next »

[Gary Conner/Consultant]

It will take a real miracle finish in order to stem the rising tide expressionism manifested by students cursing out everyone from opposing teams to parents of athletes to university officials, all done in the name of so called "school spirit."  I have witnessed incidents of the fans whose behavior has gone above and beyond what many would call cheering.

I posit that the fans, many of them, come to the events fueled by alcohol with the express purpose of taunting opposing teams and are so intent upon this behavior that the event, be it football, baseball, soccer or more likely, basketball, becomes secondary.

Each year for the past few years we have witnessed behaviors escalating dangerously toward (and often, past) destruction, and by doing so ruining what once was a nice place for people to gather and cheer on their sports collective in a civil manner.

Students who evidently can find no other outlet for expression suddenly have the eyes of the media upon them and in an instant become cause celebre's for the ACLU.  18-24 year olds who are going through a period of transition from child to adult are thrust into a forum where they can at once be both, comfortably remaining the unrepentant child while gaining at least some approval from the adult world.

What to do to roll the tide back a bit; the same strategy used for unruly children everywhere: set strict but fair standards, stick to them and make people suffer the consequences of their actions, despite the unpopular opinions of some administrators who look at the students and see only dollar signs.  I say to those administrators, "Look harder, That isn't dollar signs you see.  That is the future."

[%sig%]

[Susan Harris-Clive, U. of Okla]

It has never ceased to amaze me how, when they can remain anonymous, people like "yay" can be so mean-spirited.  Yay's remarks are vile, emotional, sardonic and contribute nothing to the discussion at hand.  Professor Mfume is right on the money when she says personal attacks are the tools of the left when they have no viable arguments.  How pathetic some people can be.

As far as dealing with these foul-mouthed students, I think the university is within THEIR rights to escourt these "fans" out of the building.  These students may have a first amendment right to say what they want, but that doesn't mean other people have to forced to listen to them.  A college basketball game is where I should be able to bring my daughter without having to cover her ears because of foul language.

These students will learn a hard lesson once they leave college.   Too bad they hadn't already had the lecture...

[Kahalilah Coleman/ECU]

Chants and criticism are part of the game.  This is a way to distract the other team and to boost the home team.  I agree that some of the chants may be degrading, but it would be really hard to control them.  As mentioned by someone else, many of the coaches also use four letter words.  I'm not sure about everyone else, but I can read lips during the close up shots.  It would be really hard for a coach that uses four letter words to ask the crowd to watch their mouth.  The spectators are so engulfed in the experience and probably feel as if they are participants.

[Rod]

It would be nice to be able to say, "here is the solution, follow it and live free!" However, that ain't (can I say ain't among educated folk?) happening.

In my "ever so unhumble" opinion, dealing with foul-mouthed fans requires an approach much broader than is suggested by focusing the debate on college athletics. The problem of foul language is a societal issue - especially when I try to visit the local Pizza Hut with my toddlers and the next table is wallowing in verbal filth.

People must be taught that the contemptible verbiage currently in vogue is not acceptable for any public venue. Such a message will be difficult to propogate, given the overflowing effluence emerging from popular entertainment, which is not limited to simple-minded action flicks. Does anyone remember Babs Striesand doing a movie and playing a college educator who closed off a lecture by declaring the reason people fell in love is because "it feels so f***ing great." Such a declaration is crass, vulgar, and offensive. Just like similiar expressions used in athletic contests are crass, vulgar, and offensive.

The fact that something is difficult is not license to surrender the field, to use a metaphor applicable to the current topic. Perhaps it means a return to some of the values held in previous generations regarding what constitutes polite conversation.

[Marlon Bynum/ECU]

I think that the best way to deal with foul-mouthed fans is to have the coaches be more involved with taming these fans. If mandates are made by administrators this could serve to make the problem worse because it could be seen as a "challenge" to expressive fans. Duke University presents a good example of how a coach play a major role in dealing with this issue.

[Shannel, ECU]

I just want to say, "what happened to sports?" Sports really used to be about the competition and who was the best, but now as the nation gets more violent and dysfunctional, everything good becomes tainted with nasty words, attitudes and violence. Even kids can't play a sport for  fun without parents intruding and causing brawls all over little league sports. Unfortunately, I don't think that sports can ever go back just being competition, but I can't help but have hope.

[%sig%]

[David Hann, IRB Admin. KU]

I think it is time to bring education right into the stands and develop a latin-language based cheering squad at all colleges, for all sports.  Students would be yelling, "Carpe Glomus!" (Seize the ball), or "Uventutum Defense!"  (Teach me defense), etc.  My Latin is a little rusty now, but you get the picture.  The latin squads may not end boorish behavior, but they could raise the tone a little.  And, as far as I know, Latin was not developed by any left-wing conspirators, so Ms. Molly shoud be happy.

[HLaneECU]

I was very interested in your article "Crying Foul over Fan's Boorish Behavior".  Having watched the entire NCAA tournament coverage, resplendent with close-ups of the coaches and re-plays of the coaches in slow motion, I might suggest that the house cleaning begin in a place that the University has the most influence. The coaching staff. A certain coaches mouth was frequently  shown mouthing the words B---S---, and G--D---It when he took exception to some questionable referee calls.

While this one prominent individual is most certainly not the only coach to use profanity on the court, his stellar coaching career and the resulting expansive television coverage, may allow him to excel once more.  He may have the highest standing in the statistic of "most foul-language exposure" in the ACC if not the NCAA. You may judge for yourself which coach or coaches this may refer to.

The television audience is not regulary subjected to the fans' "Boorish Behavior" to the degree that we are subjected to a small selection of the coaches.

[%sig%]

[Nick Leisey/ECU]

     First and foremost, fans and their behaviors are an essential part of the athletic experience. Why are these events being held? For many reasons, but for the interest of the spectators is one of the major ones.
     I do not disagree with the notion that attacking athletes on a personal level has no place in sport. These athletes are performing in front of crowds that most of us have never had the opportunity to enjoy. Do we as spectators reserve the right to emotionally attack these players based on the fact that we have bought a ticket or payed tuition?
     No person, whether athlete or non-athlete, should have to experience their personal lives thrown in their face or have their emotional stability tested. Vulgar fans, in my mind, have no place in sport besides their recliner. If you are a spectator in a public forum there should be a set unwritten rules of behavior that should be followed. Who should be the one to "create" and implement these rules is the real issue at hand.

[j spindler]

Sport and its spectators have jeered and chanted for years at athletic events but i feel that it has gone too far in some sport arenas.  
Most athletic events are hugely populated with college-age spectators.  But more and more these events are becoming family oriented which means that all of the jeering and chanting affects the fan experience of these families.  
I don't deny that there is a level of fan involvement that is almost required for a good time, but i do feel that these chants and offensive comments need to be toned down a bit in order to provide a good atmosphere for all population of fans.

[Travis Snider/ECU]

The college basketball experience needs to have the fan chants involved.  Its one of the things that distinguishes it from other sports and makes us love it so.  As for the language, its a censorship issue.  Its our parents' generation censoring our speech just like their parents did to them.  At what point in time is our society going to come to realization that most people curse in their private lives.  So why is it so wrong to curse in public?  Why is it ok to have spoken curse words on HBO, but not MTV?  If you don't like it, change the channel, or don't go to the game.  College basketball games exists a representation of the students at the institutions, they should be free to chant as they like.  The people who are creating an the uproar against this behavior are a small minority, and its time that we stop letting small minorities change everything in life to suit them.

[Bystander]

Molly's diagnosis was not entirely off-center, but she failed to make the most important point.  Foul-mouthed fans are part of the coarsening of our culture.  I cannot take my wife or our nieces anywhere without hearing foul language and seeing tee shirts with ultra-vulgar expressions or pictures on them.  Why do we tolerate this in our lives?  Because some people believe that 'free speech' is a higher value than courtesy or civility.  However, this particular mentality coexists very nicely with the attitude that anything that might in any way offend a political correctness-protected group should result in harsh penalties.  Offending everyone, however, is fine.

One reason that colleges fail to take decisive action in these and other comparable situations is that they fear being sued by the offending students' lawyers.  I know of a university whose board of directors refused to allow the administration to expel a student who had purposely and maliciously set a dormitory on fire.

While all generalizations are iffy, it is hard to deny that the most aggressive defenders of what many consider offensive speech have been on the left.  Mario Savio led the movement, after all, so Molly's not far off the mark.  The trial lawyers lobby is a key part of the democrat base and their funding (along with Hollywood's) quickly brings people like Tipper Gore to their political senses when they are honestly inclined to object to offensive lyrics, images, or narratives.  I don't believe that it's prissy or repressed to object to women routinely being called whores.  Nor is it too phallologocentric to be troubled by the fact that the same individuals who are happy to support art or 'art' that calls women whores get angry and flustered if women are called ladies (or, God forbid, girls).

My question is, when is Molly going to be asked to write a regular column for the Chronicle in the place of all of those dreadful, embarrassing personal accounts that bring new meaning to the notion of trivial narcissism?

[Johnnie Eastwood-ECU]

I agree with Rod and Shannel in that the current issue stems from societal acceptance of this form of behavior.  Sport as a whole is (or probably was) widely believed to build character and instill values in participants that were viewed as important to “society”.  If values are determinants of behavior, what does the boorish behavior tell us about the unruly fans?  

Are unruly fans born to behave in an unruly fashion or is their behavior learned because of experiences?  I have been taught/socialized to act in a certain manner while in school, church, and while involved in sport.  My behavior in a sport setting would not be socially acceptable in other activities.  I seriously doubt if the boorish fan is also the boorish student or the boorish child sitting at grandma’s table for thanksgiving dinner.  Unruly behavior as a student or grandchild would be met with disapproval, reprimands, and quite possibly punishment.

I think that university administrators have the responsibility of outlining acceptable conduct for fans (not just students) attending university sporting events.  My observations of American society lead me to think that people are looking for restrictions rather than permissions.  If there isn’t a rule against it then it’s OK.  

A different angle of approach leads me to believe that there is nothing that can be done about this.  This could be a part of the evolution of sport and sport as entertainment.  If society really wants this to change then it will.  Without collective disapproval, this type of behavior is likely to continue and worsen.

[%sig%]

[Duffy/ECU]

Student spectators "cheering, jeering, and hurling four-letter words" is hardly new to the sport environment.  University officials are a little behind in their efforts to clean up the acts and language of their students.  They need not begin forming rules/regulations on behavior at games, but need to have coaches and athletes themselves interact with these student fans.  What kind of atmosphere does the coach want representing his university on national television?  How much do these fans really affect/motivate the players?  If the students know what the team wants and needs, universities will be more likely to get the behavior they desire.

[%sig%]

[Yay]

"It has never ceased to amaze me how, when they can remain anonymous, people like "yay" can be so mean-spirited. Yay's remarks are vile, emotional, sardonic and contribute nothing to the discussion at hand. Professor Mfume is right on the money when she says personal attacks are the tools of the left when they have no viable arguments. How pathetic some people can be."

Now, now. That's not very nice of you, Susan Harris-Clive of U of Okkklahoma. You know, your right wing reactionary conservative colleagues might accuse you of an ad hominem attack, except that you've coddled up to Molly and, right along with her empty and specious "logic" about left wing radicals being responsible for the foul-mouthed b-ball fans, allayed your own vile, emotiional, sardonic, dare I say, pathetic thesis.

Let's see...if the radical left-wingers are responsible--in fact, educated and/or gave birth to--ALL the foul-mouthed college sports fans today, then, hmmmmm, who can we say is responsible for educating/rearing those left wing radicals of the sixties? Let's follow Molly's and Susan Harris-Clive's, from U of Okkklahoma, line of reasoning, and please, PLEASE, no resorting to ad homineminem-type stuff, nome sane?

Them left-wingers, if they were all 20-21 yrs. old in the sixties, were parented and educated by, by...well, by The Greatest Generation of Our Time, according to Tommy Brokaw! How can this be, Molly, Susan Harris-Clive, from U of Okkklahoma? How can this be? "How stupid," Molly might refute, as she's done in her earlier post with sharp analytical acumen. "How pathetic some people can be," agrees Susan Harris-Clive, from U of Okkklahoma, thereby foreclosing, they think, any attempt at counterpoint (DAMN, they're a sharp couple--oops, sorry about that). Well, then, who's responsible for the Greatest Generation of Our Time raising and sending off to college a bunch of left wing radicals to screw everything up? Omigod, it must have been those flappers from the Jazz Age! I knew it! Oh Molly, Susan Harris-Clive, from U of Okkklahoma, you...you were right all along. Jay and Daisy are to blame for the downfall of the mannerisms of contemporary college sports fans! And who was Jay but an...an...an assimilated IMMIGRANT! And Daisy, that floozy. Leaving a good White American man for the likes of that simpering show-off. Good thing ol' Tom got her back in line.

Yep, Susan Harris-Clive, from Uof Okkklahoma, you hit it on the head: "Professor Mfume is right on the money when she says personal attacks are the tools of the left when they have no viable arguments." Why, I really had no viable argument to stand on, only attempting to show the gulf of blindness in Molly's knee-jerk response, and perhaps alluding to the possibility that maybe the situation is just a tad more complicated than Molly and you, Susan Harris-Clive, from U of Okkklahoma, suspect. But no! Using Molly's own line of reasoning, we see that the left wing radicals really are, or, that is....were really there in the sixties..., that is, questioned authority. Or, no...dropped acid and played marathon 3x3  b-ball, then got Ph.D.s and filled all the jobs at good colleges, and raised their kids to talk trash after buying them season tickets to...well, I mean...er, okay--told their kids that it's okay to go to b-ball games and insult the opposing players because "it's just good to express your self, sweetheart. And after all, it's all about engaging the DISCOURSE." But then... gosh. Well, anyhoo...I never claimed to be the sharpshootin' thinkers that Molly and Susan Harris-Clive, from U of Okkklalhoma are. I mean, durned if I can boil things down to SUCH a simplistic explanation: Blame the left; invent the premises. Tod Gitlin oughta be hangin' his head in shame.