Previous:
Next:

Friday Night Fights: Protecting Football At Every Level, Any Cost

December 3, 2011, 12:24 pm

Questions about why college football programs breed scandal and off the field violence might want to look at high school football for clues.  Today’s New York Times has a story about Wayne Hills High School in New Jersey, which will take the field against Old Tappan in the state sectional championship game tonight minus nine players.  The nine were suspended from playing only this week following aggravated assault charges filed well over a month ago: “The nine players, all but one of whom are minors,” Harvey Araton writes, “are accused of beating two students from the district’s other high school, Wayne Valley, after an earlier confrontation at a house party. One of the victims was said to have been left unconscious in the street.”  The second victim, although not beaten until he was unconscious, was kicked and stomped after having been knocked to the ground.

No sport but football seems to feature so many off the field assaults, even the equally corrupt “amateur” men’s basketball industry.  When was the last time you heard of the men’s crew beating the cr^p out of someone after a party, or a gang bang organized by the cross country squad?

For every story about the moral values football nurtures, or the lost children it saves, we seem to have two about football players or coaches running publicly amok or (you gotta love this story out of the University of Tennessee) being suspended for violating “undisclosed team policies.” Such policies are never available to the public, but one can only imagine the grab-bag of anti-social activities that they cover.  Do they include cheating, plagiarism, or any other violations of the university’s academic code that help keep players eligible but don’t move them through to a degree?  Enquiring minds want to know.  In 2008, the football Vols had a 67% graduation rate (which was not as low as LSU at 54%, or Georgia at 48%.)

But it all starts in high school, and it starts with the idea that affirming the legal right to play in a football game is a higher value than addressing the moral and social questions that arise in the aftermath of gross misbehavior.  Which of these kids in Wayne Hills behaved like vicious and immoral thugs is not clear, but it seems to me that any of the parents of those charged should be sufficiently horrified by what happened to not have challenged the suspensions levied by the school district until the incident is fully resolved in the courts (see this story on Matawan High School for a contrast.)

In fact, I would argue that the moral thing to do would be this: the parents, the team, the coach and the school district should take responsibility for the entire incident prior to the completion of litigation against individuals and forfeit the title game.  Now that’s a way to say you are sorry, and that you plan to dismantle a culture of violence that allowed any player to commit such a heinous act and others not to intervene.

I think one of the reasons so many of us loved the series Friday Night Lights is that it portrayed high school football as we want it to be, not as we know it is.  And it isn’t this way because football is an inherently bad sport (although it is inherently dangerous.) As Friday Night Lights often showed quite effectively, adults not infrequently channel their corruption and venality through high school and college athletic teams.  Adults, schools, and entire communities are often over invested in the heroism of young men.  They are willing to put up with, overlook or ignore a lot to cultivate fraudulent romances about masculinity: see, for example, Bernard Lefkowitz, Our Guys:  the Glen Ridge Rape and the Secret Life of the Perfect Suburb (1997).  As Lefkowitz points out, the desire to valorize athletes who were not even very successful competitors meant constant cover-ups of anti-social behavior. One accused rapist was famous for whipping out his d!ck in school hallways because he thought it was hilarious to see the look on the other kids’ faces.  More importantly, adult defenders of the Glen Ridge athletes never claimed that the rape didn’t happen — only that a severely developmentally disabled girl was fully capable of consenting to being repeatedly sodomized with a baseball bat in exchange for the “privilege” of hanging out with a bunch of third-rate, mean jocks.

The question you have to ask about Wayne Hills is why winning a sectional championship is more important to this town than the charge that nine young men have participated, either actively or by not intervening, in a beating that might have been fatal and will surely affect the lives of both victims, and their families, for some years to come. Viewing the world with a football-centric moral lens is not confined to your average fan either. I was astonished by journalist Jon Krakauer’s unwillingness to engage similar questions of character that might be raised about Pat Tillman, the pro football player killed by friendly fire in 2004 while deployed to Afghanistan. As a young man, Tillman was also subject to sudden and violent rages, and nearly beat another student to death when he was in high school. Instead of using this information to crack open the question of why we insist on viewing Tillman as a hero despite such evidence, Krakauer argues that the incident (in which Tillman, like the Wayne Hills players, continued to beat and kick his victim as he lay helpless on the ground, only stopping when his weeping girlfriend persuaded him to do so) proves Tillman’s high moral character.  Why? Because Tillman a) felt so badly about it afterwards; and b) believed at the time that he was defending a friend — even though he never stopped to find out whether his friend required a defense before he used his superior speed, height and strength to savage another person who had no reason to expect a confrontation.  In fact, Krakauer does not seem to get it that assaulting someone and trying to kill them is absolutely wrong even if that person has offended you in some way.

So let’s return to Wayne Hills.  We know that high school football, like college ball, is a budget drain of mammoth proportions, although the increasing number of games that are televised nationally are pointing ominously towards financial defenses of this extravagant and wasteful sport being extended to high schools. However, certain facts contained in the New York Times’ story about the Wayne Hills football program point to the institutional questions that are raised by this incident:

  • Although the beating occurred over five weeks ago, the players were not suspended until this week on the grounds that aggravated assault charges alone were not enough to keep them off the field.  Please note:  they attend a school where the administration doesn’t let you attend prom if you stay home from school that day and where the school claims the right to drug test students randomly prior to being admitted to prom.  Students can also be suspended from school in Wayne Hills for far lesser forms of bad behavior, such as using abusive language, disrespect to others, and willful disobedience/insubordination.
  • Counsel for one of the accused players is claiming that the school district is only suspending the players now because of the Penn State scandal.  We can call this the Jerry Sandusky Ruined Everything defense:  expect to see more of it, since it offers new avenues for stigmatizing anyone who accuses an athlete or coach of having done them harm.
  • Defense counsel is also claiming that if the students are not allowed to play, the eight accused young men whose identities are currently protected because they are minors will be exposed (nobody seems to worry that these kids might go out on the field and deliberately harm opposing players instead of playing a clean game.)
  • Coach Chris Olsen is also the athletic director, and therefore supervises himself.  This means there is no internal check to any policies — or lack thereof — that he might — or might not — enforce on the team.
  • Olsen, who has won seven sectional titles and is the father of a pro football player and the team’s quarterback, makes $146,000 a year.  The median salary for a Passaic County high school teacher is $63, 076, and only 10% make $84,000 or more.  The average high school principle in New Jersey makes less than $93,000.

With these kinds of values in play, and the organized public thuggery that football seems to bring to the communities that support it, how can we defend the large public expenditures on high school football?

This entry was posted in Archives, civil wrongs, college sports, Dear God Not Again, High School Confidential. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • sherbygirl

    I think that the following feature that Sports Illustrated just published is eye-opening for those things that it did not ask as well as what it did:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1192724/index.htm
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1192636/index.htm
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1192638/index.htm
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1192637/index.htm

    It covers the gang violence and membership of players in East Los Angeles. What prompted the report was a new study that is about to come out outlining how colleges don’t accurately/carefully screen their players for gang affiliations. But of course the report then simply focused on the players who weren’t in gangs and who were using football as a means of escape (as you point out in your post). 

    Of course they completely ignore the report that many (but how many) college players are members of gangs. And who knows? And what impact does that have?

    Certainly in neighborhoods like the ones described here, gang affiliation has as much to do with survival as it does with criminal activity. And at what point does it disqualify someone from trying to escape that life and get a college degree (ok, pro football contract)? This is a difficult question at a time when budgets are tight and our drive to win at any cost perhaps even larger.

  • Guest

    It’s interesting that I’ve never seen female rugby teams engaged in so much violent behavior, even though rugby is aggressive and many female rugby players are transgendered enough to identify partly or in whole with masculinity. There’s a definite male problem at the heart of football. My sense is that gender difference is important to counterbalance what happens to men when they are surrounded by each other and lack sufficient engagement with women. Men are dangerous without women.

    When I was in high school I did ballet and rifling, quite an odd combination. I felt that the all-male world of rifling didn’t take over my mind as much because it was counterbalanced by the feminine world of ballet. We need yin and yang. If you’re going to play football, also do things that women are involved in.

    Incidentally, this goes for gay and trannie men just as it does for straight men. Go to a leather event full of gay and bisexual men, with no women around, and you get a lot of the same attitude, rivalry, callousness, and gruffness. We all need balance, but especially men.

    • blakesmith

      Mr Lopez, I’ve been a reader of this blog at its past and present locations for several months now without having ever commented, and have followed your responses to Claire’s posts with increasing discomfort. As a gay grad student in history, I appreciate Tenured Radical as a site for progressive, feminist, gay-friendly advice on how academia works. You’re certainly entitled to have your own points of view about any of the issues raised here, but I wish you would re-consider the manner in which you choose to express them. I’ve seen you, in comment after comment, link whatever Claire happens to be talking about to your own interest in denigrating gay masculinity and gay men. You not only bring up a limited set of points at great frequency and at great length, but make them in an offensive manner. For example, “trannie” is not an appropriate way to describe trans people, and I imagine that you know better. You seem frankly uninterested in inspiring conversation about the points you make, given the hostile manner in which you make them, and the impossibility of commenting on your own blog. So why do you keep making these points, often when they are irrelevant to any subject at hand?

      It’s all a bit strange coming from someone who claims to be so worried about how boorish and mean men can be.

      • pianiste

        Blakesmith might be interested in viewing R.O.P. Lopez’s comments in other discussion on CHE blogs. Suffice it to say that Mr. Lopez has announced, piecemeal over time, that he is bisexual, married to a woman, a father of a daughter, a political conservative, a Christian, and a member of the military (the reserves, I gather). After comments by Mr. Lopez in which he blames male gay activists for all kinds of things, I’ve asked a couple of times if he’s a practicing or merely fantasizing bisexual, how he squares this with being a married Christian, etc. He doesn’t answer. (Which is his right, of course; he’s under no obligation to reveal any personal details in addition to exactly those he wants to reveal. But he has, as I said, announced those various parts of his identity, usually to ostensibly make points, so I think it’s reasonable to make inquiries of him.) He also doesn’t answer much at all. One comment and gone, almost immediately, to another discussion, is his M.O.

        I’m certainly no psychiatrist, but it seems clear to this layman that, if what Mr. Lopez says about himself is the case, that there’s a big conflict here between whatever part of his head or heart or actions is homosexual, and, on the other hand, his marital status, his particular Christianity, and his being politically conservative. To me, it looks like Mr. Lopez’s resolution to this conflict is to convince himself that he’s not gay in any major way, and he proves it by maintaining men who are openly gay, especially those who espouse equal rights for gays (gay marriage, the repeal of DADT in the military, etc.) are to blame for a whole raft of things.

        There have been other commenters elsewhere on CHE blogs who’ve noticed what I’ve noticed, particularly a former commenter named Goxewu. We might hear from another commenter named Mavprof who’s convinced, partly because I have an alleged “obsession” with Mr. Lopez, that I am Goxewu. If Blakesmith pursues the nature of Mr. Lopez’s comments further, he might find himself thought to be Goxewu redux.

        By the way, I didn’t come to this discussion because of Mr. Lopez. I came because I thought Professor Potter’s post to be not only insightful, but well argued to the point of being bulletproof, and I wanted to see if any of the CHE’s college football fans could find fault with it. And there, sure enough, was Mr. Lopez, blaming gay men for something.

    • physioprof

      Men are dangerous without women.

      Lopez, you grotesque fucken hypocrite. When are you going to explain why you post misogynist homophobic garbage on other people’s blogges, while not allowing any comments at all on your own blogge?

      • philosophile

        Really, you shouldn’t make comments like this. What Blakesmith and pianiste said was quite enough.

  • historiann

    Brilliant post.  Football is a violent cult in which a few privileged young men are empowered to enact all kind of violence with the sanction of their communities.  I really wonder about the ego development and morals of adults who not only permit but encourage this, and appear to live vicariously through it.

    • Socratease2

      Yes, you could not help but be right about all this. Brilliant…as a candle in a dense fog.

  • 4206dinty

    Not amazing at all;;;just real facts

  • 4206dinty

    MY::my

  • agrudjr

    Probing post. I taught Buzz Bissinger’s *Friday Night Lights* a half dozen times to grad students, and it is a fecund text for discussion of the “cultural context of education,” the title of the course. This all occurred before the FNL movie or TV series.

    • tenured_radical

      I teach this book too & students love it — have taught it in a modern southern history class, and a gender studies class.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1384960208 David Salmanson

    Interestingly, the coach in Wayne had a history of boorish, stupid, and uncontrolled behavior before getting hired at Wayne Hills.  He ran up the score against weak teams, verbally attacked officials, wouldn’t suspend kids for skipping class etc. etc.  http://www.nj.com/hssports/blog/football/index.ssf/2011/11/dalessandro_wayne_hills_coach_chris_olsen_puts_on_a_poor_display_amid_charges_against_his_players.html

  • reddevil

    It seems odd to me that anyone posting in an academically oriented publication like the CHE would have as many unsupported generalizations as this blog.  In the second paragraph Claire states “No sport but football seems to feature so many off the field assaults”   Seems?   Is there any evidence on this, especially if looked at on a per capita basis?

    And I am particularly disturbed by this thought:  “Which of these kids in Wayne Hills behaved like vicious and immoral thugs is not clear, but it seems to me that any of the parents of those charged should be sufficiently horrified by what happened to not have challenged the suspensions levied by the school district until the incident is fully resolved in the courts.”    Does it not matter that any of the young men that were charged with this aweful assult, might actually be innocent?   I would agree that the parents of those charged should not challenge the suspensions if their sons were guilty, but if they were not guilty, then why should the student be suspended?

    • tenured_radical

      When I use the word “seems” that’s exactly what I mean:  just google high school and violence together and see what *you* come up with.  “Is” would require empiricism.  You are an idiot.

      And I don’t know why you are *not* disturbed by the court’s and the district’s time being taken up by getting students into an essentialy meaningless football game, rather than focusing on the issue at hand, which is that a large number of players thought it was ok to beat up two other students, or watch while others did.  I would have pulled my kind off that team until the incident was resolved and my son’s culpability — or lack thereof — was resolved.

      • Socratease2

        Requiring empiricism makes somebody an idiot? Wow, you guys are radical but hard to believe you have tenure.

        • tenured_radical

          But how can you require anything of me?

      • reddevil

        Oh Claire – Did I touch a nerve?   What I said was that I found your blog to be odd.  In a publication such as the CHE to have so many assumptions drawn with so little data to support them.  Are people not allowed to have opinions that differ from yours?   Perhaps I had too high an expectation from a tenured faculty member.   And then to resort to name calling?   Tsk tsk. 

        • tenured_radical

          Do you know me? I find it quite unnerving when people who are anonymous call me by my first name.  It’s far too intimate and I wish you wouldn’t unless you are willing to say who you are, Red.  But as to your critique, I just think it doesn’t respond to what the post is.  Blogs are not empirical:  blogs argue for a position, and if you don’t like this one, don’t read it.

      • Socratease2

        But how can you require anything of me?

        I’m not sure, is that question a zen riddle? Seems mysterious.  I really don’t expect much, but I since you are pondering the topic, I guess I would like to require that your article, sorry blog, have some of that nasty empiricism in it.

        • tenured_radical

          But you can’t require that — it’s a blog, which makes it like an op-ed, not a front page story.  And even if the post were “empirical”, I am sure it wouldn’t suit you and you would find fault with it, because you haven’t engaged anything I have said on its own terms.  Now go away, ok?

    • pianiste

      If no student could be suspended from high school until a court of law adjudicated the criminal charges that caused the suspension, then hardly any student charged with a criminal offense would ever be suspended from school. Suspensions from high school and verdicts in a court of law are two very different things.

      Courts of law only declare that some defendants are “not guilty [beyond a reasonable doubt].” They don’t declare them “innocent.” These young men may well eventually be declared “not guilty” in a court of law, but that won’t necessarily make them “innocent.” (This is known as The O.J. Factor.)

      CHE bloggers, as well as other people, are entitled to express opinions about alleged perpetrators prior to their being tried by a court of law. These opinions can range from complete bias and guesswork, to very well-informed, based on reputable news accounts, statements from public officials, reports made public, etc.

      Experience in or with schools with prominent football programs, knowledge of conditions (what kind of young men are recruited to play football, the violent nature of the game of football,* the regimen of the so-called student-athlete football player, stories about assaults committed by football players that make the news on an almost daily basis, etc.), and a bit of connecting the dots makes Professor Potter’s supposition about football a reasonable one. Still, if evidence is desired:

      https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=16+Marq.+Sports+L.+Rev.+429&key=07f38107c93560c4c058ae455c83e297

      http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/03/reviews/glenridge-athlete.html

      And, of course, the recent and controversial CBS/Sports-Illustrated study.

       

  • Socratease2

    Claire, what is your point? You need to have an argument not a thread of loosely connected “musings” about what you wish or imagine to be true. Hard to know where to start, but taking one anecdotal HS example and attempting to spin that into a theory of how HS sports go wrong is a bad use of inductive logic. We don’t know the background or context to the “beating” story so I am not going to comment on what should or should not have been done in terms of penalties. But if you read one story about a cross-country runner committing a crime would you call for the end of running?  I was a cross-country runner in HS and college and, believe, me there were only 10 guys on our team, not the 100 or so on a FB team, but our behavior was not always exemplary by a long shot. You want to know the difference?  My team could fly under the radar because we had a “good” rep and, more importantly, no one cared, not the students, not the media. The reason why it appears that FB students commit more crime is partly due to “selection bias,” that is a sport that is watched closely and any infractions are reported on quickly and widely. Yes, based on numbers alone, FB students in HS are more likely to engage in “misbehavior.”  As for Tillman…I guess you aren’t much for redemption stories, are you? He gets into one fight as a teenager and you want to paint a scarlet D (for deviant) across his chest and brand him for life, and question his ability to be a “hero” (though being killed by friendly fire does not seem to fit definition of heroism anyway). Wow, your life must opearate in a very mechanical fashion, for most people their lives are a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly.

    • tenured_radical

      A.  I have an argument.
      B.  This is a blog, not an academic paper.  It’s about interpretation and critique. But just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean I am wrong or without argument.  It means we disagree.
      C.  I cannot believe that *you* really believe that this Wayne Hills story is not one of many:  obviously someone has put parental controls on your internet use so that you cannot access the news.  The idea that we just know about these things because people like me “hate football” — or just aren’t smart — is feeble.
      D.  Your critique is far more of a musing and based on anecdotes than  mine, which is about something that really happened, not something I remembered from attending high school.

      • Socratease2

        I see you have a question at the end of the blog but that is what you needed to answer to make an argument. And…am  I obligated to swallow whole whatever you churn out because it is not academic but is merely critique and interpretation. This is the CHE after all and I believe critique and interpretation are squarely both part and parcel of academic writing and most certainly are open for “reinterpretation.” I never said you hate football (but guess you do now) and you are the one with the sensationalist title (“….at any cost,” really?) so I don’t care if it is a blog or page 1 of the New York Times, you need to defend your opinions and/or arguments. And if you have a thin skin, I would advise you not to read these comments, they can get much, much worse. I don’t know if there are many such incidents or not, but if I was going to write an article, excuse me, a blog, I think I would make an effort to find out. That’s not my job, it is yours. Ok, no one put the parent controls on your computer, so you tell me, what are the comparative rates of “misbehavior” on various HS or college sports teams? Or just tell me the rates for HS FB alone?  But, heck, facts just get in the way, right? Anyway, if you don’t see the places in your “blog” where you are asserting opinions as facts and deciding up front what you want to be true about this case then I guess there is no hope for meaningful discussion. I still can’t for the life of me understand why you dragged poor Pat Tillman into this discussion, if that doesn’t qualify as tangential and severely anecdotal, then I guess I don’t understand what a blog is. But I am now beginning to understand it is a place where you peck away at your keyboard and see what strings of letters come together and then you throw a provocative title on the top. Seeing as little thought goes into it, I will refrain from holding such blogs to any standard of relevancy. But why don’t you try to answer your question and see if expenditures for high school sports can be considered defendable or not. That will require a cost/benefit analysis, an operationalization of the concept “defendable” and some actual research. But you would then have something interesting to say.

        • tenured_radical

          “am  I obligated to swallow whole whatever you churn out because it is not academic but is merely critique and interpretation:” no, but do you feel that you must read the entire CHE every day?  Because you could skip this blog and the sky wouldn’t fall for either of us, honey bunny.

      • Socratease2

        Well, yes, I could skip this blog or any other and, of course, I do that for the most part. But I happen to have a pretty in-depth knowledge and perspective on the issue of sports, higher education and society so blogs like yours pique my interest. I am definitely not saying that makes me right about any particular point either, but it does make me sensitive to gross generalizations on the topic and the abuse of “conventional wisdom.”  And just like I never said you hate football, I also never said I didn’t think you were smart, I just thought your presentation of the beating incident and its implications falls short of what I would find convincing. But I see there are other people on this forum who you have more problems with. I am just here to celebrate everybody’s search for the Truth, but also feel compelled to needle anyone who believes they have found it. The world  is too messy for many simple truths to be true. And…believe me, I don’t care in the least how you refer to me, but just from the “Tenured Radical” title and the emblem of the fist inside Venus’ hand mirror (very creative) I am guessing that I better not call you or your friends “honey bunny” back. Or were you just quoting a line from “Pulp Fiction?”

        • eveningsun

          Socratease2, back when I was a nerd in high school a bunch of football players beat the sh*t out of me. The people who did it were (this might surprise you) criminals, because, you know, physical assault is against the law. But when I complained about it nothing was done. This is perfectly commonplace. I don’t think the truth here is too simple. I think that if such an assault is reported (it rarely is–I was an anomaly), the police should investigate (they rarely do). I think the school should investigate too (they rarely do). Coaches should be put on notice, and if repeated assaults happen on their watch they should be deemed a sh*tty coach and fired (this never happens either). What we have here is a lawless masculine subculture that continues in its lawlessness only because legions of sports fans (and pigheaded enablers like you) allow it to.

      • Socratease2

        Well, sorry, I am not going away and I don’t understand why you take all this so personally. If this was the comment page of Us Magazine, no, I would not criticize people’s ideas. I know that Kim Kardashian’s short lived marriage and E! TV wedding was about love not money, so why would I question that? On the other hand, why would anyone submit an article, sorry, blog, to the CHE and expect it to be posted in a vacuum without response. Isn’t that a tad unrealistic? And is that preferable? I don’t understand how you expect people to not comment about something that they have knowledge about or are passionate about. I am sure you know audiences who will be more than happy to support your ideas so I guess you should publish for the choir. If you want to select an audience of unknown origin, I think you had better expect a variety of feedback. A lot of people on this site are PHD researchers and faculty (not that it makes them special or above anything) and they will respond accordingly. So, I hope you can take your own advice and simply not read things that you think will upset you or challenge your beliefs. You keep responding to me as well, but I will promise not to respond to anything else you write and will donate a sum of money to the NCAA Scholarship fund in your organization’s name. That is the best I can do to make things right.

  • Socratease2

    Since there was no reply tab available  for evingsun’s reply to me, I will post it here and reply:

    Socratease2, back when I was a nerd in high school a bunch of football
    players beat the sh*t out of me. The people who did it were (this might
    surprise you) criminals, because, you know, physical assault is against
    the law. But when I complained about it nothing was done. This is
    perfectly commonplace. I don’t think the truth here is too simple. I
    think that if such an assault is reported (it rarely is–I was an
    anomaly), the police should investigate (they rarely do). I think the
    school should investigate too (they rarely do). Coaches should be put
    on notice, and if repeated assaults happen on their watch they should
    be deemed a sh*tty coach and fired (this never happens either). What we
    have here is a lawless masculine subculture that continues in its
    lawlessness only because legions of sports fans (and pigheaded enablers
    like you) allow it to.

    Once again, what is your point? You have a personal story to tell and based on that, I am supposed to condemn a variety of “subcultures.” Sorry. You claim nothing was done for you and maybe that is true, maybe it isn’t, I am not putting much stock in an anonymous report to start with. You then branch out past your personal experience and say these criminal acts are commonplace and the neither the police, schools, parents, etc. will do nothing about it. How do you know this? Obviously you do, so show us the source of information. I am just not that interested in what you believe/wish  to be true about the world. Why don’t we all focus on what we can establish is actually true. So you’re a nerd and people who like sports are cretins,,,,,I see you like stereotypes anyway. And, finally, I don’t enable anything, stop being so grandiose. What am I allowing to happen? and regardless, what are you doing about it? Nothing as well, I am sure.

    • pianiste

      “Once again, what is your point? You have a personal story to tell and
      based on that, I am supposed to condemn a variety of “subcultures.”(1)
      Sorry. You claim nothing was done for you and maybe that is true, maybe
      it isn’t, I am not putting much stock in an anonymous report to start
      with.(2) You then branch out past your personal experience and say these
      criminal acts are commonplace and the neither the police, schools,
      parents, etc. will do nothing about it. How do you know this?(3) Obviously
      you do, so show us the source of information.(4) I am just not that
      interested in what you believe/wish  to be true about the world.(5) Why
      don’t we all focus on what we can establish is actually true. So you’re a
      nerd and people who like sports are cretins(6),,,,,I see you like
      stereotypes anyway. And, finally, I don’t enable anything(7), stop being so
      grandiose. What am I allowing to happen? and regardless, what are you
      doing about it?(8) Nothing as well, I am sure.”

      1. Personal experience counts for nothing. So much for individual soldiers’ accounts of war, rape victims’ observations on rape, lovers’ conclusions about love, etc. Down with memoirs, up with stat sheets.

      2. As if Socratease2 isn’t as anonymous as eveningsun.

      3. eveningsun obviously lives in a rented room, never goes out, never talks to anybody, never encounters anybody with similar experiences, doesn’t read news accounts of assaults committed by football players.

      4. eveningsun’s own experience, the sources I cited above, and about five minutes on a search engine.

      5. Obviously Socratease2 is interested. If not, why the retort? And, speaking of “believe/wish to be true,” the same could apply to Socratease2′s wish to exculpate the violent culture of football.

      6. eveningsun didn’t say that “people who like sports are cretins,” only that the likes of Socratease2 are “pigheaded enablers.” Pigheaded means stubborn in the face of evidence (again, my sources, other available sources), and Professor Potter’s post itself.

      7. “Enablers” is exactly what, en masse, football fans are.

      8. Whether or not eveningsun is “doing [something] about” a problem (which Socratease2 implies doesn’t exist) has nothing to do with whether eveningsun is correct or not about the violent culture of football.   

      • Socratease2

        I am not impressed by anything that comes out of spending 5 minutes on a search engine and your sources are overwhelming proof that you need to be careful when saying you have sources that prove something. Personal stories are fine when they are limited to representing a person’s personal experience. As for “enabling” I don’t know what you people are talking about. Just by living in the US I guess you also enabled the war in Iraq? Is that how this works?

        As for your “data,” I have seen the CBS report previously and I would like to know where the comparison benchmark is for non student-athlete males 18-22 years old. Without that data I don’t know what you think you can conclude from this. The author(s) say 7 % of the players on the top 25 college FB teams have been “charged with or cited” for a crime. Did you read carefully? Being charged with a crime does not mean you are guilty of a crime so that is a very misleading statistic. The authors themselves reveal that only around 60% of these cases may even end in a penalty/conviction. I can’t recall all the numbers but just looking at “serious crimes”, those accounted for 56/277 cases I believe and that is about 20% of total . So, if we get rid of lesser charges (DUI, petty theft, minor drug possession) now we are looking at, what, about 20 players out of 2,500 in the top 25 teams who have been either “charged with” or actually committed a “serious crime.” 20 students out of 2,500, is that horribly out of proportion with non-athletes on campus, I don’t know, you tell me. But if you can’t then you should reconsider the validity of your argument.  The numbers are thrown out there but if you break it down, that is some pretty meager evidence. I bet if I take 2,500 random students on campus I will find some assualts in there as well.

        As for Spies article, “Winning at all costs,” that was a 30 page law review article that had exactly one paragraph devoted to showing the “evidence” of student-athlete misconduct. The rest of the article was a legal discussion of university liability and remedies. And in that one paragraph, she throws out 3 studies with absolutely no data to support them. For one “study”, produced by the certainly unbiased National Coalition against Violent Athletes (Gee, what is their agenda?), Spies says:  “Statistics show that male athletes are more likely than the average male college student to commit sexual assaults.” There you go, that’s it. And I am supposed to fawn over this research. It is even worse because the real data is based on “reported assaults,” and there is definitely a selection bias working there. Just because someone produces statistics does not mean the numbers have any real world relevance.

        So, get some solid comparative studies that aren’t tilted to bias the conclusions and then let’s chat.

        On a final note, you are that concerned about the “violent culture” of football? How about the violent culture of the United States. We are a national security state in a constant state of war, I think we have bigger fish to fry.

         

        • physioprof

          “We are a national security state in a constant state of war, I think we have bigger fish to fry.”

          B – I – N – G – O! B – I – N – G – O! B – I – N – G – O! And BINGO was his name, Oh!

  • fizmath

    I don’t think football encourages violence off the field.  It may just attract those people who are more likely to be violent.  It also produced people who are large, strong and fast which makes any violence more severe.  Take a look at people convicted of violent acts.  Are they more likely to have played football in their youth?

    • pianiste

      This is a vicious cycle: To get a good football team, you recruit people who like physical violence. (A film on ESPN the other night, about three quarterbacks competing to be the starter, the successor to Cam Newton, showed the head coach saying, “It’s whup, or be whupped!” And he wasn’t talking about exes and ohs.) Those people have a tendency to let the violence spill over off the field. If it weren’t the case, the physics club or the cross-country team would have the same arrest rate as football players.

      Socratease2′s analysis of the evidence is similar to the defense team’s fine-grained analysis of the Rodney King videotape that showed that those police officers weren’t really beating the guy.

      • Socratease2

        Oh, they beat Rodney King, no doubt about that. I am not an advocate of violence in any way but we do live in a violent, irrational  world.  No sense denying it. I am not trying to be a fly in the ointment, but I see no fault in asking to clarify what is actually true versus what is assumed to be true. I think it is misleading statement to say a good football player is someone who likes “physical violence.” The connotation is that any FB player would not want to just play the game hard and aggressively but would want to injure and hurt people for fun. You see, those are the broadstroke stereotypes that I  argue against. If I had to say where more behavioral issues came from, then, yes, I would think football would have a decent share in comparison to cross-country (my sport by the way, thank you) but what about in comparison to ice hockey, rugby, lacrosse or any other “violent” contact sport. If the thesis is that violence is encouraged on the field/ice and that slops over into real life, then that is a hypothesis. If the assertion is that there are certain character traits common to people who play football that cause violence then there is another avenue to explore. Or if you want to go down the class/race path intersection with FB you can attempt (at your own peril)  to contstruct theories around that as well. But, whatever the theory, it has to be testable. I may have an OCD for methodological rigor but at least I keep questioning.

        And..as for Tenured Radical, I said I would not respond any further but just saw her last post. And, just for the record, I may not agree with you but it is not because you are a woman and can’t understand football or the men who play it.  I disagreed on points of argument, I do not think you are less capable of having a voice in this discussion and I certainly didn’t ever consider your points “girlie.”  Having theoretical lenses are good but all ideological filters create blind spots so it is important to understand that. I am not saying a feminist perspective does not shed light on many aspects of our culture and politico-economy but it also can create an adversarial dynamic at times. To the people who were flat out stupid and sexist about the topic, well, they should go away. To people who argued differently, I wouldn’t be so quick to impune their motives. Ok, time for a new topic.

        • pianiste

          “OCD for methodological rigor” = arguing about each individual branch of every tree so that nobody cops to the character of the forest.

          “…any FB player would not want to just play the game hard and aggressively but would want to injure and hurt people for fun.”

          There is no other sport, with the exception of boxing and MMA, in which it is part of the game to injure an opponent. It is frequently openly announced by a coach that one of things necessary for his team to win is to “knock their quarterback out of the game.” That means to injure him so that he can’t continue playing. (No, the coach won’t settle for merely intimidating the opposing quarterback so he’ll hurry his throws.) It’s worse than for fun, it’s part of football strategy, it’s business as usual.

          On the professional level, ice hockey is as bad as football. But it gets nowhere near the attention (check the TV ratings) as does football. Lacrosse and especially rugby are barely dectectable on the American spectator sports radar, so they don’t have “official” beers (i.e., blatant encouragement of fans to get drunk while they’re watching), tailgating, 60,000 to 100,000 people, many of them deliberately maniacal (bare-chested in freezing weather and painted warrior-like) in the stadium, ESPN highlights of wicked hits (televised football games now even replay especially violent hits so that viewers can “enjoy”–the actual word I heard used–the sound of the event), etc. And now we’re finding out that not just spectacular hits, but ordinary line play on every play are causing premature brain damage to players–including high school players.

          The only “methodological rigor” I see is that of the medical researchers who are discovering the horrendous amount of physical damage done to football players, and who are being at best tut-tutted, and and at worst being flamed by the money juggernauts of D-1 and NFL football.

      • Socratease2

        Forest and trees, whatever, a global view of the forest is more  likely to bring bias and distortion than is focusing on the trees. But if you don’t focus on the details, you will always be privileging whatever “holistic” view makes sense to you. And to torture your metaphor further, the forest is an abstraction, it exists as a collection of individual trees and they are what determine the character of the forest. And I wasn’t talking about what TV ratings indicate about violence in different sports, obviously these other sports get less air time. My point is that mass media in this country focus on narratives of conflict/controversy/crime in unequal ways. You say these other sports are just as bad, well, why don’t we hear about them? Because of media selection bias, misbehavior outside of FB in other sports or among non-athletes does not get the scrutiny and attention so the perception (the big leafy green blob you call a forest) is that FB  stands apart in thuggery.

        • pianiste

          We don’t hear as much about thuggery among college rugby and lacrosse players because a) there are so few of them, as compared to college football players, and b) because the audience for the media is overwhelmingly more interested in college football than it is in college rugby or lacrosse. College football fans have to take the rough with the smooth on this: If the BCS championship football game is going to elicit TV ratings, press coverage, commentary, highlight clips, etc., far, far, far in excess of what college rugby or lacrosse championships elicit, then negative news–Penn State, thuggery, etc.–in college football is also going to draw proportionately more attention. If the “good” big stories about college football are deserved because of its prominence, so are the “bad” stories. In other words, live by media “disproportion” (ESPN, network TV, daily newspaper sports sections, sports magazines, etc.), die by media “disproportion.”

          And here I thought there was no whining in football.

  • tenured_radical

    Honestly? Let’s do a feminist analysis of the content stream here. I think a big part of the problem here is that *women* aren’t allowed to speak in a knowledgeable way about *sports* — unless they are girlie sports, but certainly not a he-man thing like football.  How could a woman possibly understand something as complex and manly as football? The proof of my lack of understanding is that the post isn’t *empirical* and is full of my girlie opinions (someone else was chided for having cited a wussy little “experience” of having been beaten by football players, which makes him kind of a woman in this conversation too and easily dismissable.) It is not the kind of post astute scholars like socratease and reddevil would write for the CHE at all, if they had been asked to do.  Which nobody asked them to do.

    And this is also why these anonymous commenters do the power-trippy thing of calling me by my first name, even though my last name (with Professor or Dr. appended, please) would be polite and respectful.

    • historiann

      You act as though this is your blog, and a feminist blog, and as though  you’re an expert in recent U.S. history, in particular in the history of women and gender.  As if! 

      Don’t you know that the problem of which you complain doesn’t exist, and that you’re not doing anything productive about it, and moreover there are much, much greater problems in the world than the fan-enabled violence of football?

      • tenured_radical

        Christ on a cracker.  I forgot. Tomorrow’s post will be on competitive knitting.

  • wclibrary

    Lots of young men in tight formation blindly obeying orders from old men to give up their bodies.  Sounds like WWI.  Even better: most of the young men are black.  What’s not to love?

  • gomart

    I’m a student here at Wesleyan, and a frequent reader of your blog. I have to say, I find the contempt you clearly have for football players, Greek brothers, and other so-called objectionable types very  offensive. And just to be clear, I’m a pretty liberal woman who has never attended a football game  and rarely socializes at frat houses.

    You claim in this article that it is exclusively football and basketball teams that encourage bad behavior because, well, no one ever hears about the crew or the cross country teams hazing or beating people up, right? Wrong. Ever think that articles about football “scandals” gain traction because journalists know that “FOOTBALL DISGRACE ROCKS SMALL TOWN” will get a lot more eyeballs and clicks from people precisely like yourself–judgmental naysayers who take a few isolated examples to condemn an entire sport and all the people who play, support and enjoy it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but do you really comb over local newspapers from around the country, publications that would presumably cover stories about crew or cross country team scandals? Probably not. The only reason this Wayne Hills story came to your attention is because of the cliched and juicy subject material.

    Furthermore, as a member of the Wesleyan women’s crew team, I can state with some confidence that members of the crew team are  no better than the football, basketball, or lacrosse teams. Drunken young men will be drunken young men everywhere. I’m not trying to excuse their behavior, merely attempting to correct your inaccurate assumption that bad behavior is exclusive to football and basketball.

    Finally, I’m most troubled by what I perceive to be the classist bias in your hatred of football and basketball. Let’s be real–football is certainly more associated with lower middle-class masculinity than say, crew or squash. I really have to wonder why football get the lion’s share of your ire, and I can’t help but think it is because of its inescapable, and inaccurate, anti-intellectual associations. This dynamic is abundantly evident on Wesleyan’s campus. I think it’s fair to say that the (perceived) dominant social attitude on campus is one of “enlightened”, upper middle class liberal sophistication. It’s a Wesleyan truism that everyone here hates football, no one goes to the games, DKEs are stupid etc. A very real social fragmentation exists  here between the “open-minded” urbanites who scoff at the athletes and the supposedly goonish and unintellectual frat boys who pummel each other for fun every Saturday afternoon. Of course, I’m exaggerating,  and most Wesleyan students fit into neither category. However, I truly do think this division exists–if not in reality, then at least in common perception. It is not hard to detect a truly loathsome class-infused prejudice at work. The educated and wealthy students who hail from Brooklyn and San Francisco, listen to Animal Collective and wear vintage clothing universally disdain the football players who usually come from a middle class suburb, wear clothes from “mall brands”, and dare to listen to bands not given the Pitchfork imprimatur. Importantly, this contempt is mostly reserved for sports like football and baseball. As a rower, I have never once  detected any subtle mockery from my peers, and I can’t help but think it is because of the upper class and privileged associations of my sport. Crew and cross country are elegant, controlled, easily enjoyed by rich old people. Football and its ilk are violent, aggressive and are often portrayed as the domain of poorer, less educated and “boorish” men. I cannot help but think that your seemingly instinctive hatred of football stems from a lingering class attitude that is simply disgusted of anything that reeks of the “common” American male. At the risk of sounding condescending (Sorry!), I would encourage you to really rethink your attitude about football players, especially those who attend Wesleyan. It’s this readers humble opinion that football players at Wesleyan ARE oppressed by the same class structures that you purport to condemn.

    • pianiste

      I’ll risk a generalization about football players:

      The thuggery problems seem to be more acute with high school, D-I, and NFL players than with college players in D-II or D-III.

      Why? In high school because there’s still all that boys-to-men stuff being worked out, i.e., adolescents having to prove themselves tougher than other adolescents, taking greater offense at any perceived slights to their hoped-for manhood. In D-I, because the players have been recruited from among high school players who have indeed proved themselves tougher than other high school players. (Yes, specific talents for the game of football are larger considerations, but that toughness is assumed to be there in all the recruits in the pool. And because so many of them have professional ambitions, and are Ray Lewis wannabes. In the NFL, it’s because so many of the Ray Lewis wannabes are, well, Ray Lewises.

      In D-III, the players aren’t on “scholarships,” don’t have professional ambitions, are closer to being regular students than are D-I players, and who are playing–the cliché is true here–for the love of the game. This probably describes football players at Wesleyan.

      Note: I’ve never heard of an off-campus DDO or assault charge being filed against a woman rower who got plastered in a bar, got PO’d at another woman over a guy they both hit on, and “took it outside.”

    • tenured_radical

      Gomart: “I find the contempt you clearly have for football players, Greek brothers, and other so-called objectionable types very offensive. And just to be clear, I’m a pretty liberal woman who has never attended a football game  and rarely socializes at frat houses.” 

      First of all, I don’t actually know that you are who you say you are, since you posted this anonymously.  You may or may not be liberal or a woman or a rower, but let me tell you:  you are a really angry person who should not be on the internet late at night.  I don’t think I am the contemptuous one here.  And what part of this post was about fraternities – at Wesleyan or anywhere else?

      If you are a Wesleyan student: sending an anonymous and abusive communication to a professor (or another student for that matter) who you could easily speak to in person about your concerns is a pretty sleazy and immature thing to do.  If this weren’t a public forum, where I theoretically open myself to abuse and willful misunderstanding from everyone who constitutes the digital public, it would be more than sleazy.  I would take you to the dean for a little chat about anger management and civil conversation.

      If you are a Wesleyan student: don’t take your class rage out on me, or think that you have revealed yourself as the apex of tolerance and enlightenment, since your comment is dripping with unfounded assumptions, over-generalizations, caricatures and gross untruths.  My post was not about Wesleyan, it was about an affluent suburban high school in New Jersey where I think the families of these football players would be very surprised to learn that they were “common,” “underprivileged” “less educated” “boorish” and “unfashionable.”  These are $hitty things to say about your fellow students:  even if you are disavowing these sentiments, you conjure them up as real by claiming that anonymous “other” people think them, when you don’t actually know that is true. You certainly know nothing about me if you think that I pre-judge any of my students’ moral or intellectual capacity because of their social or institutional affiiations. The students I have had who were fraternity lads or athletes would be surprised to hear that I am contemptuous of them, since it is my philosophy to approach each student as an individual, on his or her own merits.  The idea that one can’t be critical of either a sport or a social organization without being dismissed completely as full of hate and prejudice is absurd:  do you feel the same way about your classes?  That if a professor is critical of Kant s/he must “hate” and have contempt for philosophy as a whole?

      I actually enjoy watching footbal, and I admire all students who dedicate themselves to playing a sport well and balancing that commitment with academic achievement. I *am* critical of the cultural valorization and economic privileging of football as it supports romantic heroism among a community of adults who want to live out their dreams through young people. Scholastic football at all levels is supported at the expense of untold numbers of other students and student-athletes (including, often, football players themselves who suffer permanent physical and intellectual damage from so-called helmet sports.)  Within that frame, my post examines the tolerance for masculine violence — often against other males, but also against women — that becomes normal and necessary to the perpetuation of the rugged masculinities that support football as an industry within education. 

      You misread the post entirely, and merely used it as a launching pad for a set of prejudices that work to construct yourself as a person of superior sensibilities to all the ignorant dumba$$ Wesleyan profs and students who are not as ecumenical and enlightened as yourself.  If, as you suggest, football operates as a foil at Wesleyan so that the vast majority of students can enact their coolness (and I must say, I do not
      experience my students as the thoughtless snobs you describe) that is another post entirely.  The post *I* wrote is about the extracurricular violence that gets normalized through football, and it made no reference to anything that has — or has not — happened at Wesleyan.

      And by the way?  The vast majority of rowers and track and field athletes would be surprised to hear that they are elite, or are perceived, as elite, since they row for schools like Cal, Minnesota, Texas, MIchigan, Wisco, and other major publics where rowing is a terrific route to paying for a college education that their families cannot afford.  Most athletes don’t row or run for Wesleyan. This may be a shock to you, but you are drawing universal conclusions from a very small sample of athletes, as well as on your very narrow personal experience, which makes me think you *are* a Wesleyan student and not a random troll posing as one. Elite rowers at the college level are as likely to come from working and middle class backgrounds as anyone else, despite the fact that the rowing clubs that serve masters and organized youth rowing are often private.  Increasingly such clubs are reaching out to incorporate poor and working class youth into the sport, and in a place like Philadelphia, the public and parochial schools all have crew teams, track teams, tennis teams. And btw? All the prep schools have football teams too.

      • gomart

        I don’t want to get a lecture on civil discourse and respectful communication from someone who called a dissenting commenter an “idiot” on this very thread.

        Furthermore, I’m genuinely curious about what part of my post you found “abusive.”

        • tenured_radical

          This is Freebloggia, kiddo. We don’t care what you want. Give a lecture, get a lecture. Its a rough and tumble world out here, and students don’t get the free pass they get on campus. If in fact you are a student, either play like a grownup or go back to the ACB and play with the children. As for me calling someone else an idiot, look how you characterize me and you tell me why your comment was abusive (as well as pointless, since it only used my post as an opportunity to b!tch about your peer culture, something for which I am really not responsible.)

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037