UL Coach (1957-73) Beryl Shipley

[USL1970]

_ The order to hold a tryout practice for black players prior to the date practice was allowed to begin is definitely a race issue. It came from Stanley Galloway who then turned the program it for violating that rule. If you respond, please address this particular circumstance. _

If someone told you to violate a rule that you knew was wrong, would you?

If you witnessed someone lying or violating a rule, and did nothing about it, that is complicity or being an accomplice.

Character often determines the answer to those two questions. In athletics, golfers are often good examples of good character when they call penalties on themselves. Playing partners call penalties on others to protect the entire field. They would rather not win if they have to lie or cheat.

That is what happened in the meeting described in the book that you are referencing. White lies, black lies, gray lies, they are all lies, regardless of how you shade them, and they perpetuate.

Galloway was certainly part of the problem, but no one man should be able to bring down an entire program, as well as, be the procuring cause of all of the alleged violations or infractions.

This episode was like an "athletics watergate."

[Turbine]

In this day and age I am shocked that you still think breaking the "no athletic scholarships for Blacks" RULE, was wrong.
igeaux.mobi

[SlappyCajun]

_ If someone told you to violate a rule that you knew was wrong, would you?

You have six posts all on this thread. You are pimping your agenda which is fine. But now I don't have to waste time giving credence to your cries for objectivity when you are as subjective as they come.

Were NCAA rules violated, they were. Do I think Coach Shipley was to blame for some of the violations. I believe so.

However, the hammer from the NCAA was originally brought to the program due to other Southern leaders opposed to an integrated team.

Finally, at the end of the day, Coach Shipley's contributions to helping to integrate athletics in the Deep South was far far far more important than the reputation he has been saddled with for all these years. Put his name on the court and honor his legacy. He is another example of this University being ridiculously in front of the curve from a race relations standpoint in the South.

[USL1970]

_ In this day and age I am shocked that you still think breaking the "no athletic scholarships for Blacks" RULE, was wrong.
igeaux.mobi _

I am not sure how you can be shocked when I have not commented on the scholarship issue, only on the ordering of the illegal practice. I believe that it was terrible that the scholarships were not available for them when they came to the university.

[USL1970]

_ You have six posts all on this thread. You are pimping your agenda which is fine. But now I don't have to waste time giving credence to your cries for objectivity when you are as subjective as they come. _

And I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed participant!

Ragin pagin is about a wide variety of ideas and opinions.

[SlappyCajun]

Exactly, just b/c a wide variety of opinions are allowed, Doesn't validate yours. I for one think that there was rule-breaking going on by the Cajuns, but don't divorce the historical time period from it.

And I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed participant!

Ragin pagin is about a wide variety of ideas and opinions.

igeaux.mobi

[Turbine]

_ I am not sure how you can be shocked when I have not commented on the scholarship issue, only on the ordering of the illegal practice. I believe that it was terrible that the scholarships were not available for them when they came to the university. _

It wasn't just a "scholarship issue" it was a heavey handed rule in Louisiana.

If someone told you to violate a rule that you knew was wrong, would you?

[zephyr]

_ If someone told you to violate a rule that you knew was wrong, would you?

If you witnessed someone lying or violating a rule, and did nothing about it, that is complicity or being an accomplice.

Character often determines the answer to those two questions. In athletics, golfers are often good examples of good character when they call penalties on themselves. Playing partners call penalties on others to protect the entire field. They would rather not win if they have to lie or cheat.

That is what happened in the meeting described in the book that you are referencing. White lies, black lies, gray lies, they are all lies, regardless of how you shade them, and they perpetuate.

Galloway was certainly part of the problem, but no one man should be able to bring down an entire program, as well as, be the procuring cause of all of the alleged violations or infractions.

This episode was like an "athletics watergate." _

You would hold the practice if that person or persons held your fate as coach or A.D. in hand.

Also, how do YOU explain the unwillingness of the Board to finance the scholarships for BLACK players even when they are fully qualified in the 60's? Did you read my post? I thought I pretty much made a decent argument against all of your points. BTW, the coaches never once failed to admit that there were certainly things they did wrong. However, going out and getting funding for scholarships that the board would not fund and fully disclosing those amounts and turning in the funds to the school's business office seems pretty straight up to me. Don't people in this day and age fund scholarships all the time? Again, you have failed to answer the previous criticisms. First, you question how in the world there could be so many people attend the "rally" at the president's house based on second hand information, you know the same information that you doubted due to the source being biased. You fail to see the major infractions by the board by not funding scholarships and ordering the coach and A.D. to hold an illegal practice due to violation of civil rights and you still believe the school was more wrong by allowing an outside business group to raise those scholarship funds legally when they fully disclose them to the university?

[USL1970]

_ You would hold the practice if that person or persons held your fate as coach or A.D. in hand.

Also, how do YOU explain the unwillingness of the Board to finance the scholarships for BLACK players even when they are fully qualified in the 60's? Did you read my post? I thought I pretty much made a decent argument against all of your points. BTW, the coaches never once failed to admit that there were certainly things they did wrong. However, going out and getting funding for scholarships that the board would not fund and fully disclosing those amounts and turning in the funds to the school's business office seems pretty straight up to me. Don't people in this day and age fund scholarships all the time? Again, you have failed to answer the previous criticisms. First, you question how in the world there could be so many people attend the "rally" at the president's house based on second hand information, you know the same information that you doubted due to the source being biased. You fail to see the major infractions by the board by not funding scholarships and ordering the coach and A.D. to hold an illegal practice due to violation of civil rights and you still believe the school was more wrong by allowing an outside business group to raise those scholarship funds legally when they fully disclose them to the university? _

First, the state board athletic commissioner did not hold the AD's fate in his hand, the President of the university did. I think you made some good points, but I don't agree with them all - that happens in debate. What you mentioned about scholarships is covered in the book and is against NCAA rules for athletes to do it in that manner. That process might work better for academic scholarships. The paper used an anonymous source that said about 500 people. My friend went to the protest, and he said 50, so I questioned the 500. No one on the board seems to know the real number. I just said the 500 was likely inflated based on what information I had.

Before the university integrated the academics in 1954, the president toured the state calling on influential citizens (which included racist/segregrationists), college presidents, state board members, and told them of his plan and convinced them to support the university. This was a success because all were on board. There was a plan, and it was executed well. This was in La Louisiane.

When the university integrated athletics in 1966, the president said something like "Go get them Hoss," and there was apparently no university plan, and no one around the state, including other university presidents, or state board knew that black players would be offered scholarships - this unwritten rule - which was a bad rule - but still something that needed to be addressed before the athletes were offered scholarhips. So, when the players came down, Galloway asked how, the coach lied, and the president was complicit, and the racial part of this story began with the illegal practice.

The second part involves the infractions which are documented in the book very well. Allegations were about money and grades - breaking the rules with a wide variety of people. This information is what was used for the death penalty, not the racial stuff. Racial is federal issue, athletic rules are NCAA issue.

The book appeared to me that the Coach was blaming university personnel severely and bitterly while not accepting personal responsibility. Other people such as Rougeou and Urban were hurt,too. Did the three blacks graduate from USL? Winkler, Ivory, Scott. I did not like the approach the book took.

If Rougeou and Shipley had developed a plan (like in 1954), which included all stakeholders, then the integration of athletics would likely have gone much better than the catastrophe it was for the university. Would a good plan and integrating successully one year later been better for the university? and athletics?

Ideas have consequences, and being first with a disaster is nothing to brag about. If you don't have a plan to execute, it is the second rat that gets the cheese.

The issue about whether death penalty was caused by "race" or "rules infractions", is sort of like the cause of the Civil War. The North said it was "slavery," the South said "states rights." But we know that if slavery was not present, then there would not have been Civil War. And if there had not been "infractions or rule violations" then the University could not have been put on NCAA probation, and gotten the death penalty.

Sorry I did not respond sooner, but I tried to stir things up a little on this thread, and apparently I did, as I got to many responses to reply. I did see 5 stars by the topic, that must mean something.

[douglas]

death penalty was handed out due to usl's "multiple offender" status-among other things i wont get into here. They were multiple offenders because of race issues-it's a snake eating itself no matter how you look at it.

To look at this as a black and white, right vs. wrong series of events is simply impossible but please do not take my word for it, watch the talkie when it's done