(06-07-2018 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:03 AM)esposito Wrote:  

(06-06-2018 09:54 PM)interwebowl Wrote:  If you don't think this bathroom thing is a big deal at Rice, you don't know that place very well. As a part of Lance's campaign he has called donors asking for their support. I know he has heard that this is a problem and he just doesn't think he did anything wrong. That is the problem. In his adverts he equated trans to pedophilia. This has been done with gays and others who run afoul of Lance's brand of christianity. He made adverts. It is not just that he has these views that are widely considered to be ignorant and bigoted positions because plenty of people do who have no contact with gays or trans people, but he made adverts. At a school where master needs to become magister, do you really think this does not matter? Of course it does and it should. Every student, faculty member and alum needs to fell safe at Rice and welcomed. Gay athletes are no different. What does this say to them if the most prestigious athletic program is turned over to someone like Lance who has already made these political ads. I have told my children that when you get involved in social media you need to be careful because you don't get to hide from it or take it back. Someone should have explained this to Lance.

If we are going to allow this to influence our decision then we deserve to fail. It is ridiculous enough that 1.8% of the population makes more noise than any other group. There is no reason to force that tiny influence upon anyone else. SJW snowflakes are ruining America. If someone thinks Lance's views don't alight well enough with the PC police then they had no clue what his predecessor was like.

To be fair, my assumption is that the majority of those who voted for the bathroom bill do not all fall within that 1.8% of the population, so you assertion that 1.8% of the population is making more noise than any other doesn't hold true. I imagine it's closer to 1.8% plus the percentage of people who supported said bill, which of voters, was around 40%.

Coaches at the collegiate level must walk a much finer line when making statements to the press about political issues because they are representing many more constituents than professional coaches. So outspoken pro coaches like Pop or Steve Kerr have the liberty to be more open about their political stances because they only represent the immediate organization. When it comes to college athletics, a coach is also an ambassador for the university, which means they are often viewed as a reflection of the values of that university. So it's best for college coaches to not even wade into politics because of how diverse the student/alumni body is that they represent.

In my time at Rice, I don't think I've seen any of our coaches wade into the political territory the way Lance did. I know he wasn't a coach then, but he felt strongly enough about the issue to wade into the debate at some point in his life, so I understand why that willingness would make some wary that he would do so again as coach at Rice. Does anyone who has been around longer remember a coach discussing their opinion on a political issue in the past?

I have seen "all-gender" bathrooms in practice and would have no problem with them if they became the norm, whether through law or custom. I expect to be at a place soon where "all-gender" bathrooms are standard. Not just single user, but multiple users. No problem.

Being openly and devoutly Christian didn't seem to hurt Tom Landry's coaching. Or Hatfield's. Never seemed to affect Staubach's passing. Never heard a recruit say they selected a school based on the coach's faith or lack of it. Unless, maybe, it is Liberty or BYU.

I have no dog in this hunt. If it is Berkman, then I will support Coach Berkman, even if he comes out in favor of higher taxes or kneeling for the anthem. If it is Coach Other, I will support Coach Other. Let's just get a dadgum coach.

To be clear - the issue isn't with Berkman's faith, it is with the policy he advocated for, so the examples you provided don't really address the issue. I mean, faith already plays a big role in the lives of a lot of our athletes on campus, and it plays a public role. No one has complained about that before, and likely won't in the future. The controversy is over the policy debate, not his faith.

And I, as many others do, do care about what our coaches advocate for in the public realm as it connects back to Rice and will influence the perception of our university. In Lance's case, I do not think his previous stance should be a disqualifier, but I do think that there are cases where someone's previous actions/stances should be a disqualifier. But it is definitely a case-by-case basis.

Based on your final comment, do you support a win-at-all-costs mentality that doesn't care about how a coach acts, recruits, etc? At Rice, we generally seem to have a line with our coaches, most often centered on recruiting/player development/cheating. Lance is just the first case that I can remember where politics are involved in the discussion.

I support a win philosophy, done within the rules. Therefore, not at all costs.

I really don't don't care about our coaches personal politics, as long as he can win with them or despite them. But anyways, first and foremost, no cheating.

(06-07-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:22 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:10 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:03 AM)interwebowl Wrote:  To correct myself, it was not a bathroom bill. It was an equal rights ordinance that applied equality to all genders, races and sexual orientations. The opponents made it about bathrooms which led to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have found that the most likely opponents of these equality bills have always been straight white men. I guess that it because they stand to lose if equality exists.

Universities are not supposed to reflect public opinion, they are supposed to help shape it through more enlightened attitudes. This is why there is so much opposition to Lance among the faculty.

Funny. I thought Universities were suppose to educate their students in how to think for themselves, not shape public opinion throgh more enlightened attitudes.

Lol.

Enlighten: verb, to furnish knowledge to; give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation

So yes, universities are supposed to enlighten (i.e. educate) their students. Inherently, educating students will shape public opinion as those students move into the real world and affect it through their actions.

Enlighten - yes

Shape opinions - no. Teach people to think for themselves, and let them form their own opinions.

And the original comment didn't suggest as much. It said to help shape public opinion through more enlightened attitudes. You're arguing that Rice does not want its students to go out and affect change - which I can tell you, is certainly not true.

Is it the job of the University to tell them what changes to effect?

If that is the mission, why aren't all the restrooms on campus and in the stadiums unisex?

(06-07-2018 12:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:22 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:10 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Funny. I thought Universities were suppose to educate their students in how to think for themselves, not shape public opinion throgh more enlightened attitudes.

Lol.

Enlighten: verb, to furnish knowledge to; give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation

So yes, universities are supposed to enlighten (i.e. educate) their students. Inherently, educating students will shape public opinion as those students move into the real world and affect it through their actions.

Enlighten - yes

Shape opinions - no. Teach people to think for themselves, and let them form their own opinions.

And the original comment didn't suggest as much. It said to help shape public opinion through more enlightened attitudes. You're arguing that Rice does not want its students to go out and affect change - which I can tell you, is certainly not true.

Is it the job of the University to tell them what changes to effect?

If that is the mission, why aren't all the restrooms on campus and in the stadiums unisex?

Yes and no - it's a nuanced answer. Rice has values and generally wants to promote those values in the public sphere. For example (http://www.rice.edu/values/):

Quote: Rice faculty, staff and students share values that are essential to our success as a healthy community. Those values guide our decisions and behaviors and shape Rice’s culture. They come through in the way we treat each other and the welcome we extend to our visitors. These values can be recalled simply by our name, RICE: R for responsibility, I for integrity, C for community and E for excellence.

By having stated values, Rice as a whole is at least trying to impart those on the students it educates, and should want those students to advocate for those values in the future. And there are some ways that Rice should try and tell students what changes to effect. Look at our highly successful OEDK - Rice is obviously telling its students that they should be serving areas that are under-served when it comes to medical help.

You start getting into the no area when you move away from things that are directly connected to the education that students are receiving at Rice or that do not materially impact Rice, like this bathroom bill.

But the more I think about it, it's a bit preposterous to think that Rice shouldn't actively advocate for its students to tackle specific issues and affect specific changes. Rice, just like most institutions, should be very careful about what topics it chooses to support.

(06-07-2018 12:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 09:03 AM)esposito Wrote:  If we are going to allow this to influence our decision then we deserve to fail. It is ridiculous enough that 1.8% of the population makes more noise than any other group. There is no reason to force that tiny influence upon anyone else. SJW snowflakes are ruining America. If someone thinks Lance's views don't alight well enough with the PC police then they had no clue what his predecessor was like.

To be fair, my assumption is that the majority of those who voted for the bathroom bill do not all fall within that 1.8% of the population, so you assertion that 1.8% of the population is making more noise than any other doesn't hold true. I imagine it's closer to 1.8% plus the percentage of people who supported said bill, which of voters, was around 40%.

Coaches at the collegiate level must walk a much finer line when making statements to the press about political issues because they are representing many more constituents than professional coaches. So outspoken pro coaches like Pop or Steve Kerr have the liberty to be more open about their political stances because they only represent the immediate organization. When it comes to college athletics, a coach is also an ambassador for the university, which means they are often viewed as a reflection of the values of that university. So it's best for college coaches to not even wade into politics because of how diverse the student/alumni body is that they represent.

In my time at Rice, I don't think I've seen any of our coaches wade into the political territory the way Lance did. I know he wasn't a coach then, but he felt strongly enough about the issue to wade into the debate at some point in his life, so I understand why that willingness would make some wary that he would do so again as coach at Rice. Does anyone who has been around longer remember a coach discussing their opinion on a political issue in the past?

I have seen "all-gender" bathrooms in practice and would have no problem with them if they became the norm, whether through law or custom. I expect to be at a place soon where "all-gender" bathrooms are standard. Not just single user, but multiple users. No problem.

Being openly and devoutly Christian didn't seem to hurt Tom Landry's coaching. Or Hatfield's. Never seemed to affect Staubach's passing. Never heard a recruit say they selected a school based on the coach's faith or lack of it. Unless, maybe, it is Liberty or BYU.

I have no dog in this hunt. If it is Berkman, then I will support Coach Berkman, even if he comes out in favor of higher taxes or kneeling for the anthem. If it is Coach Other, I will support Coach Other. Let's just get a dadgum coach.

To be clear - the issue isn't with Berkman's faith, it is with the policy he advocated for, so the examples you provided don't really address the issue. I mean, faith already plays a big role in the lives of a lot of our athletes on campus, and it plays a public role. No one has complained about that before, and likely won't in the future. The controversy is over the policy debate, not his faith.

And I, as many others do, do care about what our coaches advocate for in the public realm as it connects back to Rice and will influence the perception of our university. In Lance's case, I do not think his previous stance should be a disqualifier, but I do think that there are cases where someone's previous actions/stances should be a disqualifier. But it is definitely a case-by-case basis.

Based on your final comment, do you support a win-at-all-costs mentality that doesn't care about how a coach acts, recruits, etc? At Rice, we generally seem to have a line with our coaches, most often centered on recruiting/player development/cheating. Lance is just the first case that I can remember where politics are involved in the discussion.

I support a win philosophy, done within the rules. Therefore, not at all costs.

I really don't don't care about our coaches personal politics, as long as he can win with them or despite them. But anyways, first and foremost, no cheating.

Makes sense.

I care about the personal politics only when they become more than personal. Publicly advocating is when someone takes personal politics and amplifies them so they are no longer just that, personal.

As I said, with Lance, I don't think that his public stance should disqualify him, and disagree with those who do think so. But I understand where they come from.

(06-07-2018 10:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:10 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:03 AM)interwebowl Wrote:  To correct myself, it was not a bathroom bill. It was an equal rights ordinance that applied equality to all genders, races and sexual orientations. The opponents made it about bathrooms which led to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have found that the most likely opponents of these equality bills have always been straight white men. I guess that it because they stand to lose if equality exists.
Universities are not supposed to reflect public opinion, they are supposed to help shape it through more enlightened attitudes. This is why there is so much opposition to Lance among the faculty.

Funny. I thought Universities were suppose to educate their students in how to think for themselves, not shape public opinion throgh more enlightened attitudes.

Lol.
Enlighten: verb, to furnish knowledge to; give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation
So yes, universities are supposed to enlighten (i.e. educate) their students. Inherently, educating students will shape public opinion as those students move into the real world and affect it through their actions.

So universities are supposed to be Big Brother and the Thought Police?

Not sure how you extrapolated that from my original comment. Care to explain?

oh brother, how did my name become the thread starter on "transgender potty-gate"?

I don't want to talk about this topic, and sorry for whatever role I had in raising it.

(06-07-2018 11:58 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 11:52 AM)BSWBRice Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 11:26 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  “So much opposition to Lance among the faculty”...

I’ll start listening to the faculty on coaching decisions when they stop denigrating Athletics in classes.

Is this still happening? I graduated in 2009 and never heard of/saw anything like this. Granted I was an academ, so maybe it's more prevalent in SE courses.

I saw bias with several professors across departments.

I was not an athlete but was often mistook for one given my physical stature and was once walked into the first day of a class taught by a Baker Institute expert and was told that “athletes usually don’t do well in his class so I should know that before it begins.”

Ah dang, it's a bummer to hear that. I had hoped/thought stuff like that was part of a bygone era.

(06-07-2018 12:54 PM)wheredidmypantsgo Wrote:  oh brother, how did my name become the thread starter on "transgender potty-gate"?

I don't want to talk about this topic, and sorry for whatever role I had in raising it.

Your name, in a odd way, fits the topic.

Lad -- let me tell you where I think Rice#s is coming from.

First, it was stated that the job of a university is to enlighten us.

When you speak to bloviating gas bags such as myself, and you tell me that the *job* of someone/some entity is to 'enlighten' me (or any one else), it can very easily be interpreted as a 'kissing cousin' version of the Hillary deplorable statement. (Perhaps not too 'kissing cousin', since that is what all of us deplorables seemingly do on a regular basis according to lore ..... )

*You* might be inured to the wording of 'enlightenment' as 'teaching critical self-thinking' -- a goal shared by all. But many from the leftwards bent sometimes use that word (and tone) in a manner of the 'deplorables' statement. And, in that light, many from the other branch of the political life take the meaning of that word in the 'oh you poor redneck SOB' manner that it used by some.

I dont think you mean it in that manner, but the simple fact exists that that word can convey a tone of 'nanny state let me teach you how you should really think' to some, for better or worse.

Think of it as a 'dog whistle' verbiage used for 'deplorable'....

Not trying to cast aspersions here, nor trying to act as a 'you should know better' -- just trying to act as a translator.

[/end of 'speaking to the deplorables' translation attempt]

(06-07-2018 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:10 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:03 AM)interwebowl Wrote:  To correct myself, it was not a bathroom bill. It was an equal rights ordinance that applied equality to all genders, races and sexual orientations. The opponents made it about bathrooms which led to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I have found that the most likely opponents of these equality bills have always been straight white men. I guess that it because they stand to lose if equality exists.
Universities are not supposed to reflect public opinion, they are supposed to help shape it through more enlightened attitudes. This is why there is so much opposition to Lance among the faculty.

Funny. I thought Universities were suppose to educate their students in how to think for themselves, not shape public opinion throgh more enlightened attitudes.

Lol.
Enlighten: verb, to furnish knowledge to; give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation
So yes, universities are supposed to enlighten (i.e. educate) their students. Inherently, educating students will shape public opinion as those students move into the real world and affect it through their actions.

So universities are supposed to be Big Brother and the Thought Police?

Not sure how you extrapolated that from my original comment. Care to explain?

Your post #43 fills in the blanks.

(06-07-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 12:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:22 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Lol.

Enlighten: verb, to furnish knowledge to; give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation

So yes, universities are supposed to enlighten (i.e. educate) their students. Inherently, educating students will shape public opinion as those students move into the real world and affect it through their actions.

Enlighten - yes

Shape opinions - no. Teach people to think for themselves, and let them form their own opinions.

And the original comment didn't suggest as much. It said to help shape public opinion through more enlightened attitudes. You're arguing that Rice does not want its students to go out and affect change - which I can tell you, is certainly not true.

Is it the job of the University to tell them what changes to effect?

If that is the mission, why aren't all the restrooms on campus and in the stadiums unisex?

Yes and no - it's a nuanced answer. Rice has values and generally wants to promote those values in the public sphere. For example (http://www.rice.edu/values/):

Quote: Rice faculty, staff and students share values that are essential to our success as a healthy community. Those values guide our decisions and behaviors and shape Rice’s culture. They come through in the way we treat each other and the welcome we extend to our visitors. These values can be recalled simply by our name, RICE: R for responsibility, I for integrity, C for community and E for excellence.

By having stated values, Rice as a whole is at least trying to impart those on the students it educates, and should want those students to advocate for those values in the future. And there are some ways that Rice should try and tell students what changes to effect. Look at our highly successful OEDK - Rice is obviously telling its students that they should be serving areas that are under-served when it comes to medical help.

You start getting into the no area when you move away from things that are directly connected to the education that students are receiving at Rice or that do not materially impact Rice, like this bathroom bill.

But the more I think about it, it's a bit preposterous to think that Rice shouldn't actively advocate for its students to tackle specific issues and affect specific changes. Rice, just like most institutions, should be very careful about what topics it chooses to support.

Rice is dedicated to the sober fearless pursuit of truth beauty righteousness. Says so right on my sheepskin.

Look guys, I don't care about bathrooms. Reasonable points on both sides. I don't live in Houston, so I didn't follow the arguments.

I don't care if our coach is marching in the Gay Pride parade (that would be taking a public political stance, would it not?) or the Texans for Secession parade (ditto) as long as he is leading us to post season success. I think some of us are strangling on a gnat.

(06-07-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Look at our highly successful OEDK - Rice is obviously telling its students that they should be serving areas that are under-served when it comes to medical help.

I think you mean the Rice 360 Institute for Global Health:
http://www.rice360.rice.edu

The Oshman Engineering Design Kitchen (http://oedk.rice.edu) is a signature feature of the Rice engineering education and has become a model for universitites around the world. It is indeed one of the very best things about Rice today, and will celebrated its 10th anniversary on February 22, 2019 (the Friday of National Engineers Week). But the OEDK is not focused particularly on medicine or on underserved communities; it is for all types of engineering design.

(06-07-2018 03:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:10 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Funny. I thought Universities were suppose to educate their students in how to think for themselves, not shape public opinion throgh more enlightened attitudes.

Lol.
Enlighten: verb, to furnish knowledge to; give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation
So yes, universities are supposed to enlighten (i.e. educate) their students. Inherently, educating students will shape public opinion as those students move into the real world and affect it through their actions.

So universities are supposed to be Big Brother and the Thought Police?

Not sure how you extrapolated that from my original comment. Care to explain?

Your post #43 fills in the blanks.

I want to hear you explain how either of those posts indicate that I think universities as a whole are supposed to be "Big Brother" and the "Thought Police" - and what exactly you mean by that comment.

You response fails to do that.

(06-07-2018 04:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Look at our highly successful OEDK - Rice is obviously telling its students that they should be serving areas that are under-served when it comes to medical help.

I think you mean the Rice 360 Institute for Global Health:
http://www.rice360.rice.edu

The Oshman Engineering Design Kitchen (http://oedk.rice.edu) is a signature feature of the Rice engineering education and has become a model for universitites around the world. It is indeed one of the very best things about Rice today, and will celebrated its 10th anniversary on February 22, 2019 (the Friday of National Engineers Week). But the OEDK is not focused particularly on medicine or on underserved communities; it is for all types of engineering design.

Huh, I guess so. Sorry if I conflated the two. I didn't realize we had a separate group for that sort of work now. I also didn't mean to suggest that this type of work is the only thing OEDK focuses on.

During my time at Rice, all of the work associated with designing novel approaches to address medical issues in the developing world were run out of the OEDK. Also, it seemed like the vast majority of projects that senior design teams worked on were related to the medical industry.

(06-07-2018 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 03:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Lol.
Enlighten: verb, to furnish knowledge to; give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation
So yes, universities are supposed to enlighten (i.e. educate) their students. Inherently, educating students will shape public opinion as those students move into the real world and affect it through their actions.

So universities are supposed to be Big Brother and the Thought Police?

Not sure how you extrapolated that from my original comment. Care to explain?

Your post #43 fills in the blanks.

I want to hear you explain how either of those posts indicate that I think universities as a whole are supposed to be "Big Brother" and the "Thought Police" - and what exactly you mean by that comment.
You response fails to do that.

I think you make it pretty clear that you see universities having a mission telling students what to think about certain issues, and expecting those students then to take those issue positions out into the world. If you don't see that as Big Brother/Thought Police, then we probably aren't going to agree.

I think universities should teach critical thinking in terms of how to go through the process of thinking. I don't think they should teach what the results of that thought process should be. With respect to the issue under discussion, I think universities should teach students how to look at the issue objectively, considering the reasonable positions of all stakeholders. Teaching them to express the views of one set of stakeholders without considering the others is teaching what to think, not how to think. And that seems pretty Big Brother/Thought Police to me.

You may wish to respond with some version of a "one position is clearly right" argument. That's what Big Brother said.

(06-07-2018 03:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Look guys, I don't care about bathrooms. Reasonable points on both sides. I don't live in Houston, so I didn't follow the arguments.

I don't care is our coach is marching in the Gay Pride parade (that would be taking a public political stance, would it not?) or the Texans for Secession parade (ditto) as long as he is leading us to post season success. I think some of us are strangling on a gnat.

Taking this to the extreme - what about being a public supporter of the KKK? Your stance that their public support of policy positions does not matter at all leads to that sort of eventuality.

That's why I say it does matter, and coaches better serve their players and fans when they try and avoid jumping into public policy debates.

The only coach who’s foray into politics has MAYBE helped him is Mike Leach.

(06-07-2018 04:16 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  The only coach who’s foray into politics has MAYBE helped him is Mike Leach.

Gary Pinkel is a name that comes to mind in this topic.

Lad, what do you think about Pinkel? Or does the 'justness' of the cause make it okay? (as opposed to your KKK hypothetical...)

My view is the same as it is with Starbucks. I dont want to be preached to by any coach, putative coach, etc. When a Starbucks barista tried to lecture me in the store (per company policy) on race relations, when I left that store I didnt go back. Ever. Coffee and political oriented lectures by baristas dont work for me as a pair. Nor do sports and lectures by coaches/players.

(06-07-2018 04:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 04:16 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  The only coach who’s foray into politics has MAYBE helped him is Mike Leach.

Gary Pinkel is a name that comes to mind in this topic.

Lad, what do you think about Pinkel? Or does the 'justness' of the cause make it okay? (as opposed to your KKK hypothetical...)

My view is the same as it is with Starbucks. I dont want to be preached to by any coach, putative coach, etc. When a Starbucks barista tried to lecture me in the store (per company policy) on race relations, when I left that store I didnt go back. Ever. Coffee and political oriented lectures by baristas dont work for me as a pair. Nor do sports and lectures by coaches/players.

You'll have to send me a link about Pinkel - not sure of the reference. But I think you're misunderstanding my stance. I don't care about the justness of the cause when it comes to collegiate sports.

I think I'm pretty much on your side when it comes to college coaches because of their unique situation in being an ambassador for the university, and I would apply that to college players as well. There are too many people that they are representing that are not connected to the sport for them to do too much advocate. I think for all parties, staying mum is best.

When you move to the pros, I think there is more leeway. Those coaches/players are only representing that single organization, and everyone who is associated with that organization is there for the sport. Basically, there's no collateral damage in the way there is in college.