UCLA xc member's rant with racist/homophobic language blows up on social media, he's kicked off team

Dwight Stones did not like French Canadians

https://montrealgazette.com/sports/montreal-olympics-photo-flashback-anti-french-comments-made-u-s-high-jumper-dwight-stones-a-pariah

He was dismissed from the team. At this time he hasn’t been expelled from the school.

ucla t&f member here... first of all everything chris said occurred before he came to ucla, I'm not a distance runner so I barely knew him but from conversations with people who did nobody was aware of this side of him and everyone was completely shocked. coach anderson's reversal of chris's reinstatement was due to the almost 3 hour long team meeting on monday discussing the issue and listening to all of us voice our opinions. from multiple conversations w/ chris coach anderson eventually thought of this as an opportunity to help chris learn and grow as a person and send him out into society a better person than he came in. the team overwhelmingly disagreed, his removal from the team had absolutely nothing to do with social media pressure

Dwightarm wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

As much as I hate what this kid said, a male doesn't develop into his adult brain until about 25.

As someone who was once a 25 year old male, this is the stupidest thing I've seen on here yet.

It ALMOST sounds like you're justifying his hate speech.

I am not 'justifying his hate speech'. I said he should be punished and being kicked off the team is appropriate. I am simply saying we think, say and do things differently at stages of development. And, I acknowledge some of us are fully grown at a younger age, but nowadays adulthood happens later. than it use to. A male in his late teens to early 20s in most cases is still a kid capable to being stupid in the moment and therefor should be rehabilitated instead of castrated. That's all.

observer of Lrc wrote:

rojo wrote:

I guess you posted as I was typing my response many of my thoughts in terms of criminal justice. Nice post.

The same people who make the argument to give this kid another chance were NEVER a part of the criminal justice reform. So it’s not like you wanted to give poor and minority “criminals” a second chance. The GOP doesn’t even want ex criminals to vote.

The kid will also have a second chance if he so chooses . He could do volunteer and charity work to rehab his image.

Incorrect. I am merely demanding that we be logically consistent in our treatment of “people who make terrible decisions” or PWMTD, regardless of race.

White people who call people n-word are PWMTD.

Black people who make anti-semitic remarks are PWMTD.

White people who carjack and murder are PWMTD.

Black people who carjack and murder are PWMTD.

Asians and Latinos who do any of the above are PWMTD.

Are we going to be a SOFT society who treats PWMTD—in word or in deed—with love and compassion and offer redemption?

Where non-PC language offenders must apologize and be re-educated; where criminals are given therapy, medication, and training more than prison. If so, does redemption extend to murderers, rapists, etc? If not, what is irredeemable?

Or are we going to be a HARSH society where PWMTD—in word or in deed—are punished harshly? Where PWMTD that say non-PC words are “cancelled” and have their lives damaged; where PWMTD and commit crime are given long prison terms or executed.

No one in this thread on LRC is saying the UCLA loser should be ruined forever, but many people on the linked twitter thread ARE saying that, and they are also asking about his whereabouts so they can physically assault him. They desire a HARSH society for non-PC language. But they are the same citizens who desire a SOFT society for violent criminals. This contrast, of course, makes any thinking person’s head spin.

Let’s have a real-life example. Here in SF, we have had a rash of black and brown youth pushing elderly people on the sidewalk and killing them. These are PWMTD. The response from the right has been HARSH—find them and convict them of murder, and never let them out. The response from the left has been SOFT—that these youth have been damaged by white supremacy, are therefore victims as well, and deserve to be rehabilitated.

Which response is best?

It’s not up to me, but our society must choose one path and stick with it, and apply the rules to all races equally.

your parents wrote:

Stu...Stu Padaso wrote:

Grow up.

Great advice for Weiland.

+1

Nonsense! wrote:

Sham 69 wrote:

Sir, I'm half black.

Which half is the racist one?

+1

Did the right come out and advocate the Stanford swimmer rapist be punished to full extent of the law?

Ah, letsrun...what a place!

Guy cheats on his girlfriend. Girlfriend moves on and he calls her a sl*t and the other guy a f****t n****r...and letsrun defends him calling the reaction PC run amok because he was kicked off the team. That's right, kicked off the team! Still at UCLA...but kicked off the team. If that isn't being cancelled and your life permanently ruined, then what is!? Damn the lefties, when will it all end!!?!

No they did not. The right is chock full of irrational hypocrites.

I don’t defend the right. I don’t defend this ucla kid.

I also don’t defend the left—they are also chock full of irrational hypocrites. It’s hard to find sanity in today’s outrage culture from both sides. I do like Charlie Munger:

“Another thing I think should be avoided is extremely intense ideology, because it cabbages up one’s mind. You’ve seen that. You see a lot of it on TV, you know preachers for instance, they’ve all got different ideas about theology and a lot of them have minds that are made of cabbage.

But that can happen with political ideology. And if you’re young it’s easy to drift into loyalties and when you announce that you’re a loyal member and you start shouting the orthodox ideology out what you’re doing is pounding it in, pounding it in, and you’re gradually ruining your mind. So you want to be very careful with this ideology. It’s a big danger.

I have what I call an iron prescription that helps me keep sane when I naturally drift toward preferring one ideology over another. And that is I say “I’m not entitled to have an opinion on this subject unless I can state the arguments against my position better than the people do who are supporting it. I think that only when I reach that stage am I qualified to speak.” Now you can say that’s too much of an iron discipline… it’s not too much of an iron discipline. It’s not even that hard to do.”

CHARLIE MUNGER

Great. Thanks for the rant here on Letsrun, not on what people here are suggesting, but people on Twitter.

Has he been kicked out of school? Or just off the team? Two very different things. Kicked off the team seems about right. Don't think expulsion from school would be appropriate unless other evidence comes out, showing a pattern of harassment, etc.

Sounds like a total d-bag, but would probably fit in well with the louder elements of the letsrun crowd.

To me, the decision to expel or suspend him from UCLA should be predicated on the school's honor code—I'm not associated with UCLA so I don't know their honor code. If it includes not displaying patently disrespectful and bigoted behavior, he should go.

Every team I've ever been on or coached has had very high standards for behavior, so I expect UCLA has the same for its teams and he easily violated those standards.

What bothers me isn't the curse words, even the slurs. It's the attitude, the phone call with his mom was me me me—all about poor little him, no one else. He acts like he's entitled to a girlfriend, whether he cheats or not. He acts like he's entitled to say because someone's Black they must live "in the ghetto". Yes, college-aged kids make mistakes, but this is about attitude. That attitude is what needs to be addressed, not just the slurs and nasty words.

How do you feel about the fact that this happened before he went to UCLA? How far back are you comfortable with, third grade?

Yeah I saw this a few days ago. At first I thought damn if all he did was say the n word than maybe this is a little unwarranted. Plenty of edgy white boys say the n word and aren’t racist (though I personally would never say it). It would certainly warrant reprimanding, but not being kicked off the team and “cancelled.” Boy was I wrong. He deserves everything coming to him. I actually had to laugh out loud when he revealed that he had also cheated on her hahaha. What an azz.

4sup wrote:

ucla t&f member here... first of all everything chris said occurred before he came to ucla, I'm not a distance runner so I barely knew him but from conversations with people who did nobody was aware of this side of him and everyone was completely shocked. coach anderson's reversal of chris's reinstatement was due to the almost 3 hour long team meeting on monday discussing the issue and listening to all of us voice our opinions. from multiple conversations w/ chris coach anderson eventually thought of this as an opportunity to help chris learn and grow as a person and send him out into society a better person than he came in. the team overwhelmingly disagreed, his removal from the team had absolutely nothing to do with social media pressure

So you are saying this video was from BEFORE he was ever on the team? If true, it seems like this could easily be the basis of an unlawful termination lawsuit. He does not fall under any team rules until he joins the team.

For example, adultery is a criminal act in the military but not in the civilian world. If someone has an affair as a civilian and then joins the military, he cannot be punished for his prior behavior because when the affair occurred, he did not fall under the rules of the military. This guy did not fall under the rules of UCLA track at the time and therefore seems to have a case for a lawsuit.

Curious why the only words you capitalized in your entire post is "I" and "I'm." Not UCLA, or Coach Anderson, or Chris, or Monday, or the first word of any sentence. Only "I" and "I'm."

Glad to know the racist loser has legal options for wrongful termination from a college athletic team.

Gina. wrote:

observer of Lrc wrote:

The same people who make the argument to give this kid another chance were NEVER a part of the criminal justice reform. So it’s not like you wanted to give poor and minority “criminals” a second chance. The GOP doesn’t even want ex criminals to vote.

The kid will also have a second chance if he so chooses . He could do volunteer and charity work to rehab his image.

??????

This kids behavior and consequence has no relation to poor minority kids and the legal system. You know that. You also know the kid was not a criminal and what he said he said before he attended UCLA and he said it when he was very distressed.

The black coach and the administration were right in their first decision. With pressure, they got scared and caved and expelled the kid.

I am a liberal, but this was excessive. People are really scared of people considered racist.

I would not want this bum as a teammate. I am not surprised that many Bruins felt the same.