MU Lax Bros At It Again

[Hards Alumni]

Aside from the fact that he was on the LAX team (emphasis on "was"), is there any evidence that this kid was, in fact, on scholarship? That said, as a member of the team and athletics department (i.e., representative of the University), I have no doubt that there are some rules applicable to him that wouldn't be applicable to the wider student body.

The former player has been identified as redshirt freshman Defenseman/LSM Jack Cleary. A native of Bronxville, N.Y. and product of Iona Prep (N.Y.), Cleary was initially reportedly to be on a full athletic scholarship at Marquette but it was later revealed that he was a walk on. He has been removed for their roster online.

So I guess he wasn't on scholarship, so Marquette can't take that away.  But he is no longer on the team, so I guess that is the extent of his punishment.  Hopefully, both students are given the assistance they need to correct their behavior and understand the gravity of their words.

[CTWarrior]

But that's not what happened.

If I missed something in context, apologize.  Based on what I saw in the story, I thought someone posted a video of a LAX player using racial slurs in a social setting. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

If I missed something in context, apologize.  Based on what I saw in the story, I thought someone posted a video of a LAX player using racial slurs in a social setting. 

But you said "Any code of conduct that legislates what I can say to my friends at a private party is a BS code of conduct."

But they weren't people just talking amongst themselves at a private party.  Recording it and putting it on social media means it is no longer private.  It would be like opening up a window in McCormick back in my day and shouting out the N-word. 

The fact is that this is against codes of conduct at many places.  And most are dealt with way short of suspension and expulsion.  Marquette is hardly in a unique position with this.

[21Jumpstreet]

But what kind of idiot posts that where others can see it unless he/she hates the guy?

This is what my wife asked. While not defending what was said, she was interested in the context and the why was it posted. Only thing I can think of is the self-centered look at me echo chamber of likes on social media. Short-term thinking to be sure.

[CTWarrior]

But you said "Any code of conduct that legislates what I can say to my friends at a private party is a BS code of conduct."

But they weren't people just talking amongst themselves at a private party.  Recording it and putting it on social media means it is no longer private.  It would be like opening up a window in McCormick back in my day and shouting out the N-word. 

The fact is that this is against codes of conduct at many places.  And most are dealt with way short of suspension and expulsion.  Marquette is hardly in a unique position with this.

Did the kid that said what he said know it was going to put on social media?  It was turned from private to public by someone other than the speaker as I understand it, which means it does not equate to you yelling out the window at McCormick.

I don't understand why anyone would want to put a party on the internet anyway, which is the reason for me not understanding this generation. 

I've seen the majority on this board say it is right for the NBA to force a man to sell his team for remarks made in a private conversation that was surreptitiously recorded, a girl get suspended from her high school soccer team for being at a party where other people were underage drinking, and now an MU kid removed from the LAX team for being an a-hole by using offensive language when he was drunk.  I suppose I do not get why we are so willing to punish harshly for these things, which to me seem to be violations of each individuals rights. 

I'd bet all of us have said things that we wish we hadn't in our lives.  Fortunately for us, they probably weren't recorded and presented to the world.  I guess this old man needs to  get with the times, but in this regard I really don't want to.

[Galway Eagle]

Did the kid that said what he said know it was going to put on social media?  It was turned from private to public by someone other than the speaker as I understand it, which means it does not equate to you yelling out the window at McCormick.

I don't understand why anyone would want to put a party on the internet anyway, which is the reason for me not understanding this generation. 

I've seen the majority on this board say it is right for the NBA to force a man to sell his team for remarks made in a private conversation that was surreptitiously recorded, a girl get suspended from her high school soccer team for being at a party where other people were underage drinking, and now an MU kid removed from the LAX team for being an a-hole by using offensive language when he was drunk.  I suppose I do not get why we are so willing to punish harshly for these things, which to me seem to be violations of each individuals rights. 

I'd bet all of us have said things that we wish we hadn't in our lives.  Fortunately for us, they probably weren't recorded and presented to the world.  I guess this old man needs to  get with the times, but in this regard I really don't want to.

You're assuming he's drunk, he has slurred speech but there's no empty bottles or anything so thats purely conjecture.

You're assuming they're at a party, they weren't. Watch the video they both sweaty and underneath a blanket clearly just had sex or showered. Not exactly at a kegger where they thought it'd be funny.

you're right about we've all said and done things that I'm glad weren't on video. But the difference is they got caught. You mentioned underage drinking earlier, I drank a ton underage but nobody ticketed me but does that mean that those who got caught at the wrong place or wrong time don't get ticketed? Same situation with speeding or any other act.

[CTWarrior]

You're assuming he's drunk, he has slurred speech but there's no empty bottles or anything so thats purely conjecture.

You're assuming they're at a party, they weren't. Watch the video they both sweaty and underneath a blanket clearly just had sex or showered. Not exactly at a kegger where they thought it'd be funny.

you're right about we've all said and done things that I'm glad weren't on video. But the difference is they got caught. You mentioned underage drinking earlier, I drank a ton underage but nobody ticketed me but does that mean that those who got caught at the wrong place or wrong time don't get ticketed? Same situation with speeding or any other act.

Well, frankly, my point comes down to if the speaker did not expect what he said to be made public, I don't see the punishable offense.  If he posted the video or gave permission to post the video, then I get that a punishment is in order. 

I find the idea that private non-threatening private speech can be a punishable offense as more dangerous than using racial slurs.  It cuts to the core of what freedom is.  As for your examples, underage drinking or speeding are against the law, being an a-hole isn't.  I find the act of posting the video more reprehensible than the language used, personally, because the speech doesn't hurt anyone until it is made public.

Of course I do not condone nor do I participate in the use of such language, or hang around with anyone who does for that matter.

[Galway Eagle]

Well, frankly, my point comes down to if the speaker did not expect what he said to be made public, I don't see the punishable offense.  If he posted the video or gave permission to post the video, then I get that a punishment is in order. 

I find the idea that private non-threatening private speech can be a punishable offense as more dangerous than using racial slurs.  It cuts to the core of what freedom is.  As for your examples, underage drinking or speeding are against the law, being an a-hole isn't.  I find the act of posting the video more reprehensible than the language used, personally, because the speech doesn't hurt anyone until it is made public.

Of course I do not condone nor do I participate in the use of such language, or hang around with anyone who does for that matter.

Well the speaker said it towards a recording camera that was on selfie mode. In the very least it was known to be on a permanent record.

Again, freedom isn't getting away with anything you feel like without consequence. Playing lacrosse or even attending Marquette are privileges, they are not rights, you have a right to say whatever you want, but that does not mean that the privileges you have will remain. Since the other to examples didn't do it, then did you ever punish your kids for swearing when they were young? If they got in trouble for swearing at grade school did you rush in about free speech?

[JWags85]

Did the kid that said what he said know it was going to put on social media?  It was turned from private to public by someone other than the speaker as I understand it, which means it does not equate to you yelling out the window at McCormick.

I don't understand why anyone would want to put a party on the internet anyway, which is the reason for me not understanding this generation. 

It was Snapchat, so unless it was a story (where it stays to be viewed for 24 hours), it was likely sent to a group of friends where it disappears moments after viewing.  One of the people that it was sent to used a screen recording function and recorded it and disseminated it.  Which even further complicates the “why” or “how” did it get out.  It’s not like the girl in question posted a Tweet or IG post that everyone saw.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Well, frankly, my point comes down to if the speaker did not expect what he said to be made public, I don't see the punishable offense.  If he posted the video or gave permission to post the video, then I get that a punishment is in order. 

I find the idea that private non-threatening private speech can be a punishable offense as more dangerous than using racial slurs.  It cuts to the core of what freedom is.  As for your examples, underage drinking or speeding are against the law, being an a-hole isn't.  I find the act of posting the video more reprehensible than the language used, personally, because the speech doesn't hurt anyone until it is made public.

Of course I do not condone nor do I participate in the use of such language, or hang around with anyone who does for that matter.

There are principles other than freedom at play.  Being a member of a community, and living up to the standards the community sets is also a consideration.  They willingly agreed to abide by the code of conduct.  You can't complain that they are now held to the standards the code sets.

[CTWarrior]

It was Snapchat, so unless it was a story (where it stays to be viewed for 24 hours), it was likely sent to a group of friends where it disappears moments after viewing.  One of the people that it was sent to used a screen recording function and recorded it and disseminated it.  Which even further complicates the “why” or “how” did it get out.  It’s not like the girl in question posted a Tweet or IG post that everyone saw.

Thanks for the explanation.   Well, the poster probably figured it wouldn't go past a circle of friends or something, but even I know enough to know that once you put something out there, you've lost control of it.  I guess one of those "friends" wasn't really his friend.

[Galway Eagle]

It was Snapchat, so unless it was a story (where it stays to be viewed for 24 hours), it was likely sent to a group of friends where it disappears moments after viewing.  One of the people that it was sent to used a screen recording function and recorded it and disseminated it.  Which even further complicates the “why” or “how” did it get out.  It’s not like the girl in question posted a Tweet or IG post that everyone saw.

Thought it was Tick Tok?

[CTWarrior]

There are principles other than freedom at play.  Being a member of a community, and living up to the standards the community sets is also a consideration.  They willingly agreed to abide by the code of conduct.  You can't complain that they are now held to the standards the code sets.

I assumed the speaker of the slurs did not know his words would be made public.  I am not so sure about that now based on information provided by other posters.  I am always willing to learn.

I stand by my original dissention that any standard that governs non-threatening private speech is not a standard that should be required of anyone nor adhered to by anyone.  You should not say offensive things because you're a human on this Earth with empathy for the other humans, not because you are forced to by some code of conduct.  If you willingly make such speech public, however, then you have to face the consequences. 

And if someone makes it public without your knowledge, they're a bigger a-hole than you are.

[StillAWarrior]

There are principles other than freedom at play.  Being a member of a community, and living up to the standards the community sets is also a consideration.  They willingly agreed to abide by the code of conduct.  You can't complain that they are now held to the standards the code sets.

I'm not disagreeing with you (and I'm not defending these two), but you've repeatedly stated that the violated the code of conduct and even said, "in many places." What portions of the code of conduct did they violate? I'm asking the question in good faith. I don't see a "hate speech" or some similar provision in the Code of Conduct (which, frankly, surprised me a little bit), but I may be looking at the wrong document or in the wrong place. Do they categorize such speech as "verbally abusing" or "interfering with health and safety" or "harassment"? I'm genuinely curious. Obviously, when made in person it would seem to violate each of those, but when done privately that isn't so clear. And yes, I acknowledge that posting it online moves it from the private to the public arena.

As I said earlier in the thread, I think that there should be consequence for these two. Using language like that is despicable and inexcusable. I don't think that it should be an expulsion offense, however, unless there is some other disciplinary history.

Edited to add: I'm aware that they likely violated the alcohol policy...but that's not really what we're discussing in this thread.

[JWags85]

Thought it was Tick Tok?

No, def Snapchat. You can see her Bitmoji in the corner and the whole interface is clearly Snapchat. Doesn’t make it any better or less reprehensible, but it definitely seems like it wasn’t supposed to be public outside of a circle of friends.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I'm not disagreeing with you (and I'm not defending these two), but you've repeatedly stated that the violated the code of conduct and even said, "in many places." What portions of the code of conduct did they violate? I'm asking the question in good faith. I don't see a "hate speech" or some similar provision in the Code of Conduct (which, frankly, surprised me a little bit), but I may be looking at the wrong document or in the wrong place. Do they categorize such speech as "verbally abusing" or "interfering with health and safety" or "harassment"? I'm genuinely curious. Obviously, when made in person it would seem to violate each of those, but when done privately that isn't so clear. And yes, I acknowledge that posting it online moves it from the private to the public arena.

As I said earlier in the thread, I think that there should be consequence for these two. Using language like that is despicable and inexcusable. I don't think that it should be an expulsion offense, however, unless there is some other disciplinary history.

Edited to add: I'm aware that they likely violated the alcohol policy...but that's not really what we're discussing in this thread.

I am going by this update to the community from September.

https://today.marquette.edu/2020/09/update-from-president-and-provost-following-meeting-with-black-student-leaders/

"Climate: The university will review and revise, as needed, current policies regarding hate speech and racist behaviors to better allow for effective enforcement, with the goal to improve the campus environment for all students and employees."

Perhaps that hasn't been codified yet.

[StillAWarrior]

I am going by this update to the community from September.

https://today.marquette.edu/2020/09/update-from-president-and-provost-following-meeting-with-black-student-leaders/

"Climate: The university will review and revise, as needed, current policies regarding hate speech and racist behaviors to better allow for effective enforcement, with the goal to improve the campus environment for all students and employees."

Perhaps that hasn't been codified yet.

Thanks for the response. I didn't see that...makes me think that they haven't gotten it done yet. It also kind of makes me think that they realized that situations like the present one don't fit neatly into the code of conduct.

[withoutbias]

It was Snapchat, so unless it was a story (where it stays to be viewed for 24 hours), it was likely sent to a group of friends where it disappears moments after viewing.  One of the people that it was sent to used a screen recording function and recorded it and disseminated it.  Which even further complicates the “why” or “how” did it get out.  It’s not like the girl in question posted a Tweet or IG post that everyone saw.

I saw a different version where the screen recording continued to after the video was closed. This was posted as the person’s story so that’s fairly public.

Also, I’m thinking this was more drug use than alcohol. Or probably even both. Definitely white powder all over the girl’s nose. Eyes are messed up. Face sweats. So they should probably face some punishment for that too.

[Pakuni]

MU Lax bro says racist stuff over social media,
UCLA track athlete, "Hold my beer"

https://www.tmz.com/2021/02/23/ucla-chris-weiland-dismissed-track-and-field-cross-country/

[Billy Hoyle]

MU Lax bro says racist stuff over social media,
UCLA track athlete, "Hold my beer cocaine."

https://www.tmz.com/2021/02/23/ucla-chris-weiland-dismissed-track-and-field-cross-country/

FIFY

[StillAWarrior]

MU Lax bro says racist stuff over social media,
UCLA track athlete, "Hold my beer"

https://www.tmz.com/2021/02/23/ucla-chris-weiland-dismissed-track-and-field-cross-country/

That's just a very strange conversation for a kid to be having with his mom. I suppose it's to her credit that she told him not to talk like that.