Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She is obviously the much bigger person here, but I don't think her opinion should be a consideration for the university. What he said was terrible, and to say it in a public forum -- particularly while wearing your team's uniform in your picture -- is possibly inexcusable. Whether the victim is forgiving or not doesn't change the offense.
I see your point. Maybe the university will take into consideration though. You know how victim impact statements are in court? May or may not help. SHE DID the RIGHT thing though!
I see your point. Maybe the university will take into consideration though. You know how victim impact statements are in court? May or may not help. SHE DID the RIGHT thing though!
Either way, a man shouldn't lose his livelihood over a tweet unless it was a repeat offense. People make slip ups. What if his twitter was hacked? The punishment has to fit the crime.
The University handled it poorly. He should have been suspended for a few games, attended sexual harassment and social media courses, and issued an apology. He didn't need to get kicked off the team. If he has a second violation after that, then let him go.
I disagree. If his Twitter was hacked, he should make his case and have due process. Assuming it wasn't, I don't think this is a case of a simple "slip up." Calling a 13 year-old girl a sl*t on a public forum is more than enough cause to kick someone off a baseball team.
Not disputing you, just adding another element. That being, maybe the University will consider reinstatement based on her statements on his behalf. I don't care if he is reinstated one way or the other, but perhaps what she did can assuage the situation. Maybe, maybe not!
I really think this comes down to a problem with people in a certain generation today (15-30, mostly) who are so used to the "here and now" that they aren't able to see long-term consequences. They've grown up being mean to each other online, hiding behind a computer screen, and having everything they want instantly on an app. I doubt this kid thought of Mo'ne Davis as a 13 year-old girl. I bet he just thought of her as some abstract public figure, and I doubt he thought his words on Twitter were real words to real people.
An adult calling a 13-year-old girl a **** is far more than just not being PC. The outrage was absolutely warranted. I agree that she's being quite gracious, but the university made the right more. Playing for their team is a privilege.
Outrage warranted yes, by all means. I also agree the girl has a bright future with such poise and dignity at such a young age. I find talk about a little girl like that despicable, especially by an adult, even a young dumb one.
However freedom of speech and thought is suppose to mean being able to say outrageous, outlandish and even vile things without fear of reprisals. Otherwise if only approved speech (i.e. popular or PC speech) is allowed, then you really don't have free speech, now do you?
Regardless, I never get tired of reading about these idiots who cannot control their narrsistic need to express themselves on social media. They wind up saying or doing something stupid which winds up bitting them in the rear.
I disagree. If his Twitter was hacked, he should make his case and have due process. Assuming it wasn't, I don't think this is a case of a simple "slip up." Calling a 13 year-old girl a sl*t on a public forum is more than enough cause to kick someone off a baseball team.
This isn't his livelihood, btw.
Well first of all, the PC police go after peoples livelihoods when they do not conform to PC approved speech.
Also I would note that while college baseball is not an actual livelihood, it might involve scholarship money if he is good enough. It also might result in him being drafted if he is really good. So throwing him off the team might be more significant than some have thought through.
However freedom of speech and thought is suppose to mean being able to say outrageous, outlandish and even vile things without fear of reprisals. Otherwise if only approved speech (i.e. popular or PC speech) is allowed, then you really don't have free speech, now do you?
You couldn't be more incorrect. Freedom of speech only means that the government cannot prohibit you from expressing yourself freely. It says nothing about reprisals from society, one's employer, one's school, etc. This is in no way a free speech issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
