Quantcast
Connect with us

NCAA cites 13th Amendment slavery loophole when arguing why they shouldn’t pay student athletes

Published

on

When arguing why student athletes aren’t legally entitled to compensation, the National Collegiate Athletic Association cited a court case that relied on a loophole in the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution that allows legal unpaid labor in the case of imprisonment.

The Intercept’s Shaun King reported on the NCAA’s legal justification for refusing to pay the athletes who propel the multi-billion dollar college athletics industry. The organization is using the early Vanskike v. Peters, in which a federal appeals court ruled in favor of not paying an inmate based on the 13th Amendment.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Daniel Vanskike was a prisoner at Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet, Illinois, and Howard Peters was the Director of the state Department of Corrections,” King wrote. “In 1992, Vanskike and his attorneys argued that as a prisoner he should be paid a federal minimum wage for his work. The court, in its decision, cited the 13th Amendment and rejected the claim.”

Though the 13th Amendment “is commonly hailed as the law that finally ended slavery in America,” it has one essential caveat — that “involuntary servitude” is legal “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” Many argue that the amendment allows for imprisonment to serve as a substitute for enslavement, leading to institutions such as what anti-racists call the “school-to-prison pipeline” and laws passively intended to punish African-Americans.

The NCAA, King continued, has already won two other lawsuits that cited Vanskike v. Peters.

“Comparing athletes to prisoners is contemptible,” attorneys for former Villanova wide receiver Lawrence “Poppy” Livers wrote in their rebuttal to the NCAA’s motion.

The use of the Vanskike precedent “is not only legally frivolous, but also deeply offensive to all Scholarship Athletes – and particularly to African-Americans,” the rebuttal noted.

ADVERTISEMENT

You can read Livers’ entire response to the NCAA’s motion below via the Intercept.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Fox News viewers freak out on Bret Baier for criticizing Trump and calling Yovanavitch ‘sympathetic’

Published

on

Fox News host Bret Baier -- and his colleague John Roberts -- infuriated Fox News viewers who follow their Twitter feeds for praising the performance of former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during her House impeachment testimony while they also condemned Donald Trump for attacking her as she spoke.

According to Roberts in his tweet, "Wow....this is really unprecedented. @realDonaldTrump and Amb Yovanovitch are talking to each other in real time through @Twitter and Television... Something I never thought I would ever see."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Viewers baffled as GOP counsel appears to push anti-Trump talking points during Yovanovich cross-examination

Published

on

House Republican impeachment inquiry attorney Steve Castor on Friday baffled viewers with a line of questioning that appeared to be beneficial to House Democrats' case for impeaching President Donald Trump.

Among other things, Castor referred to ambassador Bill Taylor as a man of integrity and also didn't challenge former ambassador Marie Yovanovich's story that she had been the subject of a smear campaign launched by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

In fact, Castor's line of questioning was so friendly to House Democrats, that some Twitter users joked that he was a "deep state plant" who's secretly helping to impeach the president.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

CNN legal analysts rip apart Jim Jordan’s ‘nonsensical’ defense of Trump witness intimidation

Published

on

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig blasted Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) for arguing that President Donald Trump hadn't engaged in witness intimidation by tweeting attacks on a former ambassador as she testified against him in the impeachment inquiry.

Jordan argued the tweet can't be witness intimidation because Marie Yovanovitch wouldn't have known about the attack if Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) hadn't read it to her, but Honig said the GOP lawmaker's claim was ridiculous.

"His point is nonsensical," Honig said. "Of course, she was going to find out about a tweet that went out to 60 million people-plus. The law covers any way you look regarding timing."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image