|
Virginia
Jul 2, 2021 8:50:50 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 19delta on Jul 2, 2021 8:50:50 GMT -6
larrymoe and 19delta My life is now worse for looking up that reference. I hope both of you experience some type of violent diarrhea this weekend. Also, aceback forgot to add current inmate and rapist in his darren sharper bio "Oh sh*t, it's Darren Sharper!" Both a quote from the Madden video and from dozens of women...
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 28, 2021 18:25:27 GMT -6
Darren Sharper, Former NFL player for the Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings and lastly the New Orleans Saints, the team that won Super Bowl XLIV. Darren Sharper! One of the hardest hitting safeties in the league!! Do it for Madden!!! Greg Jennings put the team on his back. HOW IS HE RUNNING WITH A BROKEN LEG?
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 28, 2021 16:08:19 GMT -6
I am hesitant to bring this to the discussion, as I know how some twist these things into political argument type things, but I feel it is a fair discussion to have. Today, the supreme court ruled in favor of Brandi Levy. Levy, a teenager who posted a profanity laced snapchat post against her high school cheer team after failing to make varsity, was suspended from her JV team after the post. Her parents sued the school and the supreme court ruled in her favor- basically stating it didnt meet the Tinker standard for being disruptive to the learning environment. Now, maybe I missed something here, but I was always led to believe that extra curriculars were given a different standard in leeway to suspending participants. Regardless, if a player of yours did something similar, posted publicly online "F@#* (your school), and F@#* (the football team)" would you suspend or reprimand them? I believe this very much disrupts the team, and would lead to conflicts in the locker room. Thoughts? Because the court laid down no hard rule here, nobody knows. They were fairly specific in saying their ruling only applied to the particulars of this case and was not intended to set precedent. Make your rules. Stand by them. Make them go through the legal process if they don't follow them. (Make sure the school will support you---and the upshot of this ruling is that the school may NOT because they're scared) I think the lesson to school boards and district administrators is much more simple than that: Don't use a flamethrower to swat a mosquito.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 28, 2021 16:05:08 GMT -6
I think we all know the solution to this issue was to just make her eat a large pizza. Ha! That's great! 🤣
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 27, 2021 5:35:05 GMT -6
The one I have heard countless times is in regards to going for a 2-pt conversion: 50% on 2-pt conversions is just as good as 100% on 1-pt conversions. In theory, it makes sense. In practice, I have never seen it work. Well, wouldnt it not working be because the percentage on two point conversions is actually less than 50%? I guess that is what you were getting at? Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 26, 2021 19:25:10 GMT -6
The one I have heard countless times is in regards to going for a 2-pt conversion: 50% on 2-pt conversions is just as good as 100% on 1-pt conversions.
In theory, it makes sense. In practice, I have never seen it work.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 16:17:36 GMT -6
Team captains and starters? I find that really hard to believe at those two schools you used as examples. Maroa had 3 kids all transfer the same spring a couple years ago. They were all multiple year starters, all conference/County and even all state and probably would have been captains going into their Sr years. I believe all 3 kids all started at their new schools. Did they record and then post social media videos of themselves saying "F Football" on the way out?
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 13:46:08 GMT -6
Every school and "culture" has kids that aren't happy about something and get pissy and bitch on social media. Heck, in our area alone Maroa Forsyth and SHG has had kids bitch and eventually move because they weren't happy about something. That is in no way an indication of those school's "culture". Team captains and starters? I find that really hard to believe at those two schools you used as examples.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 13:39:12 GMT -6
I just got done reading the majority opinion (written by Breyer) on Oyez. The school lost their case at the district level, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. That's all three levels of the federal judiciary kicking the school district in the nuts. Additionally, after making the decision to suspend the student for the next year, the student offered to apologize for what she had said. However, the school told her to go pound sand and upheld the suspension. The lesson school officials should take away from this decision is that discipline should be meted out precisely and proportionately. The only one to blame for the school district's defeat is the school district officials themselves, whose heavy-handed and uncompromising punishment gave this student no recourse other than filing a lawsuit. Long story short, if I was a superintendent and found my school in a similar circumstance, the decision-making process would begin with the idea that we don't want to end up in the Supreme Court. 😆 All of this is about a past case though coach. I am not arguing about the court's ruling on this case, but rather on how it will impact coaches and school site admin going forward. I believe that the school district and school associations pushed the appeals on the grounds of finding out "ok, what is the landscape here" regarding first amendment and schools in our new online social media world. Not just because they thought they were right. If that's what they were doing, then they are even dumber than I initially thought.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 10:03:17 GMT -6
You can sue for anything and have the potential to win any case. But if I asked you to apologize and move on I doubt you would've sued me, especially if I said, "Hey people make mistakes, just apologize and let's move on and make it a great season." Being in admin sucks. That's why I quit. I agree. I am talking about going forward. Based on this ruling, I am certain that SOME student/parent/family/group is going to decide that they don't need to apologize. "You can't make this child apologize based on 'Levy' ". And when that happens, you can blame the Mahanoy Area School District for taking this nonsense all the way to the Supreme Court. B.L. (the cheerleader) offered to apologize after the suspension was handed down. The school district told her that they were going to impose the suspension anyway.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 9:58:15 GMT -6
I didn't read the opinion in entirety. But typically, these kinds of decisions are tailored narrowly to fit the specific facts of the case at hand. The Supreme Court usually tries to avoid setting precedents. Not every Supreme Court decision qualifies as a "landmark" case. I agree there. My point is how much support will a district now give coaches/school site administrators who are faced with similar (but not exact) situations? Who is going to make the decision that the narrowly tailored 8-1 ruling here would not cover a new situation. I guess what I am asking is who is going to trust that a lower level court will side with the coaches/schools in similar situations, vs just saying "we are not going to support/fight this" I just got done reading the majority opinion (written by Breyer) on Oyez. The school lost their case at the district level, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. That's all three levels of the federal judiciary kicking the school district in the nuts. Additionally, after making the decision to suspend the student for the next year, the student offered to apologize for what she had said. However, the school told her to go pound sand and upheld the suspension. The lesson school officials should take away from this decision is that discipline should be meted out precisely and proportionately. The only one to blame for the school district's defeat is the school district officials themselves, whose heavy-handed and uncompromising punishment gave this student no recourse other than filing a lawsuit. Long story short, if I was a superintendent and found my school in a similar circumstance, the decision-making process would begin with the idea that we don't want to end up in the Supreme Court. 😆
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 9:30:02 GMT -6
Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers. I agree with you regarding what happened. What I am saying is that going forward, this ruling essentially says that those coaches who have stated "I would have ________" would be not be supported in doing so should situations arise in the future. Again, I argue that based on this ruling, the speech is protected correct? It is protected from being suspended for a year, it is protected from being told to apologize to the team, it is protected from having to run an extra gasser or two. My concern is that now who will be the deciding factor how different something has to be to NOT be protected. Could this lead to off campus "cancers" suing because of playing time if indeed a coach reduces playing time because of that? I didn't read the opinion in entirety. But typically, these kinds of decisions are tailored narrowly to fit the specific facts of the case at hand. The Supreme Court usually tries to avoid setting precedents. Not every Supreme Court decision qualifies as a "landmark" case.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 9:21:14 GMT -6
Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers. The court did not rule that all punishment of off campus behavior is unlawful. The legal standard just says whether, and to what extent, the first amendment applies, but once it applies there still are other standards like due process, proportionality, whether she signed a code of conduct/social media policy, etc. I didn't make any of those claims.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 8:41:43 GMT -6
She f*cked up, the consequence should've fit the f*cking action, as a former school admin I would've made her apologize to her coaches and teammates and would've put her on a f*cking behavior contract (which is total fake bullsh*t) and had her meet with guidance to see where the f*ck she's at / return to play. She's 14? Impulse control is low. She been an issue otherwise? Grades? Etc? Might've been a bad f*cking week. Off-campus On her Snap that people filmed and sent out Social media has changed society, and people, on all ends in all ways But young adults make mistakes (as do reglar adults) Apologize and move on. More embarrassing to go back to JV and have to be a model citizen than to win a SCOTUS case on TV. My question is that based on this ruling- couldn’t she have sued and won given your punishment too ? Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 25, 2021 6:14:07 GMT -6
That's not what I said. Not even close. I said if team captains or the best players are recording videos of themselves denigrating or criticizing the coaches and then posting those videos on social media, then that is a huge culture fail. Seriously...how is that even a controversial statement? Some might say that getting rid of that player would go a long way toward improving the culture. Lou Holtz had a great quote about this...something like "Motivation is easy. Find the people who aren't motivated and get rid of them." I think he had another good one...something about not hiring assistant coaches if they owned golf clubs or a boat.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 24, 2021 20:13:41 GMT -6
In every SCOTUS decision, context and nuance is everything, of course. But, as I said previously, the biggest problem the school was going to have to overcome in their arguments to the Court was first, the comments were not made at school or on a school-issued device and second, this was the student's first offense for something of this nature. For the vast majority of infractions, the approach to student discipline should be tiered. So, subsequent infractions or more serious infractions should result in greater penalties than first-time offenders or minor offenses. Regarding your hypothetical scenario, my thoughts are that if a captain or a starter is publicly making statements like that, he's probably right. I am not good at my job if I have encouraged and allowed such negativity and disrespect. I would like to think that if I was in that situation, I would try and find another resolution short of a virtual death penalty, which is what the school in this case imposed on the cheerleader. Come on... if a person reacts emotionally to a loss and says F you and you are the reason they lost that person is probably right? Because kids, adults, parents, and professionals don’t make a comment in haste? Because people don’t try to protect their egos or try to find a reason whether it’s realistic or not i take player and parent comments and reflect on them always but many times it is protective and reactive not fully factual. Some truth, probably, fully right, rarely. but I guess your program has eliminated human nature fully, congrats That's not what I said. Not even close. I said if team captains or the best players are recording videos of themselves denigrating or criticizing the coaches and then posting those videos on social media, then that is a huge culture fail. Seriously...how is that even a controversial statement?
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 24, 2021 13:32:10 GMT -6
In every SCOTUS decision, context and nuance is everything, of course. But, as I said previously, the biggest problem the school was going to have to overcome in their arguments to the Court was first, the comments were not made at school or on a school-issued device and second, this was the student's first offense for something of this nature. For the vast majority of infractions, the approach to student discipline should be tiered. So, subsequent infractions or more serious infractions should result in greater penalties than first-time offenders or minor offenses. Regarding your hypothetical scenario, my thoughts are that if a captain or a starter is publicly making statements like that, he's probably right. I am not good at my job if I have encouraged and allowed such negativity and disrespect. I would like to think that if I was in that situation, I would try and find another resolution short of a virtual death penalty, which is what the school in this case imposed on the cheerleader. But here you are discussing facts of the case. That is not the Court's job- there job is ruling in matters of law, particularly constitutional. That this was her first offense is irrelevant no? The location and device are indeed relevant on that basis. Are you suggesting that by simply not choosing this girl for the varsity team was encouraging and allowing negativity and disrespect? I know you are not, but you do see what I am getting at. Remember, this was about suppression of speech, not necessarily the degree of punishment. Could this ruling mean that not only could the kid not be suspended from your team, but that ANY discipline for such matters would be prevented? The Court has ruled on freedom of speech cases regarding kids in school many times. In those cases, the Court doesn't always rule the same way (for example, compare Tinker v. Des Moines to Bethel Schools v. Fraser) for several reasons. First, the makeup of the justices (liberal vs. conservative) changes over time, which can change the majority. But, most importantly, it's because the facts are different in each case. In fact, discussing the facts of the case and then interpreting those facts in regards to Constitutional principles is the Supreme Court's only job. So I would argue that the fact that this was this student's first offense is HUGELY relevant. For example, had this student (or other students, for that matter) at this school made similar social media posts in the past that were in fact disruptive to the learning environment or threatened the authority of school officials, it is entirely possible (if not probable) that the Court would have decided that the consequence (a year's suspension from the cheerleading team) was entirely inappropriate. To your second point, no. I'm not suggesting that at all. In your previous post, you offered the example of a team captain or a starter publicly making social media posts that were highly critical of the coaching staff. You did not use the example of a 14-year-old freshman. I stand by my contention that if you are a coach and your team captain or your best players are publicly criticizing you on social media, you, as the coach, have a serious culture problem. I don't even think that would be debatable. Regarding your last point, I would say it depends on the circumstances that led to the disciplining of the student. Generally speaking, the Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect lewd speech or speech promoting drug use on school grounds or during school sponsored activities. The Court has also ruled that schools can censor student speech that a reasonable person would think is endorsed by school officials. Lastly, schools can censor speech that can cause a disruption to the learning environment. In this particular case, the school district's punishment was not warranted because none of those standards were met.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 24, 2021 13:29:32 GMT -6
Ok...so I was being hyperbolic. But, for a 14-year-old kid, getting suspended for a year is a huge deal. Probably felt like a death penalty to her. My point was that there were much less severe measures that could have been taken that would not have ended up in the Supreme Court. I don't think I necessarily agree here. The legal argument wasn't the degree of punishment, or severity of measure was it? It was whether student's speech about schools/clubs is protected. Not a lawyer here, but something is either protected, or it isn't. Now, if you want to argue that a less sever measure would not have resulted in a law suit, that could and probably might be accurate. But had that lawsuit been filed anyway, had the parents decided "nope, you can't punish my child at all" even given a much less severe measure, then theoretically everything should have played out just the same right? So instead of suspending her from the team for a year, let's say that the principal made her write a letter or apology to her teammates and coaches. Parents still file a lawsuit. But all the other facts in the case are the same. Yes, in that case, the Court is still going to rule in favor of the cheerleader (or should rule in favor of the cheerleader) because the school did not meet the standard required to censor or punish student speech. On the other hand, if the facts were different, for example, if something like this had occurred previously in this school and had resulted in a major disruption, the Court would have ruled in favor of the school. So, context is everything when it comes to the Supreme Court. There are few hard and fast rules.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 24, 2021 13:17:40 GMT -6
Ok...so I was being hyperbolic. But, for a 14-year-old kid, getting suspended for a year is a huge deal. Probably felt like a death penalty to her. My point was that there were much less severe measures that could have been taken that would not have ended up in the Supreme Court. And yes...if a football captain or starter (and not some run-of-the-mill malcontent) is saying such negative things publicly, I think that is probably indicative of a poor culture. Kavanaugh concurred with the ruling because the Instagram post did not disrupt the workings of the school. I agree and if the girl had been suspended from school I agree that that's overkill. But, since her post definitely could be disruptive to a team, I do think that suspending her from the team was appropriate. But what is the definition of "disruptive"? In this case, the school district's lawyer admitted that only a few students were talking about it and it was only for a couple days. Then the whole thing blew over. It only became a disruption because the school district chose to make it one. Could a situation like this cause a major disruption? Possibly. But until a school district can prove that it is actually causing a disruption, I think that is a really poor reason to give school officials vast authority to restrict student speech.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 24, 2021 12:12:02 GMT -6
In every SCOTUS decision, context and nuance is everything, of course. But, as I said previously, the biggest problem the school was going to have to overcome in their arguments to the Court was first, the comments were not made at school or on a school-issued device and second, this was the student's first offense for something of this nature. For the vast majority of infractions, the approach to student discipline should be tiered. So, subsequent infractions or more serious infractions should result in greater penalties than first-time offenders or minor offenses. Regarding your hypothetical scenario, my thoughts are that if a captain or a starter is publicly making statements like that, he's probably right. I am not good at my job if I have encouraged and allowed such negativity and disrespect. I would like to think that if I was in that situation, I would try and find another resolution short of a virtual death penalty, which is what the school in this case imposed on the cheerleader. Death penalty? She was a freshman who was suspended from cheering for a year. And, if a player says stuff like that publicly he's probably right? Ok...so I was being hyperbolic. But, for a 14-year-old kid, getting suspended for a year is a huge deal. Probably felt like a death penalty to her. My point was that there were much less severe measures that could have been taken that would not have ended up in the Supreme Court. And yes...if a football captain or starter (and not some run-of-the-mill malcontent) is saying such negative things publicly, I think that is probably indicative of a poor culture.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 24, 2021 11:14:49 GMT -6
But what if it wasn't/isn't in the future? What would have happened (and still what will happen) if one of your Captains posted a video stating "F Delta, F Delta's playcalling, that cost of the game. F Delta's weight program, that is why we lose" etc. What if it isn't a captain but just a starter? What if it isn't a starter but just a back up? I am curious how that would play out. In every SCOTUS decision, context and nuance is everything, of course. But, as I said previously, the biggest problem the school was going to have to overcome in their arguments to the Court was first, the comments were not made at school or on a school-issued device and second, this was the student's first offense for something of this nature. For the vast majority of infractions, the approach to student discipline should be tiered. So, subsequent infractions or more serious infractions should result in greater penalties than first-time offenders or minor offenses. Regarding your hypothetical scenario, my thoughts are that if a captain or a starter is publicly making statements like that, he's probably right. I am not good at my job if I have encouraged and allowed such negativity and disrespect. I would like to think that if I was in that situation, I would try and find another resolution short of a virtual death penalty, which is what the school in this case imposed on the cheerleader.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 23, 2021 19:32:50 GMT -6
We are not required to wear masks if we are in the weight room with kids or doing drills. However, if a team is "scrimmaging" inside, they have to wear masks. So, for example, if the basketball team is practicing layups, they don't have to wear masks. But if they are going 5 on 5, they have to mask up. Also, if we are in the classroom with students, like summer school, for example, both the teacher and the students have to be masked. I'm also a driver ed teacher. We are still required to be masked in the car with students.
My sense is that public schools here in Illinois will still have a mask requirement in August.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 23, 2021 19:20:43 GMT -6
The ruling stated that schools only have the power to rescind a students first amendment rights if those rights interrupt the school and school procedures. I think the big issue here was that she was suspended from school, not just from cheerleading. As a result of this, I would talk to the kid and let him know that this isn't an appropriate way to handle it, let him know that this impacts the team negatively and also may impact the way his teammates view him. And then let the team know that as well. But I wouldn't suspend him, if anything I might let the team vote to keep him or cut him. But I personally would issue a warning letting him know that isn't acceptable for what we are trying to accomplish and if it happens again, he will be asked to turn in his pads. I was not aware that she was also suspended from school. My understanding was she was only suspended from the cheerleading squad for the following year. The school district's actions are a massive overreaction. What should have happened is that the cheerleading coach and the administration should have called a meeting with the student and the parents and explained why the things she wrote online were not appropriate. Everything should have been carefully documented but there should not have been such an excessive punishment handed down. I think the school would have had a much better case if the student had posted the comments while she was on campus during school hours and if this was a subsequent offense. Here's the thing...there was a distraction but the distraction was caused by the school district's overreaction. Had the district not have made a mountain out of a molehill, the whole incident would have blown over in a week or so. That's very similar to what happened in the Tinker case over 50 years ago. School authorities can't claim that they are justified in censoring a student's First Amendment rights to prevent or discipline a disruption of the learning environment when it is the school authorities themselves who are causing the disruption! It was an 8-1 decision from SCOTUS. Given the severe political polarization that exists in the country today, that is a resounding and shocking rebuke handed down to the school district. If I'm a taxpayer in that district, I would be really angry about the BOE blowing money on such legal tomfoolery.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 19, 2021 6:05:06 GMT -6
Each of our individual sport coaches do a lot of cool things with their teams. But what I am most excited about is that we are moving rapidly towards a school-wide, unified approach to developing speed and strength.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 8, 2021 20:36:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 6, 2021 11:53:29 GMT -6
The kids a Jew and getting scholarship offers. Not to be the devil advocate, but if you are a strict Jew then playing on Saturdays for you will be tough. That is their Sabbath. Remember the movie School Ties. There was a good lineman from BYU that could have gone high in the draft but didn't want to go in the NFL because they played on Sunday. All that might be true but has no bearing on how a high school coach should discipline players.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 5, 2021 19:42:36 GMT -6
No punishment is a good idea for being late to or missing a voluntary activity. The single biggest motivator for the kids I have coached has always been playing time. If kids aren't meeting the expectations required to be a member of the team, restricting their playing time has been the single best strategy to convince them to come to Jesus. Apparently, the kid at the center of the McKinley story is a really good player who is attracting scholarship offers. I get the sense that the head coach (Wattley) wanted to discipline this kid but in such a way that his considerable football skill could still be exploited. Rather than the ridiculously clumsy, Rube Goldbergian attempt at discipline Wattley came up with, this is what he should have done: 1) Don't have voluntary practices that are really mandatory 2) Let kids know up front that if they miss team functions, there will be a reduction in playing time That's really all he needed to do. I think his problem was that he knew he had a player who was really talented but maybe also a little selfish so not playing that kid was just not a reasonable option. She he cooked up a "punishment" that he thought would communicate his dissatisfaction with the player to the rest of the team but still allow him to play. The other issue is that I'm not exactly sure what team rule the kid broke. I have read in several articles that the kid was not considered to be a team player and was selfish. But I haven't read anything specific other than the missed voluntary practice (that apparently was mandatory). Given that, I think the other important lesson from this incident is that if a coach is going to discipline a kid, that coach needs to be able to specifically detail the transgressions that were committed.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 4, 2021 12:26:07 GMT -6
That is why I have said I am glad there was the pork/religious issue. I agree that very likely the situation was indeed blown out of proportion with regards to religious persecution.That should not matter Agreed. This was dumb from the moment the pizza was ordered.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 4, 2021 11:31:16 GMT -6
Absolutely. My concern is that even if the student was not Jewish, or if he was but they knew he ate pork all the time (even if it was against his tenants) and he was just using that as a "f you, I won't do it and you can't make me" thing the idea that they were going to humiliate a student for missing a voluntary work out should be grounds for firing. I am concerned that the religious aspects are going to dominate the headlines, and in my opinion that should not matter one bit. If the entire story was simply the coaches made a kid eat a pizza while they (and team mates) berated him because the kid missed a voluntary work out, the results should still be the same.
Not that it really matters, I'm fully on board with this being really dumb even with no religious component,
but the phrasing on the ESPN version of this story is a tad subtle,
"The player and his family are a members of the Hebrew Israelite religious faith",
If I throw 'Hebrew Israelite' into google, it only brings back results for 'Black Hebrew Israelite',
Who knows how well the coach knew this kid or his family (could really be all over the spectrum), it's possible he had no idea what this kid's religious beliefs were prior to the kid saying 'I don't eat pork'
The attorney for the fired head coach is claiming that the whole situation has been blown out of proportion and this was nothing more than a coach trying to motivate a recalcitant player: www.wkyc.com/article/sports/high-school/hs-football/canton-school-board-meeting-mckinley-high-school-football-coaches/95-a52164d7-9453-4b22-880f-f0f15ae378b5
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jun 4, 2021 9:02:23 GMT -6
I agree. Given that the HC was not a certificated faculty member (based on his now deleted bio) I am curious how many, if any, were. Spending a few minutes using online search engines, It looks like all spend a great deal of time posting on twitter (which would disqualify them if I were king of the world LOL). One seems to be quite fond of John Cena, so there is that. I found that one had a linked in profile saying he was a PE teacher at St. Thomas Aquinas through March of 2018 (while also stating he was coaching at Mckinley since 2017 and was OC/qb coach). Another has a zoom info page that says he is "Safety and Security". (Not director of, not head of...it states he is "safety and security". His twitter acct says he is the Director of Player Personnel and Linebacker coach. Also of note, apparently Wattley (the HC) was the 4th HC of this program in the last 8 years or so. This seems to support the idea that when football is no longer an extra curricular extension of the school, but instead its own entity and a source for other people to try define themselves by the accomplishments of others...it can lead to foolish outcomes. As I mentioned earlier, my biggest concern is that had this not been a non kosher pizza, had there not been any religious issues involved here, this would not have had the same outcome. I think that is 100% wrong. The religious issue is what is driving the stories, as the headlines can lead readers /viewers to think that the primary action here was coaches persecuting a religion. I do not believe that was the case at all. That was just happenstance. I don't believe they did it because of religion, but more than one article I read said the kid told them numerous times that he could not eat it for religious reasons. Now, maybe they don't do pre-game meals, etc, but if you do any thing at all where you are feeding kids (even if it's pizza), you gotta know your team well enough to know which kids have religious restrictions. For example, I know not to try to take my Muslim players to a pig pickin' . These guys just didn't care. This wasn't coaching, this was about humiliation. Maybe they wouldn't have gotten fired if religion hadn't come into play---but the kid told them. If there was no religious issue, I think we're on the same page that it was still a very stupid thing to do. Whether or not they got fired over it in that circumstance would probably depend on a lot of other factors (previous incidents, for example), but they would at least be told anything else and they're out the door. Agreed. While the pizza-eating was a terrible idea from the start, as soon as the kid said, "My religion prohibits me from eating that", it should have been immediately shut down. The fact that none of these dopes realized they had gone WAY over the line is disturbing.
|
|