Editorial: Arrests on Faurot, photo sales set double standard
Published Oct. 26, 2010
Remember last weekend? Just in case you missed it, you should know it was an epic Homecoming. On top of the usual parade, game and celebration, ESPN was here and MU beat the number one team in the Bowl Championship Series rankings.
Also, MU fans stormed the field for the first time in years, and 30 of those fans were arrested by the MU Police Department and Missouri State Highway Patrol.
Everyone has a different story: some fans said they were waved in by officials, some said trespassers were only arrested on certain sections of the field. Hell, some said there was a trip wire put in place in front of the bleachers.
What exactly took place may be impossible to determine, but what we can say is that those 30 fans were arrested on suspicion of first-degree trespassing.
Fast forward to Monday night: MU sent out an e-mail advertising the sale of photographs of the game, including the massive field rush. As a broadcaster said during the game, there was a lot of “old gold,” or alumni, in the stands that night, and photographs of the field rush are a great promotional sale item for alumni to tout their school spirit. Maybe more importantly, the photographs are also useful advertising tools for prospective students interested in a school with a lot of spirit and enthusiasm.
Although the rush was monumental, the university seems to have set a double standard by setting policies against certain actions, punishing students for violating those policies and then exploiting those same students for positive advertisements and merchandise.
While we think the merchandise and advertisements are great, they become lackluster next to those facing charges. The way we see it: MU can only have one. Either enforce the policies as they stand and stop promoting those broken policies as a good thing, or drop the trespassing charges.
Comments (5)
2:01 a.m., Oct. 27, 2010
Allison said:
I'd have to agree. If it's MU property they were "trespassing" on, then MU should be able to drop the charges, right? True, the announcer warned that people could be arrested if they went on the field, but MU definitely shouldn't profit from photos of students doing said illegal thing. MU: Either you're against the field rush or you realize it was single best moment many of us will remember of our days at dear old Mizzou when we're old, rich alumnae reading a letter asking for donations :) Isn't the stadium as much ours as the columns and Memorial Union anyway? It's a Mizzou monument in its own right where history and memories are made.
3:25 p.m., Oct. 27, 2010
Jo said:
Some would argue that it's a rite of passage. Some, a violation of a well-known, advertised ordinance. Some, that Mike Adlen needs additional revenue, in addition to at least the $165K/year earned from reserved season parking passes at lot X, to pay for more port-a-potties to fix a huge, game-day sanitation problem there. Some, that this whole thing is yet aother typical, mis-managed MU affair. Maybe it's all of the above. (Wonder is the students who were arrested will ever join the alumni association if/when they graduate? Or will they forever remember that one day they were able to celebrate an MU victory by going onto the football field?)
5:52 p.m., Oct. 28, 2010
Bill Duncan said:
As I saw it, the only fan I saw taken into custody was not just guilty of trespassing but also guilty of assault for pushing others out of the way. That doesn't address whether or not the students should be prosecuted while the University profits from photos. My question is should the university profit from photographs of students destroying a pair of $20000 goalposts or should they identify the culprits and prosecute them. I went to Mizzou when goalposts were made of wood and they would come down after every win. The spirit's the same, but I don't want my (or my son's) fees to go up to replace goalposts that cost more than I make in six months. Just sayin'
6:36 p.m., Oct. 26, 2010
mlcy96 said:
Interesting because in 2003 the Victory poster that was made after the Nebraska game which included a picture of students rushing the field was banned from being sold in Columbia. Granted that didn't stop anyone from buying it in STL.