As if to validate last week’s article about the need to address sexual assault and discrimination on college campuses, practically every media outlet that covers sports, as well as mainstream media from U.S. News and World Report to network news organizations, are reporting on an almost unprecedented event in college athletics. All sixteen head coaches of varsity sports at the University of Tennessee held a joint press conference to address the allegations in the lawsuit filed under Title IX against the University, as well as some other allegations that have arisen in the interim. According to reports, the coaches called the press conference themselves, without any involvement of the school’s administration or athletic department.
Even though the event itself is unusual, nothing earth-shattering emerged. As would be expected, the coaches stressed how happy they are with the Vols’ culture, using such terms as “wonderful,” “the best it’s ever been,” and that allegations of unfair treatment of females at the university are “totally untrue” and “totally false”. And all of those terms came from female coaches. Men’s basketball coach Rick Barnes said that he felt it necessary to tell you “all the good side” of the university.
But doesn’t this press conference, rather than offering some solutions to the problems that undoubtedly occur at Tennessee and at other campuses across the country, just perpetuate the “head in the sand” attitude of those who should be leading the young people who are the victims and accused in these situations?
If a college linebacker tackled opponents the way that some colleges are tackling the sexual assault and discrimination issues on campus, that player would likely be on the bench – or even off the team. Athletes are expected to perform up to standards set by administrators, coaches and alumni. But in a vicious cycle, those expectations are often lowered for the benefit of the institution when the athletes’ behavior would harm the team’s performance on the field or the institution’s reputation off the field.
Likely in response to the high-profile Jameis Winston incident, an FSU fan site called “Chop Chat” reports that freshman athletes will now be required to take a non-credit course on “character building.” Other schools, including Alabama, Texas and Georgia, have already launched similar programs. But the article speculates that the curriculum will address issues such as how to keep a negative action out of the spotlight rather than how to change negative behavior. Telling teenagers when to stay off social media is easier than changing their personality traits and “character.”
The article opines that most of these athletes formed character traits early in life as a response to the environment in which they were raised. Many athletes who come from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds have likely been more concerned with staying alive or out of jail as opposed to character-building exercises. And it isn’t just the economically disadvantaged athletes – Johnny Manziel’s family is reportedly worth millions, but apparently having everything in Maslow’s pyramid doesn’t necessarily result in self-actualization. The piece also notes that when some athletes have to be driven to their classes for credit to make them attend, how seriously will they take a non-credit class that in many cases will seem to contradict the BMOC status they have as soon as they leave that classroom?
And it isn’t just the athletic departments that are complicit in protecting its stars. As noted in Part One, the administration’s relationship with campus police can be critical in how these accusations are handled. An article in Diverse: Issues in Higher Education examines these issues in-depth, also citing the other complication of state and federal laws on issues such Title IX and the Violence Against Women Act. In the first place, these types of incidents are underreported on college campuses, whether to campus police, other university authorities or even local law enforcement. Some states are proposing mandatory reporting of sexual assaults, but how can that be enforced? And, doesn’t an issue of underreporting beg the question of why such assaults on college campuses aren’t reported in the first place?
As mentioned in the previous article, accusers such as the student involved in the Jameis Winston incident get death threats and are dragged through the mud in the media. But maybe even worse, some victims fail to report an assault out of fear for what could happen to others. An egregious example is detailed in the lawsuit just filed against UT.
One of the incidents alleged in the complaint involves the sexual assault of a female at a football team party on campus. One football player on the scene came to her rescue, taking her to a hospital and supporting her intent to report the incident. Another plaintiff in the case alleges that she saw several players physically attack the player who helped the victim and the woman who had been helped alleges that she also saw the player assaulted in a separate incident. A report in the Washington Post cites the Knoxville News Sentinel quotes a player as saying that the team “had a ‘hit’ out” on the player and that “people got shot” [where he came from] for betraying trust.
Apparently, the University of Tennessee expects its athletes to maintain that vow of silence. Over the last week, as practically everyone who knows anything about sports has been discussing the UT lawsuit and Peyton Manning’s peripheral involvement in it (as reported in Part One of this article), the members of the Lady Vols’ basketball team (which is having its own problems on the court) were barred from discussing issues surrounding the lawsuit, as well as whether they feel safe on the UT campus. That seems ludicrous in light of the fact that their coach Holly Warlick said that she tells players not to go out by themselves at night.
Warlick also said that she tries to train her players on life skills and to make sure they get a degree in addition to getting better on the court. “That’s our job – get them mature and go out in the world and be ready for it,” she said. Perhaps coaches of other teams should adopt that approach instead of expecting mots, if not all, of each athlete’s attention to be on perfecting athletic skills.
Unfortunately, Warlick’s philosophy may be seen as detrimental to on-the-court success. As the successor to the legendary Pat Summit, Warlick has not managed to achieve the same level of success (but who has? Summit won 1098 games, more than any other man or woman who has coached the sport on a collegiate level). But the Lady Vols just fell out of the AP Top 25 after 565 consecutive weeks in the poll. So Warlick’s philosophy may soon be visited on another team outside of Knoxville.
The other big news on the topic came not from the NCAA but from the NFL which, in its own way, has been trying to create a paradigm shift. The League announced that college athletes who have been convicted of domestic violence, sexual assault or weapons charges will be barred from attending the annual scouting combine. On its face, this seems like a bold move that could motivate the behavior of young men looking to earn millions in the pros. But the college investigations and machinations that protect its athletes, in another vicious cycle, may prevent convictions on these charges. Or even prevent the charges. And even those who have been convicted can still enter the draft and have the opportunity to play in the NFL with all of the resulting glory and benefits.
The editorial about the NFL’s actions compares college athletic programs to the Mafia: keep infractions in “The Family” with a code of silence and solidarity. While that may be a stretch, it is an analogy that makes sense when a team takes out a “hit” on a player who tries to protect a victim of an assault by athletes instead of his fellow players.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.