Missouri Lawmaker Wants To Revoke Scholarships If Athletes Protest

cpwill · Dec 23, 2015

Peter King said:
I disagree, and also, not the governments money so it is none of their business IMHO.

The government is the one placed in charge of disbursing that money - so it is their decision. If the people whose money it is wish not to support the government's decisions, I can certainly understand that, and they are free to cease funding them, and set up another venue.

These students got a scholarship to play football. If they choose to break the terms of that agreement, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Paleocon · Dec 23, 2015

Peter King said:
How can this lawmaker want to violate the right to peaceably assembly and their right to freedom of speech? That they receive scholarships has not bearing on their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and voice their opinion.

They have no right to state money.

radcen · Dec 23, 2015

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]

He's grandstanding. He knows it'll go nowhere, but his little niche constituency will eat it up.

cpwill · Dec 23, 2015

Peter King said:
I disagree, and also, not the governments money so it is none of their business IMHO.

The government is the one charged to find who should get the scholarships. Saying its not their business is like saying that trustees have no business in what a trust fund does. The scholarship is explicitly for football. Refuse to play, and you are the one breaking the contract.

sangha · Dec 23, 2015

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]

Just another example the rightwing support for Nanny State Big Govt and opposition to the free market

reinoe · Dec 23, 2015

Paleocon said:
They have no right to state money.

And they're not getting any. What's your point?

sangha · Dec 23, 2015

Kal'Stang said:
Personally I'm surprised as hell that this wasn't already a clause in the contract of receiving the scholarship.

Generally speaking, athletic scholarships require the recipient to be a member of the team. If not playing doesn't get someone kicked off the team, then they would still be eligible for the scholarship

Winchester · Dec 23, 2015

Shadowless said:
This is clearly against the students 1st amendment rights. Unconstitutional and illegal action by the University.

I don't think it's as clear as you think it is. They can still protest, there are just consequences to not showing up to play football. Why should they be remunerated for services not rendered?

Winchester · Dec 23, 2015

Peter King said:
I disagree, and also, not the governments money so it is none of their business IMHO.

But it is their money, it was given to them by donors.

Wiggen · Dec 23, 2015

Caine said:
If I were a person who privately funded a sports scholarship for deserving athletes........ I would expect that they ****ing show up to practice and games and not take my money while being a whiney little protesting bitch.

But, hey, maybe that is just me.

Yeah, you'd want to sit in your box seat and get your money's worth, right?

sangha · Dec 23, 2015

Winchester said:
I don't think it's as clear as you think it is. They can still protest, there are just consequences to not showing up to play football. Why should they be remunerated for services not rendered?

Should the answer to your question come from the govt or from the donors?

Winchester · Dec 23, 2015

sangha said:
Should the answer to your question come from the govt or from the donors?

The donors gave the money to the University, it is no longer their money and they no longer have any say.

sangha · Dec 23, 2015

Winchester said:
The donors gave the money to the University, it is no longer their money and they no longer have any say.

I'm not so sure of that. In most cases, donors give to a scholarship fund and not directly to the university. I've seen no evidence that the money goes to the uni

Winchester · Dec 23, 2015

sangha said:
I'm not so sure of that. In most cases, donors give to a scholarship fund and not directly to the university. I've seen no evidence that the money goes to the uni

The money usually goes to a University Foundation who's sole function is to support the University. The foundations are almost always included as a component unit of said university. Yes they are legally separate entities but for all practical purposes they are one and the same.

Now if donors didn't like the new policy could they put strings on their donations... sure.

sangha · Dec 23, 2015

Winchester said:
The money usually goes to a University Foundation who's sole function is to support the University. The foundations are almost always included as a component unit of said university. Yes they are legally separate entities but for all practical purposes they are one and the same.

Now if donors didn't like the new policy could they put strings on their donations... sure.

Other than people saying it is so, I've seen no evidence that is the case here

But even if it is, that begs the question - who should decide how the money should be used - the people who gave the money or the govt

Winchester · Dec 23, 2015

sangha said:
Other than people saying it is so, I've seen no evidence that is the case here

But even if it is, that begs the question - who should decide how the money should be used - the people who gave the money or the govt

The people can decide on strings BEFORE they give it. No doubt the state coming in and changing the rules (that might very well be against the donor's wishes if they knew this was going to happen) is going to end up being bad publicity to the foundations when they reach out to their donors for more donations.

sangha · Dec 23, 2015

Winchester said:
The people can decide on strings BEFORE they give it. No doubt the state coming in and changing the rules (that might very well be against the donor's wishes if they knew this was going to happen) is going to end up being bad publicity to the foundations when they reach out to their donors for more donations.

Again, I've seen no evidence that donors give the money to the university and even if they did, there's still the question of who should decide how money is spent - the people whose money it is, or the govt?

Winchester · Dec 23, 2015

sangha said:
Again, I've seen no evidence that donors give the money to the university and even if they did, there's still the question of who should decide how money is spent - the people whose money it is, or the govt?

They GAVE IT it's no longer the donor's money. It's the recipient's decision at that point and if the recipient is the University's foundation and it's a public university well I guess the gov't has a say at that point.

sangha · Dec 23, 2015

Winchester said:
They GAVE IT it's no longer the donor's money. It's the recipient's decision at that point and if the recipient is the University's foundation and it's a public university well I guess the gov't has a say at that point.

Again, I've seen NO EVIDENCE that the recipient is the university or its' foundation.

And again you've avoided my question about who should decide. But don't worry. Your silence speaks volumes

Winchester · Dec 23, 2015

sangha said:
Again, I've seen NO EVIDENCE that the recipient is the university or its' foundation.

And again you've avoided my question about who should decide. But don't worry. Your silence speaks volumes

I'm not avoiding it, I thought I made it perfectly clear, whoever's money it is decides. Honestly you're the one that seems to have their blinders on. I really don't give that much of a **** about the issue.

I'm running under the assumption that it is the University's money because I've seen NO EVIDENCE that it is not and that is the "normal" way these things work. For whatever reason you seem to be failing to grasp once money is freely given the giver no longer has a say in how it is spent.

sangha · Dec 23, 2015

Winchester said:
I'm not avoiding it, I thought I made it perfectly clear, whoever's money it is decides. Honestly you're the one that seems to have their blinders on. I really don't give that much of a **** about the issue.

I'm running under the assumption that it is the University's money because I've seen NO EVIDENCE that it is not and that is the "normal" way these things work. For whatever reason you seem to be failing to grasp once money is freely given the giver no longer has a say in how it is spent.

So any money that hasn't been shown to belong to someone else is assumed to belong to the university because there's no evidence that it is not?

That's an odd way to look at it. All we know is that the money was given to some scholarship fund. There is no evidence, so far, specifying who controls that fund so there's no evidence and no reason to believe that it is the university's money.

Winchester · Dec 23, 2015

sangha said:
So any money that hasn't been shown to belong to someone else is assumed to belong to the university because there's no evidence that it is not?

That's an odd way to look at it. All we know is that the money was given to some scholarship fund. There is no evidence, so far, specifying who controls that fund so there's no evidence and no reason to believe that it is the university's money.

No it's really not odd. The University is almost assuredly controlling the fund as they do have to comply with NCAA rules athletic scholarship rules.

sangha · Dec 23, 2015

Winchester said:
No it's really not odd. The University is almost assuredly controlling the fund as they do have to comply with NCAA rules athletic scholarship rules.

Can you quote the NCAA rule that requires the uni to control the fund and provide a link?

TIA

Winchester · Dec 23, 2015

sangha said:
Can you quote the NCAA rule that requires the uni to control the fund and provide a link?

TIA

why? It's not going to change my position. If it is the University's money or the University controls the money the state has every right to say how the money is going to be used. If it doesn't then the state doesn't have that right. You want to operate from the position that it's likely the University doesn't control the money, fine, I'm still going to operate that in all likelihood the University does control the scholarship money. I think we're on the same page here you just seem to refuse the option that the state can under any circumstance control of the donated scholarship money.

Caine · Dec 23, 2015

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.

So, because it does happen, that makes it acceptable?

Talk about ignorance.

Murders happen too..... I guess since they already happen we should go ahead and make them legal... :roll:

Missouri Lawmaker Wants To Revoke Scholarships If Athletes Protest

Phonetic Mnemonic ©