MU Lax Bros At It Again

[Billy Hoyle]

I directly quoted the kid in the video, while censoring the word. Just like this person did in her article.

Which was equated to actually saying the word in the campaign to get the professor disciplined. Intent isn’t necessary. That’s the direction the whole debate and “cancellation” has gone.

What was the intent? Before permanently ruining this kid’s life (which is the end game of both sides who seek to “cancel”) figure that out. If there’s a pattern of similar actions (like the Lacrosse girl over the summer) send him packing.

[Pakuni]

Which was equated to actually saying the word in the campaign to get the professor disciplined. Intent isn’t necessary. That’s the direction the whole debate and “cancellation” has gone.

What was the intent? Before permanently ruining this kid’s life (which is the end game of both sides who seek to “cancel”) figure that out. If there’s a pattern of similar actions (like the Lacrosse girl over the summer) send him packing.

Without wading into the rest of this nonsense, could we at least be honest enough here to recognize that if this kid loses his lacrosse scholarship, or is asked to take his talents elsewhere, his life is not "permanently ruined." Like, he's not going to go straight from Schroeder Hall to a cardboard box on lower Wacker, OK?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Marquette has a student code of conduct. It undoubtedly will be followed with the consequences that it prescribes. We don’t know if they are repeat offenders for instance.

Expulsion would be an overreaction as a first offense. I am sure Marquette’s code combines education with punishment and a chance at redemption in cases like these. As it should.

The athletic scholarship issue is different given that an athletic code of conduct may have higher standards.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I’d argue it predates anything political, conservative or otherwise.  It started gaining ground as a phrase when anyone in the public eye had their behavior from the last 25 years scrutinized and a hug or action in 1982 was now deemed problematic and concerning.   It certainly has swung the way you described over the last 18 months, but I feel like 3-4 years ago it started, rightly, taking down people like Weinstein or other lifelong predators, but then started spreading to more and more grey areas.

The phrase started when people would try to cancel events where someone was speaking who had different political opinions than they did. Mostly liberal students on college campus trying to get conservative speaker events cancelled.

It was blown out of proportion but was at least a legit issue. Now it’s become a meaningless mark of victimization.

[forgetful]

Sorry, we're gonna respectfully disagree on No. 1 here.

I'm big on trying to treat athletes like other students whenever possible. Are you arguing that any Marquette engineering or journalism or psychology or Spanish major who is caught on tape saying the N-word should be immediately expelled? No chance to show contrition? No opportunity to learn and grow? Zero-tolerance? One strike and you're out? Really?

As for No. 2 ... maybe ... but I don't think that's a reason to expel.

Reasonable take. My question is how do they show contrition? How do they prove an attempt to grow? If they'd agree to something like 100 hours of community service, maybe tutoring in inner-city public schools, that'd be different. But in my experience, people like these two would rather transfer than do that type of service.

I would also carve out an exception. There was a case of a girl (cheerleader I believe) that had her admission revoked due to an old recording of her saying the same word. In that case, she was singing a well known song. Although, I'd argue that she shouldn't sing that lyric, that is a clear point where one can correct behavior and make the individual more aware.

Here, they apparently used the language, because they thought it would be cool to use the language. And decided that publicly sharing the video would make them "cooler". That is pretty egregious. My guess is that an investigation will find patters of behavior in these students, and in the peer group. I'm confident that investigation is ongoing.

My stance remains that it is best for both parties to go their separate ways.

**disclosure. I'm also embittered by seeing too many of these types of instances at private institutions, and then giving students a slap on the wrist and essentially teaching them not to get caught on camera. No behavior changes, they simply just don't publicize it. There is so much inequity in punishments.

[skianth16]

The phrase started when people would try to cancel events where someone was speaking who had different political opinions than they did. Mostly liberal students on college campus trying to get conservative speaker events cancelled.

It was blown out of proportion but was at least a legit issue. Now it’s become a meaningless mark of victimization.

It's another phrase that has a pretty loose definition and different people view it differently. I think most people agree that certain actions deserve negative consequences. The issue then, is how severe should those consequences be? And to some extent there is also a question of how long should they be implemented?

Where I see an issue with the idea of cancel culture (or Twitter mobs, or whatever else you want to call it) is that very often people want harsher and more severe consequences than those that are handed out by the powers that be. So in a situation like this where a student deservedly loses his scholarship, people will call for harsher punishments. Punishments that live with the offender for a long time. Calls for second chances are viewed as lenient or weak.

And that type of culture seems to be growing and becoming more prevalent. Complete strangers weighing in a person's value to society and their moral compass based on one tweet or statement is way too common. Wanting to see a person doxxed so they lose their career, lose relationships, endure lasting punishment is becoming part of our (largely online) culture. This is way beyond boycotting a business over moral/ethical disagreements. It's not about sending a message in hope to inspire change or improvement. It's schadenfreude. It's vengeance. And that type of culture needs to be addressed.

My two cents.

Edit - I would also add that there is often a push to punish more and more people beyond just the offenders. Marquette, its administrators, and student body are being lumped in with the students and viewed as equally worthy of condemnation by some. This view of wanting to seek punishment/embarrassment for broad groups also seems to be growing.

[MU82]

Reasonable take. My question is how do they show contrition? How do they prove an attempt to grow? If they'd agree to something like 100 hours of community service, maybe tutoring in inner-city public schools, that'd be different. But in my experience, people like these two would rather transfer than do that type of service.

I would also carve out an exception. There was a case of a girl (cheerleader I believe) that had her admission revoked due to an old recording of her saying the same word. In that case, she was singing a well known song. Although, I'd argue that she shouldn't sing that lyric, that is a clear point where one can correct behavior and make the individual more aware.

Here, they apparently used the language, because they thought it would be cool to use the language. And decided that publicly sharing the video would make them "cooler". That is pretty egregious. My guess is that an investigation will find patters of behavior in these students, and in the peer group. I'm confident that investigation is ongoing.

My stance remains that it is best for both parties to go their separate ways.

**disclosure. I'm also embittered by seeing too many of these types of instances at private institutions, and then giving students a slap on the wrist and essentially teaching them not to get caught on camera. No behavior changes, they simply just don't publicize it. There is so much inequity in punishments.

Even though we disagree on this, your take also is reasonable.

Brief anecdote on this being "best for both parties" ...

A couple years ago at the HS where I used to coach, the best player on the boys' team, a junior, used some very ugly language on Snapchat about an opponents' Black players. It was discovered, went viral. He was dismissed from the team with about a month left in the season and, though he wasn't expelled, he finished the year being home-schooled. Several of his Black teammates were quoted as saying they could never look at the kid the same way, and they doubted they could play with him again. I didn't blame them.

He actually returned the following year - both to school and the team. They had a big team meeting, he apologized profusely, promised to make it up to them, said that wasn't "the real me," etc etc. They actually accepted him back and he was the second-leading scorer on team that won 20+ games. Graduated in June (virtually, of course, just as everyone else did due to COVID-19). I think he's playing this season at a prep school somewhere.

Anyway, I couldn't believe he decided to stay at the school, let alone try to play with the same kids. But he did, they seemingly accepted him, and the second chance might play a big part in him living a more productive life. Or it could entitle him and give him an "I can get away with anything" attitude. We'll see. But I have to say I'm glad he got a second chance.

[Billy Hoyle]

Without wading into the rest of this nonsense, could we at least be honest enough here to recognize that if this kid loses his lacrosse scholarship, or is asked to take his talents elsewhere, his life is not "permanently ruined." Like, he's not going to go straight from Schroeder Hall to a cardboard box on lower Wacker, OK?

no, it's not. But that's not the end goal of cancel culture warriors.  The goal is to hang a scarlet letter around the neck of those "canceled," to bully future schools into not admitting them or employers from hiring them. The internet does not forget.

And, no matter what MU does they're screwed. The right will attack them if the administration if the kids are expelled, screaming "cancel culture." If they are not expelled the left will accuse MU of promoting and upholding "white supremacy."

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

no, it's not. But that's not the end goal of cancel culture warriors.  The goal is to hang a scarlet letter around the neck of those "canceled," to bully future schools into not admitting them or employers from hiring them. The internet does not forget.

 

[Billy Hoyle]

 

ask the Central Park Karen about it...

[Jockey]

I’d argue it predates anything political, conservative or otherwise.  It started gaining ground as a phrase when anyone in the public eye had their behavior from the last 25 years scrutinized and a hug or action in 1982 was now deemed problematic and concerning.   It certainly has swung the way you described over the last 18 months, but I feel like 3-4 years ago it started, rightly, taking down people like Weinstein or other lifelong predators, but then started spreading to more and more grey areas.

Cancel culture is not always a bad thing when used for current events.

My issue with it is when we use today's standards to cancel someone from a different era. When we try to cancel, Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln using standards from 2020, the whole thing borders on the ridiculous.

[NolongerWarriors]

It's amazing that a couple of random drunk MU Freshmen saying the N word on snapchat warrants a big article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

[wadesworld]

It's amazing that a couple of random drunk MU Freshmen saying the N word on snapchat warrants a big article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Why is that amazing?

[NolongerWarriors]

Why is that amazing?

That's "news"/newspaper worthy?

It was bizarre.  "Two drunk MU students said the N word on snapchat" being right next to a story about the Winter storm in Texas that included fatalities.

[MU82]

It's amazing that a couple of random drunk MU Freshmen saying the N word on snapchat warrants a big article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Were they random freshmen, or were they D1 scholarship athletes who represent the university? Are you talking about a different story? Was there a second incident not involving somebody on the LAX team?

[Pakuni]

That's "news"/newspaper worthy?

It was bizarre.  "Two drunk MU students said the N word on snapchat" being right next to a story about the Winter storm in Texas that included fatalities.

It is indeed crazy that a local newspaper would highlight local news on par with the weather 1,000 miles away.

[NolongerWarriors]

It is indeed crazy that a local newspaper would highlight local news on par with the weather 1,000 miles away.

Two obnoxious drunk freshmen aren't news. 

The storm of the century causing devastation across TX is 1000X more important.

[Galway Eagle]

Interestingly not arriving on campus seems to have been for the best for the young women's lax recruit. Perhaps she should reach out to Jack Cleary as they're from roughly the same area

https://riverheadnewsreview.timesreview.com/2020/09/102160/after-losing-scholarship-riverhead-grad-looks-to-share-her-story-to-help-others/

[Hards Alumni]

Two obnoxious drunk freshmen aren't news. 

The storm of the century causing devastation across TX is 1000X more important.

Ah yes, the "boys will be boys" excuse.  For inexcusable behavior.

[mu_hilltopper]

And in today's N-word news from Wisconsin .. https://wisconsinexaminer.com/brief/kerr-twitter-nword/

[Pakuni]

Two obnoxious drunk freshmen aren't news. 

The storm of the century causing devastation across TX is 1000X more important.

Crazy thought, but stick with me for a second here .... what if a newspaper published more than one story a day?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Crazy thought, but stick with me for a second here .... what if a newspaper published more than one story a day?

Right.  And that one of them is about a local university that has been in the news in the past for the same exact topic!

[Uncle Rico]

Right.  And that one of them is about a local university that has been in the news in the past for the same exact topic!

I think there is a large swath of white people in this world that just want to be able to say the n-word again without ramifications instead of understanding it’s history because it exposes them to who they really are.

[shoothoops]

I think there is a large swath of white people in this world that just want to be able to say the n-word again without ramifications instead of understanding it’s history because it exposes them to who they really are.

I think there are a large swath of people in this world that are racist, some of which are Scoop posters. I think there are a large swath of people in the world that attempt to marginalize less supported groups of people out of insecure fear and for selfish gain.

There were plenty of these types at Marquette (and other places)

"Just Kidding" "It's just a joke" "People are too sensitive"  And their friends were at best, "Crickets."

[Billy Hoyle]

And in today's N-word news from Wisconsin .. https://wisconsinexaminer.com/brief/kerr-twitter-nword/

did she actually say the word?