What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Colin Kaepernick Thread and related anthem kneeling issues/news (12 Viewers)

JIslander said:
Meh.  Not buying that  --It would hurt the game and the NFL even more.
Click to expand...
I think it would. It has been argued that the loss of many star or marquee players in 2017 such as Odell Beckham, Jr. Aaron Rodgers. David Johnson. J.J. Watt. Andrew Luck and Deshaun Watson was a contributing factor in the declining ratings and perhaps even more significant than the reaction to the continued anthem protests.

 
Walking Boot said:
Also, who's fault is it that we can't delete posts and only hide them, again, anyway????
Click to expand...
Not my fault. It wasn't me. It was Saints, if you want to be technical, as he was the one who complained to Joe that the Free Speech thread was deleted by the OP.

I actually argued against hiding posts and keeping the delete function (reasons given in that thread) and I felt that the OP of a thread could do an end run around eliminating the delete function by the changing the thread topic to something altogether different, so that no one can find it in a search, like the ESPY Awards Thread that got changed to a discussion of hard-boiled eggs after the OP couldn't handle people talking about transgender folk after Caitlyn Jenner being given the Arthur Ashe Courage Award

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Not my fault. It wasn't me. It was Saints, if you want to be technical, as he was the one who complained to Joe that the Free Speech thread was deleted by the OP.
Click to expand...
LOL, I should explain. Yes this happened, but it was not intentional. I just asked where the thread went, I did not anticipate Joe would create a technical fix much less that it would be that one. The point was that folks wouldn't go zapping long debated threads with a lot of good material in it. It's sort of like your FF league losing all its records and championship information. But in the end I appreciate the effort and it will help keep track of threads. I've edited out a couple posts since then and it's really no big deal.

 
Was listening to a business station today and what players have to realize is they are paid to entertain us...that's all.  Loyalty in sports is long gone. The pool of players willing to get paid to entertain is endless. 

 
The other weird thing about this discussion is the people bringing up the "workplace" example where owners can do whatever they want? Well the Supreme Court just made a ruling that kinda (sorta?) makes what the NFL just did illegal. What makes it weird is how the older workplace laws are written:

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/25/17394422/nfl-knee-kneeling-labor-law-kaepernick-free-speech-protest-owners

Just this week, the Supreme Court issued a major decision that clarifies exactly why the players’ anthem protests are protected by our labor laws. In this decision, Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis, the Court concludes that the National Labor Relations Act is, at its core, designed to “protect things employees ‘just do’ for themselves in the course of exercising their right to free association in the workplace.” Put plainly, the Court holds that collective actions engaged in by employees at work are the heart of labor law’s concern.

In Epic, the Court uses this reasoning to hold that pursuing class-action arbitrations is not something labor law protects. Whether you accept that view or not — I do not — it is impossible to come up with a clearer example of something employees “just do for themselves” as a means of “exercising their right to free association in the workplace” than the anthem protests. They are a perfect example of the type of concerted activity that labor law is designed to protect.

Some might object that labor law does not protect these protests because they’re about something other than work: They’re about police brutality, or systemic racism, or the president’s view of what patriotism means. Of course, in some sense this is exactly what the protests are about. But in a more direct, literal sense, what the players are protesting is the requirement that they stand during the national anthem. That’s what the protest is: a refusal to stand.

Now that the owners have made it a workplace rule to stand during the anthem or stay in the locker room, any player who takes the field and takes a knee is protesting an employer rule. And that is unquestionably protected by federal labor law.

There is a potentially important caveat here, one that comes from a perverse and byzantine part of our labor law called the “partial strike” rule. A partial strike occurs when employees refuse to participate in only one workplace rule rather than ceasing to work entirely. Such strikes are not protected by the law.

This partial strike rule may mean that players who refuse to comply only with the anthem rule, but otherwise fulfill their obligations to the league, can be disciplined for doing so. The rule is perverse because any player who decided to protest the anthem rule by fully striking — not playing at all — would be protected.

In a perfect world, we would get rid of this silly doctrine, but until that happens, if the owners chose to enforce the partial strike rule, they might just be prodding the protesting players toward a complete strike.
Click to expand...
Again, it would have to be challenged (considering the ruling just happened last week I expect it to be) but it's an avenue the NFLPA can certainly take.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AngryNFLScoutVet‏ @angryscout2 2m2 minutes ago

@ProFootballTalk is the burner account for Colin Kaepernick. I’m 100% sure of it! Lol

 
In a conference call at work.  Someone just said we'd wait another minute or two for a particular manager to show up, otherwise the meeting would be the inmates running the prison.

ESPN has not returned my calls yet.

 
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/30/jerry-jones-president-made-it-clear-that-he-wasnt-letting-anthem-issue-go/

Jerry Jones: President made it clear that he wasn’t letting anthem issue go

Posted by Mike Florio on May 30, 2018, 10:32 AM EDT

he first snippets of testimony have emerged from the depositions taken in the Colin Kaepernick collusion grievance. And it’s becoming even more obvious that the NFL changed its anthem policy at the direct behest of the President.

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, while testifying in the Kaepernick collusion grievance, shared the details of a phone call with the President.

“This is a very winning, strong issue for me,” the President told Jones, according to Andrew Beaton of the Wall Street Journal. “Tell everybody, you can’t win this one. This one lifts me.”

The President was right. There was no way to win. Even by giving in.

Per Beaton, the NFL declined comment on the matter, citing the confidentiality that applies to the grievance proceedings. A White House official did not dispute the testimony.

“The majority of the American people agree with the president, love our country, love our flag and believe it should be respected,” the White House official told Beaton. (This ignores the results of the NFL’s secret poll from last year, which showed that people both opposed and supported the protests that have been happening during the anthem. The NFL has chosen, however, to heed only the opinions of those who oppose the protests, possibly because that side reflects the President’s stated viewpoint.)

Beaton also reports that Jones, along with Texans owner Bob McNair and Dolphins owner Stephen Ross, testified that they believed the protests were hurting the NFL financially. Which of course conflicts with recent statements from Falcons owner Arthur Blank, who justified the new contract given to Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan by claiming that league and club revenues are up.

Regardless of whether it’s rooted in fact, owners have chosen to believe that the protests are bad for business, in large part because the President had chosen to continue to stir up his base by chastising the NFL for allowing the protests. Which not only suggests that collusion arising from a mutual desire to placate the President may be influencing the ongoing unemployment of Kaepernick and Eric Reid, but also potentially bolsters the opinion of attorney Mark Geragos that the President may have run afoul of federal law by interfering with private employment decisions for political reasons.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Yeah, both guys I pasted tweets of work, or worked, in the NFL and are much more aware of what the players may do than you and Shaun King combined.  

I look forward to you littering the board trying to provide King some credibility.   :popcorn:
Click to expand...
Yeah funny thing is both Squisy and Ryan Fournier bought this news hook, line, and sinker. :lmao:  

 
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kaepernick-trump-first-amendment-nfl-national-anthem_us_5b15b680e4b093ac33a0f94c?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Does Colin Kaepernick Have A First Amendment Case Against Donald Trump?

The NFL’s new national anthem policy may be unconstitutional, legal experts say.

f his collusion case against the NFL and its team owners fails, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, allegedly blacklisted by the league for his decision to kneel in protest during the national anthem, may have another legal recourse: suing President Donald Trump and the NFL for violating his First Amendment rights.

Trump has spent much of the past year trashing the protests of predominantly black players to the delight of his political base. He has repeatedly called on NFL owners to prohibit players from protesting. Last September, he used a campaign rally in Alabama to urge the team owners to fire any “son of a #####” player who protested.

Trump’s demagoguery has had an obvious effect on the NFL and its owners, who in May approved a new policy that requires players to stand for the national anthem if they are on the field before games. Trump has continued to wield the issue since: on Monday, he blamed anthem protests for his abrupt cancellation of the Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles’ Tuesday visit to the White House, even though no members of the team knelt during the 2017 regular season. 

But Trump’s actions, some legal experts argue, may also have opened him up to claims that he and the NFL violated the players’ First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful protest, especially if his threats against the league helped force owners to institute the new policy or influenced their treatment of protesting players. 

“It’s a very bold step to sue the United States based upon alleged wrongdoing of the sitting president, and filing such a claim might make a player such as Colin Kaepernick into an even more polarizing figure,” said Marc Edelman, a law professor at City University of New York’s Baruch College. “However, based upon the pure black-letter law, a [First Amendment] claim of this nature may have a reasonable chance to succeed.”

As every graduate of YouTube Comment Law School knows, the First Amendment typically protects individuals only when the government, or a government official, infringes upon their free speech rights. NFL teams and their owners are private actors and thus are free to do as they wish, at least with respect to the First Amendment.

But in certain cases, private businesses can be considered state actors, and Kaepernick and other NFL players ― like his former San Francisco teammate Eric Reid ― who appear to have been ostracized over their protests, could have a credible argument that the NFL, in this instance, was a public entity that was improperly influenced by the president.

The NFL, Edelman argued, could be considered a state actor for two reasons: First, because it receives tax breaks from the federal government, and second, because most of its teams play in stadiums that are partly financed by local governments. NFL stadiums have also received billions of dollars in federal tax subsidies.

Federal courts have previously ruled that sports franchises have acted as state actors. In 1978, a judge found that the New York Yankees’ policy banning female reporters from their locker room violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because New York City owned Yankee Stadium, qualifying the team as a state actor, as Edelman notes in a brief he wrote examining the possibility of NFL players filing a free speech lawsuit.

None of this would matter, however, were it not for Trump’s own actions ― and specifically his tweet in September suggesting that certain tax breaks be eliminated if the league didn’t start punishing the protesters.
 

Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump

Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country? Change tax law!

3:13 AM - Oct 10, 2017
Click to expand...
“President Trump made things substantially worse for himself when he tweeted what reasonably can be construed as a threat to attempt to take away tax benefits from NFL teams if they did not fire protesting players,” Edelman said.

The NFL voluntarily relinquished its tax-exempt status in 2015, but the league’s teams and owners still benefit from certain tax breaks, including one that subsidizes federal bonds used to build new stadiums. House Republicans attempted to repeal that tax break in 2017, and The Washington Post reported Monday that Trump assigned aides to research how the White House could punish the league through tax reform. Trump, however, eventually signed a tax reform law that maintained the current subsidy. 

Had Trump followed through on this threats to change NFL-related tax laws, a First Amendment case against him would be “more straightforward,” said Leah Litman, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Irvine, who has written about the potential for NFL players to bring a First Amendment case against the president. Litman also suggested that ESPN anchor Jemele Hill, who came under criticism from the White House after calling Trump a white supremacist, could have had a potential First Amendment claim against the president had ESPN chosen to fire her.

As it stands, the question is whether Trump is merely using the presidential bully pulpit or actually “changing [owners’] minds in his capacity as president,” Litman said. “That is, is he using official channels rather than just using the power of speech?”

 
squistion said:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/30/jerry-jones-president-made-it-clear-that-he-wasnt-letting-anthem-issue-go/

Jerry Jones: President made it clear that he wasn’t letting anthem issue go

Posted by Mike Florio on May 30, 2018, 10:32 AM EDT

he first snippets of testimony have emerged from the depositions taken in the Colin Kaepernick collusion grievance. And it’s becoming even more obvious that the NFL changed its anthem policy at the direct behest of the President.

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, while testifying in the Kaepernick collusion grievance, shared the details of a phone call with the President.

“This is a very winning, strong issue for me,” the President told Jones, according to Andrew Beaton of the Wall Street Journal. “Tell everybody, you can’t win this one. This one lifts me.”

The President was right. There was no way to win. Even by giving in.

Per Beaton, the NFL declined comment on the matter, citing the confidentiality that applies to the grievance proceedings. A White House official did not dispute the testimony.

“The majority of the American people agree with the president, love our country, love our flag and believe it should be respected,” the White House official told Beaton. (This ignores the results of the NFL’s secret poll from last year, which showed that people both opposed and supported the protests that have been happening during the anthem. The NFL has chosen, however, to heed only the opinions of those who oppose the protests, possibly because that side reflects the President’s stated viewpoint.)

Beaton also reports that Jones, along with Texans owner Bob McNair and Dolphins owner Stephen Ross, testified that they believed the protests were hurting the NFL financially. Which of course conflicts with recent statements from Falcons owner Arthur Blank, who justified the new contract given to Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan by claiming that league and club revenues are up.

Regardless of whether it’s rooted in fact, owners have chosen to believe that the protests are bad for business, in large part because the President had chosen to continue to stir up his base by chastising the NFL for allowing the protests. Which not only suggests that collusion arising from a mutual desire to placate the President may be influencing the ongoing unemployment of Kaepernick and Eric Reid, but also potentially bolsters the opinion of attorney Mark Geragos that the President may have run afoul of federal law by interfering with private employment decisions for political reasons.
Click to expand...
Kap signed yet? :popcorn:

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Jesus, even I know the words to God Bless America.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/SamKimpton/status/1004099553388265472

Replying to @Deadspin

Not knowing the lyrics to "God Bless America" isn't a really bad thing. UNLESS you're hosting a patriotism party, and the announcer says to sing the song to honor the country. And you just spent the last year blasting a group for not being patriotic. And you're the president.

https://deadspin.com/flag-humping-president-disinvites-eagles-from-white-hou-1826553127

 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Roth, for my money the best Trump writer/analyst out there, nails it again with his take on the anthem protests and the Trump/conservative response:
 

There is no reason to assume that Donald Trump even knows the words to the national anthem. He definitely does not know the words to “God Bless America.” Because these songs are not about him, there’s no real reason to believe Trump really cares about them much at all. What matters about the mild and respectful protests that NFL players staged during the playing of that anthem, to Trump and everyone lined up behind him, is how it can be used. He understands that because it is about him and can be used to his benefit, so he cares about it a great deal.

Trump doesn’t honor anything on Earth more than himself. The republic for which all this stands is an abstraction in which he transparently has no interest, or anyway nothing that he’d put above even his pettiest personal or business interest. He is not sincerely offended by black or brown players performing an act of protest during a song so much as he is offended—affronted, sure, but more deeply threatened—by their disobedience in doing so after having been very clearly told that it bothered their betters. He is not alone in this, but here as elsewhere Trump has backed into being a perfect avatar. He is not the only person who believes that people protesting against unrelenting, unjust, unaccountable state violence are doing so primarily to be annoying, but he is the only one who can get those other disordered people to pile into a convention center to listen to him interrupt himself and complain about it for a couple hours.

Trump doesn’t understand loyalty in any meaningful way, because he is not capable of it in any meaningful way. There is no other person on Earth who really seems to mean much to him outside of what they say about or could potentially do for him. But he definitely has an understanding of loyalty, and that is roughly as something that an employee owes an employer—as a thing that runs up and only up, and is non-negotiable, and is in the end about always and without complaint doing what you’re told. Among Trump’s many strange rhetorical tics is using “like a dog” as the most devastating of insults, which is weird enough when you consider how awesome dogs are but which seems more significant in light of the fact that his understanding of what loyalty looks like is otherwise synonymous with what dogs show their masters.
Click to expand...

 
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/06/07/58-percent-of-voters-says-anthem-protesters-arent-unpatriotic/

58 percent of voters says anthem protesters aren’t unpatriotic

Posted by Mike Florio on June 7, 2018, 2:24 PM EDT

he NFL has chosen to listen only to those fans who believe protesting during the national anthem isn’t patriotic. Plenty of fans, inexplicably ignored by the NFL, disagree.

According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 58 percent of American voters believe NFL players who protest during the anthem are not unpatriotic. Another 35 percent of American voters believe that they are.

On a separate question, American voters also believe by a 53-43 margin that professional athletes have to right to protest while at work.

That said, deep divisions exist based on party and racial lines.

For example, Democrats support the right to protest via an 82-16 margin. Republicans say there is no right to protest, by a nearly identical split of 81-16.

African-American voters support the right to protest, 85-11. Hispanic voters agree, with a 67-28 margin. White voters believe players don’t have the right to protest, via a narrower gap of 53-43.

And while all American voters support the NFL’s new anthem policy (51-42), all American voters oppose fining teams if players on the field fail to stand for the anthem, by a 51-44 margin.

None of this is surprising, but it underscores the fact that the NFL, for whatever reason, has opted to listen to only one side, with Steelers owner Art Rooney recently claiming that the “vast majority of our fans” oppose players protesting during the anthem.

The NFL’s own secret research contradicted this, and the new Quinnipiac poll does, too. And if the NFL plans to continue to heed only one segment of the fan base while ignoring those who feel differently, those fans eventually may vote with their eyes, ears, and wallets.

 
squistion said:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/06/07/58-percent-of-voters-says-anthem-protesters-arent-unpatriotic/

58 percent of voters says anthem protesters aren’t unpatriotic

Posted by Mike Florio on June 7, 2018, 2:24 PM EDT

he NFL has chosen to listen only to those fans who believe protesting during the national anthem isn’t patriotic. Plenty of fans, inexplicably ignored by the NFL, disagree.

According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 58 percent of American voters believe NFL players who protest during the anthem are not unpatriotic. Another 35 percent of American voters believe that they are.

On a separate question, American voters also believe by a 53-43 margin that professional athletes have to right to protest while at work.

That said, deep divisions exist based on party and racial lines.

For example, Democrats support the right to protest via an 82-16 margin. Republicans say there is no right to protest, by a nearly identical split of 81-16.

African-American voters support the right to protest, 85-11. Hispanic voters agree, with a 67-28 margin. White voters believe players don’t have the right to protest, via a narrower gap of 53-43.

And while all American voters support the NFL’s new anthem policy (51-42), all American voters oppose fining teams if players on the field fail to stand for the anthem, by a 51-44 margin.

None of this is surprising, but it underscores the fact that the NFL, for whatever reason, has opted to listen to only one side, with Steelers owner Art Rooney recently claiming that the “vast majority of our fans” oppose players protesting during the anthem.

The NFL’s own secret research contradicted this, and the new Quinnipiac poll does, too. And if the NFL plans to continue to heed only one segment of the fan base while ignoring those who feel differently, those fans eventually may vote with their eyes, ears, and wallets.
Click to expand...
Soon there will nobody watching or listening to the NFL. The players and owners have poisoned the  Golden Goose and it is dying a slow death...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This still isn’t a great number, it’s basically 6/4 in any crowd, so what it’s done - and I don’t mean Kaep here - is it’s divided us, which is the point.
Click to expand...
No, but it flips the numbers of the Washington Post Kaiser Family Poll (that was cited as the last word by the anti-protest crowd a few pages back) which showed that 53% of Americans think kneeling during the national anthem is "never appropriate".

 
unpatriotic =/= never appropriate

Simply not the same.  I can think something is inappropriate while also not believing it is unpatriotic. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ridicule said:
unpatriotic =/= never appropriate

Simply not the same.  I can think something is inappropriate while also not believing it is unpatriotic. 
Click to expand...
Well, yes you could. But why did they say it was never appropriate? I would guess it is probably because they find it unpatriotic. Since WaPo poll didn't ask a follow up question we will just have to disagree on what the respondents actually meant.

 
squistion said:
Well, yes you could. But why did they say it was never appropriate? I would guess it is probably because they find it unpatriotic. Since WaPo poll didn't ask a follow up question we will just have to disagree on what the respondents actually meant.
Click to expand...
Your response to everything when it doesn't fit your narrative.  Being one of those that complains about false equivalence in threads, maybe you should try taking things for what they literally say for a change.  One poll surveyed thoughts on patriotism, one surveyed on appropriateness. 

Appropriateness

Patriotism

Please note that neither word is a synonym for each other.  Appropriateness =/= Patriotism.  Both polls are applicable.

 
ridicule said:
Your response to everything when it doesn't fit your narrative.  
Click to expand...
That is my take on it and I am entitled to my opinion, which is equally as valid as yours. With the absence of a follow up question by the WaPo, it is entirely speculation as to what they exactly meant by being inappropriate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
That is my take on it. I am entitled to my opinion, which is equally as valid as yours. With the absence of a follow up question in the WaPo, we don't know why they thought it was inappropriate.
Click to expand...
Then maybe you should take a moment to rescind your previous post since you have no basis for it. 

squistion said:
No, but it flips the numbers of the Washington Post Kaiser Family Poll (that was cited as the last word by the anti-protest crowd a few pages back) which showed that 53% of Americans think kneeling during the national anthem is "never appropriate".
Click to expand...

 
Da Guru said:
Soon there will nobody watching or listening to the NFL. The players and owners have poisoned the  Golden Goose and it is dying a slow death...
Click to expand...
The NFL made a billion dollars more in revenue in 2017 than the year before. The Golden Goose is alive and well.

 
squistion said:
The NFL made a billion dollars more in revenue in 2017 than the year before. The Golden Goose is alive and well.
Click to expand...
Without Kappy???

Players need to realize the player pool is endless and will always be endless and they come and go just like in HS and college.  The game/machine keeps chugging on. There will always be someone willing to take your spot.

 
Kaepernick and his legal team want to get to the root of the NFL’s decision, beginning with a subpoena against Trump and his administration, Yahoo! Sports reports. The legal group wants to analyze the White House’s “political involvement” in the NFL, specifically concerning the period around Kaepernick’s free agency.
Click to expand...
He certainly has more subpoenas than any president ever. 

 
squistion said:
No, but it flips the numbers of the Washington Post Kaiser Family Poll (that was cited as the last word by the anti-protest crowd a few pages back) which showed that 53% of Americans think kneeling during the national anthem is "never appropriate".
Click to expand...
And that number is basically 50/50 also. Same problem.

 
I just had to have my federal security clearance re-upped by a special agent from OPM.  One of the final questions was along the lines of "would anyone question your loyalty to the United States?"  I thought for a second and said something along the lines of: "well, if someone could question Colin Kaepernick's loyalty, I guess they could question mine, too."

The agent gave a nervous laugh.  I wonder if she thought I was joking.  We sat in silence for a second, and then I added, "No.  Nobody would question my loyalty."  That seemed to satisfy her.

 
https://sports.yahoo.com/colin-kaepernick-definitely-staying-shape-case-nfl-comes-calling-205905165.html

Colin Kaepernick is definitely staying in shape in case the NFL comes calling

One of the many transparent “reasons” we’ve been told about why Colin Kaepernick wasn’t signed after the San Francisco 49ers released him last year was that he’s a vegan.

As such, we were told, Kaepernick couldn’t gain or maintain weight.

On Tuesday, Kaepernick’s longtime girlfriend, Nessa Diab, posted a photo of the quarterback on social media. Kaepernick is in a gym, with free weights behind him, his arms thickly muscled.

Nessa, as she’s known, captioned the photo “summertime fine” in admiration of her man’s physique.

But Kaepernick also posted the same photo a short time later, and showing that he has a long memory and heard the stories from anonymous NFL sources, hashtagged it, “#NotBadForAVegan.”

While it seems clear at this point that Kaepernick won’t be playing in the NFL again, he certainly looks like he’d be ready if he got a call. (He does have a standing offer from the mayor of Birmingham, Ala. to play for that team’s Alliance of American Football team when it begins play next year.)

Kaepernick has been vegan for over two years; in 2016, he lost a significant amount of weight as he was recovering from multiple surgeries, and maintained at the time that it had nothing to do with his diet, but his inability to be in the weight room during rehab.

Also, Tom Brady’s strict diet is almost vegan, with very little meat or fish, and while it’s easy to make fun of Brady for considering avocado ice cream to be a “treat,” no one has told a reporter it’s a detriment to his performance.

Works continues to gain recognition

While Yahoo Sports’ Charles Robinson reported on Monday that the NFL is attempting to force Kaepernick’s collusion case against the league to be closed, Kaepernick’s work and his Know Your Rights Camp continue to be recognized.

On Sunday, Kaepernick was among 12 honorees at the National Education Association’s Human and Civil Rights Awards ceremony; he received the NEA President’s Award, the highest honor the teacher’s group gives.

The Know Your Rights camps are free for youth, and “aim to raise awareness of higher education, self-empowerment and instructions on how to properly interact with law enforcement in various scenarios.”

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
The Official Katie Porter (HOR/D-CA45) And Her "Whiteboard Of Justice" Appreciation Thread (10/24/22 17:34 PST)
Replies
2
Views
313
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Mike Rowe Evaluates America's Workforce: "Your Choice Isn’t College Or Oblivion" ( 7/16/22 18:28 PST )
Replies
5
Views
491
bcat01
B
GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
922
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 11 (members: 0, guests: 11)
Top