On Black Lawmakers Asking Recruits Not to Go to South Carolina
Unless you live under a bridge, you've probably heard that a caucus of black lawmakers in South Carolina have been calling our recruits and urging them not to attend USC. The reason? They're upset because the board of trustees at USC may soon be without a black member, as they think it's likely that lawyer Leah B. Moody, who is currently the board's only black member, is unlikely to receive enough votes to serve a full term. (Moody is currently finishing the term of an ousted trustee.) They believe that discouraging recruits from attending USC will call people's attention to the possible lack of representation on the board for the state's black community.
Let me preface what I'm about to say by saying that I believe that the University's board should have at least one and preferably multiple black representatives. The state of South Carolina has a large black population and a large portion of that population comes to the University of South Carolina to get an education. The University, in fact, serves one of the largest black student bodies in the country. It's indisputably lamentable that it's even possible that it may be without a black board member, and I strongly believe that the black caucus was right to make a move to do something about it.
That said, the choice of the black lawmakers caucus, led by state Representative David Weeks, to address the issue in this way says a number of sad things not only about their politics, but also our society in general. First of all, the caucus's choice to go down this road is, in too many ways to name here, both perplexing and disturbing. I fail to see what role the football team has in selecting board members. Why attempt to punish and confuse kids who have chosen to earn a good education and play football here? In fact, the University itself doesn't nominally have a role here, as the legislature itself picks the board members. Why not find some way to speak to the legislature's failings? Why not raise a public outcry to those failings, forcing the legislature's hand?
Of course, the issue really isn't all that perplexing when you think about it. The black caucus chose this ethically questionable act because they wanted to get everyone's attention, and, in that sense, they made a good call. They do have our attention, and, as an old saying goes, even negative attention is better than none at all. And that's what I really find depressing about all of this: that the caucus chose to do this because they assumed that more people would pay attention to the issue if they went after the USC football team than if they brought it to another public forum, and that in many ways they were right. What happened here says something that is both poignant and disturbing about political life in this country.
I unfortunately have nowhere near enough time to devote the attention to this issue that it deserves, but I hope we can take this up in the comments section. I'm interested to hear what others have to say.
0 recs |
11 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
Maybe if they focused that energy elsewhere, they could affect actual change
Some say a comet will fall from the sky. Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still. Followed by millions of dumbfounded dips**ts.
by btcoop71 on Mar 24, 2025 8:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's what I'd like to think. But the frightening thing is that they probably don't have enough faith in process and public forums to go that route.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Mar 24, 2025 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem here...
is that they did even pull this stunt for the publicity. From what I can tell, lawmakers have been calling recruits for some time. If they were truly after publicity, you’d think they would make a public appeal to recruits planning on attending the University of South Carolina. That one flaw alone leads me to question the true motives behind their actions. I’m not one for conspiracy theories at all, but I’d like to know where all of the lawmakers earned their degrees.
Someone please tell me how convincing South Carolina football recruits behind the scenes to go elsewhere is going to affect any meaningful change on the BOT issue.
Maybe I’m wrong here, but from what I’ve read this seems like a story that’s been going on for a while that The State just broke.
Dum spiro spero - "While I breathe, I hope"
State motto of South Carolina
by The Feathered Warrior on Mar 24, 2025 8:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I've been kind of wondering about that myself. I didn't mention it in the post because, well, I don't have enough information...
and don’t have time to do the investigative journalism. I still think that this has a lot to do with publicity, but there may be more to it, too.
It’s of course worth noting here that the University of South Carolina—not Clemson—is the school that has been doing the most to serve the state’s black population, not to mention other economically marginalized demographics, for some time now.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Mar 24, 2025 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I should note...
That I don’t necessarily have a problem with Clemson serving that mission, at least not one that has anything to do with rivalry per se (as opposed to wider contexts of social and economic inequality as well as the lengths a school needs to go to climb the US T & WR rankings). I really just say it to point out the illogic of going after USC instead of CU. But there would be illogic in doing this period.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Mar 24, 2025 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How exactly does USC do more than Clemson to serve economically marginalized demographics?
by Skyagusta on Mar 24, 2025 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
USC charges lower tuition, offers more scholarships and aid, and yes, for your pleasure...
has lower admission requirements. This has been the case since after the Second World War, when USC eagerly opened its doors to returning GIs and Clemson was more hesitant. The trend continued during the Civil Rights Era and continues to this day, as lately Clemson has raised prices and admission standards in an attempt to raise its US N & WR rankings, which it has been successful at.
What happened after WWII, of course, is a role reversal of the two schools’ original roles, as in the beginning Clemson was conceived as an agricultural school to play off against USC, which followed a traditional liberal arts model at the time.
Anyways, you can go read about this in any number of places on the internet. And I really didn’t mean to turn this into something about the rivalry. One, I’m sure Clemson does numerous, extremely important things to serve all communities in South Carolina and the country, regardless of what I may say in November. Two, this post was about why these lawmakers did this, which I don’t think says anything about Clemson per se.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Mar 24, 2025 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just didn't understand what Clemson had to do with this
I actually came here to say that this sucks and that I agree with y’all, our politicians are morons and can’t seem to run out of ways to embarrass our state.
by Skyagusta on Mar 24, 2025 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right. Clemson doesn't have anything to do with this. Thanks for coming by to say so...
What I said above about costs and demographics really says more about the system than Clemson; like I said, Clemson raised admissions standards to see a hike in the US N & WR rankings, and one can understand why it would want to do that.
And if there are any Clemson connections among those who started this, then I don’t think that says anything about Clemson, either. The whole thing says more about the people that did it and the media culture we live in than anything else.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Mar 25, 2025 8:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The sad part...
is they’re right. You nor I care about this issue nearly as much (if at all) without them pulling this stunt. I think your tone seems to reflect that it’s sad the lawmakers in question think this is the only way they could draw attention to the issue, and I think the only place we (possibly) differ is that I think it’s sad they’re right.
"I make love to pressure."
-- Stephen Jackson
by USCKB on Mar 25, 2025 9:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah. You summed up what I think pretty well there.
I was unfortunately a little rushed while writing this and thus had to rely on tone a little more than clarity.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Mar 25, 2025 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!

by Gamecock Man on 







