• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Missouri Lawmaker Wants To Revoke Scholarships If Athletes Protest

Kal'Stang said:
Nothing there saying that they have to accept the money or continue to accept the money and if someone violates the universities "ToS" then they have a right to refuse service.
Click to expand...

You're bringing up a different issue altogether. This has nothing to do with the scholarship recipient violating any of the uni's rules

It's whether the govt should be able to dictate the terms of a scholarship that is funded with private money. If private individuals want to give their own money for a football scholarship and not require the recipients to play, they should be allowed to. However, this proposal would forbid that.
 
HowardBThiname said:
People have a right to free speech, they don't have a right to scholarships. When an athlete "signs" with a college, he/she agrees to play unless he/she is physically unable to play. Not playing for any reason other than health is a breach of contract, meaning the contract no longer is valid. Hence, the scholarship is no longer valid.
Click to expand...

The contract for the scholarship isn't with the college. The contract for the scholarship is with a private fund. Reading is fundamental. Conservatives in Missouri want to pass legislation to regulate how people negotiate contracts with private entities. That's what this is about and it's indefensible.
 
Last edited:
reinoe said:
The contract for the scholarship isn't with the college. The contract for the scholarship is with a private fund. Reading is fundamental. Conservatives in Missouri want to pass legislation to regulate how people negotiate contracts with private entities. That's what this is about and it's indefensible.
Click to expand...

Not really.

The college receives donations earmarked for sports scholarships. Student athletes "sign" letters of intent with the colleges of their choice.

If private individuals want to pay for a student's tuition, that's fully acceptable, but that's not a scholarship. Students who play on sports teams can, and often do, lose scholarships during the year. It can be bad grades, bad behavior or any other number of things. Not playing on the team for a reason other than health is not out of the question.

No one is stopping these kids from protesting. But protesting and refusing to fulfill one's sports' contract with the college are two very different things.

It wouldn't really matter at any rate. Coaches weed students out if they're trouble. What typically happens is that they start bringing more students on the team and benching the troublemakers. That translates into those students not playing, which means other colleges are not as likely to recruit them.

It's too bad sports are such a big thing in colleges anyway, but after a kid leaves home, it's time for him to understand that he has to live up to his obligations.

This bill won't change much, and I don't think it's necessary. The kids at Mizzou that threatened not to play will very likely not be offered scholarships next year. Other colleges might not recruit them either. They probably overstepped their bounds a bit, but they're just kids. No matter what the college says outright - they will enact some form of discipline for being held hostage and for the group forcing their President to step down. That's just life. What goes around - comes around.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Not really.

The college receives donations earmarked for sports scholarships. Student athletes "sign" letters of intent with the colleges of their choice.

If private individuals want to pay for a student's tuition, that's fully acceptable, but that's not a scholarship. Students who play on sports teams can, and often do, lose scholarships during the year. It can be bad grades, bad behavior or any other number of things. Not playing on the team for a reason other than health is not out of the question.
Click to expand...
What's out of the question is a small government conservative passing legislation to override the will of the football team, the private contract between the donors and the students, and the university: all of whom can determine the guidelines for receiving and maintaining the scholarship. Instead you are defending the argument that the government should unnecessarily get involved in this.

Since there is no justification for government interference in this let's get straight to the point. How much of this is racially motivated? Because there is no excuse for a small government conservative to be in favor of this bill unless there are underlying motivations.
 
sangha said:
You're bringing up a different issue altogether. This has nothing to do with the scholarship recipient violating any of the uni's rules

It's whether the govt should be able to dictate the terms of a scholarship that is funded with private money. If private individuals want to give their own money for a football scholarship and not require the recipients to play, they should be allowed to. However, this proposal would forbid that.
Click to expand...

The government isn't dictating the terms of a scholarship. They are dictating the terms that the college may accept/refuse/revoke a scholarship. They are not dictating to private individuals that want to give their own money for a football scholarship. The scholarship would no doubt be still quite acceptable to other universities across the states. After all, this is only one state that is having this proposed in. And no one is guaranteed a spot at the universities in Missouri... or any university across the whole nation for that matter.

Besides, so what if they were dictating to organizations that give out scholarships or even private individuals that give out scholarships. They are just as subject to rules and regulations and laws as any other organization. And if the government can legally require private individuals to buy products from private organizations I see no reason that they can't legally require this of organizations or private individuals that give out scholarships. In fact there is more precedence for this type of law than that of requiring private individuals to buy products from private organizations. There are tons of laws and regulations requiring businesses and even charities to be fair in their respective practices often requiring them to make sure that they aren't selling or giving out "snake oil" and that they instead sell or give out reliable products. And (in this particular case) a student that doesn't perform on the football field for reasons other than health even though they got a scholarship for it is a bad product.
 
reinoe said:
What's out of the question is a small government conservative passing legislation to override the will of the football team, the private contract between the donors and the students, and the university: all of whom can determine the guidelines for receiving and maintaining the scholarship. Instead you are defending the argument that the government should unnecessarily get involved in this.
Click to expand...

Unnecessarily? I wouldn't call it that. Those students were able to get that guy to resign and disrupted the whole school in the end all because the football players threatened to not play.

reinoe said:
Since there is no justification for government interference in this let's get straight to the point. How much of this is racially motivated? Because there is no excuse for a small government conservative to be in favor of this bill unless there are underlying motivations.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, it always has to do with racism doesn't it? Can't POSSIBLY be because of the disruption that was caused could it? Always gotta be the white man holdin' the black man down! :roll:

The claims of racism has reached godwin status imo. Only instead of using the word "Nazi" simply replace it with "White racists" or variants thereof.
 
reinoe said:
What's out of the question is a small government conservative passing legislation to override the will of the football team, the private contract between the donors and the students, and the university: all of whom can determine the guidelines for receiving and maintaining the scholarship. Instead you are defending the argument that the government should unnecessarily get involved in this.

Since there is no justification for government interference in this let's get straight to the point. How much of this is racially motivated? Because there is no excuse for a small government conservative to be in favor of this bill unless there are underlying motivations.
Click to expand...


Had you read my posts, you would have found that I said there's no real reason for this bill.

Is it racially motivated?

Maybe...but, probably not. More likely, it's motivated by the bottom line. College sports bring in a lot of money (the popular ones) and had the President of Mizzou not stepped down and the players not played the game, they figured it would have cost the school 1 million dollars. That's some big cash, there.

When you insinuate that there is "no excuse for a small government conservative to be in favor of this bill" unless it's racially motivated, you've jumped the shark. As I pointed out - there are real FINANCIAL reasons for putting a quick stop to this behavior that have nothing to do with race.

Someone, most likely someone from the university or Missouri Dept of Education contacted this congressman to try and put a safeguard in place that would reduce the risk of this happening again. Most politicians don't come up with these ideas on their own. Someone usually calls in a favor and they run with it.

Colleges are businesses, after all. If a college is held hostage over a game - or, over any other thing - and it stands to lose money - you can bet they're going to try and reduce the risk of that happening.

All this crybaby "oh noes, they must be racists" crap is just that -- crap.

Wake up. There's a whole world out there that you're missing because you're hunting for racists behind every blade of grass.
 
sangha said:
Other than some anonymous posters on the internet saying that it's true, I've seen absolutely no evidence that's how it works.
Click to expand...


For gawdsake - call the financial office of any university and ask how their donor funds are allotted to sports' scholarships.

This isn't some big secret. :roll:

If this thread continues on this path - it should be moved to the "Conspiracy Theory" forum.
 
what is different between misery and missouri?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Missouri Lawmaker Wants To Revoke Scholarships If Athletes Protest

Refusing to play for any other reason other than health? :shock: Also as pointed out in the article and the article linked, the money used for athletic scholarships at Mizzou is not state money, its privately donated money, so why is the state legislature getting involved in this at all if it does not affect state resources? [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

There is a huge chunk of information missing here. To whom is the money donated? Is the money donated to the state university to manage, account for and dole out? If so they have the responsibility to the people that donate to make sure the money is wisely managed. If their scholarships are athletic scholarships then they are being compensated for playing. If they play as a condition of their scholarship then it is pretty self explanatory. Play or they are in violation of the terms of the scholarship.
 
reinoe said:
As soon as I heard that a lawmaker was proposing legislation to deny someone of their first Amendment rights and to create more unnecessary big government initiatives I knew a conservative Republican would be involved.
Click to expand...

If you are getting paid to do something and you refuse to go to work because you want to protest your employer he is not going to pay you for the time that you are refusing to do what you are contracted to do. Life sucks sometimes but those are the facts.
 
Last edited:
reinoe said:
Perhaps that's your expectation, but private funds are misused all the time by charities. If you don't want your private donation misused, don't donate.
Click to expand...

If I were donating to a scholarship for athletes I would expect those athletes to do what those athletes were being granted a scholarship for. It is the universities duty to insure that they are playing and not whining. It isn't a "whining scholarship".
 
HowardBThiname said:
Had you read my posts, you would have found that I said there's no real reason for this bill.

Is it racially motivated?

Maybe...but, probably not. More likely, it's motivated by the bottom line. College sports bring in a lot of money (the popular ones) and had the President of Mizzou not stepped down and the players not played the game, they figured it would have cost the school 1 million dollars. That's some big cash, there.

When you insinuate that there is "no excuse for a small government conservative to be in favor of this bill" unless it's racially motivated, you've jumped the shark. As I pointed out - there are real FINANCIAL reasons for putting a quick stop to this behavior that have nothing to do with race.

Someone, most likely someone from the university or Missouri Dept of Education contacted this congressman to try and put a safeguard in place that would reduce the risk of this happening again. Most politicians don't come up with these ideas on their own. Someone usually calls in a favor and they run with it.

Colleges are businesses, after all. If a college is held hostage over a game - or, over any other thing - and it stands to lose money - you can bet they're going to try and reduce the risk of that happening.

All this crybaby "oh noes, they must be racists" crap is just that -- crap.

Wake up. There's a whole world out there that you're missing because you're hunting for racists behind every blade of grass.
Click to expand...

The contract is between a university/PRIVATE FUND and the student. That's ultimately the end of the story. College Sports bring in a lot of money TO THE UNIVERSITY, and only marginally to the state and only in the mot indirect of ways. You can beat around the bush all you want to justify this. You're trying to have it both ways but ultimately this is inexcusable. Since the money doesn't come from the state and won't be going to the state, there's no reason for the state to be involved. A racist is a racist.
 
NonoBadDog said:
If you are getting paid to do something and you refuse to go to work because you want to protest your employer he is not going to pay you for the time that you are refusing to do what you are contracted to do. Life sucks sometimes but those are the facts.
Click to expand...
These student didn't violate any contract agreement.
 
reinoe said:
The contract is between a university/PRIVATE FUND and the student. That's ultimately the end of the story. College Sports bring in a lot of money TO THE UNIVERSITY, and only marginally to the state and only in the mot indirect of ways. You can beat around the bush all you want to justify this. You're trying to have it both ways but ultimately this is inexcusable. Since the money doesn't come from the state and won't be going to the state, there's no reason for the state to be involved. A racist is a racist.
Click to expand...


This is a perfect example of someone clinging to an agenda without thinking. I understand that you badly want (perhaps even emotionally need) for this action to be based on racism, but there is no logical evidence of that. Your conspiracy theory is not based on reality and the money college sports brings to the table.

Racism, while still a very serious problem in our society is marginalized by statements like yours because people just shake their heads in disbelief and then, the next time there is a cry of racism, pass it off as histrionics.

You picked the wrong hill to die on with this one. This one is WAY out there.
 
HowardBThiname said:
This is a perfect example of someone clinging to an agenda without thinking. I understand that you badly want (perhaps even emotionally need) for this action to be based on racism, but there is no logical evidence of that. Your conspiracy theory is not based on reality and the money college sports brings to the table.

Racism, while still a very serious problem in our society is marginalized by statements like yours because people just shake their heads in disbelief and then, the next time there is a cry of racism, pass it off as histrionics.

You picked the wrong hill to die on with this one. This one is WAY out there.
Click to expand...
It's not racist just because you say it's not. The state's not getting the money. The state's not giving the money. It's as plain as day that this is not about money.
 
reinoe said:
These student didn't violate any contract agreement.
Click to expand...

Did they protest? If they did protest would it violate the terms of their scholarship? Do you have a copy of those terms?
 
NonoBadDog said:
Did they protest? If they did protest would it violate the terms of their scholarship? Do you have a copy of those terms?
Click to expand...
Ok you got me. I don't have the specific terms of the contract. What matters is that it's none of the state's business. The state isn't providing the scholarship money. The state isn't getting any of the scholarship money. This is a private contract. When the state meddles in affairs that it has no business meddling in there's a very good chance that there are ulterior motives at play.
 
Shadowless said:
This is clearly against the students 1st amendment rights. Unconstitutional and illegal action by the University.
Click to expand...
I can protest all I want but if I don't show and work I will no longer have a job. They can protest all they want as well but if they don't fulfill the obligations of their scholarship (play football) they should lose their scholarship. Welcome to the real world.
 
reinoe said:
What matters is that it's none of the state's business.The state isn't providing the scholarship money.
Click to expand...
If the state manages the money then it is the state's business. Once it is donated it belongs to the state.

The state isn't getting any of the scholarship money.
This is a private contract.
Click to expand...
Who is then? Someone has to collect it, deposit it, disperse it and account for it. It is a scholarship for a state university.

When the state meddles in affairs that it has no business meddling in there's a very good chance that there are ulterior motives at play.
Click to expand...
I think the motive here is to get players to play, which is what they signed up for. Athletic scholarship would imply that they got a scholarship if they played. If they want a scholarship for playing then that is what they said they would do, play. Hell, I don't get compensation for playing. I get my ass chewed by the wife for not working. I wish I could get paid for playing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom