Another Ivy League team suspended

Princeton becomes the third Ivy League school to have to suspend a men's sports team due to "vulgar" material posted by the team.

"To have to suspend" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. The currently en vogue move of suspending men's teams for this type of behavior strikes me as absurd. Firstly, it's unfair to punish those who did not participate. Second, the underlying activity giving rise to the suspensions (discussing the relative attractiveness or promiscuity of members of the opposite gender), while perhaps distasteful, has gone on for millennia and is universally engaged in by both sexes.

To make sure we truly root out all of this type of behavior, I certainly assume all university administrations will start bugging both men's and women's locker rooms soon.

CUontheslopes
"To have to suspend" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. The currently en vogue move of suspending men's teams for this type of behavior strikes me as absurd. Firstly, it's unfair to punish those who did not participate. Second, the underlying activity giving rise to the suspensions (discussing the relative attractiveness or promiscuity of members of the opposite gender), while perhaps distasteful, has gone on for millennia and is universally engaged in by both sexes.

To make sure we truly root out all of this type of behavior, I certainly assume all university administrations will start bugging both men's and women's locker rooms soon.

The school isn't doing it to protect anybody, they're doing it to cover their ass. In that regard, they "need" to do it, because if you add "even then did not take action" you get a larger settlement.

The suspension could be for stupidity: posting comments in a forum that could - Julian Assange is not the only hacker of note - easily become public. From this, the team's future captains of industry and Wall Street will learn not to trim the IT security budget or hire IT staff on the cheap.

The suggestion by CUontheslopes is for punishment to be applied only to the perps, which, justice aside, should satisfy the university legal department. The University of Virginia didn't suspend the whole lacrosse team over the Yardley Love incident. And that was murder, for pete's sake. And the list of felonies by big time college basketball players is impressive, with few if any team suspensions. This makes an example of the low-revenue sports.

Imagine my surprise.

CUontheslopes
"To have to suspend" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. The currently en vogue move of suspending men's teams for this type of behavior strikes me as absurd. Firstly, it's unfair to punish those who did not participate. Second, the underlying activity giving rise to the suspensions (discussing the relative attractiveness or promiscuity of members of the opposite gender), while perhaps distasteful, has gone on for millennia and is universally engaged in by both sexes.

To make sure we truly root out all of this type of behavior, I certainly assume all university administrations will start bugging both men's and women's locker rooms soon.

Based upon the quote:

discovery of material on its electronic mailing list that was “vulgar and offensive as well as misogynistic and racist,”

I suspect the material was more than "She's a 10."

Just because things have happened for "millennia" doesn't make it right. Our civil war was, at least partially, fought over something that went on forever. Why don't we wait and see if more facts come out. Yes, even though some say we're in a post-factual time, I still believe in them. I guess, in today's climate, that makes me a liberal.

Having trouble following the logic here. Killings are worse than unkind online posts. But the Virginia killing was by one person. The rest of the team was not involved, didn't cover up, wasn't an accomplice after the fact.

Aside: Virginia lacrosse may be a "low-revenue sport," but Dom Starsia was making $150,000 plus a $100,000 bonus according to public records.

Jim Hyla

CUontheslopes
"To have to suspend" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. The currently en vogue move of suspending men's teams for this type of behavior strikes me as absurd. Firstly, it's unfair to punish those who did not participate. Second, the underlying activity giving rise to the suspensions (discussing the relative attractiveness or promiscuity of members of the opposite gender), while perhaps distasteful, has gone on for millennia and is universally engaged in by both sexes.

To make sure we truly root out all of this type of behavior, I certainly assume all university administrations will start bugging both men's and women's locker rooms soon.

Based upon the quote:

discovery of material on its electronic mailing list that was “vulgar and offensive as well as misogynistic and racist,”

I suspect the material was more than "She's a 10."

Just because things have happened for "millennia" doesn't make it right. Our civil war was, at least partially, fought over something that went on forever. Why don't we wait and see if more facts come out. Yes, even though some say we're in a post-factual time, I still believe in them. I guess, in today's climate, that makes me a liberal.

There's already a value judgment applied to defining something as "vulgar", "offensive" or "misogynistic" or "racist." Particularly the first two (vulgar and offensive) by definition involve subjective standards. Let's not forget that a good chunk of the classics of Western literature was similarly branded. The books didn't change, just our tastes.

So perhaps "gone on for millennia" might be better expressed as "is a hardwired piece of our evolutionary nature." Men are going to look at women sexually and women are going to look at men sexually. That's not misogyny - it's evolution. Punishing students for "vulgar" words seems laughable when viewed within the context of the types of behavior the university condones or sanctions. To one, The Vagina Monologues might be a great piece of feminist stagecraft, but to another "vulgar" or "offensive.

All universities are doing is codifying as part of their code of conduct a type of secular morality. I venture to guess that if Cornell decided to codify/punish similarly premarital sex, we might a different kind of outcry about legislating morality. Perhaps it's the libertarian in me talking, but I'd prefer universities stay out of both arenas. If the conduct doesn't cross the line into unlawful then it shouldn't be grounds for punishment.

I'm reminded of an alum I met at a reunion a number of years ago from a class in the 1940's. He had a friend who was expelled for publishing a cartoon on the cover of a student-published magazine that had a picture of a bride and groom with the caption "Going home to put their things together." Punishing students for lawful, but distasteful speech opens a door that, in my personal and professional (as a proud Cornell lawyer) judgment is so highly subjective that it is better left closed. Hence my main objection to the "to have to suspend" language in the original post.

billhoward
Killings are worse than unkind online posts.

That's exactly my point.

billhoward
The rest of the team was not involved, didn't cover up, wasn't an accomplice after the fact.

If that's the case at Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia, then I agree that all involved deserve the sanction. Was there evidence to support enough involvement so the teams could no longer compete?

billhoward
Aside: Virginia lacrosse may be a "low-revenue sport," but Dom Starsia was making $150,000 plus a $100,000 bonus according to public records.

You mean... Kerwick isn't getting that kind of money???

They get good crowds at UVa but not football/basketball crowds - and probably no TV money.

CUontheslopes

Jim Hyla

CUontheslopes
"To have to suspend" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. The currently en vogue move of suspending men's teams for this type of behavior strikes me as absurd. Firstly, it's unfair to punish those who did not participate. Second, the underlying activity giving rise to the suspensions (discussing the relative attractiveness or promiscuity of members of the opposite gender), while perhaps distasteful, has gone on for millennia and is universally engaged in by both sexes.

To make sure we truly root out all of this type of behavior, I certainly assume all university administrations will start bugging both men's and women's locker rooms soon.

Based upon the quote:

discovery of material on its electronic mailing list that was “vulgar and offensive as well as misogynistic and racist,”

I suspect the material was more than "She's a 10."

Just because things have happened for "millennia" doesn't make it right. Our civil war was, at least partially, fought over something that went on forever. Why don't we wait and see if more facts come out. Yes, even though some say we're in a post-factual time, I still believe in them. I guess, in today's climate, that makes me a liberal.

There's already a value judgment applied to defining something as "vulgar", "offensive" or "misogynistic" or "racist." Particularly the first two (vulgar and offensive) by definition involve subjective standards. Let's not forget that a good chunk of the classics of Western literature was similarly branded. The books didn't change, just our tastes.

So perhaps "gone on for millennia" might be better expressed as "is a hardwired piece of our evolutionary nature." Men are going to look at women sexually and women are going to look at men sexually. That's not misogyny - it's evolution. Punishing students for "vulgar" words seems laughable when viewed within the context of the types of behavior the university condones or sanctions. To one, The Vagina Monologues might be a great piece of feminist stagecraft, but to another "vulgar" or "offensive.

All universities are doing is codifying as part of their code of conduct a type of secular morality. I venture to guess that if Cornell decided to codify/punish similarly premarital sex, we might a different kind of outcry about legislating morality. Perhaps it's the libertarian in me talking, but I'd prefer universities stay out of both arenas. If the conduct doesn't cross the line into unlawful then it shouldn't be grounds for punishment.

I'm reminded of an alum I met at a reunion a number of years ago from a class in the 1940's. He had a friend who was expelled for publishing a cartoon on the cover of a student-published magazine that had a picture of a bride and groom with the caption "Going home to put their things together." Punishing students for lawful, but distasteful speech opens a door that, in my personal and professional (as a proud Cornell lawyer) judgment is so highly subjective that it is better left closed. Hence my main objection to the "to have to suspend" language in the original post.

Your whole post and idea is based upon your assumptions about what happened. Tearing apart something when you don't know the facts is hazardous. As I said "I suspect the material was more than 'She's a 10' ". I don't know what was "said" and at this point I'm willing to let their process proceed. Maybe we'll find out more, maybe not, but until I understand the facts, I'm not willing to condemn.

Finally, athletes are representatives of the university, and as such are held to a higher standard. Maybe they deserved this, maybe not, but they can be asked to have higher expectations than the general student body.