Nebraska's Michael Rose-Ivey receives racial backlash for anthem protest

[Blackshirt96]

I feel a great deal of national pride seeing young men and women stand up (or kneel down, as it were) for causes and continue to fight for principles of recognition and equality -- the ones our country stands to strive for.

I think we've talked at length about awareness, empathy, starting points, and so on. My last post on the previous page pointed to an example of what it was accomplishing. I see these threads and the conversations and the reactions of many Husker fans (agree or disagree) as a meaningful part of that.

It's funny you should mention MLK and "sit down." The sit ins were a big part of the Civil Rights Movement -- and substantially more disruptive.

When people say they don't think the national anthem is the time or place, they mean there isn't a time or a place unless that time is always "not now" and the place is always "somewhere I don't have to see it."

Thanks for clearing that up. I really thought I just didn't like it due to the disrespect I feel it shows during the National Anthem. I mentioned earlier that I would have no problem with them doing this during interviews or pretty much any other time, but since you answer for all I will have to change my tune.

 

[commando]

wow....that is.....disturbing

 

[WhatDoIKnow]

Nebraska football represents the state of Nebraska. I do not care what people do in their own time. This "platform" that players think they are entitled to doesn't belong to them. These players do not speak for every person in Nebraska. Therefore keep this crap in your personal time.

MRI said a lot of good things at the press conference. Why couldn't he say those things and not bring a negative aspect into it? Why couldn't he speak about this issue without first pissing people off?

This is the perception: I don't live in Nebraska anymore. People at work say "hey saw those players on your favorite football team didn't stand for the national anthem, looks like people in Nebraska are unpatriotic people." Is that true? No. But that's the perception when individuals represent something larger than themselves.

No one where you work has ever said that.

 

[Red Five]

Nothing like a bunch of white guys from Nebraska telling minorities how and when they can protest racial discrimination.

 

[knapplc]

It's not unusual for a Joey Salads video. Go find some of his other "work" on YouTube. There's some pretty weird and hard to believe stuff.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

That video is stupid and an obvious troll question. The All Lives Matter slogan is a counter-movement to Black Lives Matter which was does not mean only black lives matter, but that black lives also matter. It has been an effort to raise the collective consciousness of our country to the issues in the African American community. People that don't get this simple distinction either don't understand the issues in African American communities and our nation as a whole or are intentionally distorting the issues for alternative motives.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Jeez. I looked up Daub. Good god. The guy is frickin old. What the hell is he doing still having a voice in anything? Jeebus. Get the f#*k out already you old codger.

 

[Red Five]

For those hung up on Black Lives Matter, not once in MRI's speech did he say those words.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Maybe Rose-Ivey should just stick to football while he is in a Cornhusker uniform.

I also find it ironic that he was all for free speech and making a statement about what he thinks needs to be said until his Twitter account blew up. Then he thinks everybody else should be careful not to offend his mother...yet how many mothers and fathers and family members of others did he offend who were up in the stands?

Still and all, not a big thing, just dumb. I guess Rose-Ivey came to Nebraska for an education. He's getting one now.

Racially-charged insults and death threats are not an education. I am disgusted that this post exists (more to the point that this mentality exists) and that others on this board are supportive of this view.

 

[ThroughTheseGates]

And then, the "All victims" vs "Not attacking when killed" differences are negligible given the likely sample sizes.

Are the differences in harsher/longer sentences for minorities compared to whites for the exact same crimes also negligible?

Please show me an example.

Happily:

There are significant racial disparities in sentencing decisions in the United States.1
Sentences imposed on Black males in the federal system are nearly 20 percent longer than those
imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes.2
Black and Latino offenders sentenced in
state and federal courts face significantly greater odds of incarceration than similarly situated
white offenders and receive longer sentences than their white counterparts in some jurisdictions.3

Black male federal defendants receive longer sentences than whites arrested for the same
offenses and with comparable criminal histories.4
Research has also shown that race plays a
significant role in the determination of which homicide cases result in death sentences.5
2
The racial disparities increase with the severity of the sentence imposed. The level of
disproportionate representation of Blacks among prisoners who are serving life sentences
without the possibility of parole (LWOP) is higher than that among parole-eligible prisoners
serving life sentences. The disparity is even higher for juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP,
and higher still among prisoners sentenced to LWOP for nonviolent offenses. Although Blacks
constitute only about 13 percent of the U.S. population, as of 2009, Blacks constitute 28.3
percent of all lifers, 56.4 percent of those serving LWOP, and 56.1 percent of those who received
LWOP for offenses committed as a juvenile.6
As of 2012, the ACLU’s research shows that 65.4
percent of prisoners serving LWOP for nonviolent offenses are Black.7

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf

Sorry, I was too busy last night to read the whole article. I'd like to address the crack vs cocaine argument. This article is taking one measurement, amount of cocaine, and saying that all people caught with the same amount of cocaine, no matter the form that it takes, should all receive the exact same punishment. Now obviously, statistics show that people caught with crack are receiving harsher punishments than people with pure cocaine. And then the study notices that typically, black people are caught with crack and white people are typically caught with pure cocaine. So the study determines that this is racism.

Did they consider that the typical person arrested for crack is going to have completely different life circumstances compared to the typical person arrested for cocaine? Because I imagine the person typically arrested for crack is someone without much of a future... someone pissing his life away and not being a productive member of society. Whereas someone arrested for cocaine is probably more likely to have a job, a family, etc. It's not racist to admit that. Do you think we should take away a judge's discretion in these situations? Do you think we should have robots running society, taking one measure (amount of cocaine) and determining a punishment?

So when this is one of the main examples given in the article, how am I supposed to believe that any of the other research they performed didn't account for overall life circumstances? Now if you don't believe we should be imprisoning nonviolent drug offenders, that's a completely different argument. But you are missing some key background if you're to claim that our society is racist, which means unfairly targeting another race because of their race, simply because some statistics tell you that black people are being more harshly punished than white people.

 

[np_husker]

I don't know if this has been posted or not, but Sam McKewon's column is excellent, in my opinion.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/mckewon-daub-ricketts-comments-create-another-obstacle-in-nebraska-s/article_2d24119e-851e-11e6-8778-1fcbac7e1f42.html

 

[knapplc]

Sorry, I was too busy last night to read the whole article. I'd like to address the crack vs cocaine argument. This article is taking one measurement, amount of cocaine, and saying that all people caught with the same amount of cocaine, no matter the form that it takes, should all receive the exact same punishment. Now obviously, statistics show that people caught with crack are receiving harsher punishments than people with pure cocaine. And then the study notices that typically, black people are caught with crack and white people are typically caught with pure cocaine. So the study determines that this is racism.

Did they consider that the typical person arrested for crack is going to have completely different life circumstances compared to the typical person arrested for cocaine? Because I imagine the person typically arrested for crack is someone without much of a future... someone pissing his life away and not being a productive member of society. Whereas someone arrested for cocaine is probably more likely to have a job, a family, etc. It's not racist to admit that. Do you think we should take away a judge's discretion in these situations? Do you think we should have robots running society, taking one measure (amount of cocaine) and determining a punishment?

So when this is one of the main examples given in the article, how am I supposed to believe that any of the other research they performed didn't account for overall life circumstances? Now if you don't believe we should be imprisoning nonviolent drug offenders, that's a completely different argument. But you are missing some key background if you're to claim that our society is racist, which means unfairly targeting another race because of their race, simply because some statistics tell you that black people are being more harshly punished than white people.

Your conclusions in paragraph three are based on the bold question in paragraph two. You're admitting you don't know the answer, then hypothesizing why this may be, and concluding that all info in that article is flawed based off that hypothesis. Problem is, the hypothesis is flawed - you don't know the very basic information you'd need to make an accurate judgment. Biases are showing, we're not finding actual conclusions.

Further, "Because I imagine the person typically arrested for crack is someone without much of a future... someone pissing his life away and not being a productive member of society. Whereas someone arrested for cocaine is probably more likely to have a job, a family, etc. It's not racist to admit that." This is an absurd and potentially racist conclusion. Without data to support this on a case-by-case basis, you're letting preconceived notions guide this statement.

Looking further, it is not OK for a judge to determine that a person in depressed economic circumstances is "pissing his life away" any more than a judge should presume a person using cocaine is "more likely to have a job, family, etc" These are self-serving conclusions.

It is precisely this kind of "I think so, therefore it's true" mentality that keeps us from moving forward in conversations.

 

[RedDenver]

Originally, I supported the right to protest but didn't really agree with the cause. I mean, there's a bunch of racist stuff being done by cops, but there are hundreds of thousands of cops and we're only seeing a small sampling.

But the reaction to a peaceful protest, both in the comments on this board but even more so elsewhere, has revealed to me that racism is far more prevalent and deeply rooted in our society than I'd like to believe. Quite frankly, I'm saddened and appalled.

 

[ThroughTheseGates]

Sorry, I was too busy last night to read the whole article. I'd like to address the crack vs cocaine argument. This article is taking one measurement, amount of cocaine, and saying that all people caught with the same amount of cocaine, no matter the form that it takes, should all receive the exact same punishment. Now obviously, statistics show that people caught with crack are receiving harsher punishments than people with pure cocaine. And then the study notices that typically, black people are caught with crack and white people are typically caught with pure cocaine. So the study determines that this is racism.

Did they consider that the typical person arrested for crack is going to have completely different life circumstances compared to the typical person arrested for cocaine? Because I imagine the person typically arrested for crack is someone without much of a future... someone pissing his life away and not being a productive member of society. Whereas someone arrested for cocaine is probably more likely to have a job, a family, etc. It's not racist to admit that. Do you think we should take away a judge's discretion in these situations? Do you think we should have robots running society, taking one measure (amount of cocaine) and determining a punishment?

So when this is one of the main examples given in the article, how am I supposed to believe that any of the other research they performed didn't account for overall life circumstances? Now if you don't believe we should be imprisoning nonviolent drug offenders, that's a completely different argument. But you are missing some key background if you're to claim that our society is racist, which means unfairly targeting another race because of their race, simply because some statistics tell you that black people are being more harshly punished than white people.

Your conclusions in paragraph three are based on the bold question in paragraph two. You're admitting you don't know the answer, then hypothesizing why this may be, and concluding that all info in that article is flawed based off that hypothesis. Problem is, the hypothesis is flawed - you don't know the very basic information you'd need to make an accurate judgment. Biases are showing, we're not finding actual conclusions.

Further, "Because I imagine the person typically arrested for crack is someone without much of a future... someone pissing his life away and not being a productive member of society. Whereas someone arrested for cocaine is probably more likely to have a job, a family, etc. It's not racist to admit that." This is an absurd and potentially racist conclusion. Without data to support this on a case-by-case basis, you're letting preconceived notions guide this statement.

Looking further, it is not OK for a judge to determine that a person in depressed economic circumstances is "pissing his life away" any more than a judge should presume a person using cocaine is "more likely to have a job, family, etc" These are self-serving conclusions.

It is precisely this kind of "I think so, therefore it's true" mentality that keeps us from moving forward in conversations.

But I'm not the one taking action! BLM is taking action with the assumption that society is racist! They are the ones assuming that they are being treated unfairly because of the color of their skin. I'm simply defending against their actions with potential non-racist explanations for the results of these studies.

And regarding your judge statement bolded above: I'm not saying that judges should presume anything. The judges look into each case individually and base their punishment off of the circumstances. Do you really think a judge looks at a sheet of paper, sees "pure cocaine", and concludes that this person must be successful and have a family? That's not what I'm saying at all.

 

[knapplc]

But I'm not the one taking action! BLM is taking action with the assumption that society is racist! They are the ones assuming that they are being treated unfairly because of the color of their skin. I'm simply defending against their actions with potential non-racist explanations for the results of these studies.

And regarding your judge statement bolded above: I'm not saying that judges should presume anything. The judges look into each case individually and base their punishment off of the circumstances. Do you really think a judge looks at a sheet of paper, sees "pure cocaine", and concludes that this person must be successful and have a family? That's not what I'm saying at all.

Well, again, I think this would be a great time to leave the keyboard and actually speak to someone involved with Black Lives Matter and discover their actual beliefs and motives. This caricature that they believe "society is racist" is not true, although they do see (because they've lived it) inherent biases in the system.

I know this thread is filled with a lot of noise, but Landlord of Memorial Stadium has posted several good links to information showing biases in crime and punishment against minorities.

It would be the most myopic of statements to assert there is no racial bias in America, in our police or in our courts. What BLM is combating are those specific biases. Making wild claims that all of BLM is saying all of America is racist is an understanding-defeating assertion. We need to move past that rhetoric and actually listen to what they're saying.

And yeah, BLM can at times be their own worst enemy. Talk of "reparations" and some of their political demands are understanding-defeating assertions as well. I can only imagine the frustration they must feel living their lives and constantly hearing from White America that there isn't a racial problem in this country. If there weren't, we wouldn't be talking about it.

I've seen this stuff with my own eyes. I've had Black friends nearly break down in moments of quiet conversation recounting their encounters with the police, or at the store, or in a meeting (A MEETING!). They're treated differently because of the color of their skin. It happens, it sucks, and it's something we should work against - all of us, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, whatever.