The Naughty List of USC, UCLA and California | Opinion
USC and UCLA are therefore leaving the Pac-12 to join the Big Ten, but there are still a few minor details to be ironed out.
Like this one :
Will the State of California allow these schools to compete on the court/court of the “deplorables?” – specifically, some Big Ten schools that don’t share their beliefs or worldview and are on California’s official naughty girl list?
In 2016, you may recall, California Governor Gavin Newson and the state legislature enacted a law which prohibits state-funded and sponsored travel to states that “discriminate” against LGBTQ people.
The bill stipulates“California must take steps to avoid supporting or funding discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.”
In other words, they would fight what they perceive as “intolerance” with intolerance. If you don’t agree with their definition of tolerance, they won’t do business with you.
They don’t believe that other states should be free to choose their own path – think like them or walk away.
The list of states where California state funds will not be allowed for trips increased to 22 — Indiana, Louisiana, Arizona and, ta-dum, Utah, were added to the Naughty List this year.
This law applies to “state agencies, departments, boards, authorities, and commissions” and state-funded high school and college athletic teams.
As members of the Big Ten, UCLA and USC will have to play road games against teams from Ohio, Indiana and Iowa, all of which are on the Naughty List.
There are several other major football programs in other state-based conferences that are also on the Naughty List – Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia -Western.
They all made the list of deplorables.
It’s a measure of the importance of sport in this country – for better or for worse – that one of the first things people wondered when this law was enacted was how it would affect teams. sports.
Well, the games will continue.
If COVID-19 couldn’t bring sports to a complete halt, then neither can Assembly Bill 1887. The University of California and California State University clarified their position on this issue when they told The Sacramento Bee last year that school sports teams could travel to states listed on the banned list, but only with money from donors and other non-taxpaying sources, such as tuition fees. and university fees.
It’s a high price. It’s expensive to pack up a football team and fly it to, say, Columbus, Ohio, and put it up in a hotel.
It’s fair to wonder what would happen if every state followed California’s lead and produced its own list of rogues (or is that haughty?).
You would have schools from Republican states playing only against schools from Republican states and schools from Democratic states playing only against schools from Democratic states.
Blue states against blue states, red states against red states.
USC against Alabama would not happen. Neither does USC versus Notre Dame.
This is nothing new, of course. This kind of nonsense has dogged the Olympics, for example, for over 100 years.
The ideal of the Olympic Games and international sport was to bring together diverse people and their cultures for sporting events, but many editions of the Olympic Games have been blighted by countries that chose not to participate for political reasons.
The Olympic symbol (the five interlocking rings symbolizing the five continents) and the Olympic oath made their debut at the 1920 Games.
The oath reads like something that was written in the present day: “We promise to participate in these Olympic Games, respecting and complying with the rules and in the spirit of fair play, inclusion and equality. Together, we stand together and we are committed to sport without doping, without cheating, without any form of discrimination.
That’s not what will happen if California succeeds. Where will this end? It is very possible that California will now add states to the Naughty List that choose or have already chosen not to allow abortion.
AB1887 set a bad precedent.