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:

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

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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]

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

    ReplyDelete

Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.