SHOULD REGGIE BUSH BE STRIPPED

by

Posted:

Reggie Bush is said to have taken money during his Heisman trophy winning season at the University of Southern California and for that, the organization that issued the award is considering taking it back. It sounds like an open and shut case doesn’t it. Guy breaks a rule and guy gets punished for it. The only problem is that the simple equation that is justice and the metering out of consequence for infraction is not as black and white as we conveniently make it.

The entire 2010-2011 USC Trojan football team has been sanctioned by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for Bush’s indiscretion. So now not only is the said party penalized but an entire athletic entity. What are we prudes prone to do. We book our fair on the finger-pointing express saying that all these “Bush-like” athletes are selfish, brutish, hedonistic narcissists. Hmmm…the logic seems malformed. In reasoning there is such a thing as either-or fallacy. That’s when someone tries to convince you of an outcome based on a limited number of choices. For instance, I could ask you, “Are you a fan of futbol (soccer) or Cricket,” as if to suggest that these are your only options. The truth is, you may dislike both and prefer baseball. Reggie Bush is a convenient and expendable example. We the public have been asked, “Should Reggie Bush be stripped of his Heisman and taught a big fat lesson or not? Either he’s guilty or he’s not,” we’re told. But the reasoning is fallacious because this problem of athletes violating NCAA guidelines is as pervasive as it is grievous. And nothing goes viral without the help of multiple hosts to spread it.

Bush is a marquee National Football League (NFL) player and perhaps is viewed as the rich, arrogant athlete who left a wake and now makes millions. But were we to take a trip back to our own adolescence I’m sure we’d find things blog worthy but hardly flattering. Here comes what sounds like excuses: YOUTHFUL INDISCRETION, POVERTY, “THE SYSTEM” OF EXPLOITATION, ETC. And some of you reading go, “YADA, YADA, YADA.” But if you’ve never been a member of the underrepresented group that constitutes most of American Football how can you discount the alleged excuses? Furthermore, and more importantly, how can the media and former players fall for the ruse of over simplification of a very complex issue. If Reggie Bush’s Heisman trophy is stripped on account of a technicality, there can be no argument. They have him dead to rights. But truth be told, we ought to make a stink about how systems of society create deprivation, entitlement and enabling double standards.

Bush is not a phenomenon and shouldn’t be treated as one. If you saw him play that year, you know that no trophy is needed to establish that he was head and shoulders above any college player that year. He dominated. Perspective is what makes an issue like this one fodder for debate. Some are sympathetic to the “plight” of the young, talented athlete with one shot at lucrative gain while others are staunch keepers of the rule book. Everybody believes in their position too, to the extent of proclaiming their substantiated conclusions. The “hall monitors” of the world don’t care if you were in the halls after the bell rang because you vomited after third period. And the guy who takes money from an agent, trustee, booster, etc. doesn’t see it as wrong because somewhere along the line, those generous persons made it seem acceptable. By the way, I don’t see anybody stepping up saying, “Don’t take Reggie’s Heisman, I gave him the money.” Where are the USC Alumni turned surrogate dads? Where’s their character when the system puts the screws to a guy who broke a rule with their prompting? Where are the NCAA Division I athletic administrations and the NCAA brass itself? Why haven’t the governors of this environment admitting some culpability? Even Billy Graham admitted at one point in his life that he spent too much time doing traveling ministry to the extent that it harmed his marriage and family. Where are the tentacles of NCAA sports into the communities from which they draw these Heisman winners? Where is the vested interest in personhood, development, mentoring and discipling? You might say, “It isn’t the NCAA’s job to mold young men and women. That’s the job of mothers and fathers.” In reasoning we call that a Red Herring fallacy. The highest level of college sports demands integrity. Then it should stop talking about it and be about it. I don’t mind playing by rules but if we’re going to play, everybody should have some pads on and not just #5.

CAN WE “PRESCRIBE” CHARACTER?

by

Posted:

Me with Chris Laugier at NBC Camp 2010 - Isle of Man...One of the most coachable lads I've met who's making great choices of his own accord.

Everybody has a story about what their parents/guardians wouldn’t tolerate. We also probably all have a list of the characteristics our elders emphasized right? Does your list look like mine?

  • Work Hard
  • Tell the Truth
  • Share
  • Keep your hands to yourself
  • Don’t cry unless you want something to cry about (one of my personal favorites)
  • Don’t start fights
  • Do what you don’t want to do first…then you can play

These are the seemingly timeless ideals which, among others, have transcended generations. We’ve had ’em preached to us and done some of our own sermonizing to be sure. We believe in certain virtues don’t we? And we’re deathly afraid of what could happen if those under our influence don’t adopt them. But (and it’s a big BUT) what if the virtue is preached and not unpacked? What if the adoption of certain character traits are momentary and not permanent? What if we learned better yet, were told not to lie but returned to the practice in college because it was convenient? I struggled with cheating in junior high and high school even though I knew it was wrong. The problem was…it wasn’t yet poisonous to me in my estimation. There was no ontological connection to the perils of dishonesty across the board.

Ahh but the freshman year at Chapman University introduced me to seminar learning in a class called, what else, Freshman Seminar: War, Peace and Justice. From Mein Kampf to the American Civil Rights Movement to other controversies typically discussed in such classes, I learned to think. And truthfully, I was challenged to think in A.P. English in high school. Some of my fondest church and scholastic experiences involve thinking as it were and whatever commitment I have to virtue or the struggle toward it is due largely to my life’s seminar.

There is a raging debate when it comes to character education and how it’s done. The prevailing, more traditional approaches esteem an idea that looks kind of like programming.Tell children what to do and reprimand the unacceptable behavior. Ask questions like, “What should you have said instead of making fun of David’s mother’s breath?”

The other approach is reflective, allowing for questions and interaction with perspectives that come from the minds of young people. Is one right, both, neither? Is a combination of both preferable? I grew up learning the hard way about why honesty works best. For starters, it’s better for the backside. But to be fair, honesty never had any intrinsic power until I hurt people with lies. Then I learned WHY lying fails community. Prescribing hard work, integrity, resolve, etc… means little if the person in need of the virtue has not yet found support for its validity.

High school students I’ve taught who were skipping school to party, be promiscuous, do drugs and the like know what they’ve been told about such activities. I always found their motives more interesting. So I asked about MOTIVES for say…ditching. Can character be formed from simply asking questions? Why not? If truth is what we claim it is, humans of all ages are bound for a rendezvous. With the need for sound character ethic being revealed through economic downturn, riotous behavior during natural disasters and power-hungry opportunism in the third world it may be time to step away from our podiums if our methods of character development are purely prescriptive. Maybe it’s time to ask ourselves and our proteges those real character-oriented questions that, it turns out, have more gravity than behavior observations. It’s a risky model but a lesson learned is likely a lesson permanent.

BRINGING FACE-TO-FACE BACK

by

Posted:

As opposed to bringing sexy back try the Face-to-Face meeting. I rediscovered its power yesterday while running errands. The age of the text, instant message, Skype has assaulted the most archaic and effective form of communication – the FACE-TO-FACE meeting.

Could it be that our highly communicative society is anything but, choosing instead to hide behind faceless and emotionless encoding? Have we traded quality for expediency when it comes to touching base about everything from movie showtimes to break-ups to petitions? Are we afraid to talk to each other?

I decided yesterday that I would “drop in” on some places to show my face. I just turned up at these selected places as ideas flowed related to what I do as the founder of 6ixth Man. And you know what drove the impetus? It was the value that I myself place on face-to-face interaction. What do I take more seriously, a text or a phone call. ASNWER: A phone call. But if someone I know calls, which do I prefer, lunch over a Terriyaki chicken sandwich or the phone call? ANSWER: The Terriyaki.

I tested this method unintentionally simply because I was already out to breakfast with a friend when I realized I wanted to inquire about getting my character curriculum into a local private school, a local community center and a local private university. I said to myself, “Self, put dem big boy undies on homie and go talk to the Powers that be.” It’s harder to ignore a human standing in front of you breathing your air than it is to ignore an IM or a text. In my case, I found that FACE-TO-FACE is still primary, complete with the accent of smiles, gestures, voice inflection and eye contact. Granted your cold call could be an interruption. But if you play the FACE-TO-FACE carefully, you’ll almost always ensure that what you’re trying to communicate is decoded successfully. Better to say things once the right way in person than to wonder if someone deemed you insensitive, crazy or unimportant because they receive hundreds of posts, texts and IMs everyday.

SIGNS LOOK LIKE DESTINATIONS

by

Posted:


UK Basketball as a Mentor: Part 2

by

Posted:

UK Basketball as a Mentor: Part I

by

Posted:

MAXED OUT

by

Posted: