Trees and football

I was forced to skip my morning run today. At about 5:30AM, a tree came crashing into the side of our townhouse, shattering the window in the livingroom and sending us flying out of bed. (Our first thought, naturally, was for our little chinchilla.) Matilde was fine, but the window wasn't. The rest of the morning, until it was time to leave for school, was spent dealing with calling around to find tree trimmers and glass repair people. All will be well.

My mother had a happy visit, and we had lots of opportunity to talk politics and family news.

I've been thinking about football today. My beloved California Golden Bears fell just short in their game against USC on Saturday. Though Cal dominated the game statistically, 'SC won where it counts -- on the scoreboard. I don't place much stock in moral victories, though I am proud of my alma mater and excited about our prospects for the remainder of the year.

It's impossible to be simultaneously a gender studies professor and a football fan without periodically reflecting on this most violent and American of games. As a child, I was fond of watching pro football; I only became a real fan of the college game after going off to Berkeley in 1985. My freshman year, I had a student pass to all the home games, and went and cheered with wild enthusiasm.

Cal's 1986 season coincided with my sudden and ardent interest in women's studies. For the first time, I encountered folks who had serious, principled objections to this brutal game I loved so much. I began to ask questions about the colossal expense of college football programs, about the poor academic record of many of our recruits, and most importantly, about the link between football and violence against women.

An on-campus incident at the start of the academic year affected me deeply. After the first home game of the '86 campaign, four members of the football team were charged with raping a female student in a dorm room. (She had apparently consented to sex with one of them, and then he invited in his friends.) The incident was the talk of the campus. There was outrage when the coach refused to suspend the players unless they were charged criminally, which they never were. (The district attorney found insufficient evidence -- 1986 was apparently "pre-DNA" for all practical purposes.) As a "new feminist", I saw the case through new lenses; I was among those who marched and demanded that the four (three defensive players and a running back) be suspended immediately. I had become convinced that college football programs fostered a sense of entitlement among athletes, a sense that included the right of unrestricted access to young women's bodies. Though I was angry at the individual players (one of whom I had met briefly my frosh year), I also believed strongly that 18 and 19 year-old men who were recruited for their aggression and size and taught daily to "hit hard" were not entirely to blame when they had difficulty distinguishing defenseless human beings from their on-field opponents. Upshot? Hugo did not go to any games during the dismal 1986 football season until the "Big Game" with Stanford. Cal upset the overwhelmingly favored Cardinal, 17-11. My delight at having been present for the thrilling win brought to an end my boycott of the game.

My doubts about football remained. When I came to grad school at UCLA, I found that many grad students made extra money by serving as athletic department tutors. The pay was excellent: $15-20 an hour, which was outstanding compensation in 1991. In some cases, it was more than what we were making as teaching assistants! I spent two quarters during the early 1990s working for the UCLA athletic department. I had friends who worked for the department for much, much longer.

One term, I was assigned one specific task: to help UCLA's dimwitted placekicker pass a famously easy course. I won't name the kicker, though anyone who has access to old Bruin media guides could probably find out who the fellow was. The course was Introduction to Russian Culture, taught by a Professor Vroon. I was paid for the following services: three days a week (the class was MWF), I met "my kicker" outside the lecture hall before the class and then sat with him during the lecture. Though he was to be encouraged to take notes, I took notes as well. We met weekly to review the notes and prepare for tests. He had no interest in school, but it had been impressed upon him that if he did not earn at least a "C", he would not be kicking the following season (which was to be his last year). I spent countless hours with him. He was bored by school, bored by the class, bored by me. I wanted him to pass very badly, largely because I knew I would get rehired and get still more money if I could prove to the athletic department that I could "get the job done."

My kicker passed the class. I made him write the first draft of his term paper by himself, and then I "cleaned up" all the grammar and made him the gift of a thesis. I was never told directly to write papers for him. Publicly, the athletic department insisted that the grad students like me were just "tutors", and all the real work was done by the players themselves. That may well have been true for some. But my placekicker would not have survived Professor Vroon's course had it not been for my "extra help". And I can assure you that privately, the director of the athletic tutoring program had made it clear to me that I was to do what was necessary to get that young man a C. I did as I was asked, and was paid handsomely. I made over $1200 for that passing grade, and as a poor grad student, was grateful for the opportunity. Had I not been given the editorship of UCLA's journal for Medieval and Renaissance Studies the following year, I might well have continued to work for the athletic program.

To be fair, I also met some football players at Cal and UCLA who were bright, hard-working, and motivated. Some of these knew they would never make a living at pro football, and were grateful for the chance to get a free university education. Some did quite well. But in my limited experience, they were the exception rather than the rule. As a teaching assistant at UCLA, I had athletes from other programs in my classes, including a whole bevy of softball players. I found that there were no discernible differences between non-football playing athletes and other students (though I heard anecdotally that the men's basketball team had some real academic duds). The women athletes in particular often did better than their non-athlete fellow female students. The problem seemed to lie primarily in the football program. (Yes, there was and is a racial dimension to all of this, one that I am uncomfortable addressing.)

I still love college football. I have no particular love for UCLA, though they paid me well. My love is for Cal, even as I suspect that conditions in Cal's "tutoring program" are probably not all that different than at UCLA. I question the tremendous expense, and above all, I am troubled by the apparent link between football and violence against women.

But for now, at least, I'm still cheering. Go Bears!

Comments

[John]

I had (have, indeed) a best mate once who was awful at English. He was an intelligent chap, but he hated English. He needed help. So I got on his back; I drilled him on his Shakespeare quotes, I marked his practice essays and rewrote them the right way, I gave him homework, I checked his assignments and made suggestions. He got a C+, and I helped him get it. If it weren't for me, he might not, no would not, have passed. How is that different? Is that unethical? I wasn't paid, obviously, but I don't see too much difference. The teacher and I even had a tacit understanding; we worked together to make sure he passed. You didn't sit the exam for him, you just helped him to prep for it. Is that a problem? I've never seen it as one, and I help many people the same way, albeit for free.

[Col Steve]

Hugo:
Sorry to read about your tree incident and relieved to read things will be will.

Someone once said something to the effect that football is like politics - moments of violence punctuated by frequent committee meetings.

Football is something of a conundrum in the (college) landscape. You're troubled by the expense, but for a great majority of institutions, it (along with perhaps basketball) is also the machine that generates the revenue to fund many other sports - (notwithstanding the impact of Title IX to ensure those revenues flow to other athletic teams).

Football (and basketball) has allowed a percentage, albeit small, of young people (skewed to minorities) to move quickly into the upper income levels - along with their predominantly white coaches. It has also allowed a larger percentage to obtain a college education - and as you note, some take more advantage of that opportunity than others. On the flip side, there is also a percentage of athletes allowed to fall back into society without much of a safety net when they can no longer contribute to the institution.

And while I believe "daily hitting" may not play as large a role as you suggest (not all players are in hitting positions), the mixture of steriods, drinking, special living arrangements, and a staff/administration that enables special treatment does create a higher risk environment for young men. Perhaps teams should have someone like Tim Frisby on their squads.

http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=6403

And of course, Cal football will always have the 1982 Cal-Stanford finish.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax (Stanford, 1982)]

Ouch! Don't remind me of that game.

[Hugo]

Yes, and we not only have the '82 finish, we also have two straight wins over Stanford...

John, I think I went a bit farther than you did -- I created a thesis for my guy. Still, your point is well-taken.

Col Steve -- you've inspired me to another post.

[blackkoffeeblues]

I went to an inner city high school in Los Angeles were I was weeded out early and put through my years of education shrouded within the GATE program (gifted kids). While in high school, I tutored students not in the program. Through this process, I was exposed to something that I wasn’t supposed to know…inner city high schools count on a 50% drop out rate, they do not offer college prep to every student, they do not offer upward bound school wide, they do not even have college flyers in all of the counselors offices. They discourage students from trying for things that have already been deemed out of their reach by educators.

Frustrated with the lack of knowledge of some of my pupils, I wrote papers for them and took their take home tests, which interestingly enough were the only kind that the football players were given…hmmmm. I didn’t realize at the time, that they weren’t stupid; they simply were not being offered the education that I was. Their books were from the 1960s and I went to high school in the 1980s. They were not given any kind of learning materials. Their teachers didn’t bother to learn their names. All their classes began with Introductory or Survey of.

I remember one football player in particular, his name was David. Very big guy, really good at Ceramics and Auto Shop. He worked at Dodger Stadium, so by the time he got home from working games, he was exhausted. He lived in “project” housing with a lot of other family members. He would sleep through our tutoring sessions. In the quiet, AC-ed library, it was probably the best sleep he’d get all week. At the time, I thought that I was doing him a favor. He washed out of a local University football program and returned to work at Dodger Stadium where he works to this day.

He was 19 years old when he started college; he certainly looked and sounded like an adult, capable of making decisions about his education. But in reality, that was like asking a blind man what color suit he would like to wear to dinner. He had no idea what he was doing with his life by making those early choices about his education. That’s just one of my experiences and I’ve bogarted your blog long enough. But I don’t think that this is about tutoring, I think there are a lot of very important issues hidden within this problem, and it is a problem.

[Hugo]

Thanks for a good post. But the economic explanations only go so far -- black girls are using the same textbooks, and in the same conditions -- but doing much, much better work.

[blackkoffeeblues]

Point taken. I'm not saying that economics are the only reason...far from it, but it is certainly one of many factors.

Girls live with very different obstacles. Many of those obstacles are the very things that make us stronger. We have to learn how to care for family, juggle work, school and play, protect ourselves against predators, maintain our blossoming femininity and learn how to assert ourselves all at the same time. Our biggest obstacles can come from within our own families whose greatest fear may be that we will succeed and leave them behind.

Also…I mentioned the take home exams for football players…girls’ soccer, cross country and track/field…I never had a take home exam and because of scheduling most schools in my district required girls to be at school an hour early in order to have the field/gym/weight room because the boys’ sports always got them for the last period. So the female athletes had to be at school at between 6 and 7am and take 6 classes with a C average to remain eligible to play sports, whereas boys didn’t have to be at school until 8am and only took 5 courses being that PE was their 6th class.