Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 50

Thread: Is CA Law AB 1887 Already Affecting Cal Sports?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by stu View Post
    Is this whole thread a law school project gone off the rails?
    At times this whole forum is......

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    Did you see this from my earlier post?

    "But we also think schools should be modifying their activities in order to comply with the spirit of the law, and we understand they've been doing that from the discussions we've had"
    -Rick Zbur, Equality California Executive Director
    (The largest LGBT civil rights group in CA who sponsored AB 1887)

    Which schools are they talking to that are complying with the spirit of the law? Cal would be my first guess.

    Cal is going to be put to the test, sending teams to banned states will be going directly against the wishes of the CA LGBT activist groups and their true purpose for the law, which is to punish the banned states for discriminatory laws and force them to repeal those laws. If it's business as usual in the banned states then the law hasn't accomplished anything.

    I get no pleasure from this, I was shocked and upset when I learned this law would impact college sports.
    The law is never going to accomplish anything. You get people to see your side of things by developing relationships with them, not by being vindictive. Basically the whole idea of civil discourse. If California wants to isolate itself from every idea they disagree with, then California is going to suffer and these other states will go on believing whatever it is that they believe.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    Did you see this from my earlier post?

    "But we also think schools should be modifying their activities in order to comply with the spirit of the law, and we understand they've been doing that from the discussions we've had"
    -Rick Zbur, Equality California Executive Director
    (The largest LGBT civil rights group in CA who sponsored AB 1887)

    Which schools are they talking to that are complying with the spirit of the law? Cal would be my first guess.

    Cal is going to be put to the test, sending teams to banned states will be going directly against the wishes of the CA LGBT activist groups and their true purpose for the law, which is to punish the banned states for discriminatory laws and force them to repeal those laws. If it's business as usual in the banned states then the law hasn't accomplished anything.

    I get no pleasure from this, I was shocked and upset when I learned this law would impact college sports.

    If you'd rather speculate about the meaning of a speculative statement by someone not connected to Cal quoted in a speculative article rather than listen to people who have seen and heard comments from Cal officials about what Cal is actually doing. Fine.


    UC spokespeople have said that researchers are traveling to these states, just not with taxpaper money. Students invited to conferences are deciding whether not to attend or to raise their own funds for travel. Cal and UCLA have both said that any teams that get to post season will play games where they are located. They won't use taxpayer money for the travel. Cal officials have told alums we will recruit as long as we don't use taxpayer funds to do it.

    I think Cal is, in fact, complying with the "spirit" to the extent that they aren't scheduling non-conference games in those states.

    Very little taxpayer money goes to athletics at Cal so it is not a problem to keep it out of the travel budget.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    Did you see this from my earlier post?

    "But we also think schools should be modifying their activities in order to comply with the spirit of the law, and we understand they've been doing that from the discussions we've had"
    -Rick Zbur, Equality California Executive Director
    (The largest LGBT civil rights group in CA who sponsored AB 1887)

    Which schools are they talking to that are complying with the spirit of the law? Cal would be my first guess.

    Cal is going to be put to the test, sending teams to banned states will be going directly against the wishes of the CA LGBT activist groups and their true purpose for the law, which is to punish the banned states for discriminatory laws and force them to repeal those laws. If it's business as usual in the banned states then the law hasn't accomplished anything.

    I get no pleasure from this, I was shocked and upset when I learned this law would impact college sports.
    I don't give a flying **** what the director of an LGBT civil rights group thinks a university sports team should do or shouldn't do. And it would be nice if you stopped trolling about it also, or at least if you were honest about the fact that you are trolling about it.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by BearNecessities View Post
    I don't give a flying **** what the director of an LGBT civil rights group thinks a university sports team should do or shouldn't do. And it would be nice if you stopped trolling about it also, or at least if you were honest about the fact that you are trolling about it.
    Do you honestly think the Cal admin shares your same opinion of LGBT civil rights groups? If you don't want to have a civil conversation on this topic why not move on?

  6. #36
    OaktownBear, That's funny. I like your redundant use of the word speculative then you speculate that Cal is complying with the spirit of the law.

    I have made multiple requests to the Cal admin for an official statement on their stance to this law, without that this is all speculation.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    Do you honestly think the Cal admin shares your same opinion of LGBT civil rights groups? If you don't want to have a civil conversation on this topic why not move on?
    I'm happy to have an honest conversation with anyone about a lot of topics, but this isn't an honest conversation and hasn't been since you started it. You came in with a preconceived notion and have ignored everybody who's come back at you with a reasonable response. That makes you a troll.

  8. #38
    Real Bear BeachedBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Havering at Manny's
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    OaktownBear, That's funny. I like your redundant use of the word speculative then you speculate that Cal is complying with the spirit of the law.

    I have made multiple requests to the Cal admin for an official statement on their stance to this law, without that this is all speculation.
    Let me guess... you're a soon-to-be high school senior considering attending Cal in a non-revenue sport. You found this site and are hoping for clearer responses than what you are getting from the Cal AD. Unfortunately, you don't like that the overwhelming responses doesn't fit your personal agenda.

    Welcome to the 21st century, reality and adulthood.


  9. #39
    OTB usually gives pretty deep analysis on topics. If youre not getting that from him, maybe you need to reexamine how you a framing things.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Rijman View Post
    OaktownBear, That's funny. I like your redundant use of the word speculative then you speculate that Cal is complying with the spirit of the law.

    I have made multiple requests to the Cal admin for an official statement on their stance to this law, without that this is all speculation.
    My speculation is in your favor. I don't know whether Cal is choosing not to schedule non-conference games in those states (though it doesn't have to do that), but I'm acknowledging that they might be. What is not speculation is that Cal IS recruiting in those states. Cal researchers ARE traveling to those states for events. Cal has said they will play scheduled games, post season games, and if it comes to it conference games in those states. My speculative statement is akin to saying "well, NASA has announced there is no scientific evidence that the sky is falling, but since you keep screaming that it is, I speculate that it is possible it might be raining where you are."

    The law specifically says the ban is on using public funds to travel. Cal doesn't need to use public funds. Traveling without public funds does not violate the law. Cal will comply with the law. If you truly believe that Cal is so nutso liberal that they will chuck their athletic department when they don't legally need to in order to appease an LGBT group because the head of the group makes an ambiguous statement that he thinks schools are cooperating, be my guest.

    Cal has made the statements they need to make to appease their alums and fans. They are not going to be bold about these statements at this point. There is a reason. The Attorney General is supposed to issue a statement clarifying what is a very ambiguous law and how they see that being put into practice. Cal can't be sure about their policy until that happens. Further, they want their concerns to be addressed as much as possible. You don't achieve that by telling the attorney general you intend to do as little as is required under the law. That is a good way to get things defined as harshly as possible. So you aren't going to get the statement you are looking for until the attorney general opines. Probably not even then. There is no reason to make public statements that bring protests down on you just to appease one guy with heart palpitations on the internet. The people that need to understand, understand.

    Is it theoretically possible that the attorney general completely overreaches in his interpretation of the law, and then the courts do not acknowledge his overreach and then the legislature decides to let college sports die in California despite all of the Cal and UCLA alums and other schools alums that will be pissed at them? Theoretically, yes. Is it theoretically possible that this won't happen, but Cal on its own accord will call up the Haas family, and Spieker and Simpson, etc., and tell them sorry, the feelings of Equality California are more important to us than your long history of donations, support and loyalty and more importantly the money you will now NOT give us? Theoretically yes. The same way it is possible that the Panoramic Hills Association will sue to have Memorial Stadium torn down and win. Or that it is theoretically possible that the big one will finally hit the Hayward fault and destroy the stadium and half of campus. (hint - the last one is far more likely than the other two). If you wish to worry about that, have fun with that.

    I'd say that underpaying coaches, an athletic department that is in serious financial trouble, almost 60 years of failure in revenue sports, and a football and basketball roster left by the previous coaches that have gigantic gaps in talent are more realistic and pressing things that threaten Cal's success in athletics, but if Equality California takes your mind off all of that, be my guest.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachedBear View Post
    Let me guess... you're a soon-to-be high school senior considering attending Cal in a non-revenue sport. You found this site and are hoping for clearer responses than what you are getting from the Cal AD. Unfortunately, you don't like that the overwhelming responses doesn't fit your personal agenda.

    Welcome to the 21st century, reality and adulthood.

    I get that this topic is upsetting to some people, now we're attacking someone who is asking questions and accusing them of having a personal agenda or being a troll? There are no overwhelming responses that do not fit my agenda, please support this claim. My son already attends Cal and does not play sports for Cal. My personal agenda is to find out what's Cal's stance is on AB 1887 and how that will affect the athletes and sports us fans enjoy watching. Some are content to just wait and see. I am interested in this topic and decided to seek out answers, which I'm doing here in this forum and through the Cal administration, which has bounced me to a 3rd person and no one can yet come up with an official statement from Cal. As alumni and fans don't we have the right to know how this law will affect the athletes and teams we support?

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by OaktownBear View Post
    My speculation is in your favor. I don't know whether Cal is choosing not to schedule non-conference games in those states (though it doesn't have to do that), but I'm acknowledging that they might be. What is not speculation is that Cal IS recruiting in those states. Cal researchers ARE traveling to those states for events. Cal has said they will play scheduled games, post season games, and if it comes to it conference games in those states. My speculative statement is akin to saying "well, NASA has announced there is no scientific evidence that the sky is falling, but since you keep screaming that it is, I speculate that it is possible it might be raining where you are."

    The law specifically says the ban is on using public funds to travel. Cal doesn't need to use public funds. Traveling without public funds does not violate the law. Cal will comply with the law. If you truly believe that Cal is so nutso liberal that they will chuck their athletic department when they don't legally need to in order to appease an LGBT group because the head of the group makes an ambiguous statement that he thinks schools are cooperating, be my guest.

    Cal has made the statements they need to make to appease their alums and fans. They are not going to be bold about these statements at this point. There is a reason. The Attorney General is supposed to issue a statement clarifying what is a very ambiguous law and how they see that being put into practice. Cal can't be sure about their policy until that happens. Further, they want their concerns to be addressed as much as possible. You don't achieve that by telling the attorney general you intend to do as little as is required under the law. That is a good way to get things defined as harshly as possible. So you aren't going to get the statement you are looking for until the attorney general opines. Probably not even then. There is no reason to make public statements that bring protests down on you just to appease one guy with heart palpitations on the internet. The people that need to understand, understand.

    Is it theoretically possible that the attorney general completely overreaches in his interpretation of the law, and then the courts do not acknowledge his overreach and then the legislature decides to let college sports die in California despite all of the Cal and UCLA alums and other schools alums that will be pissed at them? Theoretically, yes. Is it theoretically possible that this won't happen, but Cal on its own accord will call up the Haas family, and Spieker and Simpson, etc., and tell them sorry, the feelings of Equality California are more important to us than your long history of donations, support and loyalty and more importantly the money you will now NOT give us? Theoretically yes. The same way it is possible that the Panoramic Hills Association will sue to have Memorial Stadium torn down and win. Or that it is theoretically possible that the big one will finally hit the Hayward fault and destroy the stadium and half of campus. (hint - the last one is far more likely than the other two). If you wish to worry about that, have fun with that.

    I'd say that underpaying coaches, an athletic department that is in serious financial trouble, almost 60 years of failure in revenue sports, and a football and basketball roster left by the previous coaches that have gigantic gaps in talent are more realistic and pressing things that threaten Cal's success in athletics, but if Equality California takes your mind off all of that, be my guest.
    great response OTB. Thanks for that, I think I understand it now better actually. Hopefully Rijman does too on why the AD wont respond to him

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by gobears725 View Post
    great response OTB. Thanks for that, I think I understand it now better actually. Hopefully Rijman does too on why the AD wont respond to him
    The law is extremely poorly conceived in its broadness. My guess is they wait until the lights aren't shining so brightly and eliminate or severely curtail it. Boycotts like this sometimes work when they are tailored to the offending party and to the offense. If UNC had specifically adopted the policy of their own accord, for instance, I would have no problem with us backing out of the deal in protest. All of California protesting against all of North Carolina makes no sense. If UNC decides to hold a symposium entitled "Why we deserve to be boycotted by California for the stupid law we passed and how we can get the law changed" and invites the legislator from California who sponsored the bill, he can't travel on the public's dime for that. How does that make sense with the aims of the law? I think a lot of people are realizing as it is put into practice that they blew this, but there is no easy way to back out at the moment.

  14. #44
    Broad boycotts are effective--South Africa is the prime example, although it took decades--individual ones such as this don't have much effect and tend to be irrelevant or counterproductive. If major corporations, etc. all pulled out of NC or TX, that'd be one thing, California announcing a travel ban has little effect and, as you note, can have perverse consequences (e.g., banning presentation at a conference on transgender rights held in Austin).

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by UrsaMajor View Post
    Broad boycotts are effective--South Africa is the prime example, although it took decades--individual ones such as this don't have much effect and tend to be irrelevant or counterproductive. If major corporations, etc. all pulled out of NC or TX, that'd be one thing, California announcing a travel ban has little effect and, as you note, can have perverse consequences (e.g., banning presentation at a conference on transgender rights held in Austin).
    I don't see South Africa as being broad for its purpose. Oh it was broad, but that was because the offenses were broad. You had a majority of the population of a country being subjugated to the point of virtually de facto slavery and corporations doing business in that country largely benefiting from the practice whether they nominally supported it or not. Since the whole society was based on that subjugation, eliminating investments in that country and in corporations doing business in that country made perfect sense.

    There you had widespread, almost total denial of human rights of a majority of the population. Here you have laws put through by in many cases a narrow majority or plurality, unjustly taking away a few rights of a small minority of the population. A large percentage of the population in these states disagree with the laws. I decry the laws. I support boycotting those who support the laws. I don't think it would be minimizing the injustice of those laws, though, to say they do not rise to the level of Apartheid in the scope of the human rights violation and I think you have to acknowledge that the scope of the culpability is not the same. (I also think you'd find that most in South Africa who were against Apartheid supported the boycotts). The scope of the boycott of South Africa may have been broader, but the scope of the culpability was broader so the boycott matched it. This boycott hits a lot more people that have no culpability. That is what I mean by broad in scope.

    Also, the South African boycott was a boycott of investments and had no real impact on California other than maybe they missed out on some investments they would have preferred from a financial perspective. This boycott hurts California and is questionable in its effectiveness. I would note that if a professor had been invited to a university in South Africa to speak on the evils of Apartheid, the boycott at the time would not have impacted that activity.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •