was about universities originally being institutions promoting expressing varying ideas.

Quote:Nobody has deprived this guy from saying anything he wants. However, it's not a right to be on a college wrestling team.

Odd, you say he wasn't deprived, but then support the fact that he was deprived from participating on a team where he earned a position. Even using your own language, we see your notions are completely flawed.

It seems that it is you who have wandered into some vague theoretical/political position. You sound like someone who has never coached or been on a team. Let me simplify the situation. Athlete says something that embarrasses the coach, insults the coach, angers the coach, etc. Coach pops him with a suspension. That's the way it works, and anyone who joins a team understands that. If you think the coach does not have the right to determine who is in good standing on the team and who is not representing the team in the way the coach wants, then we simply disagree.

Coach Andrassy: “As an alum of Kent State University and as Sam’s head coach, I was surprised and offended by what I read on Twitter. I have spoken to Sam personally, and while he is remorseful, he will be suspended indefinitely while we determine the best course of action moving forward.”

Many athletes decide that the requirements and limitations placed on them by their sports are more than they wish to deal with and go on to just be college students, not athletes. Others understand those requirements and limitations and live within them.

(02-12-2014 01:53 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 12:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 11:40 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 11:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Good thing universities come down on free speech. Wouldn't want students thinking for themselves or anything like that.

I would have thought you understood the First Amendment better than that.

Free speech means you can't be jailed for expressing political and social views, however unpopular.

It does not mean people aren't free to react to your speech, especially when you represent an organization that certainly has the right to censure your speech. It really does not mean you can say anything you want and nobody can negatively respond.

Where did I bring up the First amendment?

Now that we have your knee-jerk straw man taken care of, let's address your other fallacies.

Why would any state institution have the "right to censure your speech"? How would that not fall into a First amendment issue?

Furthermore, my whole point was about universities originally being institutions promoting expressing varying ideas.

Quote:Nobody has deprived this guy from saying anything he wants. However, it's not a right to be on a college wrestling team.

Odd, you say he wasn't deprived, but then support the fact that he was deprived from participating on a team where he earned a position. Even using your own language, we see your notions are completely flawed.

It seems that it is you who have wandered into some vague theoretical/political position. You sound like someone who has never coached or been on a team. Let me simplify the situation. Athlete says something that embarrasses the coach, insults the coach, angers the coach, etc. Coach pops him with a suspension. That's the way it works, and anyone who joins a team understands that. If you think the coach does not have the right to determine who is in good standing on the team and who is not representing the team in the way the coach wants, then we simply disagree.

Coach Andrassy: “As an alum of Kent State University and as Sam’s head coach, I was surprised and offended by what I read on Twitter. I have spoken to Sam personally, and while he is remorseful, he will be suspended indefinitely while we determine the best course of action moving forward.”

As I said, everyone at Kent St should be familiar w/ 1970. Andrassy has made an ass out of himself with his actions. He's an embarrassment, to academia, to athletics, and to Kent St.

Your description of a coach reminded me of John Wooden's description of when Bill Walton insisted he was free to wear a beard. Wooden said he'd miss him, and Walton came back shaven.

But there was one difference, Wooden insisted that a beard was detrimental to a player's performance.

And that detail is the key that you fail to understand. Wooden didn't interfere w/ Walton's or Jabbar's politics. He focused on their play. That was his job.

Quote:Many athletes decide that the requirements and limitations placed on them by their sports are more than they wish to deal with and go on to just be college students, not athletes. Others understand those requirements and limitations and live within them.

You could learn a lot from a trip to Colonial Williamsburg. Or read Mill, Locke, etc.

You are just getting silly. I'd wager I've read as much Mill and Locke and Plato and Kant and Paine and Spinoza et. al. as anyone on here, though that may be damning myself with faint praise. And I was at KSU in 1970 and know all of those events and was involved in those events and have a very clear idea about political speech and its ramifications. Speech has consequences--good and bad--if it has any merit, otherwise it's just blather.

What does it matter whether you agree with the coach's decision or not? He has the right to make the decision. That's all this is. It's not about "free speech." That's quite the red herring.

And just because Wooden was ignorant about beards being detrimental to performance is about as irrelevant a point here as one could imagine. He was wrong. But he could play Walton or not. Same with Andrassey. Right or wrong, he gets to decide. Coaches make these decisions all the time. College kids do lots of stupid things. Coaches decide where the line is.

(02-12-2014 02:25 PM)axeme Wrote:  And just because Wooden was ignorant about beards being detrimental to performance is about as irrelevant a point here as one could imagine. He was wrong.

I didn't suggest Wooden was wrong. He said that the sweat on beards would get on a player's hands, and reduce their ball handling ability.

The point you're intentionally missing is that Wooden stood firm on issues regarding performance, but left politics to the individual.

Quote: But he could play Walton or not. Same with Andrassey. Right or wrong, he gets to decide. Coaches make these decisions all the time. College kids do lots of stupid things. Coaches decide where the line is.

Yes, Andrassey is allowed to make the choices, but apparently you think he shouldn't receive consequences for them when he gets it wrong.

If Andrassey can't stand up to Wheeler's misplaced critics, he's obviously not man enough to coach.

(02-12-2014 02:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 02:25 PM)axeme Wrote:  And just because Wooden was ignorant about beards being detrimental to performance is about as irrelevant a point here as one could imagine. He was wrong.

I didn't suggest Wooden was wrong. He said that the sweat on beards would get on a player's hands, and reduce their ball handling ability.

The point you're intentionally missing is that Wooden stood firm on issues regarding performance, but left politics to the individual.

Quote: But he could play Walton or not. Same with Andrassey. Right or wrong, he gets to decide. Coaches make these decisions all the time. College kids do lots of stupid things. Coaches decide where the line is.

Yes, Andrassey is allowed to make the choices, but apparently you think he shouldn't receive consequences for them when he gets it wrong.

If Andrassey can't stand up to Wheeler's misplaced critics, he's obviously not man enough to coach.

Now that's funny. You're getting kind of shrill here, doc.

His job is to coach and guide Wheeler and that's what he is doing: all speech is not acceptable in all contexts. I bet you actually know that. I doubt Wheeler wants to be the cause célèbre for homophobes and coach wants to help him avoid that. It's not much more complicated than that.

(02-12-2014 02:45 PM)axeme Wrote:  His job is to coach and guide Wheeler and that's what he is doing: all speech is not acceptable in all contexts. I bet you actually know that. I doubt Wheeler wants to be the cause célèbre for homophobes and coach wants to help him avoid that. It's not much more complicated than that.

Ah, so the coach is playing the system? "Suspending" him for a match that he would have rested anyway? Now that's shrewdness I can compliment.