CSNbbs

They upped the racist ante with their "athletes of color," statement. JMHO but their actions are just as bad as what they're accusing others of. If there's been injustices as they describe, there would be absolutely no problem getting a student body on board the protests should they have chosen to try. Instead of uniting, they chose to segregate. By limiting their rally call to "athletes of color" they are as guilty as those they accuse.

heard about that last night. The article doesn't indicate why those actions are considered to be racist or adverse to minorities. There may be valid reasons for the actions taken. Could be entirely budgetary and was only helping minorities instead of the general population. Don't know from what I've seen so far. A swastika in a dorm room? That is the president's fault? Hopefully the issues will be revealed soon enough. Protesting and demanding the removal of a president? It is not likely he will be removed unless there is a proven series of incidents that demonstrate racial discrimination. Didn't see anything yet that indicates that is the case...but this is still a new event being brought out to the open.

(11-08-2015 09:36 AM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ]They upped the racist ante with their "athletes of color," statement. JMHO but their actions are just as bad as what they're accusing others of. If there's been injustices as they describe, there would be absolutely no problem getting a student body on board the protests should they have chosen to try. Instead of uniting, they chose to segregate. By limiting their rally call to "athletes of color" they are as guilty as those they accuse.

It's entirely about race at this point from what I've seen. Proving intent is going to be difficult - and that may never have been the intent. We'll see.

There have been a number of racist incidents at UM in the past year. The athletes are protesting a culture of racism that they say the president is not doing enough to stop. For example, they are installing diversity training for incoming freshmen, but the University is requiring that it be an on-line class. I tend to agree with those arguing that an on-line class won't do any good. Those who need the training the most will mindlessly go through the material, or pay someone to take it for them. Diversity training needs to be live to expose people directly to the issues in person.

In fact there is some evidence that racist incidents have been growing on college campuses all over the country.

Quote:They upped the racist ante with their "athletes of color," statement.

Don't understand this at all. "Athletes of color" is a statement of fact describing themselves.

(11-08-2015 09:42 AM)MotoRocket Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-08-2015 09:36 AM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ]They upped the racist ante with their "athletes of color," statement. JMHO but their actions are just as bad as what they're accusing others of. If there's been injustices as they describe, there would be absolutely no problem getting a student body on board the protests should they have chosen to try. Instead of uniting, they chose to segregate. By limiting their rally call to "athletes of color" they are as guilty as those they accuse.

It's entirely about race at this point from what I've seen. Proving intent is going to be difficult - and that may never have been the intent. We'll see.

I would like to more hope it is just inexperience. When they post their "athletes of color" they totally disrespect people's ability to be fair and to want to be part of solutions. That's a bigotry. It becomes "racist" because they are seeking a power play.

Again, I would hope it's not their hearts but their inexperience showing but they should have been open minded to stating their case and letting ALL that saw a problem, get on-board instead of posting a statement that makes a statement that if you're not of color, you're not worthy.

Coach Gary Pinkel and the governor weigh in...
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/latest-miss...ncaaf.html

Back to the days of Bobby Nichols and TU basketball.

(11-08-2015 09:56 AM)northcoastRocket Wrote: [ -> ]There have been a number of racist incidents at UM in the past year. The athletes are protesting a culture of racism that they say the president is not doing enough to stop. For example, they are installing diversity training for incoming freshmen, but the University is requiring that it be an on-line class. I tend to agree with those arguing that an on-line class won't do any good. Those who need the training the most will mindlessly go through the material, or pay someone to take it for them. Diversity training needs to be live to expose people directly to the issues in person.

In fact there is some evidence that racist incidents have been growing on college campuses all over the country.

Quote:They upped the racist ante with their "athletes of color," statement.

Don't understand this at all. "Athletes of color" is a statement of fact describing themselves.


Hogwash and for Pinkel to go along demanding that the President of the U steps down. Put pressure on the board of regents to move faster to address the grievances. Perhaps Pinkel will be the one out of job sooner then he thinks.

Another article that provides a summary of the situation from Rivals.com............
https://missouri.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1823184

(11-08-2015 09:57 AM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-08-2015 09:42 AM)MotoRocket Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-08-2015 09:36 AM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ]They upped the racist ante with their "athletes of color," statement. JMHO but their actions are just as bad as what they're accusing others of. If there's been injustices as they describe, there would be absolutely no problem getting a student body on board the protests should they have chosen to try. Instead of uniting, they chose to segregate. By limiting their rally call to "athletes of color" they are as guilty as those they accuse.

It's entirely about race at this point from what I've seen. Proving intent is going to be difficult - and that may never have been the intent. We'll see.

I would like to more hope it is just inexperience. When they post their "athletes of color" they totally disrespect people's ability to be fair and to want to be part of solutions. That's a bigotry. It becomes "racist" because they are seeking a power play.

Again, I would hope it's not their hearts but their inexperience showing but they should have been open minded to stating their case and letting ALL that saw a problem, get on-board instead of posting a statement that makes a statement that if you're not of color, you're not worthy.

racism is perpetrated by people in power. so called racial groups in positions of relative historical, social, administrative powerlessness cannot be racist.

to call a group of black students uniting to protest a culture of racism "racist...seeking a power play" is the kind of thinking that is perpetuating real racism (I'm not calling East a racist), because it assumes that racism happens on equal footing when the reality is there is a massive imbalance of power (historical, wealth, educational access, legal, criminal, housing, governmental, on and on...).

The athletes decision not to play sports until the administration seriously addresses the issues on campus is a result of their relative lack of power. Since there isn't equal access to administrative, media, academic systems of influence and change they are withholding their athletic labor in service of the university. Like a group of underpaid employees going on strike or school children refusing to attend class to protest tuition hikes.

The term "people of color" developed to unify those of various ethnic groups that have been faced with the effects of racism in some form. I'm sure if you were a white student, administrator, faculty or fan and went to this group of protesting students and expressed a desire to work together to address the problems on campus that there would be an opportunity to collaborate. The protesting athletes have already publicly acknowledged the support and cooperation of white coaches and staff who have shown respect for their efforts to improve the environment for non-whites on campus.

And then there is the obvious... let's see how good Missouri football is without the student athletes who feel disrespected and unsafe on their own campus. Let's see if the 60,000 fans who cheer for them every week to knock down other black men are willing to cheer for their willingness to stand up and risk a lot to address persistent power imbalances on campus.

(11-08-2015 05:10 PM)pono Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-08-2015 09:57 AM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-08-2015 09:42 AM)MotoRocket Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-08-2015 09:36 AM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ]They upped the racist ante with their "athletes of color," statement. JMHO but their actions are just as bad as what they're accusing others of. If there's been injustices as they describe, there would be absolutely no problem getting a student body on board the protests should they have chosen to try. Instead of uniting, they chose to segregate. By limiting their rally call to "athletes of color" they are as guilty as those they accuse.

It's entirely about race at this point from what I've seen. Proving intent is going to be difficult - and that may never have been the intent. We'll see.

I would like to more hope it is just inexperience. When they post their "athletes of color" they totally disrespect people's ability to be fair and to want to be part of solutions. That's a bigotry. It becomes "racist" because they are seeking a power play.

Again, I would hope it's not their hearts but their inexperience showing but they should have been open minded to stating their case and letting ALL that saw a problem, get on-board instead of posting a statement that makes a statement that if you're not of color, you're not worthy.

racism is perpetrated by people in power.

And "power" is exactly what they are seeking to exercise based upon their self identified racial categorization at the exclusion of others that are not "of color." They ARE in power and they are exercising it. /point


If there has been unaddressed issues, I really have no objection to them exercising their power, I think it's the responsible thing to do. But to do it in an exclusionary manner is racist, de facto and de jure. To presume that others not "of color" would not also have objection would be a bigotry.

Their initial manifesto and actions should have been inclusionary. They missed an opportunity to separate themselves from the actions of which they are accusing others.

A group of people protesting against a perceived racist injustice is not racism. They spoke as a group, expressing that group's opinion. They are not bound to speak for anyone else but themselves. That is in no way racist. Other groups are free to join them or not as they choose. This group did not exclude any other groups from also expressing disdain or protesting with them or in their own way.

To somehow equate their peaceful protest with the people hurling racist epithets or drawing swastikas or other abhorrent acts is completely inaccurate and does not help stem the tide of racism in this country.

(11-08-2015 08:19 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote: [ -> ]A group of people protesting against a perceived racist injustice is not racism. They spoke as a group, expressing that group's opinion. They are not bound to speak for anyone else but themselves. That is in no way racist. Other groups are free to join them or not as they choose. This group did not exclude any other groups from also expressing disdain or protesting with them or in their own way.

To somehow equate their peaceful protest with the people hurling racist epithets or drawing swastikas or other abhorrent acts is completely inaccurate and does not help stem the tide of racism in this country.

You're not even trying to make this a challenge.

If a "group" had self-identified as people of "non-color" and put out a manifesto of ANY type, peace to the world, we know it would be deemed "racists" and it would be, whether they had power beyond numbers or not.

and to even remotely imply I equated is the cowardly tactic used by the weak whose only viable tactic is to use the politics of the word "racist" to quiet viewpoints they cannot challenge without distortion. It's the tactic of those using a fifth grade understanding of the world, the word and reason. Is that all you got, really?

No, racism will continue as long as people are permitted to wield the accusations politically in attempt to quiet dialogue and put people on defensive as opposed to create dialogue. It will continue as long as those like you go unchallenged.

Take away their scholarships and close down the football program. If the players and others don't like it, leave the campus and transfer. Essentially they're blackmailing the president to resign in response to a couple of drunk frat guys yelling racial epithets? How is this an action of the university president and why should he lose his job? This is garbage. The concept that the football team has capacity to influence the institution's leadership and call for firing of top officials who are in no way directly involved in any of these "incidents" on the basis of political correctness is complete BS and must not be tolerated.

as students I think they should take responsibility to call for accountability if they feel problems on campus have not been addressed. We're talking about the safety and educational environment of the students. To not do so is to watch the glass break but I do see your point that there may be some extortionists qualities to their approach and as I've mentioned, IMO racist approach.

It's their right to forfeit their scholarships and ask others to join them. That's them taking risk and sacrificing. That part I think is laudable. Mostly I think their approach has not been well thought out nor inclusive, at least its initial attempts.

Pls reread Northcoast post above. And , east, I didn't bring racism into the discussion. . You and others used the term and that of power to make points.

Power is the ability to act. Since the institutional power is predominantly white the students action seeks some unity to counter that power in a small way.

Please consider the context too. Missouri is a racially tense very segregated state. There has been a wave of black church burnings almost all unsolved. The enrollment of black men in college is declining while numbers in the criminal system is at record highs. The racial incidents on campus are only one part of the issue. The larger concern is a feeling among some students that they are being blown off.
The student athletes protesting were born into a society where the odds are they will be poor, incarcerated, and faced with violence both by other black men and the public safety system supposed to protect them. Despite this they have made it to the state premier public University and succeeded both academically and at a high level athletically. They've earned the right to be listened to carefully before facing casually considered criticism and characterization.

(11-08-2015 08:55 PM)eastisbest Wrote: [ -> ]If a "group" had self-identified as people of "non-color" and put out a manifesto of ANY type, peace to the world, we know it would be deemed "racists" and it would be, whether they had power beyond numbers or not.

That's a tired old argument - that those "of color" are allowed to do things that would be considered racist if people of "non-color" did them. I remember that being a prevalent thought on campus when I was at UT 30+ years ago regarding the black student union. There were a large number of people who felt just having such a group was a racist, and their only argument to support that position was that we didn't have an equivalent "non-black" student union. Actually we did ... we had dozens of them, as nearly every group on campus, formal and informal was predominantly, if not exclusively composed of people of "non-color", and often times that exclusivity was intentional. The black students were roundly criticized for wanting to have even 1. To me it seemed bizarre to use the same word to refer to a repressed group wanting a place where they could come together as was used to refer to the very repression that caused the need to have the group in the first place.

Things have improved since then, but I'm sorry but the simple act of referring to themselves as "athletes of color" does not in any way rise to the level that should be referred to as "racist". They were not attempting to subjugate another racial group in their call. They were not repressing any other racial group in their protest. They were not expressing their superiority over another racial group in their stance. They were simply expressing their joint frustration as members of the very group that has the shared culture of experiencing repression and subjugation from those in power. They called out a person - not an entire culture.

You don't have to agree with their stance or their proposed solution, but I simply can't understand how you think it is racist.

The non-people of color are those in power. They have no need to identify themselves as such, because they are everywhere. They are the majority. They are the ones who can facilitate change.

Dis

What exactly did the university president do to deserve being fired? It doesn't seem to me like he has done anything so awful that requires him to be forced out of his job. If he is forced out by the football team, that would set a very bad precedent, in my opinion. Poor Gary Pinkel is in the middle of this and it is a can't win situation for him. No matter what he does, people are going to be angry with him. It is hard to see how this ends well.