Slate: Minnesota Football Boycott Sounded Like a Social Justice Protest. It Wasn’t.

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,580
Reaction score
15,671
Points
113
per Slate:

To state the obvious, this desperate, revisionist telling makes no sense. For one thing, in announcing the boycott the team had already weighed in on whether their teammates had “committed misconduct,” asserting without equivocation that the suspended players were “falsely accused.” Backpedaling on that point now reeks of insincerity. So, too, does the complete reversal of logic regarding the boycott. Not playing in a football game was supposed to convince the university and the public that they were right. Now, playing in a football game is supposed to do that. The players’ messaging has no consistency because what they want isn’t justice; it’s the perpetuation of the status quo. The players also clearly and fundamentally do not understand what due process entails. Not being allowed to play football isn't a violation of anyone’s due process rights, and the school is well within its purview in suspending those found to have violated its policy. Maybe this, at least, is something the team might come to “slowly understand.”

At bottom, the Minnesota boycott was an old story smuggled in under the banner of social justice—not one of athletes mobilizing for justice, but of institutions closing ranks when one of their own is accused of wrongdoing. Note that the Minnesota coaching staff backed the players: a good tell that the boycott was something other than the cry of the marginalized. After the boycott was announced, head coach Tracy Claeys tweeted: “Have never been more proud of our kids. I respect their rights & support their effort to make a better world!” (For comparison, look at Northwestern football’s attempt to unionize, a move that would have certainly shaken up the power structure. Head coach Pat Fitzgerald urged his players not to vote for unionization.) Think Penn State, in other words, not Missouri. Or think Baylor and Florida State. If either of those schools had handled its high-profile sexual assault cases differently, we might well have seen this type of player protest earlier. The football players’ boycott at Minnesota inadvertently demonstrated something radical: A university adequately handled an accusation of sexual assault.

Jock activism was bound to butt up against other parts of the social justice project, particularly in a campus context. Athletes occupy a contradictory place in the university ecosystem. They are a kind of dual citizen—an exploited class, in that they’re unpaid labor, and a privileged class, with all the perks and social advantages that come with being a jock. Often, because of the latter, they’re dismissed when they point out the former. (Athletes shouldn’t get paid! They get scholarships and free clothes!) The Minnesota players borrowed the moral leverage they’d accrued as members of the former to advance their prerogatives as members of the latter. Misinformed, reactionary, and entitled, the boycott was a reminder that even—especially—in the age of the jock awakening, athletes on any level can be fashioned into weapons for the status quo.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...football_boycott_wasn_t_athlete_activism.html

Go Gophers!!
 

As the Star Tribune reported, the team’s decision to resume practicing came after the publication of the university’s 80-page Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action report, which detailed the findings from the school’s investigation into the alleged assault in September. The university did not make the findings of its Title IX–mandated EOAA investigation public, citing student privacy concerns, but local news station KSTP obtained and published the document on Friday.

:rolleyes:

This column sounded like journalism. It wasn't.
 

Jock activism was bound to butt up against other parts of the social justice project, particularly in a campus context.

Another angry woman expressing her misandry and woeful lack of awareness of the issues. Belittling men for asking for caution and a fair hearing - what next?
 

per Slate:

To state the obvious, this desperate, revisionist telling makes no sense. For one thing, in announcing the boycott the team had already weighed in on whether their teammates had “committed misconduct,” asserting without equivocation that the suspended players were “falsely accused.” Backpedaling on that point now reeks of insincerity. So, too, does the complete reversal of logic regarding the boycott. Not playing in a football game was supposed to convince the university and the public that they were right. Now, playing in a football game is supposed to do that. The players’ messaging has no consistency because what they want isn’t justice; it’s the perpetuation of the status quo. The players also clearly and fundamentally do not understand what due process entails. Not being allowed to play football isn't a violation of anyone’s due process rights, and the school is well within its purview in suspending those found to have violated its policy. Maybe this, at least, is something the team might come to “slowly understand.”

At bottom, the Minnesota boycott was an old story smuggled in under the banner of social justice—not one of athletes mobilizing for justice, but of institutions closing ranks when one of their own is accused of wrongdoing. Note that the Minnesota coaching staff backed the players: a good tell that the boycott was something other than the cry of the marginalized. After the boycott was announced, head coach Tracy Claeys tweeted: “Have never been more proud of our kids. I respect their rights & support their effort to make a better world!” (For comparison, look at Northwestern football’s attempt to unionize, a move that would have certainly shaken up the power structure. Head coach Pat Fitzgerald urged his players not to vote for unionization.) Think Penn State, in other words, not Missouri. Or think Baylor and Florida State. If either of those schools had handled its high-profile sexual assault cases differently, we might well have seen this type of player protest earlier. The football players’ boycott at Minnesota inadvertently demonstrated something radical: A university adequately handled an accusation of sexual assault.

Jock activism was bound to butt up against other parts of the social justice project, particularly in a campus context. Athletes occupy a contradictory place in the university ecosystem. They are a kind of dual citizen—an exploited class, in that they’re unpaid labor, and a privileged class, with all the perks and social advantages that come with being a jock. Often, because of the latter, they’re dismissed when they point out the former. (Athletes shouldn’t get paid! They get scholarships and free clothes!) The Minnesota players borrowed the moral leverage they’d accrued as members of the former to advance their prerogatives as members of the latter. Misinformed, reactionary, and entitled, the boycott was a reminder that even—especially—in the age of the jock awakening, athletes on any level can be fashioned into weapons for the status quo.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...football_boycott_wasn_t_athlete_activism.html

Go Gophers!!

BleedGopher. Really?
 

Let's be honest: we were all waiting for slate.com to weigh in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Also, "butt up" was probably a poor choice of words on her part. Too soon?
 


After Move on.Org showed up, you knew that Slate was not far behind.
 

As the Star Tribune reported, the team’s decision to resume practicing came after the publication of the university’s 80-page Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action report, which detailed the findings from the school’s investigation into the alleged assault in September. The university did not make the findings of its Title IX–mandated EOAA investigation public, citing student privacy concerns, but local news station KSTP obtained and published the document on Friday.

:rolleyes:

This column sounded like journalism. It wasn't.

Was a report of some other length published?
 



The decision to announce a boycott was based on the information the players on the team had at that time. The only source of information that the team had up until that Friday afternoon was information they got from their teammates and limited public information from the prior investigation by the police last September. So, did some of the players think some of the 10 players were falsely accused - Yeh, and I hope so. If a person cares about someone, wouldn't the average person look at them in the most favorable light if they have limited information? I think this is especially true given the age of the individuals on the team. Someone that has a few more years under their belt might be a bit more inclined to reserve a public stance of support until more information is available - especially given a culture on college campus. I do not fault the players in any way for the position they took, its was a judgement call on their part at that time, one that was later corrected when more information was available. I commend the University leaders for understanding the nuance of the situation and not coming down hard on the players. As for the individuals that call for a scorched earth policy against athletics. I have lost any appetite for giving them any more time.
 

Was a report of some other length published?

The full report is 100 pages long. Some pertinent testimony was left out of the 80-82 page document that was leaked. At least it's been referenced to online.
 

Not that I expected any different, but this shows that Slate has absolutely no understanding of the issue.

I wish Laura Wagner could experience what it's like to be a male accused of sexual misconduct on campus. I'd like to see her have her future ruined because someone with a foggy memory said she might have been in a room. Then let's see what her article would look like.
 

The full report is 100 pages long. Some pertinent testimony was left out of the 80-82 page document that was leaked. At least it's been referenced to online.

The Slate article refers to what was published, which makes sense since what was published clearly affected the strength of the boycott.

I do kind of wonder why one of the accused players doesn't leak the rest of the report if it's so exculpatory.
 



I hope places like Slate keep putting out articles like this. It really shows you the mindset of the progressive movement and its assault on logic and common sense. It's the same style of "thought" as the EoAA, the same identity themed politics/discussion that has undone the regressive movement. I think it really helps reasonable people see them for the unhinged cult of ideology that they've become.

Keep up the good work Slate!
 

The decision to announce a boycott was based on the information the players on the team had at that time. The only source of information that the team had up until that Friday afternoon was information they got from their teammates and limited public information from the prior investigation by the police last September. So, did some of the players think some of the 10 players were falsely accused - Yeh, and I hope so. If a person cares about someone, wouldn't the average person look at them in the most favorable light if they have limited information? I think this is especially true given the age of the individuals on the team. Someone that has a few more years under their belt might be a bit more inclined to reserve a public stance of support until more information is available - especially given a culture on college campus. I do not fault the players in any way for the position they took, its was a judgement call on their part at that time, one that was later corrected when more information was available. I commend the University leaders for understanding the nuance of the situation and not coming down hard on the players. As for the individuals that call for a scorched earth policy against athletics. I have lost any appetite for giving them any more time.

Several of the players have tweeted out statements that indicates they believe the accuser (or alleged victim if you prefer) is lying about the events of that night - or at the very least does not remember events accurately. so if teammate X is saying "the report is not true - I didn't do that," then its understandable that other members of the team would take the stance they did.

I knew a guy who was a HS teacher and coach. he was accused of having sex with a female HS student - who also happened to be one of the only minority students in a rural district. I knew the guy pretty well, so one night when we were having a couple of beers, I just came out and asked him if he did it. He got really ticked at me - the gist of his answer was "do you think I'm that stupid?" anyway, he fought his dismissal, but the local school board voted to fire him for cause. If I remember right, I think he appealed, but it didn't go anywhere.

The point being that, if someone tells you to your face that "I didn't do it," you tend to believe him until you have evidence to the contrary.
 

I hope places like Slate keep putting out articles like this. It really shows you the mindset of the progressive movement and its assault on logic and common sense. It's the same style of "thought" as the EoAA, the same identity themed politics/discussion that has undone the regressive movement. I think it really helps reasonable people see them for the unhinged cult of ideology that they've become.

Keep up the good work Slate!

Not quibbling with your post, but progressive movements have produced most of the real social, civil and environmental progress in the past 50 years. Now it certainly can be misplaced, mis-focused, and over zealous at times.
 

It really shows you the mindset of the progressive movement and its assault on logic and common sense. It's the same style of "thought" as the EoAA....

Don't forget the assault on our football team's chances of winning!
 


Don't forget the assault on our football team's chances of winning!


Are you insinuating that my stance against these offices has something to do with football? What a brilliant take!

This is precisely the kind of idiocy that I was talking about, keep it coming slate!
 

Not quibbling with your post, but progressive movements have produced most of the real social, civil and environmental progress in the past 50 years. Now it certainly can be misplaced, mis-focused, and over zealous at times.


I have no issue with actual progressive politics. What is happening now is what Ayn Rand called the inversion, progressive politics becomes regressive. It has nowhere else to go.

The zealots have kidnapped the cause and they have started to eat their own.
 

Several of the players have tweeted out statements that indicates they believe the accuser (or alleged victim if you prefer) is lying about the events of that night - or at the very least does not remember events accurately. so if teammate X is saying "the report is not true - I didn't do that," then its understandable that other members of the team would take the stance they did.

I knew a guy who was a HS teacher and coach. he was accused of having sex with a female HS student - who also happened to be one of the only minority students in a rural district. I knew the guy pretty well, so one night when we were having a couple of beers, I just came out and asked him if he did it. He got really ticked at me - the gist of his answer was "do you think I'm that stupid?" anyway, he fought his dismissal, but the local school board voted to fire him for cause. If I remember right, I think he appealed, but it didn't go anywhere.

The point being that, if someone tells you to your face that "I didn't do it," you tend to believe him until you have evidence to the contrary.

Friends of ours (my wife's best friend and husband - friend of mine) had their daughter (16 at the time) file a police report for sexual abuse from him (a police officer). She was his step-daughter. Obviously this caused a major to-do and the girl eventually recanted. She has documented psychological issues, etc. Basically she was just acting out/revenge.

Knowing him I knew he didn't do it, or if he did I would be genuinely shocked. I shudder to think if the EOAA was in charge of that situation.

People lie, exaggerate, or mis-remember all the time. Sometimes the lies take on a life of their own. Not saying that's the situation here but it HAS to be considered as a possibility.
 

I have no issue with actual progressive politics. What is happening now is what Ayn Rand called the inversion, progressive politics becomes regressive. It has nowhere else to go.

The zealots have kidnapped the cause and they have started to eat their own.

Objectivism is a helpful guide to tense situations like this. What would Francisco d'Anconia do if he came across a gang bang? You can bet he'd maximize his own happiness, that's what.
 

The 10 suspended players showed little team solidarity

The decision to announce a boycott was based on the information the players on the team had at that time. The only source of information that the team had up until that Friday afternoon was information they got from their teammates and limited public information from the prior investigation by the police last September. So, did some of the players think some of the 10 players were falsely accused - Yeh, and I hope so. If a person cares about someone, wouldn't the average person look at them in the most favorable light if they have limited information? I think this is especially true given the age of the individuals on the team. Someone that has a few more years under their belt might be a bit more inclined to reserve a public stance of support until more information is available - especially given a culture on college campus. I do not fault the players in any way for the position they took, its was a judgement call on their part at that time, one that was later corrected when more information was available. I commend the University leaders for understanding the nuance of the situation and not coming down hard on the players. As for the individuals that call for a scorched earth policy against athletics. I have lost any appetite for giving them any more time.

But the 10 suspended players did have the report, and it looks like they let their teammates begin a foolish boycott without sharing that information with them. What kind of team solidarity is that?!
 

But the 10 suspended players did have the report, and it looks like they let their teammates begin a foolish boycott without sharing that information with them. What kind of team solidarity is that?!

Do you know when the suspended players got the report? How about in relation to when they were suspended?

Thanks ahead of time. Nice to have someone around that has all of the answers.
 

But the 10 suspended players did have the report, and it looks like they let their teammates begin a foolish boycott without sharing that information with them. What kind of team solidarity is that?!

Their main concern all along seemed to be the players that weren't directly connected to the assault but seemed to be getting punished for it. About 5 or 6 players. Sure they could have said "we will boycott all team activities until at least 6 players get a fair hearing".

You see the difference right?
 



Agreed. When I step back and take a thoughtful look at this situation, Slate is the real problem.

Holy strawman batman! Some of us are capable of holding multiple thoughts in our heads at the same time.
 

Holy strawman batman! Some of us are capable of holding multiple thoughts in our heads at the same time.

If this had happened at Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. no one here would be b1tching about Slate or anyone else, rather just acting holier than thou.

Edit: And you aren't invited to my kid's birthday tomorrow.
 

If this had happened at Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. no one here would be b1tching about Slate or anyone else, rather just acting holier than thou.

Stunning...
 




Top Bottom