Nov 11, 2011 18:31
And once again I am reminded why one of my non-negotiable conditions for choosing a university to attend was that it must have no football team. (Nor fraternity houses.)
That was THIRTY YEARS AGO, kids. Does this look like social progress to you?
Leave a comment
Comments 4
I agree with you. But, thank God, some other Penn State students had a more evolved response.
I've been reading the huge (600+ comments) discussion on author John Scalzi's blog (where I got that link), and although there have been some rage-inducing remarks from people who clearly identify much more closely with older guys with established reputations than with impoverished young boys, there have also been a number of good, heartfelt responses in support of doing the right thing at the right time, regardless of team loyalty or personal cost.
Reply
Reply
Reply
When I was 17 or so and considering universities, I thought the biggest problems with college football were that players often got waved through their courses, that team tribalism often led to harassing or assaulting women, and that star players learned mostly that everyone would give them a pass no matter what they did, as long as they kept winning games. So I chose a place that didn't have that hot-house sports culture.
(No, they smoked pot and had unprotected sex instead. It was the early 1980s -- what are you gonna do?)
Now I've got young sons. I've done my best to make sure they don't grow up with warped values, and I'm pretty sure they'd tell me immediately if anyone behaved inappropriately with them. But I am angry -- and frightened -- on all KINDS of levels.
Reply
Leave a comment