Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

2122, 08 Nov 15

Missouri Football Players Go On Strike

Good for them for sticking up for what they believe.

(CNN)Black football players at the University of Missouri have joined calls demanding the ouster of the president of the state’s four-campus university system over alleged inaction against racism on campus.

About 30 players made their thoughts known Saturday night in a tweet posted by Missouri’s Legion of Black Collegians.

“The athletes of color on the University of Missouri football team truly believe “Injustice Anywhere is a threat to Justice Everywhere,” read the tweet. “We will no longer participate in any football related activities until President Tim Wolfe resigns or is removed due to his negligence toward marginalized students’ experience.”

Of course, they won’t actually suffer any negative consequences for their protest. Such is the plight of college football players.

The school’s athletics department said Saturday that it supports the right of student athletes to “tackle these challenging issues.”

Head football coach Gary Pinkel seemed to be more direct, tweeting a photo Sunday of dozens of white and black students standing arm in arm with the message, “The Mizzou Family stands as one. We are united. We are behind our players.”


2122, 08 November 2015


  1. scott

    Black student leaders have complained of students openly using racial slurs and other incidents. In August, someone used feces to draw a swastika, drawing condemnation from black and Jewish student organizations.

    One student is on a hunger strike demanding action. Graduate student Jonathan L. Butler started the hunger strike last week, demanding Wolfe’s removal.

    He wrote Missouri officials that “students are not able to achieve their full academic potential because of the inequalities and obstacles they face,” according to the Missourian newspaper in Columbia. “In each of these scenarios, Mr. Wolfe had ample opportunity to create policies and reform that could shift the culture of Mizzou in a positive direction, but in each scenario, he failed to do so.”

  2. Dan

    Well, if they go on “strike”, then they should lose their scholarships. That would mean they actually stand for something.
    But of course scott, all of those charges have been verified?
    I’m sure you are aware of all the false reporting by people on campus, where someone reports a racist incident and it turns out they were lying.

  3. Dan

    And since the majority of players on the Missouri team appear to be Blacks, which, according to statistics of Missouri, then, I think some black players should give up their scholarships to bring equality to the team. I’m pretty sure Hispanics are under represented on the team along with Asians and perhaps white players.


    So let’s review. A group of people have banded together to force a large institution to address their concerns by threatening the institutions financial interests. Seems that both Thomas Jefferson and Karl Marx would approve of this action.

  5. Kevin Scheunemann

    If they were protesting the injustice of their football coach being fired for praying on the field….would you have the same supportive reaction, Scott?

    How about if the fired football coach was black?

    Just curious if race issues trump your need for speech suppression?

  6. old baldy


    Don’t you find it amusing that kevin can get religion involved in any discussion?

    “Belief in the supernatural reflects a failure on the imagination”.

    Ed Abbey

  7. 3rd way

    Black football players in the SEC are probably the most powerful force to spur political action in the country.

  8. Kevin Scheunemann


    Just trying to gage how far race issues go.

    I was just curious if he was willing to support the football players if a black football coach was under attack by university for mumbling in the middle of the field on one knee after the game with students joining in.

    If race issues trump all, would like to know if race affects his decision on that story.

  9. scott

    I would not support people protesting the firing of a coach for conducting prayers on the field of a public university game. Even if the coach was black. You can’t really think otherwise. I mean, really can’t. As in your question is totally disingenuous. I’m sure you think you’re making some kind of clever point by asking it, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what it is.

    I erroneously posted this in a thread where it was weirdly off topic the other day. Thanks to Kevin, it now has a more topical home here:

    I wonder how Kevin feels about it.

  10. Kevin Scheunemann

    So African Americans would not enjoy any special victim hood status in the football coach scenario?

    Interesting. That’s the fascinating thing about liberalism, protected victimhood status seems to be an unpredictable and irrational case by case basis.

    Your slate article: People getting together and praying and saying “May God Bless you” is a problem?

    I have a problem when liberal zealots shout “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.”

    You’ll defend the right to let the latter be chanted to death, but a Christian wishes blessings on someone …that has to be stomped on at all costs?

    Do you know how silly that sounds to the average citizen?

  11. old baldy


    You rail at Scott for “protected victimhood status”, yet you incessantly jabber on in everything you post about how liberals (and I’ll say it again, I am not) are prosecuting you god-fearing christians at every turn. Do you ever run anything you type through your brain before you push “post” ? Hypocrite.

  12. John Foust

    Hypotheticals, Kevin? Where’s your line on what you’d like to see?

    Let’s say there’s a black first-grade teacher yelling “You’re all going to burn in the lake of fire if you don’t get with Jesus” at the kids every morning before they start their lessons.

    Would you stomp? Why?

  13. Kevin Scheunemann


    My line is full, unfettered school choice.

    Parents than are free to send their kids to whatever school, including the secular, liberal religious public schools. Public schools would have to earn vouchers, by competing to get funding.

    Then teachers are free to make statements.

    Christian schools will make statements about eternal salvation (they would not do it in manner you suggest).

    Public schools would be free to teach “gay is the way”, single parenthood is just dandy through irrespnsible choices, and how to use condoms in 4th grade, and where pre-born baby genocide is dandy.

    Those that don’t like the liberal public school secular agenda have no beef then, becasue they are free to send their kid to the correct school that can teach the values they want their kid to have.

    It’s stuffing this school thing into the intolerant, liberal, one size fits all school, is where all the free speech conflict comes in.

    Why don’t we go with choice as a society, rather than free speech oppression?

  14. John Foust

    As for intent, you’d need to ask the founding fathers / ancestors / writers of every state constitution, including Wisconsin’s, that include provisions for free public education.

    Ours says that “The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable; and such schools shall be free and without charge for tuition to all children between the ages of 4 and 20 years; and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed therein.”

    I guess you’d need to change the Constitution if you don’t like that.

    I don’t think we should be handing public dollars to religious schools. If you want to tell your children they’re going to roast in Hell, that’s your business.

    So again, what’s wrong with my hypothetical? Why shouldn’t that public school teacher be able to tell the kids they’re going to Hell? It’s just a Christian blessing, right?

  15. old baldy


    I’ll ask again, do you ever think before you push the post comment button? Your statement is an oxymoron. But considering the source……

    “secular, liberal religious school”.

    I’ll give an example of how the private catholic scool I attended dealt with other religions. Our pedophile priest would get all red-faced when screaming at us how anyone of any faith other than roman catholic would “rot and burn in hell”. Pretty terrible stuff for a 2nd grader, agreed? My dilemma was that my best friends dad was jewish. He was a nice guy, treated his wife and family well, and was a cornerstone of our small towm community. On the other hand, my alcoholic abusive catholic father was none of those. So who get to “rot and burn in hell”, and why?

  16. scott

    Kevin, if you had 100 random Americans read that article how many of them do you think would be supportive of that school? I’m sure you realize it would be a pretty small number. Now who sounds silly?

  17. Kevin Scheunemann


    Liberal secular humanism is it’s own religion.

  18. Kevin Scheunemann

    John, Scott

    Answer is: Good Christian education is not merely 1 statement about hell. It’s about grace and salvation as well. If the public school teacher is allowed to do all that, then I don’t have a problem with the statement in its proper Christian educational context.

    Since you guys will never allow that proper spiritual education in a public school, school choice and vouchers solves that issue.

    Remember, Scott supports public campaign finance for me to evangelize about Jesus in my campaign. Why would that be dandy to fund from public coffers, but not education opportunity scholarships for poor kids with vouchers?

  19. scott

    “Scott supports public campaign finance for me to evangelize about Jesus in my campaign. Why would that be dandy to fund from public coffers, but not education opportunity scholarships for poor kids with vouchers?”

    I gotta say, Kevin, this is one of the best points you’ve made in… I don’t even know how long. It make sense, doesn’t redefine words and, frankly, isn’t easy to rebut. I’m pretty sure there’s some decent reasons why one case is different than the other–different enough to make it not okay in the case of education–but it will require some serious thought to articulate them clearly.

    Personally, I think it’s wrong to do in both cases. Our government is designed to be a secular one with good reason. Campaigning for office by trying to out Jesus your opponent is obviously against the spirit of the thing. Schooling is similar. The whole reason we have public education is to make sure our citizens achieve a basic level of numeracy and literacy and critical thinking skills. This is in the public interest. It is wrong for a government employee, a public school teacher, to engage in religious activities on the job. It is also wrong to spend public money for you to engage in religious activity.

    But the difference is tied up in this: it’s a balance between the free speech of the religious and the public’s need for secular government. In the case of education, our need to remain secular trumps a school teacher’s right to evangelize on the job. In the case of a candidate in a publicly financed campaign for office, it is the principle of free speech that trumps the other.

    Why? That’s where things get really hairy.

  20. old baldy


    “Liberal secular humanism is it’s own religion”. No it isn’t. You are lying again. Isn’t that against your religious beliefs? Or is lying for self promotion OK?

  21. scott

    Forget it, OB. You’re circling in on the very core of Kevin’s erroneous world view. It’s at the source of just about every wrong thing he writes here. I don’t think he’ll be talked out of it by any of us here.

  22. scott

    Nope, I don’t think I’ll shut the fuck up, “Chris Benoit Yourself, Scott.” What are you going to do about it? Nothing. Don’t say things to me online that you’re not man enough to say to my face. It makes you look like a child with anger issues. Grow up.

  23. Kevin Scheunemann


    Why deny it?

    Doesn’t secular humanism hold the core belief that one does not need God involved in educational matters and therefore hold human wisdom and reason as it’s own god?

    I know you would agree with that statement. That is religion, no matter how you want to spin it.


    In both cases. To weed religion out of public funded campaigns or schools requires massive political speech review. That means you grant the power to anyone to shut up a political position by sceaming “religion”. you see how bent out of shape you, and some others, get when I do it passively here. Imagine someone doing it aggressively in all things? I’m only making case for free speech, whether religious or not.

  24. old baldy


    Scott is right; you are never going to accept anything that you can’t control in your own little personal one-man reality show. So I’ll quit trying to educate you, and stick to just calling you out on your ridiculous statements.

  25. John Foust

    Kevin, the state Constitution says “no sectarian instruction shall be allowed therein.” No Wotan, no Satan, no Thor, no Jesus; no gods allowed.

    I believe you are capable of a better understanding of the beliefs of secular humanists. I think you can see the inner contradiction in your statement that, in short, a bunch of people who don’t believe in God and/or believe that morality can exist independent of theology, aren’t trying to say that reason and wisdom have themselves become a god.

  26. Kevin Scheunemann


    Great. Let’s get rid of the global warming….I mean climate change…sect point of view and ideas out of schools.

    By denying our flawed human nature and that todays reason, as we understand it, is absolute; is a passionate, and vehement sectarian position.

    We should kick that idea out of public schools as well.

    See how dangerous it is to filter ideas, speech, and positions for a religious component?

  27. Kevin Scheunemann


    I’ll take your last response as: I can’t educate you to the idea that free speech censorship, under the liberal guise of screaming religion, is not reprehesible.

    If so, you are corret, you will never educate me that censorship in the public square is acceptable.

    Glad you’ve stopped trying.

Pin It on Pinterest