Press "Enter" to skip to content

Brattin withdraws bill to revoke scholarships for athletes that do not play

Brattin
Brattin

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – A controversial piece of legislation filed by Rep. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, that would have revoked the scholarships of athletes that began, encouraged or participated in strikes to stop playing their sport has been withdrawn by the sponsor.

With tensions at the University of Missouri having subsisted for the last month and a half, the withdrawn pre-filed bill has faced a wave of scrutiny from students at the school, national media, and other representatives across the state.

Brattin did not say specifically why he withdrew the bill, but he did mention that it was first filed to generate discussion and conversation.

“My bill was filed to generate discussion on what I believe is an extremely important topic and one that deserves deliberate consideration,” Brattin said in a a statement released Wednesday afternoon. “While I am withdrawing the legislation, I hope the conversation will continue so that we can take steps to ensure the University of Missouri is providing a stable, positive learning environment for our young people. I sincerely believe students should be able to express their viewpoints, but I also believe our flagship state university has to keep and maintain the order that is expected from such an esteemed educational institution.”

The bill came as a direct result of a situation at the University of Missouri in November when the team’s black football players briefly went on strike in support of Jonathan Butler’s hunger strike and Concerned Student 1950’s fight against then-university system President Tim Wolfe and perceived racial inequality and marginalization within the UM system; the players vowed not to continue their football season until Butler ate.

When the players took to their strike, the situation received widespread national media attention and the team was credited by many for Wolfe’s eventual resignation.

“That’s completely disgraceful and out of the stump of what a football player should be doing,” Brattin said before he withdrew the bill. “The university should have stepped up and addressed this from the get-go, but unfortunately where they refuse to act, we cannot set the precedent where [the athletes] get to overrun and over rule the university at their will.”

Brattin emphasized that their refusal to play could have cost the university $1 million in fines to the NCAA. He noted that criticisms calling his bill an indictment on 1st Amendment guarantees to the freedom of speech as well as the players’ abilities to organize did not extend to them the ability to cause such financial damage to the institution.

“If they wanted to engage in protest, they had the opportunity to do so while off the field,” he said. “It doesn’t infringe on their rights, when they take their position and leverage that to impose their will, that’s different than your 1st Amendment right of speaking out. Causing others to pay for what you’re trying to push that goes outside the scope of the 1st Amendment.

“They entered into an agreement with their scholarship and with the school that they would play football with that school. As a result they get a fine education and a potential shot at playing in the NFL, to take it for granted and to use their position in this type of manner, I believe is wrong.”

However, strong opposition and widespread media attention mounted quickly against the bill. Many believed it infringed upon the 1st Amendment rights of the student athletes, namely their right to the freedoms of speech and assembly. Others decried it as racist legislation that focused on punishing black students.

Mizzou Student President Payton Head, one of those students at the forefront of the protests, decried the legislation.

Some, like The Nation’s Dave Zirin, have called the legislation an example of racist “plantation politics” since “it is targeting and punishing an entity that is 69 percent black, it is also racist: aimed at silencing black voices and diminishing black lives on campus.”

Now however, Brattin has withdrawn the legislation. Missouri Legislative Black Caucus Chairman Brandon Ellington, D-Kansas City, was one of the most vocal opponents of the legislation, saying it worked “to further solidify and legalize institutional racism by targeting black athletes for exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and reducing them to the status of subjugated livestock.”

Ellington lauded the decision to withdraw the bill but noted it was a mistake to promote such a piece of legislation at all.

“Representative Rick Brattin made the correct decision in withdrawing House Bill 1743, but this unconstitutional legislation never should have been filed in the first place. Seeking to punish those who peacefully take a stand against racial injustice violates not only the constitutional right to free speech but the values we hold as Missourians. Given the overwhelmingly negative response to his misguided and offensive proposal, I hope Representative Brattin finally understands that.”