[For each of the last few years, I’ve used Super Bowl week to AmericanStudy some football and/or sports topics. This week, I’ll focus on five football debates I haven’t already covered in those series, leading up to a special post on a few Super Bowl L storylines!]
On the latest twist in one of 2015’s biggest stories, and why it’s vital to resist it.
In one of my 2015 wrap up posts, I linked the inspiring protest by University of Missouri football players to the broader trend of campus protests, many of them linked to the #BlackLivesMatter movement and related issues. I stand by what I wrote in that post’s concluding paragraph, and would go even further—the Missouri football protest is one of the most unique and significant (and successful) examples of activism in American sports we’ve ever seen, and deserves not only our respect and praise but also our collective memory as one of the year’s—indeed, one of the young century’s—most meaningful collective actions.
If a Missouri state legislator has his way, however, the football protest’s legacy could be something quite different. Republican Representative Rick Brattin proposed a bill (co-sponsored by Rep. Kurt Bahr) that would strip athletic scholarships from any student athlete at a public university who “calls, incites, supports, or participates in any strike,” as well as fining any coaches or staff members who encourage or enable such student protests (as, of course and inspiringly, did Missouri head coach Gary Pinkel). As the ESPN.com story hyperlinked above under “Republican Representative…” notes, the bill runs afoul of both the 1st Amendment and the actual funding of the University of Missouri’s athletic department (which comes from internal revenue and not state appropriations), and is thus perhaps more of a symbolic response to the football protests than an actual policy proposal. But even as the former, it’s a deeply troubling step and one that demands our attention and response.
I can’t imagine a clearer and compelling such response to the bill than that provided by Missouri football player and protest leader Ian Simon (also quoted in that ESPN.com article): “They want to call us student-athletes, but they keep us out of the student part of it. I’m more than just a football player…Our sport is just a small part of who we are.” Indeed, perhaps the most troubling aspect of Brattin’s bill is the implicit but crystal clear assumption that college athletes are brought to campus and supported solely to participate in their sports, and that if they step outside that role, they can and should be stripped of their support. Given how much more money is made off of big-time college athletes (and especially football players) than they are ever compensated (in any form), this attitude is particularly galling. But in any case, the simple fact is that the vast, vast majority of college football players will never play professionally—meaning that their time in college is instead, as for their peers, a chance to prepare them for the rest of their lives. I shudder to think what life and world Brattin believes they should be prepared for.
Last debate tomorrow,
PS. What do you think?
And yet everyday models do the same. They are told what to wear & how to look & told what to say & how to say it & what to feel while saying it. And they get a lot of money to do so.ReplyDelete
There's no difference.
This may sound a bit brutal, but I guess there is a cost for your rights. And to some that cost is worth it while for others... They blog in protest.
Thanks for the comment! I don't think the analogy holds, though--the Missouri players weren't objecting to or protesting their own treatment, or any aspect of their roles as football players. Instead they were joining in the broader campus protests of and for African American students. So the legislation isn't about what they have to do as football players--it's about them not being able to have voices or opinions while they are in that role. It'd be the equivalent of Gisele not being able to speak out in support of breastfeeding, to connect to your analogy. I like my football players, and my supermodels, with voices and identities beyond just their category.ReplyDelete
While Gisele can say whatever she damn well pleases due to status - I absolutely beg to differ.Delete
Do you think a CoverGirl could boycot animal testing while in the role of "CoverGirl"
No she may not.
Do you think a LB model could show face at a PETA rally?
Thanks for the response. But again, these players weren't protesting anything related to their sport or their roles. Even then, I would argue that public university athletes can and should be able to protest without having scholarships removed--that is indeed the nature and purpose of public universities (which are not private corporations). But they were not doing so, so the analogy is still distinct.Delete