Virginia Tech Lawsuit

[SurFutbol]

my two cents...$100K isn't F.U. walk away money. $25K or less would be for a joke case without any legal merit.

she claims he berated her in the locker room at halftime of that game. There are 20+ witnesses to that. If he didn't, he'd have 20+ players to come to his defense.

most likely case, she was underperforming on the field and/or in practice, he was annoyed by that, then also the kneeling thing furthered his disappointment and broke the camel's back. In these situations, there's usually more than one thing going on.

Regardless of your stance to kneel or not kneel, sounds like another soccer coach who doesn't know how to approach player issues/problems professionally. Give credit to this young adult player. It takes a lot of courage to stand up for what you believe in and pursue it legally and publicly, regardless of what political side of the fence the issue falls.

Here, a $100k settlement does not suggest culpability. The facts (not the speculation) suggest it is bs, yet a few people here were clearly triggered by the mere allegation and are reaching conclusions without knowing anything. I mean, here you are picking sides without knowing a single actual fact, including what Karen even claims Adair told her. Now imagine how much greater a risk exists of a triggered maga jury in Blacksburg VA. The risks, especially with smaller juries in federal courts, were very real even if the facts all point one direction. It's no surprise that the school settled, especially since it would likely cost about that much in attorney fees just to try the case.

As for your assertion that Adair should have 20+ players come to his defense, he did. Read the letter calling bs on Karen. 17 players who were on the roster at the time signed off on it, including one who didn't kneel. More stepped up to the plate in the lawsuit. In fact, one of the women who didn't kneel was the one who called Karen out to her coach right before halftime of the UVA game, accusing her of "bitching and moaning" and yelling at teammates for things that were her fault. Those were exactly what Adair reiterated to Karen at halftime.

Can you imagine how reviled you must be on a team when 17 of your teammates call you a liar in an open letter, and not a single one publicly comes to your defense?

 

[SurFutbol]

Agree. This isn't the first time something questionable has come up with this guy. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

What else has Chugger done that you think is so horrible?

 

[supercell]

What else has Chugger done that you think is so horrible?

Ah, It isn't enough that he just cost taxpayers $100k? Why do we have to entertain this at all?

 

[MyDaughtersAKeeper]

Here, a $100k settlement does not suggest culpability. The facts (not the speculation) suggest it is bs, yet a few people here were clearly triggered by the mere allegation and are reaching conclusions without knowing anything. I mean, here you are picking sides without knowing a single actual fact, including what Karen even claims Adair told her. Now imagine how much greater a risk exists of a triggered maga jury in Blacksburg VA. The risks, especially with smaller juries in federal courts, were very real even if the facts all point one direction. It's no surprise that the school settled, especially since it would likely cost about that much in attorney fees just to try the case.

As for your assertion that Adair should have 20+ players come to his defense, he did. Read the letter calling bs on Karen. 17 players who were on the roster at the time signed off on it, including one who didn't kneel. More stepped up to the plate in the lawsuit. In fact, one of the women who didn't kneel was the one who called Karen out to her coach right before halftime of the UVA game, accusing her of "bitching and moaning" and yelling at teammates for things that were her fault. Those were exactly what Adair reiterated to Karen at halftime.

Can you imagine how reviled you must be on a team when 17 of your teammates call you a liar in an open letter, and not a single one publicly comes to your defense?

$100,000 suggests the university wants out before they face a jury, so yeah, some potential culpability. The facts: Virginia Tech Lawsuit | Page 2 | Socal Soccer suggest that this coach retaliated against a conservative he did not like. I picked a side before reading the document, then I read the document and it confirmed what I thought, the coach retaliated. I read the letter of support, not a ringing endorsement for a coach who has been in the job since 2010.

I am sure that you will read the letter (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you will read it) and the case and believe that the facts support your opinion, just as I think they support mine. I am sure the truth is probably a combination of play that was not to the standard he wanted with a player who the coach came to dislike because of her politics. It sounds like he lost his cool at 1/2 time and melted down on her.

The 2 issues to me are: (1) we as a nation have to respect free speech, even the speech we dislike, and (2), it should not be OK for a coach to lose his temper with a player and meltdown like he did; we would not allow that in corporate America it should not be tolerated in sports.

 

[dad4]

If we want our sports teams to be inclusive of minority political viewpoints, we need to end the practice of team-sponsored political speech.

The on-field individual political speech probably needs to go with it. Otherwise, you end up splitting the team internally by political viewpoint every time 2/3 of players support a cause and 1/3 do not. That makes the team an uncomfortable place for the 1/3.

Most workplaces already do this. When you go the the bank, you don’t see BLM shirts or MAGA hats on the employees. The employees dress professionally, and do their politics on their own time.

 

[MacDre]

If we want our sports teams to be inclusive of minority political viewpoints, we need to end the practice of team-sponsored political speech.

The on-field individual political speech probably needs to go with it. Otherwise, you end up splitting the team internally by political viewpoint every time 2/3 of players support a cause and 1/3 do not. That makes the team an uncomfortable place for the 1/3.

Most workplaces already do this. When you go the the bank, you don’t see BLM shirts or MAGA hats on the employees. The employees dress professionally, and do their politics on their own time.

Context is important. Our nation’s history especially in a place like Virginia should be considered. I don’t think we’re merely dealing with political speech and majority minority views. For me, it’s more of what should and shouldn’t be considered “fighting words.”

fighting words

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Grace T.]

If we want our sports teams to be inclusive of minority political viewpoints, we need to end the practice of team-sponsored political speech.

The on-field individual political speech probably needs to go with it. Otherwise, you end up splitting the team internally by political viewpoint every time 2/3 of players support a cause and 1/3 do not. That makes the team an uncomfortable place for the 1/3.

Most workplaces already do this. When you go the the bank, you don’t see BLM shirts or MAGA hats on the employees. The employees dress professionally, and do their politics on their own time.

I agree with the sentiment but I note this is getting increasingly harder in this day in age with politics seeping into everything (including now what kind of stove you have in your kitchen). Two controversies that often come up is the flag/national anthem and prayer. There's a segment of the population that believes that the American experiment is steeped in racism and takes exception to honoring symbols tainted by racism. They view having to stand for the anthem as political speech that triggers counter speech (whether kneeling or whatever) in protest. That takes you to banning the anthem/flag from all except national team events. Another one is prayer. Conservative activists have had some success in the courts pushing against prohibitions against students leading prayer groups before games. They point out other protests such as BLM are permitted, therefore it's illegal under the Constitution for schools to discriminate against privately led prayer. Your rule would require students be prohibited (except in maybe religious schools with express religious missions) from praying before games. The scrutiny may hold up in court provided you have a strict rule prohibiting all kinds of speech on the sports fields...sports only....but I think you'll have a difficult time getting anyone to agree to such a total ban. As the expression goes, it's either all o.k. or none of it is (particularly when it comes to public schools since they aren't allowed to view point discriminate).

p.s. your rule also means that stuff like pink socks for breast cancer awareness week or aids ribbons would be out.

 

[dad4]

Context is important. Our nation’s history especially in a place like Virginia should be considered. I don’t think we’re merely dealing with political speech and majority minority views. For me, it’s more of what should and shouldn’t be considered “fighting words.”

fighting words

www.law.cornell.edu

Of course it is a question of freedom of speech and minority viewpoints.

Do you really think that Kap would have gotten the same treatment if he’d worn a POW/MIA armband? Or that Hening would have been benched and yelled at for wearing a rainbow headband?

No effin way. They were clearly punished for the content of their speech.

( I’m ignoring your fighting words reference because it does not apply to either case. )

 

[SurFutbol]

If we want our sports teams to be inclusive of minority political viewpoints, we need to end the practice of team-sponsored political speech.

The on-field individual political speech probably needs to go with it. Otherwise, you end up splitting the team internally by political viewpoint every time 2/3 of players support a cause and 1/3 do not. That makes the team an uncomfortable place for the 1/3.

Most workplaces already do this. When you go the the bank, you don’t see BLM shirts or MAGA hats on the employees. The employees dress professionally, and do their politics on their own time.

That is neither practical nor appropriate. Most of the speech you want to stop is driven by players, not the coaching staff. With respect to VA Tech kneeling, it was not driven by the coaching staff or school, but by players themselves. A public school that tries to stop player speech is violating their First Amendment Rights. Regardless, showing support for and empathy for minority viewpoints has resulted in a lot of positive change.

But if you want to get rid of school-sponsored political speech, start by getting rid of the national anthem before games.

 

[Grace T.]

That is neither practical nor appropriate. Most of the speech you want to stop is driven by players, not the coaching staff. With respect to VA Tech kneeling, it was not driven by the coaching staff or school, but by players themselves. A public school that tries to stop player speech is violating their First Amendment Rights. Regardless, showing support for and empathy for minority viewpoints has resulted in a lot of positive change.

But if you want to get rid of school-sponsored political speech, start by getting rid of the national anthem before games.

You might be able to get rid of all of it....but it would have to be a hard speech ban on everything, viewpoint neutral, including the anthem, prayer and pink cancer awareness socks, LGBTQ/racial awareness weeks, moments of silence for whatever such and such victim.

 

[Kicker4Life]

But if you want to get rid of school-sponsored political speech, start by getting rid of the national anthem before games.

How is our countries National Anthem considered political speech?

 

[SurFutbol]

How is our countries National Anthem considered political speech?

Tell me what the American flag means to you and then you have your answer. By its very nature, a country's flag is a political symbol, and a person's reaction to it (whether standing, kneeling, or not giving a shit and turning your back on it to go get a beer while the line is short) is political speech. Are you seriously taking the position that making others do what you want during the anthem is not political, but it's only political when they don't.

I bet you think the red on the flag represents the blood spilled by our American soldiers so we must respect it and stand at attention. I bet you think the red on the flag absolutely positively does not represent the blood spilled by black people at the hands of racist law enforcement, right? I bet you don't think the red represents thousands of 18 year old boys who died after being drafted and sent to Viet Nam against their will for a stupid, useless war. I bet you think the flag represents freedom despite horrible oppression of minority groups both historically and today. I bet you absolutely, positively do not think the flag represents oppression of large classes of Americans, right?

 

[Grace T.]

How is our countries National Anthem considered political speech?

This has been pretty much settled by the courts. Historically the courts granted the flag anthem and pledge a little bit of leeway especially with regard to viewpoint discrimination but they’ve also been clear a school can’t punish your kid for refusing to say the pledge. The flag burning case really narrowed this flexibility making clear national symbols aren’t exempted from the speech rules. It’s pretty evident under the line of cases public schools can’t force people to stand which opens the door to a political response. You want to ban the response you got to ban the anthem

Private entities like the nfl can do what they want so long as the govt doesn’t coerce influence.

 

[toucan]

How is our countries National Anthem considered political speech?

Of course the National Anthem is political speech. It is entirely political. The full lyrics can be found here:

https://amhistory.si.edu/starspangledbanner/pdf/ssb_lyrics.pdf

The poem extolled the defense of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812. That was a war that we (the U.S.) started after a divided congressional vote which split along party lines. It was not a popular war at the time. The underlying issue was Britain's support of North American Indian rights in the face of American colonialism. Nowadays our history books mostly talk about the British press-gangs as being the impetus of the war, but this is itself a form of politics played by means of revisionist history. Bottom Line: the war was politically divisive, and the National Anthem supported the war.

Another political issue is the last couple of stanzas of the poem. Note the references to slaves and the rights of freemen. Frances Scott Key was a slaveholder and represented owners in cases to recover their runaway slaves. In fairness, he also manumitted some of his slaves, so he was not the worst of the worst. Still, songs supportive of the right to own slaves, written by slaveholders, are inherently political in a country that gave something like 600,000 lives fighting a war to end slavery.

In my opinion, our present National Anthem should be kicked to the curb, and supplanted by another. Aesthetically speaking, it is unsingable with tortured lyrical construction and such freakish octave changes that it can only be properly performed by shape-note singers. The melody comes from a British drinking ditty, and the lyrics are so obtuse that only about 40% of Americans know the words to the first stanza. And this is after hearing it thousands of times at athletic events. I doubt that even 1% of Americans know the entire poem; and really, who'd want to?

We have more popular songs that are much less politically repugnant. How about "This Land Is Your Land," by Woodie Guthrie?

This land is your land and this land is my land
From California to the New York island
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me
As I went walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway
Saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me
I roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
All around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me
This land is your land and this land is my land
From California to the New York island
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me
When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The voice come a-chanting and the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me

 

[Grace T.]

Of course the National Anthem is political speech. It is entirely political. The full lyrics can be found here:

https://amhistory.si.edu/starspangledbanner/pdf/ssb_lyrics.pdf

The poem extolled the defense of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812. That was a war that we (the U.S.) started after a divided congressional vote which split along party lines. It was not a popular war at the time. The underlying issue was Britain's support of North American Indian rights in the face of American colonialism. Nowadays our history books mostly talk about the British press-gangs as being the impetus of the war, but this is itself a form of politics played by means of revisionist history. Bottom Line: the war was politically divisive, and the National Anthem supported the war.

Another political issue is the last couple of stanzas of the poem. Note the references to slaves and the rights of freemen. Frances Scott Key was a slaveholder and represented owners in cases to recover their runaway slaves. In fairness, he also manumitted some of his slaves, so he was not the worst of the worst. Still, songs supportive of the right to own slaves, written by slaveholders, are inherently political in a country that gave something like 600,000 lives fighting a war to end slavery.

In my opinion, our present National Anthem should be kicked to the curb, and supplanted by another. Aesthetically speaking, it is unsingable with tortured lyrical construction and such freakish octave changes that it can only be properly performed by inbred shape-note singers. The melody comes from a British drinking ditty, and the lyrics are so obtuse that only about 40% of Americans know the words to the first stanza. And this is after hearing it thousands of times at athletic events. I doubt that even 1% of Americans know the entire poem; and really, who'd want to?

We have more popular songs that are much less politically repugnant. How about "This Land Is Your Land," by Woodie Guthrie?

This land is your land and this land is my land
From California to the New York island
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me
As I went walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway
Saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me
I roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
All around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me
This land is your land and this land is my land
From California to the New York island
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me
When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The voice come a-chanting and the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me

You'd never be able to get people to agree on the lyrics. The right would want something honoring the services and God in there, the left would insist on something about equity and social justice. We'd be like Spain, an anthem without lyrics, because nobody has been able to agree to a set of lyrics since Franco.

I note the Guthrie song has raised objections from the right and left too. On the right, there was originally a lyric in there decrying private property of certain lands (Guthrie had socialist tendencies)...when he meant this land is your land this land is my land he meant it somewhat literally. On the left, the lyrics have been decried as claiming any sort of ownership over land which really belongs to Native Americans, from the Pacific to the Atlantic claimed as part of racist Manifest Destiny, and for failure to acknowledge white privilege.

 

[espola]

Here, a $100k settlement does not suggest culpability. The facts (not the speculation) suggest it is bs, yet a few people here were clearly triggered by the mere allegation and are reaching conclusions without knowing anything. I mean, here you are picking sides without knowing a single actual fact, including what Karen even claims Adair told her. Now imagine how much greater a risk exists of a triggered maga jury in Blacksburg VA. The risks, especially with smaller juries in federal courts, were very real even if the facts all point one direction. It's no surprise that the school settled, especially since it would likely cost about that much in attorney fees just to try the case.

As for your assertion that Adair should have 20+ players come to his defense, he did. Read the letter calling bs on Karen. 17 players who were on the roster at the time signed off on it, including one who didn't kneel. More stepped up to the plate in the lawsuit. In fact, one of the women who didn't kneel was the one who called Karen out to her coach right before halftime of the UVA game, accusing her of "bitching and moaning" and yelling at teammates for things that were her fault. Those were exactly what Adair reiterated to Karen at halftime.

Can you imagine how reviled you must be on a team when 17 of your teammates call you a liar in an open letter, and not a single one publicly comes to your defense?

"Can you imagine how reviled you must be on a team when 17 of your teammates call you a liar in an open letter, and not a single one publicly comes to your defense?"

That!

 

[espola]

How is our countries National Anthem considered political speech?

Clueless.

 

[espola]

This has been pretty much settled by the courts. Historically the courts granted the flag anthem and pledge a little bit of leeway especially with regard to viewpoint discrimination but they’ve also been clear a school can’t punish your kid for refusing to say the pledge. The flag burning case really narrowed this flexibility making clear national symbols aren’t exempted from the speech rules. It’s pretty evident under the line of cases public schools can’t force people to stand which opens the door to a political response. You want to ban the response you got to ban the anthem

Private entities like the nfl can do what they want so long as the govt doesn’t coerce influence.

"Little bit of leeway"? That's funny stuff right there.

 

[espola]

Of course the National Anthem is political speech. It is entirely political. The full lyrics can be found here:

https://amhistory.si.edu/starspangledbanner/pdf/ssb_lyrics.pdf

The poem extolled the defense of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812. That was a war that we (the U.S.) started after a divided congressional vote which split along party lines. It was not a popular war at the time. The underlying issue was Britain's support of North American Indian rights in the face of American colonialism. Nowadays our history books mostly talk about the British press-gangs as being the impetus of the war, but this is itself a form of politics played by means of revisionist history. Bottom Line: the war was politically divisive, and the National Anthem supported the war.

Another political issue is the last couple of stanzas of the poem. Note the references to slaves and the rights of freemen. Frances Scott Key was a slaveholder and represented owners in cases to recover their runaway slaves. In fairness, he also manumitted some of his slaves, so he was not the worst of the worst. Still, songs supportive of the right to own slaves, written by slaveholders, are inherently political in a country that gave something like 600,000 lives fighting a war to end slavery.

In my opinion, our present National Anthem should be kicked to the curb, and supplanted by another. Aesthetically speaking, it is unsingable with tortured lyrical construction and such freakish octave changes that it can only be properly performed by inbred shape-note singers. The melody comes from a British drinking ditty, and the lyrics are so obtuse that only about 40% of Americans know the words to the first stanza. And this is after hearing it thousands of times at athletic events. I doubt that even 1% of Americans know the entire poem; and really, who'd want to?

We have more popular songs that are much less politically repugnant. How about "This Land Is Your Land," by Woodie Guthrie?

This land is your land and this land is my land
From California to the New York island
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me
As I went walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway
Saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me
I roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
All around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me
This land is your land and this land is my land
From California to the New York island
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me
When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The voice come a-chanting and the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me

You left out some verses --

As I went walking I saw a sign there,
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing.
That side was made for you and me.

In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,
By the relief office I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?

Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me.

"This Land Is Your Land" by Woody Guthrie

 

[toucan]

Well, if not Woodie Guthrie, here is one that everyone can get behind:

Hate New York City
It's cold and it's damp
And all the people dressed like monkeys
Let's leave Chicago to the Eskimos
That town's a little bit too rugged
For you and me you bad girl
Rollin' down the Imperial Highway
With a big nasty redhead at my side
Santa Ana winds blowing hot from the north
And we as born to ride
Roll down the window, put down the top
Crank up the Beach Boys, baby
Don't let the music stop
We're gonna ride it till
We just can't ride it no more
From the South Bay to the Valley
From the West Side to the East Side
Everybody's very happy
'Cause the sun is shining all the time
Looks like another perfect day
I love L.A. (we love it)
I love L.A. (we love it)
We love it
Look at that mountain
Look at those trees
Look at that bum over there, man
He's down on his knees
Look at these women
There ain't nothing like 'em nowhere
Century Boulevard (we love it)
Victory Boulevard (we love it)
Santa Monica Boulevard (we love it)
Sixth Street (we love it, we love it)
We love L.A.
I love L.A. (we love it)
I love L.A. (we love it)
I love L.A. (we love it)