UL Coach (1957-73) Beryl Shipley

[zephyr]

_ 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. _

Waiting a year longer would have done nothing in regards to integration. What would lead you to believe that waiting an extra year, in a time and league that disallowed black players on an athletic team, that things would change so drastically in a calendar year and support integration? What you are failing to acknowledge is that many of the infractions that were cast upon the university were done in reaction to roadblocks the board was putting up against them. The didn't fund scholarships for players who were already in school so they had them funded and run through the business office. I am not a compliance officer and neither are you but coaches today find ways around scholarship limits and find ways for athletes to have paid resources. This, in a day where there is more compliance than ever and certainly more stringent rules and regulations than 40 years ago.

Again, not sure how you can downplay the race issue in this particular circumstance as the targeting of black players by the board and the accusers is what began the troubles. Had the NCAA investigated us if we weren't integrated? Didn't Coach Faulkinberry have some major infractions found against them? However, do you hear of those allegations or circumstances? I'm sorry but race was an NCAA issue in that day and the accusers had too little burden of proof to allow the NCAA free reign to administer penalties that were never defended, especially when Dr. A had all defense material with him and apparently never submitted or tried to push along to the accusers.

[SlappyCajun]

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.

This makes no sense, you don't curry favor with racists/segregationists by laying out a detailed plan for integration. Racists and segregationists are against integration by definition. These people would simply not be on board, if they were on board, then they were not racists or segregationists.

Early integration worked at UL for two reasons: (1) the determination and will of the first black students to pioneer that change; (2) there was not a lot of media attention.

Due to the lack of media attention, many segregationists did not have a platform to voice their opposition. I did a research project on UL integration during my time there. In fact, a prominent segregationist politician was asked to leave before speaking at EK Long gym. Racists and segregationists did not support the integration of UL in the 50s nor did the political forces support integration of the basketball team in the early/mid 60's.

The race relations element was extremely present and played a prominent role in the death penalty that was given by the NCAA. I concur with your point that it could not have happened without rule breaking, but the original rule breaking definitely did not occur in a vacuum.

[USL1970]

_ Waiting a year longer would have done nothing in regards to integration. What would lead you to believe that waiting an extra year, in a time and league that disallowed black players on an athletic team, that things would change so drastically in a calendar year and support integration?

I don't know if the extra year would have been better for certain, what I was suggesting is that if Rougeou and Shipley presented their plan for integrating athletics to the state board and used their "influence " with key stakeholders around the state like President Flethcer did when he lead the integration of academics, then the confrontation and issues with race could have been avoided.

It is hard to understand why a president of a univeristy would not make his plans known with the state athletic commissioner, state board, or other presidents. He was meeting with them once a month.

There are ways to work within an existing system to move things forward and get things done without prejudice, lying, and cheating. All of that ocurred in that first meeting from which the firestore started, and then perpetuted.

I think you made some valid points, but my opinion is that the downfall of the program was the rules violations, not the racial tones that surrounded the issue. The progam was integrated for 3 years from 1966 - 1969, then Lamar and others came, but the infractions continued. Other schools integrated by the 1970, but they fared better. The whole process of managing and leading the integration of athletics was poor.

Thanks for engaging in the debate.

[Turbine]

_but my opinion is that the downfall of the program was the rules violations, not the racial tones that surrounded the issue.

When the community was forced to become involved with the scholarship issue, it opened the door for booster overstepping.

There was "direct" race barrier correlation with the rules breaking that existed.

(Warning dialog fabricated)
For some reason the NCAA expected the players to have no human rights. 'OK you are on scholarship now stay in your cell, you can't get out except for class, practice and games.'

Even if the community at large were fans of their basketball skills they were not giving them jobs. At least not openly, there was still a lot of race pressure on everyone involved.

Simple quality of life bridges were crossed by the same people who assisted in the scholarships and thus "don't let em have a life" rules were broken.

"You came to Louisiana, some yahoo gave you a scholarship, but you can't go home for anything. You can't drive the coach’s car, and you can't go out to eat."

"Know your place!"

[CroCajun1003]

USL1970

I think you are breaking the two most fundamental rules when viewing history.

1. Never judge historical events by the social laws of today.

2. History is written by the victor.

Although you are generally right in your arguments from a literal perspective, I think that your refusal to look deeper at the situation is causing your conclusions to lose some validity.

You are right, none of the accusations and violations had anything to do with race on paper.

I can't argue with you.

But to say that race and discrimination were not the subplot to the entire chain of events is to ignore the most important part of the story. You must judge the story from the prospective of the time period.

If I were to tell you a school in Alabama or Mississippi integrated academically and athletically 10 years before anyone else in the state was willing to, you would probably, without hearing anything else, assume that this school would run into some controversy and opposition.

Why then do you disregard the pressure and opposition USL received from higher ups as a result of their early integration?

You are also right that Shipley knowingly and willingly broke rules and offended powerful people.

However, as I said before, history is written by the victor.

George Washington, Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson, the list goes on and on...

Didn't these men break rules? Didn't these men knowingly and willingly fight against the unjust social laws of their times?

Now I'm not saying Coach Ship is in the same category as the hero's above. I'm just using them to prove a point.

You asked earlier, "If someone asked you to break a rule, would you".

I ask you, "What if that rule was morally wrong?"

Would following that rule not then be as wrong breaking it?

[USL1970]

_ USL1970

I think you are breaking the two most fundamental rules when viewing history.

1. Never judge historical events by the social laws of today.

2. History is written by the victor.

Although you are generally right in your arguments from a literal perspective, I think that your refusal to look deeper at the situation is causing your conclusions to lose some validity.

You are right, none of the accusations and violations had anything to do with race on paper.

I can't argue with you.

But to say that race and discrimination were not the subplot to the entire chain of events is to ignore the most important part of the story. You must judge the story from the prospective of the time period.

If I were to tell you a school in Alabama or Mississippi integrated academically and athletically 10 years before anyone else in the state was willing to, you would probably, without hearing anything else, assume that this school would run into some controversy and opposition.

Why then do you disregard the pressure and opposition USL received from higher ups as a result of their early integration?

You are also right that Shipley knowingly and willingly broke rules and offended powerful people.

However, as I said before, history is written by the victor.

George Washington, Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson, the list goes on and on...

Didn't these men break rules? Didn't these men knowingly and willingly fight against the unjust social laws of their times?

Now I'm not saying Coach Ship is in the same category as the hero's above. I'm just using them to prove a point.

You asked earlier, "If someone asked you to break a rule, would you".

I ask you, "What if that rule was morally wrong?"

Would following that rule not then be as wrong breaking it? _

When I wrote, "If someone told you to break a rule, would you," was in reference to NCAA rules concerning athletics, nor morals or social guidelines. My example was athletic - golf.

A social question would be, why recruit athletes who can not afford to attend the university without financial aid "under the table"? Was "winning" the main reason for recruiting blacks, or was it to break the "injustices" of segregation? Did the three blacks athletes graduate, a central mission of the university? Those are social questions, that surround the issue of NCAA rules violations in this case, and in some cases were used (in the lead article) as excuses for breaking the rules.

If you give $10 cash to an athlete for supposedly humanitarian reasons, that is a violation. If you don't like an athletic rule, then you work within the system to change it. A foul can be either one shot or two, depending on the severity. Alumni usually don't know the rules, so you have to watch out for them interacting with the players.

As far as the victor writes history, I am not sure if there were any victors, just victims - way to many.

I used the social issues of the day as the foundation to suggest that if Rougeou and Shipley would have implemented a more influential and conservative plan similar to Fletcher, then the results of athletic integration would have been better. If you read the history of the day by Michael Wade, etc., you learn that Fletcher had many segregationist after him, even to the point of offering his resignation of church membership. He used "influence" and a "good plan" according to La Louisiane to enable the process. There appeared to be no plan when the troubles started in this debacle, just reactions by both sides - problem solving, fire fighting, and not problem prevention like the academic integration.

I appreciate your thoughful reponse and perspective, including turbines. Race is a subplot for certain, maybe a distraction with some causal affect on some, but not the central factor in the death penalty.

To a certain degree, we are all right, and all wrong, depending on where we sit and our perspective, and that is why we debate, learn, and then move on.

[SlappyCajun]

If you give $10 cash to an athlete for supposedly humanitarian reasons, that is a violation. If you don't like an athletic rule, then you work within the system to change it. A foul can be either one shot or two, depending on the severity. Alumni usually don't know the rules, so you have to watch out for them interacting with the players.

I understand your point, but I have a huge problem with this statement. Sometimes the entire system is corrupt and broken, and the only way to change the system is by being disobedient towards it. (i.e. the war that started this country.) Are you proposing the Founding father took the boat over to London and complained to Parliament? Should Rosa Parks have complained to the white city council instead of sitting in the front of the bus?

Sometimes current rules are wrong on their face? It is also important to note that at this time the NCAA allowed giving athletic scholarships to black athletes. So, they were forced to raise money in the community, because the state/conference arbitrarily decided it wanted to keep athletics in Southern Public Universities all white.

Collis Temple did not break the color barrier at LSU until '71. So I'm not sure they system was ready to change with a better plan.

[USL1970]

_ I understand your point, but I have a huge problem with this statement. Sometimes the entire system is corrupt and broken, and the only way to change the system is by being disobedient towards it. (i.e. the war that started this country.) Are you proposing the Founding father took the boat over to London and complained to Parliament? Should Rosa Parks have complained to the white city council instead of sitting in the front of the bus?

Sometimes current rules are wrong on their face? It is also important to note that at this time the NCAA allowed giving athletic scholarships to black athletes. So, they were forced to raise money in the community, because the state/conference arbitrarily decided it wanted to keep athletics in Southern Public Universities all white.

Collis Temple did not break the color barrier at LSU until '71. So I'm not sure they system was ready to change with a better plan. _

I think you made some very good points with examples.

Shipley took the revolutionary approach which you suggest, and we all know the results and aftermath at USL. It was a disaster for the university, but maybe necessary at that time.

According to the book, Shipley's own generals deserted him when the bullets started flying, and in the end he was the lone ranger, or maybe better said, the last of the mohicans.

And the question we are all debating is, was it worth it?

There is no clear answer, and that is a line in the sand about much of this debate.

Sometimes people and institutions need to sacrifice to move things forward, but we hope not needlessly ... maybe Viet Nam was an example of a war that should not have been fought, at least so say the historians and some of the political decision makers.

The more important question is, did we learn from it, and how can these lessons be applied going forward.

The book did open some doors that were closed, but we need to examine it and debate it for accuracy, as we don't want to make future decisions with bad information.

Thanks again for contrasting your perspective with mine.

[CroCajun1003]

And the question we are all debating is, was it worth it?

There is no clear answer, and that is a line in the sand about much of this debate._

I disagree.

I think the question is regarding the legacy of Shipley.

He is still widely considered by much of the community the greedy guilty coach that brought down a program.

Slam Dunked and Tom Shipley's comments paint him as an innocent bystander and a bit of a civil rights hero.

The Sports Illustrated article is somewhere in between.

I think you are right when you say that the recruitment of the black athletes was more about winning games than breaking barriers, but you have to admit that whatever the motives were, it took great courage to go against the segregationists. For that, I think Shipley deserves everyones respect.

I think with the information we have available to us now, it is becoming harder and harder to say that the university did not make Shipley the scapegoat. It is also clear that Dr. A and Shipley's relationship was less than healthy.

That being said...to call Shipley an innocent victim is an overstatement. He did admittedly break many rules. He recruited players that he knew would not be able to afford living on their own and financially helped them along the way. I can't argue against that.

However, in this case, I think Shipley was a victim of a broken system. The way the system was set up then, and in many ways to this day, makes it very hard for poor college athletes to live. Shipley gave opportunities to kids who otherwise would not have been able to receive a college education.

Was it illegal? Yes. Was it malicious in nature? I don't know. I understand that these kids were outstanding players and won many games for the team, but at the end of the day, they were still kids. They still had to eat. They still had to find ways to get to practice.

I'm very interested to see "Lights Out In Blackham"'s take on the entire situation and see how the community 40 years later responds. Most of the people involved or interested in this story already have a vested interest one way or another. Therefore their interpretations of the events are always biased.

I want to see reaction when the casual fans see the documentary. The kids in school who never heard of Coach Shipley. The reaction to the documentary will most likely have the final say regarding Shipley's legacy.

[Turbine]

_ Shipley took the revolutionary approach which you suggest, and we all know the results and aftermath at USL. It was a disaster for the university, but maybe necessary at that time.

Reasons aside, punishment aside, I think the whole ordeal is a forever feather (a positive) in the University of Louisiana cap.