Friday, February 26, 2010

Sporting Purposes

UT’s athletic director, Mike Hamilton, said that under the new policy, the university will automatically dismiss any student-athlete found in possession of a gun — even those with permits and even those living off-campus. [More]
But note he won't sign a contract establishing university liability should anyone be hurt or killed as a result of their mandate.

Just think, if we could extend this to other endeavors--I mean, employment is voluntary, and we already see how some won't hire smokers. Why not have policies where they can demand no employees own guns? Or at least have access to them...?

The proper response to Meathead Mike would be for the athletes to strike and demand that he be fired. That they won't, and that most will go along to get along, and even think it's a good idea, points to catastrophic failure of the educational system.

4 comments:

ebd10 said...

Since when does he have the right to dictate to students living off-campus what they may possess in their own homes?

Sean said...

Sarcasm on. I don't think we should do anything. It'll just make them mad. Besides, they'll send a text if there's a mad dog shooter on campus, and they know what's best.Sarcasm off.

Anonymous said...

Someone should explain 42USC1983 to him:

[b]Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. [/b]

Unknown said...

Things like this make me glad I went to A&M.