ESPN.go.com reporting on the black Mizzou football players boycott of games and/or practice activities until president of the university system Timothy Wolfe resigns or is fired. Protests have been on the increase by students on campus due to some racial issues/events that have gone without any disciplinary action by Wolfe. These racially tense events have not been among the players of the football team, but the black players are boycotting in support of those effected and the student protesters.
ESPN in their article concerning the boycott by the players had to mention that Columbia, Missouri (Mizzou Campus) was 2 hours west of Ferguson. Has Ferguson become the central headquarters of protesters in Missouri or possibly nationally now? Racial issues were present before, certainly during and after the protests and riots of Ferguson. The ESPN article also reminded readers that Ferguson was where Michael Brown was killed by a white police officer spurring the protests.
What was ESPN’s purpose in mentioning Ferguson? Are they implying that Ferguson is participating in the protests, which have not been violent (yet)?
What is going on at Mizzou is racial, but only against Wolfe and administration whom the students believe refuses to take action against a few individuals that have taken part in racial slurs against some black students and what I will only describe as an ignorant act of racial hate (smeared human feces on a door of a black student). What went on at Ferguson was racial, but for ESPN to connect the two as if they are related is wrong. Is everything past and present to be compared with Ferguson?
I know the football players are joining the protest by boycotting because of the attention it raises both locally and nationally. I wish they, the players joined students on campus by participating in protests peacefully and possibly they have. They could possibly show up for the next game against BYU in Kansas City and participate in some sort of demonstration prior to the game and after. That would draw attention. I realize not showing up and leaving only approximately 22 white players to play or possibly a forfeit would draw attention as on a large-scale as well. I guess that is their point, but who is it really going to hurt. What does it do to the football program, one that many blacks count on? I question what the outcome of such a boycott would present. I believe it will hurt the black athletes, more than anything (most of the roster is black). It hurts the university financially as well. Most of the these athletes are on scholarship.
I do not want to sound like I am down playing the problem, there is a problem. Some people just love to hate and create issues for all. I agree with the students protest and demand to remove Wolfe. Those who create the racial tension must be dealt with. Many of the white students, to include white players have shown their support in the protests. This should send a strong signal to the administration. They are asking for the problem to be dealt with by firing Wolfe. The administration will have to deal with this situation. They could send a message to every campus in the nation by their action. It would be another thing if the students were holding the administration hostage……..some may believe they are. I don’t think so, they were only asking in the beginning that Wolfe deal with it, he obviously failed. If Gary Pinkel fails as Mizzou coach he would get fired. Whats the big deal, fire Wolfe.
There are racial issues on college campuses nationwide. I doubt you’ll see any other black players from other football programs joining the boycott.
I wish the football team would show this kind of commitment and fight on the field.