2008 Woodie Awards
Training our athlete's morals
Reid Cranfill
Issue date: 9/7/07 Section: Forum
- Page 1 of 2 next >
It's become normal to have an instinctive mistrust of all athletes. When the evidence was absent, everyone thought the Duke boys were guilty as sin, or at the very least guilty of something. This latent suspicion is a real and present danger to the fabric of our community, and last year it nearly tore us apart.
Go down to Bryan Hall and you'll see an iron monument to the events of last spring, where a fight between Palestinian students and football players turned the campus against itself on national television. The most viable solution we've come up with so far has been to install bars on Bryan's doorways; give us another five years at this rate and we'll have to put a wall up between Ragan-Brown Field House and the rest of campus like the Israeli-Gaza border.
A recent student survey given at the cafeteria asked "What could Guilford do to prevent racism on campus?" A common answer was for either the football team or all athletes to attend an anti-racism conference or course of some kind.
What possible form this indoctrination would take is unanswered. Images come to mind of a weekend boot camp where the football and baseball teams are forced to finger-paint pictures of happy multi-racial people while chanting in unison that they will resist their unclean, steroid- and testosterone-driven urges.
That Guilford would consider such a condescending, hyperbolic response to a perceived character flaw might seem might seem unlikely to anyone but the male athletes. The first semester a Guilford male commits to being on a team, he's sent to a mandatory anti-rape seminar.
Of course, on a college campus where inhibitions run low and blood alcohol content runs high the seminar is a good idea, especially for out-of-state students who are unfamiliar with what defines consent under N.C. laws. These programs are now done as a part of CHAOS.
Unfortunately, the male athlete's seminar is notoriously patronizing and hostile. The fall 2006 program asserted that since it's estimated that one in five women are raped, one in five of the men in the room were likely rapists; the boys were also urged to be endlessly suspicious of other teammate's behavior and to imagine their mothers and sisters being violated. But even if it were done appropriately, is the extra seminar for athletes really necessary?
Go down to Bryan Hall and you'll see an iron monument to the events of last spring, where a fight between Palestinian students and football players turned the campus against itself on national television. The most viable solution we've come up with so far has been to install bars on Bryan's doorways; give us another five years at this rate and we'll have to put a wall up between Ragan-Brown Field House and the rest of campus like the Israeli-Gaza border.
A recent student survey given at the cafeteria asked "What could Guilford do to prevent racism on campus?" A common answer was for either the football team or all athletes to attend an anti-racism conference or course of some kind.
What possible form this indoctrination would take is unanswered. Images come to mind of a weekend boot camp where the football and baseball teams are forced to finger-paint pictures of happy multi-racial people while chanting in unison that they will resist their unclean, steroid- and testosterone-driven urges.
That Guilford would consider such a condescending, hyperbolic response to a perceived character flaw might seem might seem unlikely to anyone but the male athletes. The first semester a Guilford male commits to being on a team, he's sent to a mandatory anti-rape seminar.
Of course, on a college campus where inhibitions run low and blood alcohol content runs high the seminar is a good idea, especially for out-of-state students who are unfamiliar with what defines consent under N.C. laws. These programs are now done as a part of CHAOS.
Unfortunately, the male athlete's seminar is notoriously patronizing and hostile. The fall 2006 program asserted that since it's estimated that one in five women are raped, one in five of the men in the room were likely rapists; the boys were also urged to be endlessly suspicious of other teammate's behavior and to imagine their mothers and sisters being violated. But even if it were done appropriately, is the extra seminar for athletes really necessary?
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 5
bASEBALL DAD
posted 9/12/07 @ 9:35 PM EST
Thank you for your article of what I also perceive as unfair treatment of athletes at Guilford. Being the parent of an athlete at Guilford it gets very annoying hearing all the negative comments and perceptions heaped upon the athletes by other students. (Continued…)
Anonymous
posted 9/14/07 @ 12:42 PM EST
Because of one incident last year you make it out to be that all football players are racist. But not just that, you are also making it seem as if all athletes, especially males, are racist. (Continued…)
Melissa McKallagat
posted 9/18/07 @ 2:17 PM EST
Just because you are an athlete, does not make you more violent. Guilford needs to get a grip, there has always been a division and there always will be a division. (Continued…)
Post a Comment