I just happened to come across this. Rice lost a case against a former QB who said that he was the victim of discrimination. I don't see the harm in naming the guy. Who is it?

I call B.S. on all of it. Rice has NEVER struck me as the kind of place that would discriminate. Am I off?

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/artic...ion/?amp=1

It must be Miklo Smalls. He's the only black QB on the roster from 2017.

(04-29-2026 06:21 PM)Ourland Wrote:  It must be [redacted]. He's the only black QB on the roster from 2017.

Who said the unnamed player was Black?

According to the article, it’s a gender-discrimination case, and the player was dismissed from the team in 2018.

Seems the university operated on the a priori assumption that men are pigs and women are always victims.

Mods really need to monitor this thread closely.

(04-29-2026 07:41 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-29-2026 06:21 PM)Ourland Wrote:  It must be Miklo Smalls. He's the only black QB on the roster from 2017.

Who said the unnamed player was Black?

It's a discrimination case. I think you know, as well as I, that it's very likely a minority. Pair that with Miklo leaving the university in 2018, tells me it's him. If not, my apologies to him.

(04-29-2026 09:05 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Mods really need to monitor this thread closely.

I don't see the harm in the discussion, nor the speculation. These guys are grown adults.

(04-30-2026 09:05 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(04-29-2026 09:05 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Mods really need to monitor this thread closely.

I don't see the harm in the discussion, nor the speculation. These guys are grown adults.

The harm is that both of the adults in the case chose to remain anonymous, the court honored that, and your curiosity isn't enough to justify outing either of them.
What we gain in defeating their attempt to remain anonymous does not outweigh what either has to lose.
I've moved this to the Quad, rather than delete the entire thread.

(04-30-2026 09:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(04-29-2026 07:41 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-29-2026 06:21 PM)Ourland Wrote:  It must be [redacted]. He's the only black QB on the roster from 2017.

Who said the unnamed player was Black?

It's a discrimination case. I think you know, as well as I, that it's very likely a minority. Pair that with Miklo leaving the university in 2018, tells me it's him. If not, my apologies to him.

Read the article you linked. The plaintiff claimed gender discrimination, not racial discrimination.

(04-30-2026 09:35 AM)Grungy Wrote:  

(04-30-2026 09:05 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(04-29-2026 09:05 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Mods really need to monitor this thread closely.

I don't see the harm in the discussion, nor the speculation. These guys are grown adults.

The harm is that both of the adults in the case chose to remain anonymous, the court honored that, and your curiosity isn't enough to justify outing either of them.
What we gain in defeating their attempt to remain anonymous does not outweigh what either has to lose.
I've moved this to the Quad, rather than delete the entire thread.

I think that's little much, don't you? The plaintiff knew that his identity could be discovered when he filed the case. Remaining anonymous isn't a luxury he has. It's one of the consequences that come with suing a university over something as "heated" as discrimination. People, like myself, are going be curious.

I don't know the plaintiff's name, but whomever he is, he's over 25 years old now. He's an adult. He may be embarrassed for contracting herpes as a teenager, and hopes his identity can be concealed, but he knew that this would be in the news, and that people would speculate.

(04-30-2026 09:44 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-30-2026 09:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(04-29-2026 07:41 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-29-2026 06:21 PM)Ourland Wrote:  It must be Miklo Smalls. He's the only black QB on the roster from 2017.

Who said the unnamed player was Black?

It's a discrimination case. I think you know, as well as I, that it's very likely a minority. Pair that with Miklo leaving the university in 2018, tells me it's him. If not, my apologies to him.

Read the article you linked. The plaintiff claimed gender discrimination, not racial discrimination.

What's the difference? It's a discrimination case. It was likely a minority who couldn't sue for racial discrimination because there are minorities all over the campus. That, or the victim was a minority, herself.

The fact that Smalls was the only QB to leave the program in 2018, tells me that it's him. And again, my heartfelt apologies to him if it isn't. There's nothing wrong with discussing it.

(04-30-2026 09:59 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(04-30-2026 09:44 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  Read the article you linked. The plaintiff claimed gender discrimination, not racial discrimination.

What's the difference? It's a discrimination case. It was likely a minority who couldn't sue for racial discrimination because there are minorities all over the campus. That, or the victim was a minority, herself.

The fact that [redacted] was the only QB to leave the program in 2018, tells me that it's him. And again, my heartfelt apologies to him if it isn't. There's nothing wrong with discussing it.

At this point, I just want to make it clear that some Rice fans do understand the difference between racial discrimination and gender discrimination.

(04-30-2026 10:23 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(04-30-2026 09:59 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(04-30-2026 09:44 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  Read the article you linked. The plaintiff claimed gender discrimination, not racial discrimination.

What's the difference? It's a discrimination case. It was likely a minority who couldn't sue for racial discrimination because there are minorities all over the campus. That, or the victim was a minority, herself.

The fact that [redacted] was the only QB to leave the program in 2018, tells me that it's him. And again, my heartfelt apologies to him if it isn't. There's nothing wrong with discussing it.

At this point, I just want to make it clear that some Rice fans do understand the difference between racial discrimination and gender discrimination.

There's a difference?

Ok, I’m out. This could have been an interesting discussion, but not with people who don’t want to be confused by the facts.

(04-30-2026 11:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Ok, I’m out. This could have been an interesting discussion, but not with people who don’t want to be confused by the facts.

It can still be an interesting discussion, Frizzy, but in order for that to happen, there must be a willingness here to speak on a sensitive subject matter that most avoid. If it makes too many people here "uncomfortable" to do so, then there's no discussion at all.

(04-30-2026 12:12 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(04-30-2026 11:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Ok, I’m out. This could have been an interesting discussion, but not with people who don’t want to be confused by the facts.

It can still be an interesting discussion, Frizzy, but in order for that to happen, there must be a willingness here to speak on a sensitive subject matter that most avoid. If it makes too many people here "uncomfortable" to do so, then there's no discussion at all.

A discrimination case "so this guy must be black and let's talk about who it was".

Why? Why the need to identify this person? You can have the discussion (which would probably be an interesting one) without making guesses about who was involved.

I read the account of the lawsuit in the local paper here in the Austin area.

My reaction to the account is that, yes, it’s a discrimination issue. But what was published was way short on details, nuance and substance.
Like so many of these accounts, it’s obvious that really happened and what really occurred in the courtroom, discovery, etc will never be made public. Including the names of the people involved.
And, as fr as I’m concerned, I’m totally ok with that.

(05-01-2026 08:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-30-2026 12:12 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(04-30-2026 11:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Ok, I’m out. This could have been an interesting discussion, but not with people who don’t want to be confused by the facts.

It can still be an interesting discussion, Frizzy, but in order for that to happen, there must be a willingness here to speak on a sensitive subject matter that most avoid. If it makes too many people here "uncomfortable" to do so, then there's no discussion at all.

A discrimination case "so this guy must be black and let's talk about who it was".

Why? Why the need to identify this person? You can have the discussion (which would probably be an interesting one) without making guesses about who was involved.

Right. I misread the article. I thought he sued for racial, not gender discrimination. That's why I strongly assumed that he was black, or from another minority group. That being said, if you do just a little digging, it leads to one particular player, being that he's the only QB who appeared on the 2017, but not the 2018 roster. And yes, that player is black.

No, the player doesn't HAVE to be named, but at the same time, he brought a major lawsuit and he did it as an adult. He knew there could be SOME speculation, and that he wouldn't be afforded protections extended to minors.