I'm sorry--that's the best title I could come up with.
Apparently the NCAA is in the business of telling schools what they can and cannot have as mascots. And a judge apparently has the authority to tell the NCAA to stop telling schools what they can and cannot have as mascots.
I know, I know, some will say that NCAA isn't telling schools what they can and cannot have as mascots; rather, they're telling them that if they have "undesirable" mascots, they won't be allowed to host postseason games.
Which is worse: the NCAA's stupid rule, or a judge's involvement in this process?
I don't understand why the NCAA is carrying water for an ultra-politically correct leftie cause here, but I'm not sure that what they're doing is against the law. Thoughts? (Note to anonymous troll: when I ask for thoughts, it's implied that I mean rational thoughts. Please endeavor to comply.)
8 comments:
"I don't understand why the NCAA is carrying water for an ultra-politically correct leftie cause here"
I do. Two words: Myles Brand.
NCAA holds parties and gets the privilege of inviting whom they will. If a university's mascot were The Fighting Whities or The Little Black Sambos, they might not be the kind of folks the NCAA wants at their parties. What's the problem?
You're looking for the government to tell a private organization what to do? How very strange, indeed.
It's funny that Eastern Michigan University a number of years ago changed their mascot from "Hurons" to "Eagles." EMU is in Ypsilanti, Michigan, right next to Ann Arbor and the ultra-left-wing U of Michigan. Funny thing is, a lot of us folks still refer to their teams as the "Hurons" and their alumni donations have dropped way off after the name change.
It's also funny because "Huron" is a popular name in the area. There are a couple of "Huron" roads, plus "Huron River Drive," the "Huron River," a Huron golf course, Huron High School, etc.
-- Garry K
1st anonymous above: do you actually read what I write, or do you just project what you think I'm going to write? Because this statement:
"You're looking for the government to tell a private organization what to do? How very strange, indeed."
isn't supported by what I wrote. Accordingly, I'm forced to quote from part of what I *did* in fact write:
"Note to anonymous troll: when I ask for thoughts, it's implied that I mean rational thoughts. Please endeavor to comply."
Good, Darren; I'm happy to see you arm-in-arm with the NCAA as they shun offensive university mascots. Keep up the Good Fight, brother!
Garry K,
If UofM were as far left as you suggest, they'd throw out the neo-con and far-right student groups and ban the frats. I fear you consider all institutions of higher learning to be left-wing. It might have something to do with the high concentration of edumacated folks. What non-military universities do you like (outside of Lynchburg)?
Anyway, EMU missed a golden opportunity. They *should* have become the emus! That would have been sweet! And better still if they ever had to compete against UC Santa Cruz in...anything!
Read it again, anonymous--this time for understanding.
"It might have something to do with the high concentration of edumacated folks."
Since I suspect I have far more experience with the university than you, I'd say it has more to do with the high concentration of "edumacated" folks who have never held a job outside academia, and have no concept of what the real world is like. After all, these same "edumacated" folks have absolutely nothing bad to say about Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or the millions of people they murdered. Nor do they find it even a bit odd to go on television and claim -- on television -- that the administration is "fascist" and "silencing" opposition. The irony that they are free to say whatever they like on television, and are not hauled off to prison as their left-wing heroes would have done to them entirely escapes them -- again, no doubt because they are so "edumacated."
Wait. I'm responding to a troll. Sorry.
Post a Comment