Connect with us

U.S.

Big Ten and Pac-12 Postpone College Football Seasons

Published

on

  • The Big Ten and Pac-12 have postponed their college football seasons due to the coronavirus, citing the health and safety of their players.
  • It is unclear if this will impact the decisions of other conferences in the Power Five, but so far, the others seem to intend to push forward with their seasons.
  • College athletes started a movement encouraging the conferences to let the seasons run under COVID-19 safety guidelines, giving players the chance to opt out if the wanted to.
  • Using the hashtag #WeWantToPay, many said they believed that they were safer playing football at school than they were in their hometowns.

Big Ten and Pac-12 Postpone Seasons

The Big Ten and Pac-12 conferences both announced that they would be postponing their college football seasons as the pandemic continues to put college life and athletics in question. 

Right now, other conferences in the Power Five have stated they plan on following their seasons as scheduled, following a multitude of coronavirus safety regulations. The Big Ten and Pac-12, however, still thought playing a season during this time was too high of a risk for their players. 

“The health, safety and well-being of our student-athletes and all those connected to Pac-12 sports has been our number one priority since the start of this current crisis,” Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said in a statement. “Our student-athletes, fans, staff and all those who love college sports would like to have seen the season played this calendar year as originally planned, and we know how disappointing this is.”

The Big Ten cited similar reasons. Commissioner Kevin Warren also discussed myocarditis, a rare heart condition that has been found in at least five Big Ten players, according to ESPN. The condition, which has been tied to COVID-19, causes an inflammation of the heart muscle that decreases the heart’s ability to pump blood normally. In some cases it can improve in a few weeks or months, but in others, it can cause permanent damage to the heart. 

Dr. Jonathan Drezner, director of the University of Washington Medicine Center for Sports Cardiology, told ESPN that while most athletes will be able to return to their sport after a three to six month rest period, the inflammation can put them at risk for irregular heartbeat, which can lead to sudden cardiac arrest, which is triggered by exercise. 

“There has been a lot of discussion about myocarditis,” Warren said to the Big Ten Network. “Any time you’re talking about the heart of anyone, but especially a young person, you have to be concerned. We want to make sure we’re doing everything we possibly can to keep our student-athletes safe.”

#WeWantToPlay Movement

Still, many, including a huge movement from student athletes, want football seasons across all conferences to push forward. While the players in conferences with postponed seasons will still retain their scholarships, their college football careers are still short, and missing any of it could have major implications for their careers and dreams of going pro. Many players are using the hashtag #WeWantToPlay to express their desire to hit the field this fall. 

“We NEED football, the country NEEDS football,” University of Oklahoma Quarterback Spencer Rattler wrote. “We understand the precautions we have to take every single day for this to happen and we are more than willing to do that.”

“I Came back to play ball! that’s what I want to do,” echoed Malik Herring, defensive lineman at the University of Georgia. 

Clemson Quarterback Trevor Lawrence tweeted a thread explaining that some athletes could be more at risk at their homes where social distancing is not enforced and medical care is limited or costly..

“Football is a safe haven for so many people,” he said. “We are more likely to get the virus in everyday life than playing football.”

Ohio State’s Justin Fields tweeted out a joint statement calling for a season to move on with health and safety procedures, a chance for players to opt out of the season, and communication with players and officials when it comes to these big choices. 

Coaches, politicians, and even President Donald Trump also stated their support for college football and its players.

What Comes Next?

Still, Big Ten and Pac-12 officials think spring will be a better time to hit the ground running. That is not stopping others from trying to get seasons going, though. Leaders at the University of Nebraska, a Big Ten school, released a statement suggesting that they might go on on their own. 

“We are very disappointed in the decision by the Big Ten Conference to postpone the fall football season, as we have been and continue to be ready to play,” they wrote.

“We continue to believe that the absolute safest place for our student athletes is within the rigorous safety protocols, testing procedures, and the structure provided by Husker Athletics,” the statement continued. “We will continue to consult with medical experts and evaluate the situation as it emerges. 

“We hope it may be possible for our student athletes to have the opportunity to compete,” they concluded. 

The logistics of this remain unclear, but they are not alone in calling for alternatives. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said he would welcome athletes from conferences that have postponed or canceled their seasons to play for schools in his state. 

See what others are saying: (ESPN) (Vox) (New York Times)

U.S.

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Police in Two Qualified Immunity Cases

Published

on

The move further solidifies the contentious legal doctrine that protects officers who commit alleged constitutional violations.


SCOTUS Hears Qualified Immunity Cases 

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of police in two separate cases involving qualified immunity, the controversial legal doctrine that shields officers accused of violating constitutional rights from lawsuits.

The topic has become a major flashpoint in debates over police reform and curbing police violence since the protests against racial injustice and police brutality in the summer of 2020.

On one side, supporters of qualified immunity claim it is necessary to ensure that police can do their jobs without worrying about frivolous lawsuits. 

However, opponents argue that judicial interpretations of the doctrine over time have given police incredibly broad legal immunity for misconduct and use of excessive force. Under a previous Supreme Court ruling, in order for officers to be held liable, plaintiffs have to show that they violated rights “clearly established” by a previous ruling.

In other words, officers cannot be held liable unless there is another case that involves almost identical circumstances.

As a result, many argue the doctrine creates a Catch-22: Officers are shielded from liability because there is no past precedent, but the reason there is no past precedent is because officers are shielded from liability in the first place.

An Ongoing Debate

Critics argue that the two cases the Supreme Court saw Monday illustrate that double bind, as both involved accusations of excessive force commonly levied against police.

In one case, officers used non-lethal bean bag rounds against a suspect and knelt on his back to subdue him. In the other, police shot and killed a suspect after he threatened them with a hammer.

The justices overturned both lower-court rulings without ordering full briefing and argument because of the lack of precedent. The court issued the decisions in unsigned orders with no dissent, signaling they did not even see the cases as close calls. 

Advocates for qualified immunity claim the decisions signal that the current Supreme Court is not open to changing qualified immunity, and the most likely path for opponents of the doctrine is legislation.

While Democrats in Congress have made numerous efforts to limit qualified immunity, including most recently in the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act passed by the House earlier this year, all those attempts have been blocked by Republicans.

At the state level, dozens of bills have been killed after heavy lobbying from police unions. As a result, it remains unclear what path proponents for reform have at this juncture.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The New York Times) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Florida School Says Students Vaccinated Against COVID-19 Must Stay Home for 30 Days

Published

on

The school falsely claimed that people who have just been vaccinated risk “shedding” the coronavirus and could infect others.


Centner Academy Vaccination Policy

A private school in Florida is now requiring all students who get vaccinated against COVID-19 to quarantine for 30 days before returning to class.

According to the local Miami outlet WSVN, Centner Academy wrote a letter to parents last week describing COVID vaccines as “experimental” and citing anti-vaccine misinformation.

“If you are considering the vaccine for your Centner Academy student(s), we ask that you hold off until the Summer when there will be time for the potential transmission or shedding onto others to decrease,” the letter reportedly stated.

“Because of the potential impact on other students and our school community, vaccinated students will need to stay at home for 30 days post-vaccination for each dose and booster they receive and may return to school after 30 days as long as the student is healthy and symptom-free.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has debunked the false claim that those newly vaccinated against COVID-19 can “shed” the virus.

According to the agency’s COVID myths page, vaccine shedding “can only occur when a vaccine contains a weakened version of the virus,” but “none of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States contain the live virus that causes COVID-19. This means that a COVID-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with COVID-19.”

In fact, early research has suggested that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated people.

Beyond that, unvaccinated people are more likely to spread COVID in general because they are much more likely to get the virus than vaccinated people. According to recently published CDC data, as of August, unvaccinated people were six times more likely to get COVID than vaccinated people and 11 times more likely to die from the virus.

Centner Academy Continues Spread of Misinformation

In a statement to The Washington Post Monday, Centner Academy co-founder David Centner doubled down on the school’s new policy, which he described as a “precautionary measure” based on “numerous anecdotal cases that have been in circulation.”

“The school is not opining as to whether unexplained phenomena have a basis in fact, however we prefer to err on the side of caution when making decisions that impact the health of the school community,” he added.

The new rule echoes similar efforts Centner Academy has made that run counter to public health guidance and scientific knowledge.

In April, the school made headlines when its leadership told vaccinated school employees that they were not allowed to be in contact with any students “until more information is known” and encouraged employees to wait until summer to get the jab.

According to The New York Times, the following week, a math and science teacher allegedly told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.

The outlet also reported that the school’s other co-founder, Leila Centner, discouraged masking, but when state health officials came for routine inspections, teachers said they were directed in a WhatsApp group to put masks on.

See what others are saying: (WSVN) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Katie Couric Says She Edited Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote About Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem

Published

on

Couric said she omitted part of a 2016 interview in order to “protect” the justice.


Kate Couric Edited Quote From Justice Ginsburg

In her upcoming book, journalist Katie Couric admitted to editing a quote from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2016 in order to “protect” Ginsberg from potential criticism. 

Couric interviewed the late justice for an article in Yahoo News. During their discussion, she asked Ginsburg about her thoughts on athletes like Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem to protest racial inequality.

“I think it’s really dumb of them,” Ginsburg is quoted saying in the piece. “Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”

According to The Daily Mail and The New York Post, which obtained advance copies of Couric’s book “Going There,” there was more to Ginsburg’s response. Couric wrote that she omitted a portion where Ginsburg said the form of protest showed a “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life…Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from.

Couric Says She Lost Sleep Making Choice

“As they became older they realize that this was youthful folly,” Ginsberg reportedly continued. “And that’s why education is important.

According to The Daily Mail, Couric wrote that the Supreme Court’s head of public affairs sent an email asking to remove comments about kneeling because Ginsburg had misspoken. Couric reportedly added that she felt a need to “protect” the justice, thinking she may not have understood the question. Couric reached out to her friend, New York Times reporter David Brooks, regarding the matter and he allegedly likewise believed she may have been confused by the subject. 

Couric also wrote that she was a “big RBG fan” and felt her comments were “unworthy of a crusader for equality.” Because she knew the remarks could land Ginsburg in hot water, she said she “lost a lot of sleep” and felt “conflicted” about whether or not to edit them out. 

Couric was trending on Twitter Wednesday and Thursday as people questioned the ethics behind her choice to ultimately cut part of the quote. Some thought the move showed a lack of journalistic integrity while others thought revealing the story now harmed Ginsburg’s legacy.

See what others are saying: (New York Post) (The Daily Mail) (Insider)

Continue Reading