The other day when I opened my Internet, on my Yahoo! Homepage, this article caught my eye. I clicked on it to find out what it was all about. After reading through it and watching this video, I discovered that a Mississippi high school football player, Coy Sheppard, was kicked off his team for wearing pink cleats. The 17-year-old-kicker from Mendenhall High School wore these pink cleats in honor of October’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In so doing, he followed in the footsteps of many NFL and college players who wore pink wristbands, hats, and cleats all month. So Sheppard and his teammates decided they would all wear pink to the game. However, at halftime, Coach Chris Peterson told the athletes to take off the pink. They all obeyed. However, the following Monday, Sheppard showed up to practice in the pink cleats, and was then kicked off the team for being “defiant”. Sheppard has gone through six cleats in his past two years as a quicker, with a variety of colors, and has never had this issue before. It seems this arbitrary “rule” came into play only because of the color pink.
At issue are his civil liberties. Doesn’t Sheppard have a right to wear pink? If the coach allowed more than one color of cleats, he should not discriminate against one particular color. If the uniform required all athletes to wear black cleats, so to say, then the coach’s actions would be justifiable.
This Mississippi boy who only wanted to spread Breast Cancer Awareness, has not only missed finishing up his senior football season, but also might not even graduate on time because his high school gives academic credit for sports. In the light these dire consequences, it is easy to see how absurdly the coach acted, and that he did violate Coy Sheppard’s civil rights.
Brooks-
ReplyDeleteI agree that the boy's civil liberties were denied. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech should not be punished, especially when they do not cause any disturbance. I am surprised the the school did not intervene and reinstate Sheppard to the team. It is said that schools technically take control of students' rights upon entering the building (ie: swear words not tolerated, dress codes, open/closed campuses). The boy did not deserve the treatment he recieved, regargless of school authority. I hope the punishment is revoked soon. Thanks for bringing this to light!
While it stinks for Sheppard, I have to say that my coach probably would have done the same thing. He may have thought that Sheppard was trying to bring attention to himself, or was part of some club or group that would disrupt the integrity of the team. My swim coach is all about the team, and if one swimmer thinks they are more important than the group, there will be serious consequences. I agree that this boys civil liberties were violated, but it was probably a big misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteDavid--
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand what you are saying, I do not think in this case Sheppard was "trying to bring attention to himself". The disease of breast cancer was personal to him because his grandmother had had it. While it may be true that he was punished for disobeying a direct order from the coach, why should the coach have the right to impose such an arbitrary rule infringing on the players' civil liberties?
The coach may have thought he was trying to draw attention to himself, but he really had no right to think that. Since pink is a well-known color in support of breast cancer, and many athletes much more famous than he is, wore pink all month on TV, Sheppard had every reason to believe that it was okay.
The coach never before had made a rule about what color cleats to wear. Sheppard even said that he had gone through 5 or 6 different colored cleats, and it was never an issue until the pink ones.
If the coach so concerned about uniformity, he would have imposed a rule for all of the players to wear the same color. If the coach was not going to say all, for example, "all players wear black cleats", then any color presumably would be allowed. Therefore, Sheppard shouldn't be called out for "trying to go against the group". when any color in theory should be accepted. And when the coach did impose the rule that Sheppard admittedly broke, Sheppard had the right to do so because the rule was in violation of his civil liberty.