This morning I listened to an exchange on Sirius NFL Radio between commentators Bob Papa and Peter King and New York Giants center Shaun O'Hara; they discussed, among other things, the NFL Combine interview of Oklahoma State wide receiver Dez Bryant.
When interviewed by Miami Dolphins general manager Jeffrey Ireland, Bryant was asked if his mother, who had served 18 months of a four year sentence for dealing cocaine, had been a prostitute. It was an inappropriate question and Bryant apparently reacted the way a man with his past temperament would react.
Bryant, who is one of the best natural athletes in his draft class, was, according to Pro Football Weekly's John Helsley, initially placed in special education classes due to anger issues and a learning disorder. Academic struggles and violent outbursts, according to that reporter's story in the magazine's 2010 draft guide, had continued into high school.
However, also according to this story, Bryant was making sufficient academic progress to remain eligible to play college football up to the beginning of his junior year. Then, he lied to NCAA investigators about three person-to-person meetings with former NFL star Deion Sanders. The meetings were no wrong-doing--Sanders counsels athletes voluntarily--but Bryant lied about being part of them. He was suspended after three games into the 2009 season.
I don't blame Dez Bryant for being angry about an inappropriate question, but I, like the Sirius commentators, would wonder about his maturity. This is a man who has not grown up in a stable family environment and it has taken much coddling from coaches, teachers and counselors to keep him focused on the football field.
During the coverage of the Bryant story, commentators and callers on Sirius have asked if there is a difference between appropriate and inappropriate questions in job interviews with college athletes.
One might argue that they should not be asked any question that a non-athlete, for example, a senior interviewing on-campus for a job in accounting or engineering, should be expected to answer. Testing Bryant on his football knowledge, to ask where he'd go on one play or another, is certainly within bounds.
But so is his pre-college life, if his family history, academic problems and anger issues have been well-documented, as John Helsley did. A professional football team is not going to invest millions in a player, then devote more human resources to counsel and coddle him off the field than they would any other player. The teams have every right to ask Dez Bryant why he wasn't a better student or why he lied to a NCAA investigator. They would be right to talk with his high school coaches, too. This man is less than three years from his high school diploma.
Yesterday, NFL Player's Association executive director DeMaurice Smith had this to say about the Bryant incident:
"We need to make sure the men of this league are treated as businessmen. During interviews, our players and prospective players should never be subjected to discrimination or degradation stemming from the biases or misconceptions held by team personnel.
NFL teams cannot have the free reign to ask questions during the interview process which can be categorized as stereotyping or which may bring a personal insult to any player as a man.
For the past year, active, former and incoming players have heard me speak about the expectations we have of them as members of this union, their teams, communities and families. It is equally true that the same kind of respect is demanded of their employers."
It was dumb to ask Dez Bryant to answer a question about his mother; she is not being hired to play pro football. But it is naive for the president of a player's union to expect players of questionable academic standing or character--and yes, legitimate questions can be perceived to be insulting--not to expect his members to be accountable for their past mistakes. It is the same for any college student who posts a foolish photo frat party photo in Facebook, goes to jail as part of a student protest, or drives drunk and causes death or injury to another student.
I hope Dez Bryant has a successful pro career, as long as he doesn't play well against the Giants, and I hope his anger issues are behind him. If not, three strikes will come early, past and present will come together, and he will be out of the game.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Age-Restricted Communities May Be Serious Impediment to Educational Improvement in New Jersey
In 1963, my family was among the first to move into a Levitt developed community in central New Jersey. Growing up, my brother and I had the good fortune to go to relatively new schools; they were part of the community master plan.
Young New Jersey families--my parents were in their early 30's when we moved--have not had similar opportunities for some time. Most new single family homes were "McMansions," or they were built in age-restricted communities.
Options for younger families were condominiums, townhomes and re-sales. A young family was more likely to fix up a home their parents might have bought new, until they could afford to move again. A successful executive or professional might choose another option--leave the state.
Today, I live in a community where the newest and most reasonably priced single family homes are age-restricted. Local politicians favored these developments because home buyers earned their highest incomes at or close to retirement, and long after their children had finished school.
This has been a mistake that has fiscally crippled our public schools. When communities do not build to welcome young families who want good public schools, they are less likely to find advocates for good public schools.
Retired and nearly retired households have a greater fear of property tax increases; their incomes peaked when they bought their home and declined afterwords. Not to mention that a older age-restricted home must be sold to an older buyer; age-restricted also means market-restricted.
As soon as available residential land become excessively filled by age restricted homes, school systems have little need to plan for more students. However, they cannot accommodate the need for new services--special education, state-mandated classes, testing, for example, without spending cuts, tax increases, or state or federal aid. Nor can they accommodate programs, like the arts, sports and advanced placement classes that students and parents want.
Our governor has cut municipal aid in these hard times. He asked school districts to freeze wages and make cuts. None of these actions will lead the way towards better public schools in New Jersey. However, revised public policies towards existing and future age-restricted communities might help to prop open a door that might lead to new revenues for education.
Young New Jersey families--my parents were in their early 30's when we moved--have not had similar opportunities for some time. Most new single family homes were "McMansions," or they were built in age-restricted communities.
Options for younger families were condominiums, townhomes and re-sales. A young family was more likely to fix up a home their parents might have bought new, until they could afford to move again. A successful executive or professional might choose another option--leave the state.
Today, I live in a community where the newest and most reasonably priced single family homes are age-restricted. Local politicians favored these developments because home buyers earned their highest incomes at or close to retirement, and long after their children had finished school.
This has been a mistake that has fiscally crippled our public schools. When communities do not build to welcome young families who want good public schools, they are less likely to find advocates for good public schools.
Retired and nearly retired households have a greater fear of property tax increases; their incomes peaked when they bought their home and declined afterwords. Not to mention that a older age-restricted home must be sold to an older buyer; age-restricted also means market-restricted.
As soon as available residential land become excessively filled by age restricted homes, school systems have little need to plan for more students. However, they cannot accommodate the need for new services--special education, state-mandated classes, testing, for example, without spending cuts, tax increases, or state or federal aid. Nor can they accommodate programs, like the arts, sports and advanced placement classes that students and parents want.
Our governor has cut municipal aid in these hard times. He asked school districts to freeze wages and make cuts. None of these actions will lead the way towards better public schools in New Jersey. However, revised public policies towards existing and future age-restricted communities might help to prop open a door that might lead to new revenues for education.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Someone Check My Heart Rate. I Actually Agree With Chris Christie On An Education Issue
Today, I read this story on Politicker New Jersey, which covers all politics statewide and local close to home: Students should get 'impartial' view of reasons for education cuts.
The story covered high school student walk-outs to protest state budget cuts in public education.
Governor Christie's press secretary and his education commissioner chimed in against student walk-outs. They were right to do so. Even the New Jersey Education Association, according to the story, does not condone walk-outs.
I graduated from a New Jersey public high school in the late Seventies. During my senior year, our teachers walked off the job and went on strike. They remained on strike for three weeks. There were rumblings about a student walk-out to support the teachers. Thankfully, the student walk-out never happened.
However, the climate in our school changed after the teachers returned to work. I had the union president as a teacher. She and two colleagues used class time to explain why they believed that they had the right to strike. The teachers had received a lucrative contract, so at that time, I felt quite offended.
Teachers are human; they have lives outside of school and frustrations with the job. They have friends among parents in the school system where they teach. Teachers deserve a fair wage; they have little financial incentive to remain in their profession after three to five years. I am all for academic freedom in terms of teaching lessons. I have no issue with students and parents carrying out peaceful protest in support of their teachers on their own time outside of school. By no means should voices be stifled.
But teachers have no right to use a classroom to indoctrinate students towards a union viewpoint. If there was proper evidence of indoctrination by a teacher, that teacher should be fired for taking advantage of a captive audience.
Maybe next year, the Governor will drop any talk of a pay freeze and he will stop placing undue blame on teacher salaries and benefits as a drag on the state's economy. I hope he does; his comments have gone beyond civility.
However, I would not blame him if he pushed for indoctrination penalty clauses in teacher's contracts.
The story covered high school student walk-outs to protest state budget cuts in public education.
Governor Christie's press secretary and his education commissioner chimed in against student walk-outs. They were right to do so. Even the New Jersey Education Association, according to the story, does not condone walk-outs.
I graduated from a New Jersey public high school in the late Seventies. During my senior year, our teachers walked off the job and went on strike. They remained on strike for three weeks. There were rumblings about a student walk-out to support the teachers. Thankfully, the student walk-out never happened.
However, the climate in our school changed after the teachers returned to work. I had the union president as a teacher. She and two colleagues used class time to explain why they believed that they had the right to strike. The teachers had received a lucrative contract, so at that time, I felt quite offended.
Teachers are human; they have lives outside of school and frustrations with the job. They have friends among parents in the school system where they teach. Teachers deserve a fair wage; they have little financial incentive to remain in their profession after three to five years. I am all for academic freedom in terms of teaching lessons. I have no issue with students and parents carrying out peaceful protest in support of their teachers on their own time outside of school. By no means should voices be stifled.
But teachers have no right to use a classroom to indoctrinate students towards a union viewpoint. If there was proper evidence of indoctrination by a teacher, that teacher should be fired for taking advantage of a captive audience.
Maybe next year, the Governor will drop any talk of a pay freeze and he will stop placing undue blame on teacher salaries and benefits as a drag on the state's economy. I hope he does; his comments have gone beyond civility.
However, I would not blame him if he pushed for indoctrination penalty clauses in teacher's contracts.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
One Way to Challenge a Secessionist--Recite the Pledge of Allegiance
This week, as I learned more about the Texas Secessionist movement, as well as similar efforts in Utah, I realized something. The conservatives who may be in favor of secession might have also been conservatives who believed that school children should recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning.
But how can someone who believes in secession say these words?
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag, of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation under God Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All."
Written in 1892, between Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, by author Francis Bellamy, the Pledge of Allegiance first appeared in a magazine, The Youth's Companion, and was later rewritten into pamphlets distributed to school children throughout the country. Twelve million school children first recited the pledge to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' voyage.
The pledge was first rewritten in 1923; the initial language was "my flag," instead of "the Flag, of the the United States of America." The words "under God" were added in 1954 by President Eisenhower. While those words have sparked controversy, it is interesting to read an opinion expressed by Barack Obama in 2006 while he was a member of the U.S Senate.
"A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation -- context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God.' I didn't."
So, Wouldn't be reasonable to believe that a secessionist who would oppose President Obama's policies would also oppose the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, an oath that persons of all political views have historically called an expression of patriotism?
When children stand up hands over hearts, they are saying that our nation is an indivisible republic of many states, and that our flag symbolizes unity, liberty and justice.
When someone favors secession, wouldn't he be rejecting the flag as well?
But how can someone who believes in secession say these words?
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag, of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation under God Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All."
Written in 1892, between Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, by author Francis Bellamy, the Pledge of Allegiance first appeared in a magazine, The Youth's Companion, and was later rewritten into pamphlets distributed to school children throughout the country. Twelve million school children first recited the pledge to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' voyage.
The pledge was first rewritten in 1923; the initial language was "my flag," instead of "the Flag, of the the United States of America." The words "under God" were added in 1954 by President Eisenhower. While those words have sparked controversy, it is interesting to read an opinion expressed by Barack Obama in 2006 while he was a member of the U.S Senate.
"A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation -- context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God.' I didn't."
So, Wouldn't be reasonable to believe that a secessionist who would oppose President Obama's policies would also oppose the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, an oath that persons of all political views have historically called an expression of patriotism?
When children stand up hands over hearts, they are saying that our nation is an indivisible republic of many states, and that our flag symbolizes unity, liberty and justice.
When someone favors secession, wouldn't he be rejecting the flag as well?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
NFL Draft: The Entry Level Job Search as Theatre
The NFL draft begins tomorrow. It will be the first time that professional football's entry level hiring process goes prime-time. Instead of going seven rounds over two days, the draft will be split over Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. It is entry-level hiring as theatre, but I never miss the first two rounds.
Past pro football drafts--the NFL has conducted them since 1936--went as many as thirty four rounds. Football was not a very lucrative career until television revenues were sprinkled about the league. The players drafted in the lowest rounds usually passed on a pro contract. Considered training camp bodies, they could earn more money elsewhere.
In 1960, television brought about the founding of the American Football League (AFL), a rival to the NFL. Those eight original AFL owners, called The Foolish Club, split slightly more than $2 million in television money amongst themselves. Two members of the club, Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson and Tennessee Titans (then the Houston Oilers) Bud Adams, still own the teams they founded.
The AFL had several impacts on the draft. In 1960, their draft went 34 rounds. Each team had a territorial pick, a local college star to help the new team form an identity and 33 selections. The owners were not shy about competing against the established league for college talent.
The NFL owners reacted by cutting their draft to 20 rounds to try to spread greater wealth among fewer players. The NFL and AFL had twenty teams combined. There were more rounds, so there was a greater chance to be drafted, but there were fewer players on a roster than you find today. The modern game is more specialized.
In 1967, the two leagues merged and a combined two-league draft was shortened to 17 rounds. By then both leagues had added four new teams: Atlanta Falcons, Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints and the Miami Dolphins. Ten years later, the draft was shortened again; this time to 12 rounds. By then the NFL had added the Cincinnati Bengals, Seattle Seahawks and Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The draft went down to eight rounds in 1993, and seven rounds a year later.
Today, thirty two teams draft over seven rounds and the NFL has the best television contract in professional sports. Professional football creates at least 224 new jobs for college graduates through the draft. Teams sign many more un-drafted players as free agents. The sport is one of the largest employers of entry level talent in the nation. And, like most competitive corporate cultures, the contenders are weeded out pretty quickly.
With only seven rounds, NFL owners, player personnel managers and coaches try to be more careful about who they select. Each contract represents a major investment; a drafted player can no longer be a training camp body. As a result,a seventh round pick has a reasonable chance to make a team--though not necessarily the one that drafted him--and save enough money to plan for life after pro football.
Past pro football drafts--the NFL has conducted them since 1936--went as many as thirty four rounds. Football was not a very lucrative career until television revenues were sprinkled about the league. The players drafted in the lowest rounds usually passed on a pro contract. Considered training camp bodies, they could earn more money elsewhere.
In 1960, television brought about the founding of the American Football League (AFL), a rival to the NFL. Those eight original AFL owners, called The Foolish Club, split slightly more than $2 million in television money amongst themselves. Two members of the club, Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson and Tennessee Titans (then the Houston Oilers) Bud Adams, still own the teams they founded.
The AFL had several impacts on the draft. In 1960, their draft went 34 rounds. Each team had a territorial pick, a local college star to help the new team form an identity and 33 selections. The owners were not shy about competing against the established league for college talent.
The NFL owners reacted by cutting their draft to 20 rounds to try to spread greater wealth among fewer players. The NFL and AFL had twenty teams combined. There were more rounds, so there was a greater chance to be drafted, but there were fewer players on a roster than you find today. The modern game is more specialized.
In 1967, the two leagues merged and a combined two-league draft was shortened to 17 rounds. By then both leagues had added four new teams: Atlanta Falcons, Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints and the Miami Dolphins. Ten years later, the draft was shortened again; this time to 12 rounds. By then the NFL had added the Cincinnati Bengals, Seattle Seahawks and Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The draft went down to eight rounds in 1993, and seven rounds a year later.
Today, thirty two teams draft over seven rounds and the NFL has the best television contract in professional sports. Professional football creates at least 224 new jobs for college graduates through the draft. Teams sign many more un-drafted players as free agents. The sport is one of the largest employers of entry level talent in the nation. And, like most competitive corporate cultures, the contenders are weeded out pretty quickly.
With only seven rounds, NFL owners, player personnel managers and coaches try to be more careful about who they select. Each contract represents a major investment; a drafted player can no longer be a training camp body. As a result,a seventh round pick has a reasonable chance to make a team--though not necessarily the one that drafted him--and save enough money to plan for life after pro football.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Could Texas Secede and Succeed?
Yesterday I read an article on Slate.com that discussed why Texas is doing better economically than the rest of the nation. It's an interesting piece, especially following rumbles among Texans for secession.
Along with Hawaii, Texas is the only U.S. state to have been a sovereign nation before it became a state. I'd guess secessionists in the Longhorn State believe backward means forward. However, the global, U.S. and Texas economies have become more complex and more diverse since the later half of the nineteenth century.
Texas has more going for it than most states. It has mineral wealth, high-tech industries, inexpensive and high-quality public universities and it is the largest net-exporting state in our union.
An independent Republic of Texas would definitely begin with considerable resources. There would be leadership capable of forming a government, mounting a defense and managing an economy.
But secession in a modern age raises serious questions. For example:
+ Does Texas have the constitutional right to secede, or do the state and federal constitutions explicitly or implicitly disallow secession? The secessionist argument is that the state has the right to secede, because the Texas constitution defines their state as free and independent, not subject to the will of the President of the United States, or the U.S. Congress, or the will of other states.
+ The U.S. government has a considerable presence in Texas. The Federal Reserve has a Dallas district. There are 112 federal courtsand 18 active military installations. I would have to believe that the federal government would not allow Texas to take possession of federal property without compensation or retribution. Could retribution come by force?
+ How would Texas be impacted by treaties between the U.S. and Mexico such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? This is a question for brilliant legal minds. Would Texas be subject to NAFTA because it was a state at the time the agreement was signed, or would a new republic attempt to negotiate their own treaties with the U.S. and Mexico?
+ How would Texans replace the flow of federal funds into their state? Texas cities receive federal housing and economic development funds. College students receive federal grants and loans to pay for their education. Would a low tax state become a higher tax republic to maintain public benefits?
+ Would a Texas republic impose import or export duties and tariffs? The relationship between Texas and the U.S. government would change to trading partner. Would Texas exact fees on exports to increase revenues for their economy?
+ Would a Texas republic institute strict borders and passports, much like travel into Mexico?
+ Would a Texas republic enter into trade agreements contrary to the interests of the United States? A government dominated by conservative political attitudes might attempt to untangle themselves from federal agreements that they don't like.
I realize why there are calls for secession based on opposition to federal fiscal policies and a desire for personal liberty. Citizens of a frontier state want to see the revenues they generate for their economy to stay within their borders and not be redistributed across a larger nation.
However, advocates for secession, while calling for conservative principles, have given little thought to the type of republic they would have to create to self-govern.
Along with Hawaii, Texas is the only U.S. state to have been a sovereign nation before it became a state. I'd guess secessionists in the Longhorn State believe backward means forward. However, the global, U.S. and Texas economies have become more complex and more diverse since the later half of the nineteenth century.
Texas has more going for it than most states. It has mineral wealth, high-tech industries, inexpensive and high-quality public universities and it is the largest net-exporting state in our union.
An independent Republic of Texas would definitely begin with considerable resources. There would be leadership capable of forming a government, mounting a defense and managing an economy.
But secession in a modern age raises serious questions. For example:
+ Does Texas have the constitutional right to secede, or do the state and federal constitutions explicitly or implicitly disallow secession? The secessionist argument is that the state has the right to secede, because the Texas constitution defines their state as free and independent, not subject to the will of the President of the United States, or the U.S. Congress, or the will of other states.
+ The U.S. government has a considerable presence in Texas. The Federal Reserve has a Dallas district. There are 112 federal courtsand 18 active military installations. I would have to believe that the federal government would not allow Texas to take possession of federal property without compensation or retribution. Could retribution come by force?
+ How would Texas be impacted by treaties between the U.S. and Mexico such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? This is a question for brilliant legal minds. Would Texas be subject to NAFTA because it was a state at the time the agreement was signed, or would a new republic attempt to negotiate their own treaties with the U.S. and Mexico?
+ How would Texans replace the flow of federal funds into their state? Texas cities receive federal housing and economic development funds. College students receive federal grants and loans to pay for their education. Would a low tax state become a higher tax republic to maintain public benefits?
+ Would a Texas republic impose import or export duties and tariffs? The relationship between Texas and the U.S. government would change to trading partner. Would Texas exact fees on exports to increase revenues for their economy?
+ Would a Texas republic institute strict borders and passports, much like travel into Mexico?
+ Would a Texas republic enter into trade agreements contrary to the interests of the United States? A government dominated by conservative political attitudes might attempt to untangle themselves from federal agreements that they don't like.
I realize why there are calls for secession based on opposition to federal fiscal policies and a desire for personal liberty. Citizens of a frontier state want to see the revenues they generate for their economy to stay within their borders and not be redistributed across a larger nation.
However, advocates for secession, while calling for conservative principles, have given little thought to the type of republic they would have to create to self-govern.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Chuck Hagel in 2012?
Last week I attended a lecture at Rutgers by former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel. Hagel, who served two terms in the U.S. Senate from 1997 through 2009, was named the Clifford Case Distinguished Professor at our state university.
Hagel entered the U.S. Senate after fourteen years in private business, though he had been involved in public life before then. After serving as Deputy Director of the U.S. Veteran's Administration, he co-founded a cellular communications business, then later became president of an Omaha-based investment bank. In 1996, he won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate and defeated Nebraska's now-junior senator Ben Nelson to fill an open seat. He was re-elected in 2002 with over eighty percent of the vote.
In his talk, Hagel touched on many themes, including:
+ Heeding the call to war. Hagel, who volunteered for military service in 1967 at the peak of the Vietnam War, said that it is far easier to enter a war than it is to get out. In his book, America, Our Next Chapter, he adds that the U.S. has not learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. As a sergeant he believed that you do not stay to fight a war to protect a president's legacy. As a senator he believed the same.
+ Hagel said that an attitude of "bring 'em on," when it come to fighting terrorism and that to label Iran, Irag and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil" is irresponsible. While Hagel voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq, he opposed the 2007 surge and recommended a timetable for withdrawal.
+ The senator dismissed the Bush Administration's statements that Iraq and Al Queda were linked. He simply said: "no nation wants to harbor terrorists." He also broke with the Bush Administration to support the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group.
+ Hagel said that America must consider that other nations have become matured economically,Brazil, Japan, South Korea and Turkey being examples. Ten years ago, Hagel said, these nations would not have entered into trade discussions with Iran, as one example, without consulting the United States. That is less true today.
+ The senator supported tax cuts as a means to stimulate the economy and is concerned about the rising costs of entitlements. However, he also supports public-private investments to rebuild infrastructure including highways and bridges.
Senator Hagel was by no means a gadfly. He voted with his Republican colleagues about eighty percent of the time. While he served in the Senate, he, for example:
+ Supported expanded powers for intelligence agencies to conduct wiretaps without a court order.
+ Opposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
+ Voted to extend the Bush tax cuts
+ Supported legislation that made it harder for people to erase debt by declaring bankruptcy.
However, Hagel has two things going for him that other conservatives do not: authenticity and character. During his talk, he did not mention former President Bush by name, although he amply covered his concerns about Iraq. In his talk and in his book, he praises the independent nature of several senators; not all avoid talking to members of the opposite party. In the book, he cites Joe Biden and John McCain, among others, for being independent thinkers. He says that a nation cannot be governed effectively without accommodating the minority.
Based on his talk and his book, I would say that Chuck Hagel would be more of a unifier than George W. Bush purported himself to be and he would avoid polarizing social issues on the campaign trail.
While he would support the usual Republican economic basket of tax cuts and incentives, he would take a more pragmatic approach to defense and foreign affairs than today's conservatives. He is also less likely to lead the Republicans as a "party of no."
Should President Obama falter, Hagel would be a more attractive opponent than any other name mentioned in the recent Republican straw polls. He would be more likely to carry the northern blue states than Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. But would he be conservative enough to carry the Republican nomination?
Hagel entered the U.S. Senate after fourteen years in private business, though he had been involved in public life before then. After serving as Deputy Director of the U.S. Veteran's Administration, he co-founded a cellular communications business, then later became president of an Omaha-based investment bank. In 1996, he won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate and defeated Nebraska's now-junior senator Ben Nelson to fill an open seat. He was re-elected in 2002 with over eighty percent of the vote.
In his talk, Hagel touched on many themes, including:
+ Heeding the call to war. Hagel, who volunteered for military service in 1967 at the peak of the Vietnam War, said that it is far easier to enter a war than it is to get out. In his book, America, Our Next Chapter, he adds that the U.S. has not learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. As a sergeant he believed that you do not stay to fight a war to protect a president's legacy. As a senator he believed the same.
+ Hagel said that an attitude of "bring 'em on," when it come to fighting terrorism and that to label Iran, Irag and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil" is irresponsible. While Hagel voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq, he opposed the 2007 surge and recommended a timetable for withdrawal.
+ The senator dismissed the Bush Administration's statements that Iraq and Al Queda were linked. He simply said: "no nation wants to harbor terrorists." He also broke with the Bush Administration to support the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group.
+ Hagel said that America must consider that other nations have become matured economically,Brazil, Japan, South Korea and Turkey being examples. Ten years ago, Hagel said, these nations would not have entered into trade discussions with Iran, as one example, without consulting the United States. That is less true today.
+ The senator supported tax cuts as a means to stimulate the economy and is concerned about the rising costs of entitlements. However, he also supports public-private investments to rebuild infrastructure including highways and bridges.
Senator Hagel was by no means a gadfly. He voted with his Republican colleagues about eighty percent of the time. While he served in the Senate, he, for example:
+ Supported expanded powers for intelligence agencies to conduct wiretaps without a court order.
+ Opposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
+ Voted to extend the Bush tax cuts
+ Supported legislation that made it harder for people to erase debt by declaring bankruptcy.
However, Hagel has two things going for him that other conservatives do not: authenticity and character. During his talk, he did not mention former President Bush by name, although he amply covered his concerns about Iraq. In his talk and in his book, he praises the independent nature of several senators; not all avoid talking to members of the opposite party. In the book, he cites Joe Biden and John McCain, among others, for being independent thinkers. He says that a nation cannot be governed effectively without accommodating the minority.
Based on his talk and his book, I would say that Chuck Hagel would be more of a unifier than George W. Bush purported himself to be and he would avoid polarizing social issues on the campaign trail.
While he would support the usual Republican economic basket of tax cuts and incentives, he would take a more pragmatic approach to defense and foreign affairs than today's conservatives. He is also less likely to lead the Republicans as a "party of no."
Should President Obama falter, Hagel would be a more attractive opponent than any other name mentioned in the recent Republican straw polls. He would be more likely to carry the northern blue states than Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. But would he be conservative enough to carry the Republican nomination?
Book Review: Obama Zombies by Jason Mattera
Jason Mattera and I will probably not be on the same side on many political issues, but after reading Obama Zombies, we agree on how Barack Obama won the White House.
Obama was better organized, by far. He never conceded the chance of winning any state. He embraced technology aggressively to line-up voters and raise the majority of his funds through small contributions. And Obama looked fresh on the campaign trail while John McCain looked tired.
Of course, Mattera said all of this in a conservative tone. Instead of calling it effective communication, he called it brainwashing. If you buy this book go to page 27 and read the Internet scores. He calls them a decisive victory for Obama among young voters while he mocks McCain's PacMan-like Pork Invaders. Obama scored a slam dunk among youth voters by a two-to-one margin.
Mattera does not "blame" the Internet for Obama's popularity among young voters. Rather he blames Facebook and Google; their management supplied technological know-how as well as popular commentators and college professors and administrators. They are minnows swimming in an ocean of liberalism. Okay, those are my words, but Mattera would probably agree that they accurately reflect his sentiments.
I am not politically conservative, so he, and other right-wingers might ask: why did you buy this book? Obviously, he wrote it to preach to his choir, and possibly anger non-believers. Well, I bought it because I am interested in learning more about social media.
Mattera not only presented revealing statistics; he also outlined a media strategy to help conservatives leverage emerging technology. Nice, though I'm sure Team Obama has some new stuff under wraps. When you have Google in your corner the Net can be a better playground.
But I was also surprised that this bright young conservative neglected to pat some of his elders on the back, for the Republican Party got the jump on the Democrats in five of the past eight presidential elections.
Republican presidents were helped tremendously by direct mail wizards Richard Viguerie, Terry Dolan and Karl Rove. Young Americans for Freedom, which helped deliver the youth vote for Reagan in 1980, grew as a response to activism on the left during the sixties. However, unlike it's more liberal counterparts, its conservatism has rolled on. Not to mention, Rove et al. mastered e-mail far better than the Democrats to send George W. Bush into the White House twice.
Much like John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama won the votes of young people because of their charisma, as opposed to their policies. I College students who needed Pell Grants and student loans had no reason to vote for Reagan; the funds were going to be cut. Yet they did--twice. Charisma did the trick. Policy certainly didn't.
If Mattera had done more to pat the previous generation on the back, he might have made a stronger call-to-action. Too much of Obama Zombies raeds "liberal this" and "liberal that," but there are conservatively biased media outlets, too, and they were quite successful in helping to elect the Bushes, who are far less charismatic than Obama.
It's nice to see conservatives whine for a change. It's up to the Republicans or Tea Party activists to come up with a stronger voice; in 2008, the conservative with the most Internet traction on college campuses was Ron Paul, not John McCain. Today, less than two years later, he's come within one point of Obama in a Rasmussen Poll.
Maybe the young voters had the right idea for the Republicans as well as the Democrats. Maybe a stronger mix of conservative geeks will be in Ron Paul's corner. He'll need to go after the best people who don't work for Google.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
When Is An Unpaid Internship Illegal? Guest Post by Donna Ballman, Esq.
Across the country high school and college students are actively seeking internships. Experiential learning has become more and more essential earning acceptance to graduate and professional schools and successfully finding post-graduate employment.
However, employers in popular fields such as entertainment, politics, public relations and sports marketing often do not pay their interns; the opportunity to "get through the door" is their draw.
Educated Quest asked Donna Ballman, a Florida-based employment and labor lawyer to discuss situations where an unpaid internship might be illegal. We would like to thank Donna for today's guest post, which is from the student's perspective.
So you’ve been offered a great opportunity – an internship with a company that does exactly what you’re interested in. Only problem? They won’t pay you. These opportunities can be the foot in the door you need. But they can also be an excuse to exploit a young person unaware of their rights. Here are some questions to ask yourself to determine whether your unpaid internship is illegal:
+ Are you being given training similar to that you would receive in a vocational school? In other words, are you learning something you can use in your future career? Or are you stuffing envelopes and filing? The internship has to give you training. Your tasks should build on each other so you develop more skills, similar to the way each chapter of a textbook builds on the other.
+ Is the training for your benefit? Who is getting more benefit – the company or you? It should be you.
+ Are you being closely supervised? You shouldn’t be working on your own or displace a regular employee.
+ Does the employer receive an immediate advantage from your work? If they can make money off what you’re doing, or if you’re saving them from having to pay another employee, you probably have to be paid.
+ Are you guaranteed a job at the end of your training period? If so, you’re probably a trainee that needs to be paid.
+ Was it made clear that you wouldn’t be paid at the time you were hired, or was this something that was sprung on you after you started? If you didn’t understand that you weren’t entitled to wages for the time you were training, you’re probably entitled to be paid.
Many employers get internships wrong. The consequences to the employer are harsh. They could have to pay your wages, any overtime, liquidated damages that equal the wages they failed to pay, and your attorney’s fees. The most important thing to do before accepting an internship is to get a clear understanding of your job duties, whether you’ll be paid, and what the employer expects of you. If it doesn’t sound like you’ll be in a great learning experience, then turn it down. It’s your time, and time is money. Make sure you get your money’s worth out of your internship.
If you think your employer is violating the law, contact an employment attorney in your state who handles wage and hour cases and find out about your rights.
A practicing attorney since 1986, Donna Ballman is the author of The Writer’s Guide to the Courtroom: Let’s Quill All the Lawyers
, a book geared toward informing novelists and screenwriters about the ins and outs of the civil justice system, part of its award-winning “Get It Write” series.
Ms. Ballman has published articles on employment law topics such as severance, non-compete agreements, discrimination, sexual harassment, and avoiding litigation. She’s been interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, Lifetime Television Network, the Daily Business Review, and many other media outlets on employment law issues. She was featured on the Forbes Channel’s “America’s Most Influential Women” program on the topic of severance negotiations and non-compete agreements.
However, employers in popular fields such as entertainment, politics, public relations and sports marketing often do not pay their interns; the opportunity to "get through the door" is their draw.
Educated Quest asked Donna Ballman, a Florida-based employment and labor lawyer to discuss situations where an unpaid internship might be illegal. We would like to thank Donna for today's guest post, which is from the student's perspective.
So you’ve been offered a great opportunity – an internship with a company that does exactly what you’re interested in. Only problem? They won’t pay you. These opportunities can be the foot in the door you need. But they can also be an excuse to exploit a young person unaware of their rights. Here are some questions to ask yourself to determine whether your unpaid internship is illegal:
+ Are you being given training similar to that you would receive in a vocational school? In other words, are you learning something you can use in your future career? Or are you stuffing envelopes and filing? The internship has to give you training. Your tasks should build on each other so you develop more skills, similar to the way each chapter of a textbook builds on the other.
+ Is the training for your benefit? Who is getting more benefit – the company or you? It should be you.
+ Are you being closely supervised? You shouldn’t be working on your own or displace a regular employee.
+ Does the employer receive an immediate advantage from your work? If they can make money off what you’re doing, or if you’re saving them from having to pay another employee, you probably have to be paid.
+ Are you guaranteed a job at the end of your training period? If so, you’re probably a trainee that needs to be paid.
+ Was it made clear that you wouldn’t be paid at the time you were hired, or was this something that was sprung on you after you started? If you didn’t understand that you weren’t entitled to wages for the time you were training, you’re probably entitled to be paid.
Many employers get internships wrong. The consequences to the employer are harsh. They could have to pay your wages, any overtime, liquidated damages that equal the wages they failed to pay, and your attorney’s fees. The most important thing to do before accepting an internship is to get a clear understanding of your job duties, whether you’ll be paid, and what the employer expects of you. If it doesn’t sound like you’ll be in a great learning experience, then turn it down. It’s your time, and time is money. Make sure you get your money’s worth out of your internship.
If you think your employer is violating the law, contact an employment attorney in your state who handles wage and hour cases and find out about your rights.
A practicing attorney since 1986, Donna Ballman is the author of The Writer’s Guide to the Courtroom: Let’s Quill All the Lawyers
, a book geared toward informing novelists and screenwriters about the ins and outs of the civil justice system, part of its award-winning “Get It Write” series. Ms. Ballman has published articles on employment law topics such as severance, non-compete agreements, discrimination, sexual harassment, and avoiding litigation. She’s been interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, Lifetime Television Network, the Daily Business Review, and many other media outlets on employment law issues. She was featured on the Forbes Channel’s “America’s Most Influential Women” program on the topic of severance negotiations and non-compete agreements.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Basketball Coach Wanted. Must Work Cheap
Last week Rutgers, my alma mater, fired men's basketball coach Fred Hill for acts of misconduct. He attended a Rutgers baseball game and shouted profanities at the Pittsburgh coaches. One would have thought Hill would have learned to keep a lid on his emotions, given his poor record as coach over the past four seasons.
Rutgers offered Hill a $600,000 buyout, however his contract had three more seasons to go; a total of $1.8 million would have been paid for the duration. There will be a legal battle, which promises to be expensive and may also delay the hiring of a new coach. Given the limited time that a new coach will have to persuade the current team, as well as Hill's recruits, I wonder who would want the job.
At the beginning of last season, the Rutgers men's basketball Web pages called Hill a "throwback" and an "old school coach." He was also called a "Jersey Guy." He had been an assistant coach and associate head coach at Fairleigh Dickinson and Seton Hall as well as Rutgers. In between Seton Hall and Rutgers he worked at Villanova, one of the more respected programs in the Big East.
Hill was known for his prowess as a recruiter, though one would have to wonder why he'd been an assistant coach for nearly a quarter century before he took the reins at Rutgers. My guess, based on the 19-14 record for the last season his predecessor Gary Waters--who moved onto Cleveland State--is that he was simply a man in the right place at the right time.
Hill leaves with the third-worst winning percentage of any Rutgers men's basketball coach as well as the worst for any Big East coach over three or more seasons.The team will be a major reconstruction project, though reconstructions have happened at Rutgers before.
Aside from timing and budget issues, a new coach will face these challenges:
+The worst basketball facility in the Big East.
There is no reason that a team in a premier basketball conference should not have a home arena with fewer than 20,000 seats or an agreement with one off-campus.
Seton Hall, a school with less than half the number of students plays in the Prudential Center in Newark, a modern venue with 18,500 seats for basketball. The Hall's arrangement with the Pru Center makes sense because Newark is a neighbor to the South Orange campus.
Rutgers will need to think long-term about a new arena. A practice facility is in the fund-raising stages.
So, here's job requirements number one and two. The new coach must have the charisma to raise money for a new arena. And he has to hope that he can win enough games so that he gets to coach in it.
+Star power of the women's team.
Rutgers women's basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer is one of the most successful coaches in her game. She has over 800 wins to her credit and has taken three schools to the Final Four, Rutgers twice. Her teams have missed the NCAA Tournament only once. She's in the Basketball Hall of Fame; she was inducted last year with Michael Jordan. She is deservedly one of the highest paid coaches in her sport.
No available men's coach is going to match Stringer for charisma or overall success on the court. Nor will he come close on the salary. Stringer is guaranteed to earn the same base salary as Greg Schiano, the head football coach. In 2011, her base pay will be $500,000; endorsements, housing, travel allowances and bonuses will take her total package past $1.5 million.
While Stringer is an excellent coach, the dominant programs in the women's game, U-Conn, Tennessee, Maryland, Duke, Oklahoma and Stanford also have excellent men's programs. U-Conn men's coach Jim Calhoun has more than 800 win as well as two national championships, but I doubt that he feels overshadowed by Geno Auriemma, the women's coach who has won seven.
Whoever takes the Rutgers men's job is going to be overshadowed by Stringer, unless he comes to Piscataway with as many wins as she has or an NCAA title to his name. While Stringer has been a bridesmaid at the Final Four, she has never been a bride.
So, here's job requirement number three: a resume with lots of wins. Not as many as Stringer, but a win total and winning percentage that will get the fans excited. An assistant who has had a major role in a winning program is more likely
Given timing and budgeting, Rutgers best bet appears to be someone younger and more charismatic than Hill--who knows the Big East as well as the talent in New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia. The new coach will have to work for the lowest base pay in the Big East though he will need to find a home in one of its most expensive housing markets.
Rutgers must hope this new coach will be another Greg Schiano, young enough, tough enough and smart enough to turn a reconstruction project into a consistent winner. And the fans will need to be patient once more.
Rutgers offered Hill a $600,000 buyout, however his contract had three more seasons to go; a total of $1.8 million would have been paid for the duration. There will be a legal battle, which promises to be expensive and may also delay the hiring of a new coach. Given the limited time that a new coach will have to persuade the current team, as well as Hill's recruits, I wonder who would want the job.
At the beginning of last season, the Rutgers men's basketball Web pages called Hill a "throwback" and an "old school coach." He was also called a "Jersey Guy." He had been an assistant coach and associate head coach at Fairleigh Dickinson and Seton Hall as well as Rutgers. In between Seton Hall and Rutgers he worked at Villanova, one of the more respected programs in the Big East.
Hill was known for his prowess as a recruiter, though one would have to wonder why he'd been an assistant coach for nearly a quarter century before he took the reins at Rutgers. My guess, based on the 19-14 record for the last season his predecessor Gary Waters--who moved onto Cleveland State--is that he was simply a man in the right place at the right time.
Hill leaves with the third-worst winning percentage of any Rutgers men's basketball coach as well as the worst for any Big East coach over three or more seasons.The team will be a major reconstruction project, though reconstructions have happened at Rutgers before.
Aside from timing and budget issues, a new coach will face these challenges:
+The worst basketball facility in the Big East.
There is no reason that a team in a premier basketball conference should not have a home arena with fewer than 20,000 seats or an agreement with one off-campus.
Seton Hall, a school with less than half the number of students plays in the Prudential Center in Newark, a modern venue with 18,500 seats for basketball. The Hall's arrangement with the Pru Center makes sense because Newark is a neighbor to the South Orange campus.
Rutgers will need to think long-term about a new arena. A practice facility is in the fund-raising stages.
So, here's job requirements number one and two. The new coach must have the charisma to raise money for a new arena. And he has to hope that he can win enough games so that he gets to coach in it.
+Star power of the women's team.
Rutgers women's basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer is one of the most successful coaches in her game. She has over 800 wins to her credit and has taken three schools to the Final Four, Rutgers twice. Her teams have missed the NCAA Tournament only once. She's in the Basketball Hall of Fame; she was inducted last year with Michael Jordan. She is deservedly one of the highest paid coaches in her sport.
No available men's coach is going to match Stringer for charisma or overall success on the court. Nor will he come close on the salary. Stringer is guaranteed to earn the same base salary as Greg Schiano, the head football coach. In 2011, her base pay will be $500,000; endorsements, housing, travel allowances and bonuses will take her total package past $1.5 million.
While Stringer is an excellent coach, the dominant programs in the women's game, U-Conn, Tennessee, Maryland, Duke, Oklahoma and Stanford also have excellent men's programs. U-Conn men's coach Jim Calhoun has more than 800 win as well as two national championships, but I doubt that he feels overshadowed by Geno Auriemma, the women's coach who has won seven.
Whoever takes the Rutgers men's job is going to be overshadowed by Stringer, unless he comes to Piscataway with as many wins as she has or an NCAA title to his name. While Stringer has been a bridesmaid at the Final Four, she has never been a bride.
So, here's job requirement number three: a resume with lots of wins. Not as many as Stringer, but a win total and winning percentage that will get the fans excited. An assistant who has had a major role in a winning program is more likely
Given timing and budgeting, Rutgers best bet appears to be someone younger and more charismatic than Hill--who knows the Big East as well as the talent in New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia. The new coach will have to work for the lowest base pay in the Big East though he will need to find a home in one of its most expensive housing markets.
Rutgers must hope this new coach will be another Greg Schiano, young enough, tough enough and smart enough to turn a reconstruction project into a consistent winner. And the fans will need to be patient once more.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Budget Cuts and Tuition Cap would be a Lethal Mix in New Jersey
This week New Jersey governor Chris Christie proposed a tuition cap on public colleges. If approved by the state legislature, no institution would be able to increase tuition by more than four percent. State-supported schools cannot exceed the cap otherwise they risk losing state aid.
I would be all in favor of a cap if the governor had not proposed such drastic cuts in state aid to the schools. The idea of a cap make sense--schools would be force to deliver education to a price as opposed to whatever increases they might get through state government or federal financial aid.
The cap, by itself, would be responsible public policy. A cap also respects education as a business. Most corporations, excluding the health care industry, make annual effort to manage costs and limit price increases. They want new and repeat customers. So do colleges and universities.
Colleges and universities have also learned how to deliver education more economically.
Sometimes we do not like the idea that students are taught by poorly-paid adjunct faculty and graduate students, but those instructors earn lower salaries than tenured professors, and they do not receive health benefits.
More educational options, including tutorials, are delivered online; classroom size has become less of a constraint to learning. Other processes: admissions and course registration have become more automated as well.
A cap would force schools to pass on some of the cost savings on to their students. That is a fair business practice.
Had Governor Christie proposed significantly smaller cuts in state aid, he could have given more time to trust the individual schools to adjust to the realities of a cap. Had he not proposed, for instance, to transfer authority for Thomas Edison State College and the state museum and library onto Rutgers, he might have given the university president more time to formulate an appropriate strategy.
He might have also allowed individual schools more flexibility, for employers are customers as well as students and parents. An engineering, business or education program backed by employers ready to hire is worth the investment. Christie might have provided a targeted match.
I realize words such as flexibility do not sound as sexy as budget cut or tax cut. I know that there are as many people who cheer Christie on as there are those who condemn his actions. But I also know that educators are responsible for delivering a service, just as public safety and transportation agencies must do. The combination of cuts and a cap reeks of distrust of those who deliver the service.
I would hope that citizens would want their police, their highway department and their mass transit agency to have the tools they need to do their jobs, and the proof those tools are working. They deserve the same from their colleges.
I would be all in favor of a cap if the governor had not proposed such drastic cuts in state aid to the schools. The idea of a cap make sense--schools would be force to deliver education to a price as opposed to whatever increases they might get through state government or federal financial aid.
The cap, by itself, would be responsible public policy. A cap also respects education as a business. Most corporations, excluding the health care industry, make annual effort to manage costs and limit price increases. They want new and repeat customers. So do colleges and universities.
Colleges and universities have also learned how to deliver education more economically.
Sometimes we do not like the idea that students are taught by poorly-paid adjunct faculty and graduate students, but those instructors earn lower salaries than tenured professors, and they do not receive health benefits.
More educational options, including tutorials, are delivered online; classroom size has become less of a constraint to learning. Other processes: admissions and course registration have become more automated as well.
A cap would force schools to pass on some of the cost savings on to their students. That is a fair business practice.
Had Governor Christie proposed significantly smaller cuts in state aid, he could have given more time to trust the individual schools to adjust to the realities of a cap. Had he not proposed, for instance, to transfer authority for Thomas Edison State College and the state museum and library onto Rutgers, he might have given the university president more time to formulate an appropriate strategy.
He might have also allowed individual schools more flexibility, for employers are customers as well as students and parents. An engineering, business or education program backed by employers ready to hire is worth the investment. Christie might have provided a targeted match.
I realize words such as flexibility do not sound as sexy as budget cut or tax cut. I know that there are as many people who cheer Christie on as there are those who condemn his actions. But I also know that educators are responsible for delivering a service, just as public safety and transportation agencies must do. The combination of cuts and a cap reeks of distrust of those who deliver the service.
I would hope that citizens would want their police, their highway department and their mass transit agency to have the tools they need to do their jobs, and the proof those tools are working. They deserve the same from their colleges.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
A Huge Faux Paux in the Capital of the Confederacy
Today I read that Virginia governor Bob McDonnell had attempted to declare April as Confederate History Month. This was not the first time that a Virginia governor has issued such a proclamation. Former governor George Allen--the man who introduced America to the macaca moment--issued one thirteen years ago. The media reports that McDonnell was seriously in error by making no mention of slavery in his proclamation.
Issuing that proclamation was just plain stupid. I'll give McDonnell some benefit of the doubt--as long as he fires the person who gave him the final draft. It's very easy to make a governor a target--he is the chief executive officer of the state--but those who put him in the position of making such a dangerous faux paux should be held accountable.
If he does not, he has made a bad reflection on the Republican Party in Virginia and the nation at large. Oddly enough, the majority of black voters favored Republican presidential candidates over Democrats until 1936; the Southern Democrats were considered to be the more avid segregationists.
In 1913, on the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, President Woodrow Wilson, a Virginian, proclaimed, “We have found one another as brothers and comrades, in arms, enemies no longer.” Wilson spoke about the men who fought for the Union and the Confederacy; over 42,000 were present that day. However, Wilson, a Democrat, did not mention slavery either. Wilson was an ardent segregationist who brought Jim Crow policies into the federal government and the capital city.
Democrats and Republicans have been in role reversal from the 20th century through now. Southern Republicans have become the old Southern Democrats. That is far from a positive development for the Grand Old Party. It is the reason why I have never voted for a Republican candidate for president--and the reason why I probably never will.
I have little issue with teaching students about the Confederacy, especially in a formerly Confederate state. Slavery was a cause, but there were other economic considerations as well. America was not a republic of truly united states during the early half of the nineteenth century. Post-war reconstruction was exceptionally difficult but there are good stories as well as bad.
There have been many disgraceful events in American history when the people did not act on their best behavior and neither did our elected officials. Disgraceful acts have been committed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike. I would doubt that you will meet a Republican who is proud of Richard Nixon's conduct during the Watergate hearings or a Democrat who would stand by FDR's support of internment camps during World War II.
Future generations should know exactly how those events transpired so that they are never repeated. However, such events should never be celebrated through a governor's proclamation.
Issuing that proclamation was just plain stupid. I'll give McDonnell some benefit of the doubt--as long as he fires the person who gave him the final draft. It's very easy to make a governor a target--he is the chief executive officer of the state--but those who put him in the position of making such a dangerous faux paux should be held accountable.
If he does not, he has made a bad reflection on the Republican Party in Virginia and the nation at large. Oddly enough, the majority of black voters favored Republican presidential candidates over Democrats until 1936; the Southern Democrats were considered to be the more avid segregationists.
In 1913, on the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, President Woodrow Wilson, a Virginian, proclaimed, “We have found one another as brothers and comrades, in arms, enemies no longer.” Wilson spoke about the men who fought for the Union and the Confederacy; over 42,000 were present that day. However, Wilson, a Democrat, did not mention slavery either. Wilson was an ardent segregationist who brought Jim Crow policies into the federal government and the capital city.
Democrats and Republicans have been in role reversal from the 20th century through now. Southern Republicans have become the old Southern Democrats. That is far from a positive development for the Grand Old Party. It is the reason why I have never voted for a Republican candidate for president--and the reason why I probably never will.
I have little issue with teaching students about the Confederacy, especially in a formerly Confederate state. Slavery was a cause, but there were other economic considerations as well. America was not a republic of truly united states during the early half of the nineteenth century. Post-war reconstruction was exceptionally difficult but there are good stories as well as bad.
There have been many disgraceful events in American history when the people did not act on their best behavior and neither did our elected officials. Disgraceful acts have been committed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike. I would doubt that you will meet a Republican who is proud of Richard Nixon's conduct during the Watergate hearings or a Democrat who would stand by FDR's support of internment camps during World War II.
Future generations should know exactly how those events transpired so that they are never repeated. However, such events should never be celebrated through a governor's proclamation.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Book Review: Getting In, A Novel by Karen Stabiner
Sometimes the best fiction mirrors truth and Getting In is no exception.
Getting Inis a story written around five Southern California families, four with high school seniors in a prestigious private school, the other with a senior in a very good, but not elite public school.
The students and parents are main characters as is their guidance counselor, Ted Marshall, a former English teacher whose admissions track record leads him to consider "the dark side," to become a highly paid consultant after the school year is over.
Stabiner, a journalist, novelist and columnist as well as mother to a college student, has not missed a single admissions anxiety on the part of parents or applicants.
Nor has she missed the behind-the-scenes dynamics of the well-connected counselor. Her fictional Crestview High, the private school, is in California, but it could just as easily be in Highland Park, Texas or Wellesley, Massachusetts, among other places.
I read Getting Inimmediately after I had read the M-factor, the book I reviewed yesterday. The M-factor goes into detail about helicopter parents, mothers and fathers who become deeply and personally involved in the admissions decision.
Getting Inshows helicopter parents at their best and worst--whether it be the rich father who demands that his son continue a Harvard legacy to a divorced couple that bribes their daughter with a fully-loaded Toyota Prius on order to sway her to attend a state university.
Parents who read Getting Inmay recognize qualities about themselves, some they like, but also some they dislike. Getting In is a rare case where fiction may teach parents as many lessons, if not more, as a college guide or an initial off-campus admissions consultation. It will help families make better admissions decisions.
Karen Stabiner has done what I have also tried to do: explain complex education issues through enjoyable fiction. I tip my hat to her for this excellent story.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Book Review: The M-Factor, How the Millennial Generation is Rocking the Workplace by Lynne C. Lancaster and David Stillman
I worked directly with college recruiters and career counselors for ten years and I still write about entry level employment issues. Every time I read books like The M-factor I want to slam them shut and throw them against the wall.
Then again, I am not the target audience for their authors. This book, and others like it, are good, highly readable resources for parents and executives new to college recruiting.
The authors of M-factor discuss seven trends about managing Millenials, people born in 1982 or later, in the workplace. Since the oldest Millenials are 28, I would guess this is the first time anyone could seriously try to spot any trends at all.
The seven trends discussed are:
+ The role of parents
+ Entitlement
+ The search for meaning
+ Great expectations
+ The need for speed
+ Social networking
+ Collaboration
These trends are not only explained; there is also advice for managers on how to bridge generational attitudes in order to lead effectively.
However, as someone who has read similar works from The Organization Man, published in 1956 and the fictional The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit published in 1955 as well as various titles about managing Generation X--those born between 1964 and 1981, I have to say that there has been little difference between entry level attitudes from one generation to the next.
Each of the last four generations have these common attributes:
+ They were defined by a major event. Traditionalists, those born between 1927 and 1945, were influenced by the Depression, World War II and the beginning of the Cold War; Baby Boomers were influenced by Korea, Kennedy, and Vietnam; Generation X by Reagan, Clinton and the Challenger disaster and Millenials by 9-11 and the election of Barack Obama.
+ They were defined by the introduction of an affordable technology. For traditionalists it was the automobile and radios; for Baby Boomers it was television and the electric guitar; for Generation X it was computers; and for Millenials social networking tools.
+ They all wanted to apply to join organizations whether they be colleges or employers who were extremely selective. However, those organizations were designed by people from generations before them. For the most part, college freshman and entry level workers have either adapted to the culture and demands of those institutions, or they left.
+ They all adapt to the technology developed by generations after them to succeed in the workplace.
+ From one generation to the next, people are no less ambitious or public-service oriented than people in the previous generation. The difference is that more people have access to the education needed to pursue ambitions or become dedicated citizens.
There is one slight difference with Millenials and that is the role of "helicopter parents." Educated, well-to-do parents have become more involved in college selection and the job search than ever before. They have sprouted an industry of tutoring, college counseling and consulting services.
The M-factor provides several anecdotes about the escapades of helicopter parents; management even provides them with marketing materials. Selective colleges have redesigned the admissions process around them, too.
Which leaves me with questions for the authors of M-factor and similar books.
How is it that a generation that has supposedly grown up under more parental influence than the one before it is no less difficult to manage in the workplace? I would believe that helicopter parents who have succeeded in the workplace paid their dues. Why would they expect less from their children?
Millenials will become our best-educated generation, although the corporate workplace, aka "employers of choice," will have no more room for them than they have made for previous generations. The most selective organizations will become even more selective.
So, how will our economy adjust to a legion of superstars who cannot get the jobs they might have gotten a generation before?
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Butler Bulldogs--Sentimental Underdogs--a repost from last season
Last year I wrote this post in support of an underdog, Butler University, which went on to face Duke for the NCAA Championship. Butler is back in the Big Dance this year; as an eight seed, they got by Old Dominion by only two points.
Rooting for the underdog is one of the best parts of the NCAA Tournament, whether it be a large school or a small school. San Diego State deserves to be a sentimental favorite as much as Morehead State (KY) or Richmond. It may even be harder to consider schools like Butler, Gonzaga and Xavier underdogs for long, since they have made repeat appearances at the Dance. But I'll root for them over any team that is usually in a final. On the other hand, I'll root for Kansas in games against the traditional powers. I like the original sound of "Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk."
This season a small school has done the near-impossible. Butler University in Indianapolis will be playing for the national championship. Should the Bulldogs prevail against Duke, Butler will not be the first small school to win it, but it will be the first that took the more difficult road.
Since 1939, the NCAA Men's Tournament has been dominated by larger publicly-supported schools, with UCLA, Kentucky and Indiana having the greatest success. Duke has been the most successful privately supported school.
It's safe to say that Duke, like Butler, is a small school--there are 6,400 undergraduates--but the Blue Devils have played in a major sports conference for several decades. While Duke is well known for mens and women's basketball as well as lacrosse, its football team appeared in each of the four major bowl games:Rose, Sugar, Cotton and Orange from 1939 through 1961.
When a school has played big-time aports and has so many nationally known graduate and professional schools it can hardly by considered a small school. The high quality of the basketball schedule also helps their ranking and tournament seed.
Butler has less than 4,000 undergraduates. Only LaSalle which won the tournament in 1954, has fewer. However, LaSalle has over 4,000 graduate students, too. Butler has fewer than 700.
The school is more famous for its Hinkle Fieldhouse than it is for its basketball team. The Fieldhouse played host to many Indiana state basketball championship games and it was the set for Hoosiers, starring Gene Hackman.
Butler went unbeaten in the Horizon Conference, a basketball-only group that includes Cleveland State, Detroit, Green Bay, Loyola-Chicago, Wisconsin-Milwaukee, UI-Chicago, Valparaiso, Wright State and Youngstown State.
There is some basketball pedigree in this conference. Loyola-Chicago was national champion in 1963. Detroit was the place where Dick Vitale got his start as a coach and sent Spencer Haywood, a 1968 Olympian into a long career in pro basketball at the tender age of 19. Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Valparaiso have had successful tournament runs, too.
Butler earned a place in the NCAA Tournament by winning the conference, but they had to defeat out-of-conference opponents to earn a five seed. The Little School that Did knocked off UCLA, Ohio State and Xavier during the regular season, though they also lost to Clemson, Minnesota and Georgetown.
All of the losses came on the road, two in California, one at Madison Square Garden in New York and the last at Alabama-Birmingham. The Bulldogs did not lose a single game that they played in the Midwest--and their last game for this season will be a home game.
If this game were on a neutral site, I would say that Duke would win the crowd as well as the game. They turn out their students as well as a strong alumni base in major media markets.
This time the Cameron Crazies will be out-numbered. The Bulldogs won three tournament games against one and two seeds, two on neutral sites. There's no reason they can't nail down the title at home.
Rooting for the underdog is one of the best parts of the NCAA Tournament, whether it be a large school or a small school. San Diego State deserves to be a sentimental favorite as much as Morehead State (KY) or Richmond. It may even be harder to consider schools like Butler, Gonzaga and Xavier underdogs for long, since they have made repeat appearances at the Dance. But I'll root for them over any team that is usually in a final. On the other hand, I'll root for Kansas in games against the traditional powers. I like the original sound of "Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk."
This season a small school has done the near-impossible. Butler University in Indianapolis will be playing for the national championship. Should the Bulldogs prevail against Duke, Butler will not be the first small school to win it, but it will be the first that took the more difficult road.
Since 1939, the NCAA Men's Tournament has been dominated by larger publicly-supported schools, with UCLA, Kentucky and Indiana having the greatest success. Duke has been the most successful privately supported school.
It's safe to say that Duke, like Butler, is a small school--there are 6,400 undergraduates--but the Blue Devils have played in a major sports conference for several decades. While Duke is well known for mens and women's basketball as well as lacrosse, its football team appeared in each of the four major bowl games:Rose, Sugar, Cotton and Orange from 1939 through 1961.
When a school has played big-time aports and has so many nationally known graduate and professional schools it can hardly by considered a small school. The high quality of the basketball schedule also helps their ranking and tournament seed.
Butler has less than 4,000 undergraduates. Only LaSalle which won the tournament in 1954, has fewer. However, LaSalle has over 4,000 graduate students, too. Butler has fewer than 700.
The school is more famous for its Hinkle Fieldhouse than it is for its basketball team. The Fieldhouse played host to many Indiana state basketball championship games and it was the set for Hoosiers, starring Gene Hackman.
Butler went unbeaten in the Horizon Conference, a basketball-only group that includes Cleveland State, Detroit, Green Bay, Loyola-Chicago, Wisconsin-Milwaukee, UI-Chicago, Valparaiso, Wright State and Youngstown State.
There is some basketball pedigree in this conference. Loyola-Chicago was national champion in 1963. Detroit was the place where Dick Vitale got his start as a coach and sent Spencer Haywood, a 1968 Olympian into a long career in pro basketball at the tender age of 19. Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Valparaiso have had successful tournament runs, too.
Butler earned a place in the NCAA Tournament by winning the conference, but they had to defeat out-of-conference opponents to earn a five seed. The Little School that Did knocked off UCLA, Ohio State and Xavier during the regular season, though they also lost to Clemson, Minnesota and Georgetown.
All of the losses came on the road, two in California, one at Madison Square Garden in New York and the last at Alabama-Birmingham. The Bulldogs did not lose a single game that they played in the Midwest--and their last game for this season will be a home game.
If this game were on a neutral site, I would say that Duke would win the crowd as well as the game. They turn out their students as well as a strong alumni base in major media markets.
This time the Cameron Crazies will be out-numbered. The Bulldogs won three tournament games against one and two seeds, two on neutral sites. There's no reason they can't nail down the title at home.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
More New Jersey Pay Freeze Politics
Yesterday and today I read that New Jersey governor Chris Christie has offered a trade to the state's public school teachers: freeze your salaries for a year and the state will return the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes it would have saved as the result of the freeze. Every million dollars the district saves as a result of the wage freeze would mean an additional $75,000 in state aid.
At least four well-to-do school districts, among others in the Garden State, have agreed to freeze teacher salaries for a year. The majority of school boards have reopened discussions to discuss the freeze or other compensation options.
I have to give Christie credit in that he's offered an incentive, one which he is empowered to give, in order to make the freeze less painful for teachers. However, I have to wonder if he should become even more flexible.
One of the arguments for the freeze is that experienced teachers in New Jersey are more highly compensated than teachers in other states, especially if they work in a well-to-do community.
Three years ago, according to the American Federation of Teachers salary, New Jersey ranked third in average teacher's salary behind only California and Connecticut, two other high-income states. The union also acknowledged that these three states, among others, tend to have a greater share of experienced teachers. The cost of living is very high for a young teacher starting out.
So, I'd like to offer some thoughts.
First, it is not reasonable to apply the freeze across all teachers, especially the youngest and lowest salaried in districts that have schools in need of improvement. I suggest that teachers in the lowest third of the salary scale, especially in the urban districts, be allowed to receive a raise. The freeze only serves as an additional sign of discouragement.
Second, the exceptionally well-to-do districts should be excluded from the trade of freeze for state aid. These districts are in a better position to seek property tax increases or impose user fees on their residents.
Third, the governor should offer other incentives to encourage neighboring districts to consolidate or share services. If two neighbors agree to share costs to fill a common need, then the state could return some aid to make the sharing succeed.
Fourth, the governor should punt on his intentions not to increase taxes and restore the top tax bracket, which applies to households earning over $400,000 per year. Anyone in that tax bracket who expects state government to provide better services--especially roads, higher education and police--should be willing to pay a little extra for them.
At least four well-to-do school districts, among others in the Garden State, have agreed to freeze teacher salaries for a year. The majority of school boards have reopened discussions to discuss the freeze or other compensation options.
I have to give Christie credit in that he's offered an incentive, one which he is empowered to give, in order to make the freeze less painful for teachers. However, I have to wonder if he should become even more flexible.
One of the arguments for the freeze is that experienced teachers in New Jersey are more highly compensated than teachers in other states, especially if they work in a well-to-do community.
Three years ago, according to the American Federation of Teachers salary, New Jersey ranked third in average teacher's salary behind only California and Connecticut, two other high-income states. The union also acknowledged that these three states, among others, tend to have a greater share of experienced teachers. The cost of living is very high for a young teacher starting out.
So, I'd like to offer some thoughts.
First, it is not reasonable to apply the freeze across all teachers, especially the youngest and lowest salaried in districts that have schools in need of improvement. I suggest that teachers in the lowest third of the salary scale, especially in the urban districts, be allowed to receive a raise. The freeze only serves as an additional sign of discouragement.
Second, the exceptionally well-to-do districts should be excluded from the trade of freeze for state aid. These districts are in a better position to seek property tax increases or impose user fees on their residents.
Third, the governor should offer other incentives to encourage neighboring districts to consolidate or share services. If two neighbors agree to share costs to fill a common need, then the state could return some aid to make the sharing succeed.
Fourth, the governor should punt on his intentions not to increase taxes and restore the top tax bracket, which applies to households earning over $400,000 per year. Anyone in that tax bracket who expects state government to provide better services--especially roads, higher education and police--should be willing to pay a little extra for them.
Domination Still Hurts Women's College Basketball
Two years ago I attended the last game the U-Conn woman's basketball team lost. They were beaten in the first round of the Final Four by Stanford. This weekend, both teams return to the Final Four and they may face off in the final game.
This time both teams would have one loss between them. U-Conn beat Stanford 80-68 in Hartford on December 23. That was probably the only game Geno Auriemma's Huskies were close to losing all season.
After I came home from the 2008 Final Four, I wrote a post about Tennessee's dominance in the women's game. Tennessee beat conference rival LSU by one point in the semi-final then beat Stanford handily for the title.
This morning, I decided to repost that piece.
My concerns about dominance could just as easily apply to U-Conn as they did for Tennessee two years ago. Should the Huskies prevail this weekend, they will earn their seventh national title in their fourth undefeated season.
I do not know of a college sport that has been so dominated by so few schools in its history. In the twenty eight years since the NCAA introduced the Division 1 Women's Basketball Tournament, U-Conn and Tennessee have won the national championship a combined sixteen times. Stanford, Southern Cal and USC have each won it twice
Below is my post from two years ago.
Trip to the 'Ship': The Shade of Orange on the Game
I´m a New York Giants fan and a New York Yankee fan who is used to attending home games surrounded by the blue-ness of our colors. At Rutgers games real fans wear red; you could just as easily call our wave the Red Sea.
But when I attended this year´s final game of the NCAA Women´s Final Four, there was a sea of creamy orange beneath my feet. The colors and repeat choruses of Rocky Top made me feel as if I were at a Tennessee home game, even though we were in Florida, a state that prefers a different shade of orange.
But that´s to be expected when a team has been as successful as Pat Summitt´s Lady Vols. Wherever they play, a regular crowd shuffles in. I had seen the Tennessee women play three times before the Final Four: once on Rutgers´ home court and twice in an Elite Eight series in Philadelphia and all three games drew a significant turnout of orange-clothed fans, considering the distance between Knoxville and Philadelphia and Knoxville and Piscataway, New Jersey.
I can´t hate Tennessee; their home-town fans are nice in a neighborly way and they are the most loyal fans I have ever seen. According to unofficial attendance figures tracked by the University of Wisconsin, the Lady Vols average nearly 16,000 people per home game. UConn is second best with just under 11,000 fans a game, and they play their strongest opponents off-campus at the Hartford Civic Center. LSU, the Lady Vol´s opponent in the semi-final game, averages approximately 5,500 fans and Stanford, the remaining finalist this season, averages just under 4,000.
The Lady Vols are to women´s college basketball what Notre Dame fans have been to college football, a national cadre that always shows up when the team comes to town. And like Notre Dame fans, I have met many Lady Vols fans who are "subway alumni." They root enthusiastically for the team, even though they might have never set foot on campus.
Unlike Boston Red Sox fans who never pass up the chance to "share the love," Tennessee fans don´t form personal opinions if your root for another team. Lady Vols fans not only love a winner; they also love a team that loves them back. You can´t help but admire a team that might bring enough fans along to help sell out your arena—and Tennessee basketball is very fan friendly. If nothing else, the mascot and band will get you to remember the words to Rocky Top.
The Tennessee faithful can legitimately claim that a Woman´s Final Four without orange and white is like a day without sunshine. They would also have claim to a title of America´s Team; five members of the roster hailed from the south, while six are northerners. Only two of Summit´s players come from in-state.
Tennessee´s dominance of women´s college basketball has been astounding. The Lady Vols have played in 13 of 27 NCAA title games—not just the Final Four, but the final game—and won eight times. They have also made the semi-finals five times.
Although the regular season series has been canceled, the Tennessee fans I met this Final Four weekend considered UConn–not an inter-conference school like LSU–their primary rival. Tennessee has never won an NCAA final tilt against UConn in three tries and Geno Auriemma´s Huskies held an 8-7 advantage over Summitt´s Vols during the regular season games played between 1995 and 2007.
Then again, I was wearing a Rutgers shirt to this final not a UConn one. Throughout the three days I talked to Tennessee fans, I kept hearing about how much they wanted to play Rutgers in the final and how much they liked and respected our coach C. Vivian Stringer.
There was no reason to question their sincerity, though Stringer has beaten Summitt´s teams only once in the past 13 years. (Post script: Rutgers has lost twice to Tennessee since then, though they led by 20 at the half of their 2009 game in Piscataway)
In some ways Tennessee´s dominance has been good for women´s basketball, in other ways it has not. Pat Summitt has won more college basketball games than any man or women still coaching and she earned every one of those wins (Except that I believe Rutgers won the infamous "clock" game in Knoxville this past season).
Only John Wooden had won more college championships—ten—and Summitt has plenty of time to pass him. She is one of the most important woman professionals in the country and an effective spokesperson for her game. If someone told me that Summitt has elevated the profile and respect for women´s basketball and women athletes in general, I wouldn´t argue.
But one team´s dominance leads fans of the other teams to question the competitive balance of the sport and lose interest. This is an especially serious situation for women´s basketball as successful programs such as LSU, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Stanford and Old Dominion struggle to fill more than half of their seats at home.
Women´s college basketball can look to major league baseball as an example. From 1949 to 1953, major league baseball attendance dropped from 20.2 million fans to 14.3 million as the New York Yankees won five consecutive World Championships, against New York´s National League teams: the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants. The decline made me wonder about the interest in baseball outside of New York City.
Women´s college basketball is a great game. It's more team-oriented than the men´s game and the women are reported to be more successful academically. The women´s game is also a young game. The pioneers such as Summitt, Auriemma and Stringer are still going strong as coaches or are working in athletic administration.
However, I worry about the long term prospects of the sport when there is a dominant team and wide disparities in attendance figures.
This time both teams would have one loss between them. U-Conn beat Stanford 80-68 in Hartford on December 23. That was probably the only game Geno Auriemma's Huskies were close to losing all season.
After I came home from the 2008 Final Four, I wrote a post about Tennessee's dominance in the women's game. Tennessee beat conference rival LSU by one point in the semi-final then beat Stanford handily for the title.
This morning, I decided to repost that piece.
My concerns about dominance could just as easily apply to U-Conn as they did for Tennessee two years ago. Should the Huskies prevail this weekend, they will earn their seventh national title in their fourth undefeated season.
I do not know of a college sport that has been so dominated by so few schools in its history. In the twenty eight years since the NCAA introduced the Division 1 Women's Basketball Tournament, U-Conn and Tennessee have won the national championship a combined sixteen times. Stanford, Southern Cal and USC have each won it twice
Below is my post from two years ago.
Trip to the 'Ship': The Shade of Orange on the Game
I´m a New York Giants fan and a New York Yankee fan who is used to attending home games surrounded by the blue-ness of our colors. At Rutgers games real fans wear red; you could just as easily call our wave the Red Sea.
But when I attended this year´s final game of the NCAA Women´s Final Four, there was a sea of creamy orange beneath my feet. The colors and repeat choruses of Rocky Top made me feel as if I were at a Tennessee home game, even though we were in Florida, a state that prefers a different shade of orange.
But that´s to be expected when a team has been as successful as Pat Summitt´s Lady Vols. Wherever they play, a regular crowd shuffles in. I had seen the Tennessee women play three times before the Final Four: once on Rutgers´ home court and twice in an Elite Eight series in Philadelphia and all three games drew a significant turnout of orange-clothed fans, considering the distance between Knoxville and Philadelphia and Knoxville and Piscataway, New Jersey.
I can´t hate Tennessee; their home-town fans are nice in a neighborly way and they are the most loyal fans I have ever seen. According to unofficial attendance figures tracked by the University of Wisconsin, the Lady Vols average nearly 16,000 people per home game. UConn is second best with just under 11,000 fans a game, and they play their strongest opponents off-campus at the Hartford Civic Center. LSU, the Lady Vol´s opponent in the semi-final game, averages approximately 5,500 fans and Stanford, the remaining finalist this season, averages just under 4,000.
The Lady Vols are to women´s college basketball what Notre Dame fans have been to college football, a national cadre that always shows up when the team comes to town. And like Notre Dame fans, I have met many Lady Vols fans who are "subway alumni." They root enthusiastically for the team, even though they might have never set foot on campus.
Unlike Boston Red Sox fans who never pass up the chance to "share the love," Tennessee fans don´t form personal opinions if your root for another team. Lady Vols fans not only love a winner; they also love a team that loves them back. You can´t help but admire a team that might bring enough fans along to help sell out your arena—and Tennessee basketball is very fan friendly. If nothing else, the mascot and band will get you to remember the words to Rocky Top.
The Tennessee faithful can legitimately claim that a Woman´s Final Four without orange and white is like a day without sunshine. They would also have claim to a title of America´s Team; five members of the roster hailed from the south, while six are northerners. Only two of Summit´s players come from in-state.
Tennessee´s dominance of women´s college basketball has been astounding. The Lady Vols have played in 13 of 27 NCAA title games—not just the Final Four, but the final game—and won eight times. They have also made the semi-finals five times.
Although the regular season series has been canceled, the Tennessee fans I met this Final Four weekend considered UConn–not an inter-conference school like LSU–their primary rival. Tennessee has never won an NCAA final tilt against UConn in three tries and Geno Auriemma´s Huskies held an 8-7 advantage over Summitt´s Vols during the regular season games played between 1995 and 2007.
Then again, I was wearing a Rutgers shirt to this final not a UConn one. Throughout the three days I talked to Tennessee fans, I kept hearing about how much they wanted to play Rutgers in the final and how much they liked and respected our coach C. Vivian Stringer.
There was no reason to question their sincerity, though Stringer has beaten Summitt´s teams only once in the past 13 years. (Post script: Rutgers has lost twice to Tennessee since then, though they led by 20 at the half of their 2009 game in Piscataway)
In some ways Tennessee´s dominance has been good for women´s basketball, in other ways it has not. Pat Summitt has won more college basketball games than any man or women still coaching and she earned every one of those wins (Except that I believe Rutgers won the infamous "clock" game in Knoxville this past season).
Only John Wooden had won more college championships—ten—and Summitt has plenty of time to pass him. She is one of the most important woman professionals in the country and an effective spokesperson for her game. If someone told me that Summitt has elevated the profile and respect for women´s basketball and women athletes in general, I wouldn´t argue.
But one team´s dominance leads fans of the other teams to question the competitive balance of the sport and lose interest. This is an especially serious situation for women´s basketball as successful programs such as LSU, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Stanford and Old Dominion struggle to fill more than half of their seats at home.
Women´s college basketball can look to major league baseball as an example. From 1949 to 1953, major league baseball attendance dropped from 20.2 million fans to 14.3 million as the New York Yankees won five consecutive World Championships, against New York´s National League teams: the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants. The decline made me wonder about the interest in baseball outside of New York City.
Women´s college basketball is a great game. It's more team-oriented than the men´s game and the women are reported to be more successful academically. The women´s game is also a young game. The pioneers such as Summitt, Auriemma and Stringer are still going strong as coaches or are working in athletic administration.
However, I worry about the long term prospects of the sport when there is a dominant team and wide disparities in attendance figures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)