Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association

[Vegas_Sioux]

http://www.startribune.com/wisconsin-bans-common-cheers-at-high-school-games-student-suspended-from-team-for-critical-tweet/365046921/

Something right out of the Diaryland Diaries 

[runaroundsioux]

Unbelievable. May have finally jumped the shark on this one.

[SWSiouxMN]

18 minutes ago, Vegas_Sioux said:

http://www.startribune.com/wisconsin-bans-common-cheers-at-high-school-games-student-suspended-from-team-for-critical-tweet/365046921/

Something right out of the Diaryland Diaries 

I would have been kicked out of sporting events in high school because I am guilty of doing at least half of these chants.

Dumb... Dumb.. Dumb...

If you get the chance, look up Jay Bilas twitter account on this exact subject. 

[Siouxphan27]

Jesus H.   I wonder how soon until they quit keeping score?

[siouxforcefans]

Overreaction at its finest!

[Shawn-O]

"We need a pitcher not a belly itcher" will also be banned at WIAA sanctioned baseball games. 

[Siouxperfan7]

I am all for supporting rules that discourage fans (especially at high school games) to single out a player and harass them.  But some of the chants they are banning are pretty ridiculous.   I do think that the girl that responded via twitter deserved to be suspended.  You can't make a public statement to an organization that you are associated with and abide by their rules and tell them to "Eat S#@t".  Disagree with the new rules and voice your opposition.  But when you day something lke that, you deserve to be punished.

[The Sicatoka]

U. G. L. Y. 
You ain't got no alibi ... 

[stoneySIOUX]

7 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

I am all for supporting rules that discourage fans (especially at high school games) to single out a player and harass them.  But some of the chants they are banning are pretty ridiculous.   I do think that the girl that responded via twitter deserved to be suspended.  You can't make a public statement to an organization that you are associated with and abide by their rules and tell them to "Eat S#@t".  Disagree with the new rules and voice your opposition.  But when you day something lke that, you deserve to be punished.

Why? Holy smokes people are so easily offended.

[The Sicatoka]

Why? 

The following message is brought to you by the WIAA. 

[Oxbow6]

Another example of the wussification of this country!

[WiSioux]

My cousin's kids go to school in Ashwaubeanow (I know that is not the correct spelling, but just outside of Green Bay) and the student section showed up at a basketball game this week wearing duct tape over their mouthes.

[ScottM]

In related news, there will no longer be tournament champions.  Every student (not just athletes, since they don't want to exclude anybody) in the Association will receive a participant medal, their own safe space and a life coach. Attendance at said tournaments will become optional.

[SWSiouxMN]

6 minutes ago, WiSioux said:

My cousin's kids go to school in Ashwaubeanow (I know that is not the correct spelling, but just outside of Green Bay) and the student section showed up at a basketball game this week wearing duct tape over their mouthes.

Saw several student sections in Wisconsin follow suit.

The WIAA is backpedding on this so fast I am surprised they haven't tripped over themselves. As for the girl who tweeted, I think 5 games is a little over the top.  You telling me that sending a tweet is a worse suspension than getting a minor?

Lord help me if Minnesota ever tries something along those lines... but got a kick out of the Minneapolis stations poking fun at it.

[fightingsioux4life]

8 minutes ago, WiSioux said:

My cousin's kids go to school in Ashwaubeanow (I know that is not the correct spelling, but just outside of Green Bay) and the student section showed up at a basketball game this week wearing duct tape over their mouthes.

I suppose they'll get penalized too? Because we must bow down to all authority figures, no matter what they do. Right, Siouxperfan7?

[The Sicatoka]

Schools, universities, educational environments used to be home to the freest of free speech, bastions of the First Amendment in full force and flex. 

Today?

Speech codes and small, restricted areas on campuses where you dare espouse independent thought. 

[iluvdebbies]

1 minute ago, SWSiouxMN said:

Saw several student sections in Wisconsin follow suit.

The WIAA is backpedding on this so fast I am surprised they haven't tripped over themselves. As for the girl who tweeted, I think 5 games is a little over the top.  You telling me that sending a tweet is a worse suspension than getting a minor?

Lord help me if Minnesota ever tries something along those lines... but got a kick out of the Minneapolis stations poking fun at it.

Agree ..... five games was excessive. She did deserve a suspension though. One game, maybe two would have been appropriate.

[fightingsioux4life]

39 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

I am all for supporting rules that discourage fans (especially at high school games) to single out a player and harass them.  But some of the chants they are banning are pretty ridiculous.   I do think that the girl that responded via twitter deserved to be suspended.  You can't make a public statement to an organization that you are associated with and abide by their rules and tell them to "Eat S#@t".  Disagree with the new rules and voice your opposition.  But when you day something lke that, you deserve to be punished.

The WIAA should not have unlimited jurisdiction over anything and everything, much less social media. Please point out the rule and/or law that says you must like what the WIAA does and must praise them for whatever they do? If the WIAA wants to put out garbage like this, then they can learn to accept the slings and arrows that come with it.

[runaroundsioux]

 

 

[The Sicatoka]

The WIAA is merely taking a page out of the NCAA playbook. 

Quote

WHO IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIVERSITY'S ATHLETICS INTERESTS?
You are considered a "Representative of the University's Athletics Interests (a booster) if you:

    * have participated in or are currently a member of any athletics department booster group, the Champions Club, or UND Boosters Board;
    * made a donation to the men's or women's athletic program;
    * have assisted or been asked to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;
    * have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their families; or
    * have been or are involved in promoting UND athletics in any way.
    * Once a person is defined as a booster/representative of UND's athletic interests, they retain that identity indefinitely, even if they no longer support the athletics program.

Source: http://www.undsports.com//ViewArticle.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=13500&ATCLID=3761808

Once you meet that qualification the NCAA claims to have power over who you can talk to and what you can say. Sounds like WIAA to me. 

My question is this: If they claim "power" over me, don't I have standing to challenge their NCAA internal policies? 

[Oxbow6]

...........Nanny State.

[Siouxperfan7]

52 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

I suppose they'll get penalized too? Because we must bow down to all authority figures, no matter what they do. Right, Siouxperfan7?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from its consequences.  You have every right under the Constitution to go into your bosses office and tell your boss to "Eat s#%t."  Doesn't mean that you have the right to keep your job.  In today's world of social media, anything you say can be brought back against you.  If this girl really thought she could respond the way she did without reproductions, then she really isn't that smart and was taught an important lesson.

[fightingsioux4life]

4 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from its consequences.  You have every right under the Constitution to go into your bosses office and tell your boss to "Eat s#%t."  Doesn't mean that you have the right to keep your job.  In today's world of social media, anything you say can be brought back against you.  If this girl really thought she could respond the way she did without reproductions, then she really isn't that smart and was taught an important lesson.

This kid does not work for the WIAA, so the employee-employer example doesn't make sense here. As for the bolded portion of your comment above, the question here is who should impose consequences and how severe should they be? Should it be the parent? Sure. Should it be the bureaucrats at the WIAA? NO! The WIAA has ZERO business trying to muzzle people outside of their sphere of influence (schools, on school grounds, at school events, at WIAA sanctioned events, etc.). If we don't draw a line here, where do you draw it? If you don't draw it anywhere, then what else will the WIAA stick it's nose into? I don't want to find out, do you?

And as for the cheap shot about this kid's intelligence, she holds down a 3.5 GPA while participating in extra-curricular activities, which is what all "good little boys and girls do" according to our society today. So I think character assassination is not called for here.

Again, you didn't answer my question: Should the students who showed up with duct tape over their mouths be disciplined? I say no. What say you?

[Siouxperfan7]

1 hour ago, fightingsioux4life said:

This kid does not work for the WIAA, so the employee-employer example doesn't make sense here. As for the bolded portion of your comment above, the question here is who should impose consequences and how severe should they be? Should it be the parent? Sure. Should it be the bureaucrats at the WIAA? NO! The WIAA has ZERO business trying to muzzle people outside of their sphere of influence (schools, on school grounds, at school events, at WIAA sanctioned events, etc.). If we don't draw a line here, where do you draw it? If you don't draw it anywhere, then what else will the WIAA stick it's nose into? I don't want to find out, do you?

And as for the cheap shot about this kid's intelligence, she holds down a 3.5 GPA while participating in extra-curricular activities, which is what all "good little boys and girls do" according to our society today. So I think character assassination is not called for here.

Again, you didn't answer my question: Should the students who showed up with duct tape over their mouths be disciplined? I say no. What say you?

The WIAA did not hand down the punishment.  It was the school.  Let me say that again.  It was the school that suspended her for using profanity in a tweet that involved the high school athletic governing body  This girl has every right to be upset about the new rules they are imposing.  I agree 100% that these rules are ridiculous.  But I think we can agree that she could have been a little bit more mature and gone about voicing her opinions against it in a better way.  That is why she was suspended.  Not because she voiced her opinion against the rulings, but how she did it.  

In regards to her intelligence, by "isn't that smart" I meant she made a very poor choice in judgement.  And now she will learn from it.

Everything you do and say has consequences.  Sometimes bigger than others.  

[Cratter]

A three words tweet gets you suspended.... it does raise the question where is the line drawn?

If she says those to here friends in person its ok?

If she says it on facebook to her friends its ok?

If she wrote it on a message board is it ok?

But she says it to people on twitter its a suspension? 

If she wrote "eat poop" instead that would be a non suspendable offense?