Track and field video is released accusing Clemson of only caring about Black athletes if they can make money of them

go tigers wrote:

rojoisright wrote:

I t might turn off people 60 an d over or people who voted for Trump, but for most people who understand that the world has changed / is changing, they're pleased to see places like Clemson being held accountable for their actions.

That's half of the country.

The poster isn't wrong that the group that would be immediately turned off by bringing up diversity, inclusion and representation in any context would skew older. I doubt if you polled people 35 or younger that a significant number would be against corporations/colleges being held to task on their record on these things. Do that same experiment amongst seniors and you're gonna have some old-school attitudes about the way things used to be and skepticism...

It's not the nature of the evidence; it's the seriousness of the allegation. A well taught and often used tactic. Just ask Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Mitt Romney (as Harry Reid later admitted).

Track athletes have lower test scores than many other sports and they bring in less donations than many other sports. Bot of those things will be viewed as racist because the lower scores are from minorities and larger donations come from whites.

CrispyChicken wrote:

It's not the nature of the evidence; it's the seriousness of the allegation. A well taught and often used tactic. Just ask Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Mitt Romney (as Harry Reid later admitted).

Yes and that tactic has consequences.

Let me know if I get the timeline wrong but here is how I see it.

The track team at Clemson gets cut and they are upset about it. They want to be reinstated so they go around with petitions, try to set up meetings with the administration, etc... Then Russel Dinkins comes along and says Clemson didn't take away XC/Track because of money they did it because they are racist and all of you are oppressed. The Track athletes are already angry but now they believe they have been treated unfairly and that leads to resentment. And resentment can really poison the mind. So Russel Dinkins might very well save the XC/Track team but on his way he created so much resentment in the athletes on the team that you have to wonder if those athletes would have been better off without him. Looking through the twitter feed yesterday you can tell that they are trying to get people riled up, they want people to be angry at the "oppressors". A consequence of resentment is that you begin to search for ways to create mayhem in the world and to create the most mayhem you might go after the most innocent person you can find and we see that happening now. There are people asking/demanding the Clemson Football team to stop playing to show that it supports the Track athletes. The Clemson Football team is completely innocent, those athletes did nothing wrong, but they are being attacked by the activists.

Now if they are being oppressed then they should certainly stand up and say something but they need more evidence than they have at the moment.

Is Russel Dinkins truly with his whole heart trying to help the athletes on the Clemson Track team? Is his heart in the right place? I don't know but it is certainly reasonable that he does more harm than good with these tactics.

go tigers wrote:

rojoisright wrote:

I t might turn off people 60 an d over or people who voted for Trump, but for most people who understand that the world has changed / is changing, they're pleased to see places like Clemson being held accountable for their actions.

That's half of the country.

No it isn't.

The grievance industry can be quite lucrative, particularly if you get picked for the late night "comedy" show circuit and a book deal (where the book is actually written by someone else and your name is just affixed to it).

There used to be a time when several football team players would also compete on the T&F team. That was before spring practice became the debutante ball spectacle that it is today.

However, I still like the modern pentathlon as the best arbiter of the well-rounded athlete.

I disagree with this statement. While I think it's extremely short sighted and extremely f'd up, this decision isn't racially motivated. One of the highest paid assistant coaches in the country, is a minority. I know from close sources, Clemson has always worked hard to get minorities into admissions and athletics. They've had to, because what minority wants to go to a school in the middle of BFE South Carolina? With that said, if this video draws more attention to the main issue, so be it.

baa baa wool wrote:

go tigers wrote:

That's half of the country.

No it isn't.

yeah you're right it's not half but still about 100 million people

ummm you're racist...

I think what is being ignored here is that they cut they only cut the men's program and left the women's program intact. The university says it was a cost cutting measure, Dinkins says it was racism. I'm guessing Title IX had to be a factor too. If it was truly about Clemson staff being racist, wouldn't they have cut the women's program too which is 50% African-American ?

It was obviously not a racial decision and anybody who thinks that it was has been brainwashed by Twitter.

However...

In our current political climate this is the best angle for them to attack in order to be reinstated. Although it's not quite as effective as it would have been this summer now that the BLM fad has kinda died down.

OP -- kind of a narrow take on a complex issue. Race isn't the motivator but we can still acknowledge the optics. Clemson's diversity in sports outside of football/basketball is mostly found in track. If the school is serious about diversity they have to reconcile that they're taking away future opportunities for non-white athletes. That's not a good thing.

Yes, this is bout budgets. But it's not wrong to consider the impact of a choice like this.

My personal opinion is that it's laughable that wealthy institutions are looking to save money this way instead of having a bigger conversation about how non-revenue generating sports should look. I went to a small D1 school in the northeast. We sent individual athletes to CA for meets. We send teams to compete at Wisconsin in XC. You know what? Maybe we just do all of our meets in Boston. I know that's not as great for the athletes and hurts recruiting but I'd rather regionalized sports instead of cut programs. FWIW I think college's probably can send athletes to CA for meets. Should they idk? But when they start looking at budgets, they start talking about cutting programs instead of thinking about how every high school has a cross country team.

While, I agree that most likely race was not a factor in making the cuts, the fact is, that the outcome of the cuts is a perfect example of systemic racism. They eliminated one of the least expensive sports they don't profit from and disproportionately cut black athletes they don't profit from, while preserving more costly predominantly white sports that lose more money and didn't even do anything else to even come close to addressing their $25 million budget shortfall for this year (not sure of exact #, but it was around there i think or more). Whether intentional or not, the outcome of these cuts is sending the message that they only value opportunities for black athletes if they can profit off of them which is racist.

I agree.

This isn't racist at all.

This is on par with what they are doing with commercials now. If there isn't a black in the group of people on the commercial they are literally calling it racist.

It shows a huge disparity between IQ levels.

Just because you have 11 people in a commercial and they are all white doesn't mean you are racist.

It just means that you literally have 11 people in the commercial that are white. That's it.

You don't have to go out of your way to add in one hispanic, one indian from India and one black to it to make it more appealing

The fact that this guy is on twitter calling it racist is a joke. He's of extremely low IQ.

It appears they cut out the track program, now follow me on this. I know it's tough to comprehend.

It appears they cut out the track program because THEY WANTED TO. BOTTOMLINE.

End of discussion.

Calling someone racist when they clearly haven't said or done anything racist is really funny to watch.

The facts are ..

1. What did Clemson specifically say that was racist?

2. And if they did then who was it racist against?

You don't see Hispanics or Indians complaining about the cutting of the track program do you?

This whole racist crap has gone too far. He's literally using the racist card to try and get track and field back at Clemson. Like really? That dumb ? Wow.

The intelligence level of some people is absolutely mind boggling at this point.

I mean this is literally one of the dumbest things i've seen this year.

I just got a snack wrap at Wendys the other day. I only saw white people in line. I didn't see any Indian people there at all.

That's bull crap. Wendys needs to have the correct ratio of Indian people from India customers in correlation to white people customers or that could be potentially racist against Indians.

This is basically what I see with this entire Clemson thing.

1600m506pr:-/ wrote:

rojo wrote:

No. I don't think they made the decision based on race or intentionally were trying to be racist but the fact that they didn't consider the disparate racial impacts may be the whole point. You need to be extra cautious when making decisions that will disproportionally impact underrepresented groups.

Meanwhile, Stanford cancelled a bunch of "elite white" sports like squash, sailing, fencing. Apparently so they wouldn't look like an elitist white school.

Cool. That's good that they did that to be more " diverse "..

What's the ratio of Indians from India per whites at Stanford? Are they at the correct Indian to white ratio of exactly 2.89 Indians for every 10 white people?

So basically what you're saying is that colleges specifically pick Indians from India to become more diverse ? And why? What advantage does that give the college overall? List the advantages and disadvantages below.

So basically what I read here is that colleges need 1 black, 1 Indian, 1 hispanic, 1 chinese person, 1 white person, and so on? Wow. That's so smart. What's the correct ratio?

We should take this concept and apply it to every country. What's Japans current college diversity ratio ?

If it's all Japanese people in the colleges in Japan and barely any Indian people from India then is that racist against Indian people too?

Because the last time I checked I didn't see any WHINY LITTLE CRY BABY Indians from India complaining all over the news that Japan colleges are racist against Indians.

rojoisright wrote:

Dr Yuengling wrote:

[quote]rojo wrote:

As you mentioned, the decision had nothing to do with race, and people playing false race cards to try to capitalize on social trends and get what they want is only going to turn people off and make them less likely to consider legitimate claims of racial bias.

I t might turn off people 60 an d over or people who voted for Trump, but for most people who understand that the world has changed / is changing, they're pleased to see places like Clemson being held accountable for their actions.

Being held accountable for what exactly?

What you just said was really dumb.

Why don't you tell everyone here what Clemson should be held accountable for. Can't wait to hear this.

Your post makes zero sense.

First off you state that race was likely not a factor.

Then you state that the outcome of the cuts is the perfect example of systemic racism?

Wow. Really?

And then you state that they are sending some sort of message.

What type of message did Clemson state ?

Unless Clemson specifically stated something then you have zero evidence.