I’m choosing to support Cal, and here’s why

[Wonky]

First let me say that, although I am far from the most prolific poster on this board, I think most would recognize me as someone who has been very critical of Cal’s performance since 2015, and especially over the past 3 seasons. l’m still not over Wisconsin, or for that matter, losing to Kevin Ollie. I’m not OK with the Sharpe deal. I’m not ok with great players being misused, undeveloped, and transferring out. I’m not ok with recruiting the likes of Khalil Whitney and Devin Askew. I’m not ok with chumps like EJ Montgomery and Ashton Hagans thinking they are NBA players. I’m not ok with injuries happening or being aggravated at “pro day”, or with draft night supposedly being this program’s apex. I’m not OK with “I haven’t seen him”. I’m not ok with the inability to play a zone, with 20-foot 2-pointers, or with Cal “forgetting” that someone was on the bench. I’m not ok with losing the wins lead or the 3-point streak. I’m not ok with the bloated contract. I’m not ok with batting .250 against ranked teams. I’m damn sure not ok with Evansville, 9-16, St. Peter’s, or missing the tournament.

Having said all this… the only way we can truly judge Calipari is within a historical context. And from 1939, when the first NCAA tournament was held, to Billy G’s last season in 2009, here are the standards of our program:

.762 win percentage
Averaged a final four every 5.38 years
Averaged a title every 10 years

Now here are Cal’s numbers:

.776 win percentage
Averaged a final four every 3 years when you throw out the year there was no tourney
1 title in 12 seasons (again throwing out 2020 when there was no tourney)

In other words Cal is well ahead of UK’s historical standards in the first two categories, and technically still has 8 seasons to win another title before he would fall below average. If he wins another one in the next 2-4 years he would be well above average in that category as well.

We can lament the current trajectory (read: downward spiral) of the program all we want. But the numbers don’t lie: John Calipari has not run UK basketball into the ground. Even after several dreadful seasons, he’s still above average, and not by national standards, but by UK standards. And that is no small feat. Can he reach the top of the mountain again? I don’t know. But I believe he deserves my support in trying… if for no other reason than simple math.

 

[ruppcat]

First let me say that, although I am far from the most prolific poster on this board, I think most would recognize me as someone who has been very critical of Cal’s performance since 2015, and especially over the past 3 seasons. l’m still not over Wisconsin, or for that matter, losing to Kevin Ollie. I’m not OK with the Sharpe deal. I’m not ok with great players being misused, undeveloped, and transferring out. I’m not ok with recruiting the likes of Khalil Whitney and Devin Askew. I’m not ok with chumps like EJ Montgomery and Ashton Hagans thinking they are NBA players. I’m not ok with injuries happening or being aggravated at “pro day”, or with draft night supposedly being this program’s apex. I’m not OK with “I haven’t seen him”. I’m not ok with the inability to play a zone, with 20-foot 2-pointers, or with Cal “forgetting” that someone was on the bench. I’m not ok with losing the wins lead or the 3-point streak. I’m not ok with the bloated contract. I’m not ok with batting .250 against ranked teams. I’m damn sure not ok with Evansville, 9-16, St. Peter’s, or missing the tournament.

Having said all this… the only way we can truly judge Calipari is within a historical context. And from 1939, when the first NCAA tournament was held, to Billy G’s last season in 2009, here are the standards of our program:

.762 win percentage
Averaged a final four every 5.38 years
Averaged a title every 10 years

Now here are Cal’s numbers:

.776 win percentage
Averaged a final four every 3 years when you throw out the year there was no tourney
1 title in 12 seasons (again throwing out 2020 when there was no tourney)

In other words Cal is well ahead of UK’s historical standards in the first two categories, and technically still has 8 seasons to win another title before he would fall below average. If he wins another one in the next 2-4 years he would be well above average in that category as well.

We can lament the current trajectory (read: downward spiral) of the program all we want. But the numbers don’t lie: John Calipari has not run UK basketball into the ground. Even after several dreadful seasons, he’s still above average, and not by national standards, but by UK standards. And that is no small feat. Can he reach the top of the mountain again? I don’t know. But I believe he deserves my support in trying… if for no other reason than simple math.

In the aggregate that may be true.

But, sports is a what have you done for me lately game. Cal's trajectory since 2015 has been heading downward.

He allowed the players to take a knee on the road at Flurida.

He didn't stand up and defend Rupp when the woke mess was in full stride.

He's stated his purpose isn't so much to win titles at UK but to end "generational poverty."

Said the greatest night in UK history was draft night.

UK has lost the all time win lead.

No final fours in forever.

No SEC tourney in recent years.

Losing to St Pete when you're a projected F4 team.

Losing to chumps at Rupp like USC and to UGA on the road.

His win percentage after 2015 is below UK's norm IIRC.

Tubby was lambasted for his last couple of years and the lack of performance in UK Bball. Cal is heading down the same road and yet he's still here.

His one and done scheme is over. It was over when K and others started copying it.

Can he adapt? Don't know. He hasn't shown an ability or willingness to do so thus far.

You cannot maintain dominance and win with only freshmen. The turnover is too high. And if someone doesn't pan out you're stuck with them for a year and no talent you can develop.

As UK is seemingly unwilling to buy Cal out we're stuck with him unless he resigns; which I don't see happening.

With all that help me understand why we should continue to support Cal.

 

[Alt-Mod]

In the aggregate that may be true.

But, sports is a what have you done for me lately game. Cal's trajectory since 2015 has been heading downward.

He allowed the players to take a knee on the road at Flurida.

He didn't stand up and defend Rupp when the woke mess was in full stride.

He's stated his purpose isn't so much to win titles at UK but to end "generational poverty."

Said the greatest night in UK history was draft night.

UK has lost the all time win lead.

No final fours in forever.

No SEC tourney in recent years.

Losing to St Pete when you're a projected F4 team.

Losing to chumps at Rupp like USC and to UGA on the road.

His win percentage after 2015 is below UK's norm IIRC.

Tubby was lambasted for his last couple of years and the lack of performance in UK Bball. Cal is heading down the same road and yet he's still here.

His one and done scheme is over. It was over when K and others started copying it.

Can he adapt? Don't know. He hasn't shown an ability or willingness to do so thus far.

You cannot maintain dominance and win with only freshmen. The turnover is too high. And if someone doesn't pan out you're stuck with them for a year and no talent you can develop.

As UK is seemingly unwilling to buy Cal out we're stuck with him unless he resigns; which I don't see happening.

With all that help me understand why we should continue to support Cal.

When you start complaining because he let his players exercise their first amendment rights, your argument losses any credibility it might have had.

 

[ruppcat]

When you start complaining because he let his players exercise their first amendment rights, your argument losses any credibility it might have had.

Their first amendment rights would not have been violated at all. There are things you can and cannot say when you're working for someone and you're on the clock. When players put on the uniform and represent UK they are on the clock and must conduct themselves accordingly.

Would we tolerate players saying sexual things to cheerleaders while wearing the UK uniform?

Would we tolerate players cussing out refs? fans?, etc? Nope.

What you do on your time is your business. But even then....players at any university represent the school around the clock. It's part of the privilege of being a player.

So no....my argument holds. Yours is the one without merit.

 

[chroix]

Winning fixes everything. The too woke thing is dumb. What’s the opposite of woke that you would advocate for that kids would come to play for?

 

[chroix]

Their first amendment rights would not have been violated at all. There are things you can and cannot say when you're working for someone and you're on the clock. When players put on the uniform and represent UK they are on the clock and must conduct themselves accordingly.

Would we tolerate players saying sexual things to cheerleaders while wearing the UK uniform?

Would we tolerate players cussing out refs? fans?, etc? Nope.

What you do on your time is your business. But even then....players at any university represent the school around the clock. It's part of the privilege of being a player.

So no....my argument holds. Yours is the one without merit.

Some weird false equivalencies. They kneeled for the national anthem. A silent form of protest. None of your examples are even close to relevant.

 

[Alt-Mod]

Their first amendment rights would not have been violated at all. There are things you can and cannot say when you're working for someone and you're on the clock. When players put on the uniform and represent UK they are on the clock and must conduct themselves accordingly.

Would we tolerate players saying sexual things to cheerleaders while wearing the UK uniform?

Would we tolerate players cussing out refs? fans?, etc? Nope.

What you do on your time is your business. But even then....players at any university represent the school around the clock. It's part of the privilege of being a player.

So no....my argument holds. Yours is the one without merit.

Sure, they would. They are students of a publicly funded university. That would be a direct violation of their first amendment rights.

Your 2 examples would be harassment. Both are illegal.

Yes, they represent a publicly funded university that is obligated to uphold their constitutional freedoms.

Good Lord, some of you should really learn your constitution and rights.

 

[ruppcat]

Some weird false equivalencies. They kneeled for the national anthem. A silent form of protest. None of your examples are even close to relevant.

Can you say or do whatever you want at your place of work?

 

[stereonut]

OP is going to get blasted.

Cal Supporters and Non Cal Supporters can’t express their opinions here without it happening.

 

[Leroy Carr]

I'll support whoever can win games for us. Including the big games. If Cal can get back to winning against P5 teams like he used to and make Final Fours with some regularity then that's great. If not I'll support the next guy.

 

[ruppcat]

Sure, they would. They are students of a publicly funded university. That would be a direct violation of their first amendment rights.

Your 2 examples would be harassment. Both are illegal.

Yes, they represent a publicly funded university that is obligated to uphold their constitutional freedoms.

Good Lord, some of you should really learn your constitution and rights.

I know the Constitution very well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice it says Congress shall make no law......not a school or company....but Congress shall make no law.

Companies and schools have a right to request a certain degree of adherence to the values of those organizations.

Facts can be frustrating things can't they?

Lesson over.

 

[chroix]

Can you say or do whatever you want at your place of work?

What did they say?

 

[Aint No Sunshine]

I know the Constitution very well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice it says Congress shall make no law......not a school or company....but Congress shall make no law.

Companies and schools have a right to request a certain degree of adherence to the values of those organizations.

Facts can be frustrating things can't they?

Lesson over.

Ohh, Honey....

The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. This means that:

• A private school can suspend students for criticizing a school policy.
• A private business can fire an employee for expressing political views on the job.
• A private media company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with.

UK isn't private. Neither is UF.

What Speech Is Protected by the First Amendment?

What speech is protected by the First Amendment? What speech isn't? Learn all about protected speech in this guide.

www.freedomforum.org

Also, SCOTUS ruled on this in 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Facts and Case Summary - Tinker v. Des Moines

Decision Date: February 24, 1969 Background At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students planned to wear black armbands at school as a silent protest against the Vietnam War. When the principal became aware of the plan, he warned the students that they would be suspended if they wore the...

www.uscourts.gov

 

[ruppcat]

What did they say?

Nope. My question is a simple yes or no answer.

 

[chroix]

Can you say or do whatever you want at your place of work?

And yes because I never choose to say dumb things at work.

 

[chroix]

Nope. My question is a simple yes or no answer.

So was mine yet you choose to ignore it because there is no real justification for your post other than it makes you angry.

 

[ruppcat]

Ohh, Honey....

The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. This means that:

• A private school can suspend students for criticizing a school policy.
• A private business can fire an employee for expressing political views on the job.
• A private media company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with.

UK isn't private. Neither is UF.

What Speech Is Protected by the First Amendment?

What speech is protected by the First Amendment? What speech isn't? Learn all about protected speech in this guide.

www.freedomforum.org

Also, SCOTUS ruled on this in 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Facts and Case Summary - Tinker v. Des Moines

Decision Date: February 24, 1969 Background At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students planned to wear black armbands at school as a silent protest against the Vietnam War. When the principal became aware of the plan, he warned the students that they would be suspended if they wore the...

www.uscourts.gov

Let's see the whole thing....if we're going to argue players are government employees.

4. If it doesn’t fall into an unprotected category – do YOU fall into a special category?​

The government generally has greater power to regulate speech when it acts as educator, employer or jailer, so speech rights can be more limited for:


Sometimes the government needs to be able to discipline or limit the speech of its employees in order to keep its agencies and offices running efficiently. At the same time, government employees aren't totally deprived of the free speech rights that others enjoy.
In an attempt to balance these two interests, the Supreme Court has developed a full body of law on government employee speech:

1. If a government employee’s speech arose out of their official duties, that speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
2. If the government employee’s speech did not arise out of their official duties, the First Amendment mightprotect their speech if:
   • The speech was on a matter of public concern.
   • The government employee’s interest in commenting on the matter of public concern outweighs the employer’s interest in regulating the speech.
   • The government employee’s speech was a substantial factor in whatever penalty they received (termination, suspension, etc.).

 

[irishcat1965]

It really doesn’t matter if any of us on here supports Cal at this point. He isn’t going anywhere, which in my opinion, is unfortunate. UK basketball hasn’t been very fun for quite a while. But I still support the team because I want them to win and selfishly, I would like to enjoy a damn March Madness run again.

 

[Aint No Sunshine]

Let's see the whole thing....if we're going to argue players are government employees.

4. If it doesn’t fall into an unprotected category – do YOU fall into a special category?​

The government generally has greater power to regulate speech when it acts as educator, employer or jailer, so speech rights can be more limited for:


Sometimes the government needs to be able to discipline or limit the speech of its employees in order to keep its agencies and offices running efficiently. At the same time, government employees aren't totally deprived of the free speech rights that others enjoy.
In an attempt to balance these two interests, the Supreme Court has developed a full body of law on government employee speech:

1. If a government employee’s speech arose out of their official duties, that speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
2. If the government employee’s speech did not arise out of their official duties, the First Amendment mightprotect their speech if:
   • The speech was on a matter of public concern.
   • The government employee’s interest in commenting on the matter of public concern outweighs the employer’s interest in regulating the speech.
   • The government employee’s speech was a substantial factor in whatever penalty they received (termination, suspension, etc.).

Well, you have a few problems here. They aren't government employees. And even if they were, how did it arise out of their official duties? What are their official government duties? Can you show us case law where it was applied as you are claiming?

 

[ruppcat]

Ohh, Honey....

The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. This means that:

• A private school can suspend students for criticizing a school policy.
• A private business can fire an employee for expressing political views on the job.
• A private media company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with.

UK isn't private. Neither is UF.

What Speech Is Protected by the First Amendment?

What speech is protected by the First Amendment? What speech isn't? Learn all about protected speech in this guide.

www.freedomforum.org

Also, SCOTUS ruled on this in 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Facts and Case Summary - Tinker v. Des Moines

Decision Date: February 24, 1969 Background At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students planned to wear black armbands at school as a silent protest against the Vietnam War. When the principal became aware of the plan, he warned the students that they would be suspended if they wore the...

www.uscourts.gov

A liberal SCOTUS made the ruling.

More on the case.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court’s majority ruled that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court took the position that school officials could not prohibit only on the suspicion that the speech might disrupt the learning environment.

The dissent argued that the First Amendment does not grant the right to express any opinion at any time. Students attend school to learn, not teach. The armbands were a distraction. School officials, acting on a legitimate interest in school order, should have broad authority to maintain a productive learning environment.

In this case the dissent was correct. If not, the inmates begin to run the prison....kinda what we're seeing now in schools.

 

[ruppcat]

Well, you have a few problems here. They aren't government employees. And even if they were, how did it arise out of their official duties? What are their official government duties? Can you show us case law where it was applied as you are claiming?

I'm not running into any problems. I agree these aren't government employees....though NIL might change that.

So know we're back to the First Amendment where the Congress cannot limit speech, etc.

UK is not Congress and can and does have a code of conduct for its employees. There are standards for players as well on practically every team. Well, save maybe Alabama.

UK does have the right to allow or not allow players to act in certain ways while "on the clock".

 

[ruppcat]

What did they say?

They knelt. That was what they "said".

 

[Aint No Sunshine]

A liberal SCOTUS made the ruling.

More on the case.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court’s majority ruled that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court took the position that school officials could not prohibit only on the suspicion that the speech might disrupt the learning environment.

The dissent argued that the First Amendment does not grant the right to express any opinion at any time. Students attend school to learn, not teach. The armbands were a distraction. School officials, acting on a legitimate interest in school order, should have broad authority to maintain a productive learning environment.

In this case the dissent was correct. If not, the inmates begin to run the prison....kinda what we're seeing now in schools.

I'm not running into any problems. I agree these aren't government employees....though NIL might change that.

So know we're back to the First Amendment where the Congress cannot limit speech, etc.

UK is not Congress and can and does have a code of conduct for its employees. There are standards for players as well on practically every team. Well, save maybe Alabama.

UK does have the right to allow or not allow players to act in certain ways while "on the clock".

Lol, the majority sets the precedent, not the minority dissent. Whether you agree or not, that is the law.

They are students, and as such their rights are protected. the law agrees with this.

UK doesn't have to be a congress, as it was already pointed out. They are a publically funded university. By law, they have to preserve those rights.

Except they don't, which is why the law disagrees with you.

Best of luck!

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

When you start complaining because he let his players exercise their first amendment rights, your argument losses any credibility it might have had.

And you creating a account under the username Alt-Mod immediately self-labels you as a moron with yet another sock account. At least you made it easy this time.
IGNORED.

 

[drcats2013]

One may say you’re a bit…. Wonky.

 

[ruppcat]

Lol, the majority sets the precedent, not the minority decent. Whether you agree or not, that is the law.

They are students, and as such their rights are protected. the law agrees with this.

UK doesn't have to be a congress, as it was already pointed out. They are a publically funded university. By law, they have to preserve those rights.

Except they don't, which is why the law disagrees with you.

Best of luck!

You're trying to have it both ways here. If we're going to argue it's publicly funded then they become government employees and are subject to some restrictions. If you wont' to argue otherwise they are private citizens then the school does have a right to limit certain speech.

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

Winning 3 games to take Kentucky form not making to the tournament at all to making it, doesn’t change anything, cal is still vastly underperforming at Kentucky and still makes the same damn mistakes every game, Kentucky wins in spite of him, these last 3 games does not excuse the past 3 years and Kentucky being 4 years without a tournament win

 

[Aint No Sunshine]

You're trying to have it both ways here. If we're going to argue it's publicly funded then they become government employees and are subject to some restrictions. If you wont' to argue otherwise they are private citizens then the school does have a right to limit certain speech.

Just because something is government-funded doesn't mean it is government operated. Not all employees at a publicly funded university are considered government employees. In fact, most aren't. Also, athletes aren't employees. Nor would they have been acting in a working capacity prior to the game, if so. So their rights would have still been protected. Again, show us case law that supports your argument if you feel otherwise.

 

[ruppcat]

Lol, the majority sets the precedent, not the minority dissent. Whether you agree or not, that is the law.

They are students, and as such their rights are protected. the law agrees with this.

UK doesn't have to be a congress, as it was already pointed out. They are a publically funded university. By law, they have to preserve those rights.

Except they don't, which is why the law disagrees with you.

Best of luck!

Recall at one time the majority also said slavery and separate but equal were law. And the same court that made the ruling cited said murdering the unborn child was ok.

The intent of the Founders was the government...that is the Congress....could not limit those items listed.

UK is not governed by the Congress in this case.

 

[ruppcat]

Just because something is government-funded doesn't mean it is government operated. Not all employees at a publicly funded university are considered government employees. In fact, most aren't. Also, athletes aren't employees. Nor would they have been acting in a working capacity prior to the game, if so. So their rights would have still been protected. Again, show us case law that supports your argument if you feel otherwise.

You're losing this argument. Congress....not UK.....cannot limit speech.

 

[nickhorvathsuxazz]

First let me say that, although I am far from the most prolific poster on this board, I think most would recognize me as someone who has been very critical of Cal’s performance since 2015, and especially over the past 3 seasons. l’m still not over Wisconsin, or for that matter, losing to Kevin Ollie. I’m not OK with the Sharpe deal. I’m not ok with great players being misused, undeveloped, and transferring out. I’m not ok with recruiting the likes of Khalil Whitney and Devin Askew. I’m not ok with chumps like EJ Montgomery and Ashton Hagans thinking they are NBA players. I’m not ok with injuries happening or being aggravated at “pro day”, or with draft night supposedly being this program’s apex. I’m not OK with “I haven’t seen him”. I’m not ok with the inability to play a zone, with 20-foot 2-pointers, or with Cal “forgetting” that someone was on the bench. I’m not ok with losing the wins lead or the 3-point streak. I’m not ok with the bloated contract. I’m not ok with batting .250 against ranked teams. I’m damn sure not ok with Evansville, 9-16, St. Peter’s, or missing the tournament.

Having said all this… the only way we can truly judge Calipari is within a historical context. And from 1939, when the first NCAA tournament was held, to Billy G’s last season in 2009, here are the standards of our program:

.762 win percentage
Averaged a final four every 5.38 years
Averaged a title every 10 years

Now here are Cal’s numbers:

.776 win percentage
Averaged a final four every 3 years when you throw out the year there was no tourney
1 title in 12 seasons (again throwing out 2020 when there was no tourney)

In other words Cal is well ahead of UK’s historical standards in the first two categories, and technically still has 8 seasons to win another title before he would fall below average. If he wins another one in the next 2-4 years he would be well above average in that category as well.

We can lament the current trajectory (read: downward spiral) of the program all we want. But the numbers don’t lie: John Calipari has not run UK basketball into the ground. Even after several dreadful seasons, he’s still above average, and not by national standards, but by UK standards. And that is no small feat. Can he reach the top of the mountain again? I don’t know. But I believe he deserves my support in trying… if for no other reason than simple math.

He was way above UK standards for his first 6 years, which is allowing his overall body of work to remain slightly above/equal to UK standards. His last 6 years have been markedly below traditional standards, and maintaining a downward trend. That's why I no longer support Cal. His model no longer works, and he's shown to be too stubborn to change.

 

[KyLegacy]

I support the Kentucky Wildcats. It has been a dreadful few years to be a fan but like others have said. Cal isn’t going anywhere unless he leaves so it is what it is. Just hope something good happens in the tourney or hopefully next year.

 

[Aint No Sunshine]

Recall at one time the majority also said slavery and separate but equal were law. And the same court that made the ruling cited said murdering the unborn child was ok.

The intent of the Founders was the government...that is the Congress....could not limit those items listed.

UK is not governed by the Congress in this case.

And they set new precedents over time, but until they did, the laws were what they were. They never ruled differently on the unborn child thing, they just allowed states to decide under the 10th amendment.

By Congress, they inferred government. A basic civics course would do you wonders.

UK is governed by congress, as is everyone and every business in the US. They are your government and law-making body. UK, as a publicly funded university, is bound by those laws. Which is what the courts have long upheld. Again, feel free to show us case law if you feel it's different.

You're losing this argument. Congress....not UK.....cannot limit speech.

Lol, I am doing pretty well I think. UK cannot limit speech, as was ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines.

Do student athletes have a right to "take a knee?"

The NFL famously banned “taking a knee” during the national anthem, but what about student athletes? First Amendment attorney Lee Rowland of the ACLU explores whether taking a knee is protected speech and shines some light on the free speech rights of public school students. Lee Rowland...

www.talksonlaw.com

the McLellan: Can students get in trouble for kneeling during ...

mclellan.law.msu.edu

Can schools punish students for protesting the national anthem?

National-anthem protests have spread beyond the NFL and onto the sidelines at high school athletic events. Education Week offers a primer on how schools should respond.

www.pbs.org

Happily awaiting any evidence you have to the contrary. 😉

 

[ruppcat]

And they set new precedents over time, but until they did, the laws were what they were. They never ruled differently on the unborn child thing, they just allowed states to decide under the 10th amendment.

By Congress, they inferred government. A basic civics course would do you wonders.

UK is governed by congress, as is everyone and every business in the US. They are your government and law-making body. UK, as a publicly funded university, is bound by those laws. Which is what the courts have long upheld. Again, feel free to show us case law if you feel it's different.

Lol, I am doing pretty well I think. UK cannot limit speech, as was ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines.

Yeah...I'm sure you think you are doing pretty well.

UK can and does limit free speech......all the time as does every university. I can think of two examples to illustrate...and note: I do not support either.

Can the school fly the Confederate battle flag? Can a player wear Confederate clothing? Nope. The school would not allow it.

Can a player openly call for the overthrow of the US government? Nope. The school would not allow it.

A quarterback in Florida learned this the hard way. He was seen on social media singing to a rap song that used the n word. Kid lost his scholly to Florida. Florida deemed his speech, even though he was singing a published song, to be against the standards of Florida.

Hence, schools can and do limit free speech.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Wonky]

He was way above UK standards for his first 6 years, which is allowing his overall body of work to remain slightly above/equal to UK standards. His last 6 years have been markedly below traditional standards, and maintaining a downward trend. That's why I no longer support Cal. His model no longer works, and he's shown to be too stubborn to change.

You’re correct about his tenure being top-heavy, but it’s above average nonetheless.

I guess I just feel that, even in the midst of the current famine, it’s not unreasonable to think we could return to feasting again. At least until Cal’s total body of work falls below UK standards. Until that happens, I do feel the man deserves the benefit of the doubt. For the record, I still think he’s been a royal prick the last several years, and that the fanbase would be a lot more patient with him if he would just say the right things, or at least refrain from saying the wrong things all the time.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

Go ahead. In my eyes he hasn't won anything significant in a long while and he looks down the fans like we are idiot rednecks

 

[ck-2]

The fact that the most common thread content on this board is about keeping Cow, firing him, or who his replacement should be, should answer the question.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

You’re correct about his tenure being top-heavy, but it’s above average nonetheless.

I guess I just feel that, even in the midst of the current famine, it’s not unreasonable to think we could return to feasting again. At least until Cal’s total body of work falls below UK standards. Until that happens, I do feel the man deserves the benefit of the doubt. For the record, I still think he’s been a royal prick the last several years, and that the fanbase would be a lot more patient with him if he would just say the right things, or at least refrain from saying the wrong things all the time.

Front half of his tenure was amazing 4 final fours speak for themselves. His back half of the tenure has been equally awful.

 

[ruppcat]

And they set new precedents over time, but until they did, the laws were what they were. They never ruled differently on the unborn child thing, they just allowed states to decide under the 10th amendment.

By Congress, they inferred government. A basic civics course would do you wonders.

UK is governed by congress, as is everyone and every business in the US. They are your government and law-making body. UK, as a publicly funded university, is bound by those laws. Which is what the courts have long upheld. Again, feel free to show us case law if you feel it's different.

Lol, I am doing pretty well I think. UK cannot limit speech, as was ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines.

Do student athletes have a right to "take a knee?"

The NFL famously banned “taking a knee” during the national anthem, but what about student athletes? First Amendment attorney Lee Rowland of the ACLU explores whether taking a knee is protected speech and shines some light on the free speech rights of public school students. Lee Rowland...

www.talksonlaw.com

the McLellan: Can students get in trouble for kneeling during ...

mclellan.law.msu.edu

Can schools punish students for protesting the national anthem?

National-anthem protests have spread beyond the NFL and onto the sidelines at high school athletic events. Education Week offers a primer on how schools should respond.

www.pbs.org

Happily awaiting any evidence you have to the contrary. 😉

I wonder if you read these articles or just post them.

As I noted prior, if these are government employees there can be restrictions on their speech.

Pay special attention to the last paragraph.

It’s important to keep in mind that the First Amendment only protects you against actions taken by the government. Since public schools are funded by the government, any administrators, teachers, coaches, athletic directors, or other school employees technically fall under the umbrella of government workers. So the First Amendment will protect your rights against their decisions. However, the First Amendment is not a “get out of jail free” card, so don’t think you’re free to break the rules whenever you want. But the First Amendment is definitely why students at a public school have more protection to participate in this kind of protest.

By comparison, players in the NFL are working for a private company. This means that the First Amendment doesn’t protect them against any decisions made by their employer, the NFL. In other words, the NFL can’t violate players' First Amendment rights, and this is why teams can fire players for kneeling. This same argument would also apply to private schools, who could suspend student athletes for kneeling during the national anthem.

It might also be the case that the players signed a contract about keeping their behavior professional. So players in the NFL who kneel during the Anthem might be breaking that agreement. Many schools also hold their athletes to a higher standard of behavior than normal students. This includes sometimes having them sign agreements that they will act professionally and respectfully or risk being disciplined and potentially kicked off the team. While those contracts probably aren’t enough to overpower your First Amendment rights, they might cause a problem for student athletes who want to participate in a protest.

 

[Sejonesy]

In the aggregate that may be true.

But, sports is a what have you done for me lately game. Cal's trajectory since 2015 has been heading downward.

He allowed the players to take a knee on the road at Flurida.

He didn't stand up and defend Rupp when the woke mess was in full stride.

He's stated his purpose isn't so much to win titles at UK but to end "generational poverty."

Said the greatest night in UK history was draft night.

UK has lost the all time win lead.

No final fours in forever.

No SEC tourney in recent years.

Losing to St Pete when you're a projected F4 team.

Losing to chumps at Rupp like USC and to UGA on the road.

His win percentage after 2015 is below UK's norm IIRC.

Tubby was lambasted for his last couple of years and the lack of performance in UK Bball. Cal is heading down the same road and yet he's still here.

His one and done scheme is over. It was over when K and others started copying it.

Can he adapt? Don't know. He hasn't shown an ability or willingness to do so thus far.

You cannot maintain dominance and win with only freshmen. The turnover is too high. And if someone doesn't pan out you're stuck with them for a year and no talent you can develop.

As UK is seemingly unwilling to buy Cal out we're stuck with him unless he resigns; which I don't see happening.

With all that help me understand why we should continue to support Cal.

There it is:

He allowed the players to take a knee on the road at Flurida.

Stopped reading after this.