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

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

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

Here's the thing...freedom of speech is a 2-way street. Someone earlier made a point that players should be allowed to express themselves even if it leads to divisions within the team and the program. I am all on board with freedom of speech and expression but also am on board with the criticism that follows. So if the players can voice their concerns, why isn't Ricketts allowed to voice his concern....because of the impact it may have on recruiting? I personally thought the articles was poorly written and only considered one side of the debate. Anytime a political topic is injected into a team environment, it's going to create opposing views and conflict. Ricketts did not initiate the topic but was responding to actions taken by the players. People can disagree with him just as many disagree with the players. With that said, I do hope MRI and Ricketts have a nice conversation.

 

This looks like a false narrative to me. Who is saying that Ricketts can't exercise his right to free speech? If there are people saying that, then they need to learn about the 1st Amendment.

 

But reacting to and criticizing Ricketts is also protected speech.

 

I completely agree...everybody has the right to speak their minds. It seems some in here though they feel strongly in the players right to speak their minds and protest the way they have are also the ones to criticize Ricketts for speaking his mind.

 

And that is perfectly reasonable. I think the players have the right to free speech, and I also am critical of Ricketts speech. It's the content of what Ricketts is saying that I'm criticizing, not his right to that speech.

[HuskerNation1]

Ricketts' reaction was poor and completely unbefitting a governor. There's really no excuse for that.

 

The kids on the team who did this were thoughtful, conscientious, and earnest. They expressed their views politely and respectfully. Their teammates and coaches around them, many of whom I promise you disagree with protesting the anthem, gave them nothing but love and respect in return. Under Riley's leadership, it was more or less a clinic in class and coming together during a fraught time.

 

I'm glad the governor is now meeting with MRI. But initially, this was utterly tone-deaf on Ricketts' part. And a country mile worse on the part of Hal Daub.

 

Those of you defending Ricketts, this isn't about his free speech having been infringed. This is about you agreeing with his decision to step in and call these actions disgraceful on the same day the team itself put up such a wonderful display of unity and understanding.

 

But here's the thing...those of us who disagree with CK and MRI protesting the flag believe that action is disgraceful and disrespectful despite recognizing they have the right to do it. Heck, they can spit on the flag, burn it as has been done often in this country, etc... This country offers them that right, but it also offers other citizens, including an elected official, the right to voice his disagreement with their actions. So as I said before, this is a 2-way street.

[Hoosker]

 

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

 

Here's the thing...freedom of speech is a 2-way street. Someone earlier made a point that players should be allowed to express themselves even if it leads to divisions within the team and the program. I am all on board with freedom of speech and expression but also am on board with the criticism that follows. So if the players can voice their concerns, why isn't Ricketts allowed to voice his concern....because of the impact it may have on recruiting? I personally thought the articles was poorly written and only considered one side of the debate. Anytime a political topic is injected into a team environment, it's going to create opposing views and conflict. Ricketts did not initiate the topic but was responding to actions taken by the players. People can disagree with him just as many disagree with the players. With that said, I do hope MRI and Ricketts have a nice conversation.

 

 

They shouldn't have tried to tell Riley how to do his job.

 

I don't recall Riley ever telling either of them how to do theirs.

[RedDenver]

 

Ricketts' reaction was poor and completely unbefitting a governor. There's really no excuse for that.

 

The kids on the team who did this were thoughtful, conscientious, and earnest. They expressed their views politely and respectfully. Their teammates and coaches around them, many of whom I promise you disagree with protesting the anthem, gave them nothing but love and respect in return. Under Riley's leadership, it was more or less a clinic in class and coming together during a fraught time.

 

I'm glad the governor is now meeting with MRI. But initially, this was utterly tone-deaf on Ricketts' part. And a country mile worse on the part of Hal Daub.

 

Those of you defending Ricketts, this isn't about his free speech having been infringed. This is about you agreeing with his decision to step in and call these actions disgraceful on the same day the team itself put up such a wonderful display of unity and understanding.

But here's the thing...those of us who disagree with CK and MRI protesting the flag believe that action is disgraceful and disrespectful despite recognizing they have the right to do it. Heck, they can spit on the flag, burn it as has been done often in this country, etc... This country offers them that right, but it also offers other citizens, including an elected official, the right to voice his disagreement with their actions. So as I said before, this is a 2-way street.

 

What are you arguing against? No one is disputing free speech.

[Hoosker]

Ricketts' reaction was poor and completely unbefitting a governor. There's really no excuse for that.

 

The kids on the team who did this were thoughtful, conscientious, and earnest. They expressed their views politely and respectfully. Their teammates and coaches around them, many of whom I promise you disagree with protesting the anthem, gave them nothing but love and respect in return. Under Riley's leadership, it was more or less a clinic in class and coming together during a fraught time.

 

I'm glad the governor is now meeting with MRI. But initially, this was utterly tone-deaf on Ricketts' part. And a country mile worse on the part of Hal Daub.

 

Those of you defending Ricketts, this isn't about his free speech having been infringed. This is about you agreeing with his decision to step in and call these actions disgraceful on the same day the team itself put up such a wonderful display of unity and understanding.

 

Just in case they missed the point again.

[zoogs]

Ricketts stepped up to the mic on this scheduled radio program, having prepared to jump in with precisely those comments after seeing what the team did.

 

Daub saw what the team did and specifically singled out Mike Riley's handling of it as disappointing.

 

Riley and the Huskers put on an exemplary display that represented UNL and the Husker program so very well -- and then these two higher-ups come in and take a dump on the goodwill.

 

This is bigger than football, but even from a football perspective Husker fans ought to be a little pissed about that. And again, I promise that players, and coaches, also felt that it was disrespectful to kneel for the anthem. But they heard Michael Rose-Ivey out. They talked to him and they rallied around him nonetheless. They went and said all the right things.

 

How confusing it must be, now, to get these mixed signals about what an appropriate response is -- and also for the players kneeling.

[DrunkOffPunch]

I love MRI.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

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

 

Here's the thing...freedom of speech is a 2-way street. Someone earlier made a point that players should be allowed to express themselves even if it leads to divisions within the team and the program. I am all on board with freedom of speech and expression but also am on board with the criticism that follows. So if the players can voice their concerns, why isn't Ricketts allowed to voice his concern....because of the impact it may have on recruiting? I personally thought the articles was poorly written and only considered one side of the debate. Anytime a political topic is injected into a team environment, it's going to create opposing views and conflict. Ricketts did not initiate the topic but was responding to actions taken by the players. People can disagree with him just as many disagree with the players. With that said, I do hope MRI and Ricketts have a nice conversation.

 

 

They shouldn't have tried to tell Riley how to do his job.

 

I don't recall Riley ever telling either of them how to do theirs.

 

 

Yes, I did read the article, and it shouldn't matter if the elected officials are black or white or hispanic. They have the right to voice their disagreement. You can still empathize with whatever MRI may have encountered in his life while also disagreeing with the tactic he's using for the protest. What if Ricketts or others have had family members who were veterans who have died and had the flag draped on their casket or buried with them after the common flag-folding procedure. Others can have just as much passion about what the flag represents to them that gives them just as much moral ground to speak out about their beliefs.

[zoogs]

UNL President Hank Bounds stepping in today with some real leadership.

 

 

 

 

Our nation is dealing with difficult issues today, as we have for virtually our entire history. Each of us will react differently. College campuses, as much as any space, must be places where robust, even uncomfortable, debate is welcomed and encouraged. I want every student, faculty and staff member to know that I am unwavering in my support of your right to participate in these dialogues in the manner you choose under the First Amendment and University of Nebraska policy.

 

Thank you for all that you do for the University of Nebraska. I am honored and humbled to serve with you.

His bosses should be embarrassed that they couldn't muster the same ability.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

Ricketts' reaction was poor and completely unbefitting a governor. There's really no excuse for that.

 

The kids on the team who did this were thoughtful, conscientious, and earnest. They expressed their views politely and respectfully. Their teammates and coaches around them, many of whom I promise you disagree with protesting the anthem, gave them nothing but love and respect in return. Under Riley's leadership, it was more or less a clinic in class and coming together during a fraught time.

 

I'm glad the governor is now meeting with MRI. But initially, this was utterly tone-deaf on Ricketts' part. And a country mile worse on the part of Hal Daub.

 

Those of you defending Ricketts, this isn't about his free speech having been infringed. This is about you agreeing with his decision to step in and call these actions disgraceful on the same day the team itself put up such a wonderful display of unity and understanding.

But here's the thing...those of us who disagree with CK and MRI protesting the flag believe that action is disgraceful and disrespectful despite recognizing they have the right to do it. Heck, they can spit on the flag, burn it as has been done often in this country, etc... This country offers them that right, but it also offers other citizens, including an elected official, the right to voice his disagreement with their actions. So as I said before, this is a 2-way street.

 

What are you arguing against? No one is disputing free speech.

 

 

But there are some arguing with how Ricketts is using his freedom of speech, while bashing anyone who disagrees with how MRI is using his freedom of speech. See the hypocrisy. This is a debate and topic where there is going to be strong division no matter what others say.

[TAKODA]

Let me throw something out there because I believe there is some missing elements with the Kneeling issue.

 

The meaning behind Black athletes kneeling might be lost to a large portion of the population, but I also believe some of the angst people are voicing in regards to kneeling being disrespectful, is also not cut and dry or motivated because everyone is racist.

 

As I stated a few times, when CK first kneeled, it pissed me off and if you go look at that thread, you will see others who also chimed in. However, it was not a racial anger, it was because of how I was raised, the military family mindset and the fact that I took it as a slam against what has been provided by the blood and guts of American soldiers.

 

I and my family have zero racial prejudices. I have African American friends, co-workers and my son took a beautiful young African American lady to prom years ago. Also, my cousin married an African American and they have 3 wonderful children who are just as much a part of our loving family as anyone else.

 

Yet, I still had the feeling that what CK did was improper and offensive.

 

It was not until MRI's speech, that I took an accounting of why I felt that way, while also trying to understand the message MRI was presenting. With a respectful, well versed and pointed set of words, MRI's comments hit home and I had to re-evaluate the stance I had previously taken and weigh each specifically and independently.

 

Had MRI not shared his message, I am fairly sure I would be sitting in the other camp, but for us, to refuse to acknowledge his words, his emphatic denial that he is anti-police, anti-military or anti-country would be ignorance at its best. In other words, the act of kneeling by itself, caused me anguish and anger. After hearing his comments, the anger turned to acceptance and a little deeper clarity.

 

Some important factors to point out here:

 

When MRI and the other two athletes did this, they received flak based on the act alone. I am not condoning it, I am simply stating that by itself, even I was enraged. It wasn't racial anger, it was the respect issue. (I do not expect those who have no military pride to understand this, just as you can't or may not be able to understand what it's like to be a black American.)

 

There is no doubt, that some people stated things out of racial hatred, but I also would ask each of you who are saying that everyone who is against this type of display, to recognize, that the angst is not necessarily due to racial feelings.

 

I again want to state, I am not in favor of a sporting event being used to champion a political stance, but maybe if people who are doing such, would take note of MRI's speech, they can learn something from it.

[zoogs]

So beautifully said, TAKODA. And you're right -- I can understand anyone who thinks kneeling is disrespectful. The anthem is something many cherish, after all. I think it does take someone like MRI explaining his heart the way he did. Your example shows why it was so important for these players -- our players -- to take their action in solidarity.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

Ricketts' reaction was poor and completely unbefitting a governor. There's really no excuse for that.

 

The kids on the team who did this were thoughtful, conscientious, and earnest. They expressed their views politely and respectfully. Their teammates and coaches around them, many of whom I promise you disagree with protesting the anthem, gave them nothing but love and respect in return. Under Riley's leadership, it was more or less a clinic in class and coming together during a fraught time.

 

I'm glad the governor is now meeting with MRI. But initially, this was utterly tone-deaf on Ricketts' part. And a country mile worse on the part of Hal Daub.

 

Those of you defending Ricketts, this isn't about his free speech having been infringed. This is about you agreeing with his decision to step in and call these actions disgraceful on the same day the team itself put up such a wonderful display of unity and understanding.

But here's the thing...those of us who disagree with CK and MRI protesting the flag believe that action is disgraceful and disrespectful despite recognizing they have the right to do it. Heck, they can spit on the flag, burn it as has been done often in this country, etc... This country offers them that right, but it also offers other citizens, including an elected official, the right to voice his disagreement with their actions. So as I said before, this is a 2-way street.

 

What are you arguing against? No one is disputing free speech.

 

But there are some arguing with how Ricketts is using his freedom of speech, while bashing anyone who disagrees with how MRI is using his freedom of speech. See the hypocrisy. This is a debate and topic where there is going to be strong division no matter what others say.

 

There is no hypocrisy there. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with HOW free speech is used - for both sides. HOW free speech is used goes to the content of the speech, which is what we should be debating.

[Dbqgolfer]

Gov. Ricketts comments were unfortunate, Hal Daub were much worse; but if I recall correctly, many of the today's "free speech defenders" on this board were looking for Ron Brown to be fired when he, on his own time, spoke out against homosexuality at an Omaha City Council meeting.

[knapplc]

The national anthem is not a song paying respects to fallen soldiers. Can we dispense with that myth?