Crime and Punishment

After reading the articles of all the links included in this blog, I realized that the issue of crime in sport is a lot more complicated than I thought. Each of the links seemed to focus on something different: how the NFL deals with crimes and how the punishment wasn’t harsh enough, how the public should respect the privacy of women and how the Janay Rice video shouldn’t have been publicized, and how the public reacts more harshly towards crimes committed by black athletes than white athletes. There’s so many factors involved in the discussion of Ray Rice’s particular incident and how it is talked about in media.

I think Ray Rice’s incident is reflective of broader trends in US sport, but I think it received a great amount of attention than previous cases of domestic violence. According to the New York Times, domestic violence is actually the most common reason for arrest among NFL athletes, even though the rate of committing this crime is less than the national average (Irwin, 2014). Despite it being lower than the national average, NFL players, as famous athletes that we watch on tv and look up to, should be held to a higher standard anyway. Other NFL players that have been convicted of murder or assault are Josh Brent, and Dwayne Goodrich, and these are only the big name ones that received long periods of probation. As one of authors of the link mentioned, there was visual and graphic evidence of Ray Rice’s crime, and his ethnicity might have had something to do with the heightened discussion of his actions. Also, the NFL’s punishment that many believe wasn’t harsh enough brought the issue even more attention, and it brought negative attention to the NFL as an industry as well.

Right now, it seems like there is media that both downplays Ray Rice’s actions as well as media that criticizes his actions. (I don’t know if it’s because the media that I’m exposed to has changed since the start of taking this class). For the most part though, I think both the NFL and media have downplayed the situation and have made it seem like it is not a big deal for good NFL players to be committing these kinds of crimes. Through this, the media reinforces that it is acceptable for these types of actions to be done if the offender is an athlete or someone of value to the NFL industry. It is promoting the notion that if you are talented in the way of what society values (you are good at making touchdowns or throwing the football), then you won’t get punished as harshly for committing domestic violence offenses.

These trends in criminal activity that are broadcasted about more often than these crimes committed by “regular” people (non-athletes) might be a result of the common nature of the background of these athletes. One of the links had an article that lightly touched on this, and it discussed how an upbringing of athletic success is coupled with a sense of entitlement, and the notion that one matters more than others and is valued more because of one’s athletic ability.

IRWIN, N. (2014, September 13). The Numbers Game. New York Times. p. D1.C

Is Sport a safe space for LGBT athletes?

According to Nation's author Sherry Wolf, sport culture does not just reflect the sexual biases of the time, but it also helps to shape those sexual biases. I think the "Jedi" side of sports and how it should be, is fair and inclusive. However, as of now, sports doesn't seem to be a space space for LGBT athletes. This might be the masculine nature of sport itself (relating to our discussion regarding gender). An example of sport's masculine emphasis is when players are told they should not "throw like a girl" or that they should "man up." At the time Wolf wrote her article "America's Deepest Closet" in 2011, it was noted that "not a single player in the NFL, NHL, NBA, or MLB" had declared himself to be LGBT, even though survey data indicated that a "degree of acceptance" existed in those leagues toward LGBT athletes (Wolf, 2011).

Now in 2014, Jason Collins and other professional athletes have come out and have discussed their sexual orientation publicly. The fact that it has taken so long just for one person to feel comfortable to come out shows that sports may not be as accepting and "safe" as it should be. Collins does discuss how he is blessed with family and friends that not only accept but also support his homosexuality, However, he also discusses things that kept him from coming out sooner, like being "loyal to the team" (Collins, 2013).  He did not want it to be a distraction to himself or the team. Some other barriers that may exist are the possible skewed perceptions that people around an LGBT athlete may have. For example, Collins mentions how he might have to be more "physical to prove that being gay doesn't make you soft." (However, based on his play in the NBA he clearly proves that he can compete just as aggressively as all the other heterosexual players out there.)

Based on our discussions that we have already had in class, it seems like many issues we discuss (race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic biases) are a result from differences between people, which then exist in a hierarchy that separates the different characteristics of people. Regarding LGBT athletes, it seems like sports that are "safer" for them to play or are more "accepting" are sports like dance, figure skating, cross country/track, badminton, volleyball, and tennis. Many of these sports share characteristics with sports that the class discussion decided were what society deemed "good" sports for women to play. This shows that being LGBT seems to equate to being less manly or more feminine. More "feminine" sports are typically individual or judged subjectively (gymnastics, dance, etc.). This is obviously not true, because LGBT athletes can be just as good at any sport as a "normal" heterosexual athlete. Judging someone's athletic ability by their sexual orientation is just as ridiculous as judging someone's athletic ability by their skin color.

I've never been afraid of or mean to the LGBT community, but I have to admit that before I came to college I was as aware of the issues that the community faced. It was not until after I became a student advisor that I learned that certain things we say or phrases we throw around are microaggressions that can be unsupportive towards the LGBT community (eg. calling someone a fag, not providing a unisex bathroom at events, etc.) I think being educated as part of my job forced me to think about what I say and be conscious of possible alternatives to use in my daily language (eg. unisex pronouns like "ze"). It is not guaranteed, but personally it helped when I was educated by the LGBT community.

Collins, Jason. (2013). Why NBA Center Jason Collins is Coming Out Now. Sports Illustrated.

Updated 2014. http://www.si.com/more-sports/2013/04/29/jason-collins-gay-nba-player

Wolf, S. (2011). America's Deepest Closet. Nation, 293(7/8), 29-31.

Hoop Dreams: Is sport a viable passport out of poverty?

Overall, I enjoyed the documentary very much, and I found it interesting that although William was the one who was favored to succeed from the start, Arthur ended up getting closer to being a state champion than William did. I felt like Hoop Dreams captured a lot of the culture in West Garfield as well as St. Joseph’s. I don’t know how natural the behaviors on film were, but the presentations of the socioeconomic status of the two environments were very different. Not only was West Garfield a mostly black neighborhood, but it reflected a low socioeconomic status. The scene that stood out to me the most was the when the Arthur and Shannon were in summer school together for a remedial English class. The class was for freshmen, sophomores, AND juniors because there weren’t enough English teachers during the school year, which reflects the school’s poor public funding. Also, the way that the African American students in the English class speak and disrespect their teacher portrays them as uneducated and immature. This kind of environment is contrasted with St. Joe’s, where all the boys wear ties to school and William gets individual attention from teachers to help him succeed. Both William and Arthur discuss how the school is predominantly white and people are “different from back home.” The discipline is stronger at St. Joe’s, with detention and policies that “suspend you quick.” The gym was well-furnished compared to the netless and unpainted courts in the West Garfield neighborhood. Overall, the film captured the more wealthy and powerful class identity of the St. Joseph community compared to the underfunded community of West Garfield.

For both William and Arthur, getting recruited to St. Joe’s gave them the opportunity to play “better” basketball, and Arthur’s family said he matured after going. William had bad grades in grammar school but greatly improved his grades during his freshman year, mostly motivated by basketball. Because William was good enough to play varsity as a freshman, he was a hot commodity and that got the attention of people with power. For example, part of his tuition was paid for by an organization called Cycle, and because he was so good at basketball, he got his entire education paid for through connections of powerful people (like the head of Encyclopedia Britannica). He was also given a job opportunity over the summer through these connections. St. Joe’s viewed him as a valuable asset and therefore made efforts to keep him around. For Arthur on the other hand, his family had to pay for half of the tuition, and when the tuition rose, St. Joe’s made zero efforts to keep him there or help him with financial aid, although he was a starter on the freshman team. I forgot who in the film said it, but a fan or teacher explained simply that Arthur “wasn’t as good as they had hoped he would be, so they let him go.” He was required to leave mid-semester, which meant that he was behind in credits when he transferred to a public school near his home. Not only that, but St. Joe’s made it extremely hard for his family to access his transcripts to find his graduation status because Arthur’s family owed the school money. In the end, Arthur’s mom claimed that she almost wished that Arthur had never gone to St. Joe’s. Other people who were interviewed for the film felt that if he was good enough, arrangements would have been made to keep him at St. Joe’s.

Basketball played an extremely important role in the lives of the two boys as well as their families. William discussed how during the time after his injury when he could not play basketball, his grades slipped because he had become unmotivated. Many decisions were made revolving around basketball, beginning with transferring to St. Joe’s, going to a summer Nike All-American camp, and doing well in school. To William, it was his “ticket out of the ghetto.” For Arthur, successes that he achieves through basketball are celebrated by the entire family. The same goes for William’s family, and his brother kind of lives vicariously through him. Curtis Gates never got a college degree, so even though he was good at basketball, he ended up becoming a security guard with low pay. The parents of the two boys know the boys love basketball and there are several scenes of Arthur playing with his father, and William’s family watching basketball together.

Because basketball was so important to the boys, sometimes other priorities were not put at the top. For example, William and his girlfriend get into a slight argument about how he was not present in the delivery room when she gave birth to Alicia. William responds that there was no way that he could leave during ‘that time of the season.’ Also, because basketball was the number one thing for him, when basketball was not a present part of his life (after his knee surgery), academics also sank for him.

This documentary reminded me of many of the topics we discussed in class. One was the way the NCAA or universities exploit their athletes. It felt like the same thing was being done with both William and Arthur. With Arthur, it seemed like St. Joe’s used him, realized they didn’t need him, so they let him go. With William, St. Joe’s gave him many opportunities, but so that they could possibly obtain a state championship. The St. Joe’s head coach says at the end of the documentary “one walks out the door and another comes in.” I think this reflects the exploitive nature of the program and emphasizes the way athletes are used for their skills. William claims that basketball became more of a “job than a sport to play.”

This documentary also reminded me of the discussion we had in class about how retired pro athletes don’t have many options after their athletic careers are over. However, William and Arthur both received education because of basketball (even though a certain amount of effort and potential in education was required to get there – eg. William’s ACT score situation). I looked up what happened to the two of them after college – one got a seminary degree and the other created a charity foundation. Both of these opportunities were probably enhanced by the education both men received. Neither of them ended up making it big in the NBA, and education ended up being an equally important way out of the environments they had previously been in. In both their cases, basketball was not the guaranteed one way ticket out of poverty. If sports were the “passport” out of poverty, education would be the actual airplane. Sports allowed them to get an opportunity, but an education was required for them to pursue any of the opportunities that were presented.

References:

 Hoop Dreams [Motion picture]. (1994). USA: Public Broadcasting Service.