Thoughts on Minnesota, Missouri, PSU history, and why our media sucks

[TenerHallTerror]

watching the solidarity of the Minnesota football teams is actually inspiring to me.

People seem to act like they get something (a scholarship) for nothing (60+ hour weeks to entertain thousands on Saturday playing a game that can cause grievous injuries, which most will not play professionally), and deserve to be punished for their insubordination.

Which is fine, to think that

But I was reflecting on a football team who boycotted a major bowl game due to racial segregation. At a time when that was unprecedented. and their coach supported them.

I reflected on that same coach, and his vocal support of Title IX, and how he was so far ahead of the curve in supporting women's sports in college. Giving thousands of women the same opportunity that men had for so long: to excel at a sport in order to secure a college degree.

Then I thought about JZ's comments about how the media seemed to delight in tearing down a "conservative" icon, who was probably the most progressive head coach to walk a sideline.

I reflected on talking heads like Christine Brennan and Jemele Hill, who have steadfastly REFUSED to acknowledge Joe Paterno's pioneering efforts on behalf of women and minorities.

just random thoughts this morning . . .

 

[BobPSU92]

All good points, but I can't help but conclude this is thinking of which I should be critical.



Seriously, many see Joe as the old man with old-school values. I think that says more about our society than it does about Joe. Joe for decades was progressive and held values that still should be emphasized today but all too often are not.

 

[kgilbert78]

Not to diminish what Joe did, but the first PSU team to boycott a game over racial segregation wasn't coached by Joe.... We've had a long history of being at least a bit more out front on this issue than most (though sadly State College itself wasn't as much). Bob Higgins was very important in this back in his day, integrating Penn State ca. 1942 and following his players when they did not want to play Miami as Miami asked that they not bring their black players. Then of course there was the Cotton Bowl after the 1947 season....

Interestingly, his sister was Margaret Sanger....

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Not to diminish what Joe did, but the first PSU team to boycott a game over racial segregation wasn't coached by Joe.... We've had a long history of being at least a bit more out front on this issue than most (though sadly State College itself wasn't as much). Bob Higgins was very important in this back in his day, integrating Penn State ca. 1942 and following his players when they did not want to play Miami as Miami asked that they not bring their black players. Then of course there was the Cotton Bowl after the 1947 season....

Interestingly, his sister was Margaret Sanger....

you're right, and thanks for clarifying that

Penn State has long carried these values.

and yet the media refuses to acknowledge this . . .

 

[TenerHallTerror]

All good points, but I can't help but conclude this is thinking of which I should be critical.



Seriously, many see Joe as the old man with old-school values. I think that says more about our society than it does about Joe. Joe for decades was progressive and held values that still should be emphasized today but all too often are not.

I recall a story from Jay's book that would imply Joe was soft on them Muslims.

 

[Obliviax]

Not to get too sappy but I feel like we are witnessing a massive change in the USA. People no longer feel like they have to conform to what those in authority are espousing. Those in authority have lost the high ground, IMHO. Is it social media? Is it massive corruption? Has it been caused by a sense of entitlement by the ruling (I call it "talking") class?

I don't know, but I sense people are much more willing to push back today than what I've seen since the 1970's. Back when we had massive strikes, riots and organized unions. I think it is much more fractured today, but I sense that people are really fed up with just about every institution on the planet.

 

[kgilbert78]

Not to get too sappy but I feel like we are witnessing a massive change in the USA. People no longer feel like they have to conform to what those in authority are espousing. Those in authority have lost the high ground, IMHO. Is it social media? Is it massive corruption? Has it been caused by a sense of entitlement by the ruling (I call it "talking") class?

I don't know, but I sense people are much more willing to push back today than what I've seen since the 1970's. Back when we had massive strikes, riots and organized unions. I think it is much more fractured today, but I sense that people are really fed up with just about every institution on the planet.

Pretty simple, actually--those in authority have long since ceased to take the "high ground". Plus you have a serious infiltration of post-modernism in our culture, where there are no absolute truths (and if you drill down enough, where "power" is the greatest determiner of "truth").

 

[Obliviax]

Pretty simple, actually--those in authority have long since ceased to take the "high ground". Plus you have a serious infiltration of post-modernism in our culture, where there are no absolute truths (and if you drill down enough, where "power" is the greatest determiner of "truth").

Agree...what is funny is I don't see the general outrage in the public. I see something like "seriously? you expect me to believe what? F U, I am doing my own thing."

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Not to get too sappy but I feel like we are witnessing a massive change in the USA. People no longer feel like they have to conform to what those in authority are espousing. Those in authority have lost the high ground, IMHO. Is it social media? Is it massive corruption? Has it been caused by a sense of entitlement by the ruling (I call it "talking") class?

I don't know, but I sense people are much more willing to push back today than what I've seen since the 1970's. Back when we had massive strikes, riots and organized unions. I think it is much more fractured today, but I sense that people are really fed up with just about every institution on the planet.

I walk this fine line between being appalled at how presidential candidates treated the media in a free society, and feeling like maybe if the media didn't suck so bad at their jobs, people wouldn't be cheering this treatment.

 

[Obliviax]

I walk this fine line between being appalled at how president candidates treated the media in a free society, and feeling like maybe if the media didn't suck so bad at their jobs, people wouldn't be cheering this treatment.

Well, the candidates no longer need the media. They can go right to the people with social media. And....the media has brought this on themselves.

 

[Bob78]

I recall a story from Jay's book that would imply Joe was soft on them Muslims.

The story about JVP engaging a table of Muslims at a restaurant shortly after 9/11? If so, I didn't take that as being soft, but more that Joe believed in engaging in conversation to understand another's point of view. (Reference the large, round kitchen table in their home to encourage family discussion).
The approach of Joe wanting to find out what the 'targeted' person was thinking was evident in that story, in the Rashard Casey story, and in the largely misinterpreted / misunderstood story about Joe wanting Curley to ask Sandusky about the allegations aimed at him in early 2001.

Most of us here know that Joe wasn't trying to change anything, but just felt that Sandusky had the right to know what was said and have a chance to respond. Not knowing enough about Joe led some to believe that by merely including Sandusky in the conversation, he was looking to cover up the allegation. Anyone who understood Joe's career and his intellectual curiosity knew otherwise.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

The story about JVP engaging a table of Muslims at a restaurant shortly after 9/11? If so, I didn't take that as being soft, but more that Joe believed in engaging in conversation to understand another's point of view. (Reference the large, round kitchen table in their home to encourage family discussion).
The approach of Joe wanting to find out what the 'targeted' person was thinking was evident in that story, in the Rashard Casey story, and in the largely misinterpreted / misunderstood story about Joe wanting Curley to ask Sandusky about the allegations aimed at him in early 2001.

Most of us here know that Joe wasn't trying to change anything, but just felt that Sandusky had the right to know what was said and have a chance to respond. Not knowing enough about Joe led some to believe that by merely including Sandusky in the conversation, he was looking to cover up the allegation. Anyone who understood Joe's career and his intellectual curiosity knew otherwise.

I was being ironic. forgot my sarcasm font.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Be careful TenerHallTerror, regarding the women's sports thing. Remember, Joe was steadfast in his support of Rene Portland and her misguided policy on gay players.

I have said it before and I will repeat it, I think that Brennan and Sally Jenkins may be harboring some anti Joe bias from that issue.

yeah I was there for all that. complicated issue. Wasn't Joe the AD at the time?

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Not to get too sappy but I feel like we are witnessing a massive change in the USA. People no longer feel like they have to conform to what those in authority are espousing. Those in authority have lost the high ground, IMHO. Is it social media? Is it massive corruption? Has it been caused by a sense of entitlement by the ruling (I call it "talking") class?

I don't know, but I sense people are much more willing to push back today than what I've seen since the 1970's. Back when we had massive strikes, riots and organized unions. I think it is much more fractured today, but I sense that people are really fed up with just about every institution on the planet.

LOL. That is rich.

This is why the vote for authoritarians? Get your head out. Please.

 

[Bob78]

Be careful TenerHallTerror, regarding the women's sports thing. Remember, Joe was steadfast in his support of Rene Portland and her misguided policy on gay players.

I have said it before and I will repeat it, I think that Brennan and Sally Jenkins may be harboring some anti Joe bias from that issue.

You may be right about all that. I'm thinking that maybe it was not quite that simple. But those two writers have some bias for some reason that seems to run deeper than just the one issue.

From what I recall, and I admit I may be misremembering.... Rene knew she had gay players on her team. One of her best-ever players, Kelly Mazzante, was / is gay. If I recall, Rene was more concerned about how players interacted in the locker room and was concerned that gay players could upset that chemistry if personal relationships came about. She felt that if she could avoid gay players, that may be for the better of the team overall, but she didn't exclude them from the team. She also got on some girls about their public dress and appearance. That may or may not have targeted some gay players, but it pissed off anyone targeted for being told how to dress outside of team responsibilities.

I think Joe supported her running her team under her rules, and giving her some slack based on her long-term success, but was not necessarily supporting an anti-gay stance. I'm not supporter of Rene's by any means, and I think they did the right thing in letting her go.

I'm open to being shown that I was wrong on this, as I have not given it a lot of thought in the past few years.

 

[Bob78]

yeah I was there for all that. complicated issue. Wasn't Joe the AD at the time?

Joe was AD when Rene was hired, I think. Tim was the AD when all this went down.
Joe was AD for only about 2 years, early 80s.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

Joe was AD when Rene was hired, I think. Tim was the AD when all this went down.
Joe was AD for only about 2 years, early 80s.

right on. my recollection is that since she was Joe's hire, and she had success on and off the court, that he supported her.

as we've come to realize, Joe was a very smart and progressive man, but from a very different era. He may not have even fully grasped what was being alleged.

 

[BobPSU92]

Agree...what is funny is I don't see the general outrage in the public.

I'M. RIGHT. HERE.

 

[Obliviax]

I'M. RIGHT. HERE.

 

[delcoLion]

I walk this fine line between being appalled at how presidential candidates treated the media in a free society, and feeling like maybe if the media didn't suck so bad at their jobs, people wouldn't be cheering this treatment.

The media sucks, absolutely. Complete failure on their part.

 

[BBrown]

Not to get too sappy but I feel like we are witnessing a massive change in the USA. People no longer feel like they have to conform to what those in authority are espousing. Those in authority have lost the high ground, IMHO. Is it social media? Is it massive corruption? Has it been caused by a sense of entitlement by the ruling (I call it "talking") class?

I don't know, but I sense people are much more willing to push back today than what I've seen since the 1970's. Back when we had massive strikes, riots and organized unions. I think it is much more fractured today, but I sense that people are really fed up with just about every institution on the planet.

Which is why I really want to move to a Mesa top in Abiquiu, NM. Get a couple of German Shepherds, Photograph till i'm content and drink Margaritas and eat Green Chile Burritos or tamales and watch the sunset. LOL.

 

[Obliviax]

Which is why I really want to move to a Mesa top in Abiquiu, NM. Get a couple of German Shepherds, Photograph till i'm content and drink Margaritas and eat Green Chile Burritos or tamales and watch the sunset. LOL.

looking for a partner? Add Direct TV and I am in.

 

[psuro]

looking for a partner? Add Direct TV and I am in.

I think you two would make a lovely couple.

 

[Obliviax]

I think you two would make a lovely couple.

 

[LafayetteBear]

I think you two would make a lovely couple.

Your sig pic already features a lovely couple.

 

[BobPSU92]

Which is why I really want to move to a Mesa top in Abiquiu, NM. Get a couple of German Shepherds, Photograph till i'm content and drink Margaritas and eat Green Chile Burritos or tamales and watch the sunset. LOL.

Just take the left turn at Albuquerque.

 

[BobPSU92]

looking for a partner? Add Direct TV and I am in.

Partner?

 

[Obliviax]

Partner?

 

[BobPSU92]

Sadly, that's the movie I was thinking of as I was posting above.

 

[kgilbert78]

You may be right about all that. I'm thinking that maybe it was not quite that simple. But those two writers have some bias for some reason that seems to run deeper than just the one issue.

From what I recall, and I admit I may be misremembering.... Rene knew she had gay players on her team. One of her best-ever players, Kelly Mazzante, was / is gay. If I recall, Rene was more concerned about how players interacted in the locker room and was concerned that gay players could upset that chemistry if personal relationships came about. She felt that if she could avoid gay players, that may be for the better of the team overall, but she didn't exclude them from the team. She also got on some girls about their public dress and appearance. That may or may not have targeted some gay players, but it pissed off anyone targeted for being told how to dress outside of team responsibilities.

I think Joe supported her running her team under her rules, and giving her some slack based on her long-term success, but was not necessarily supporting an anti-gay stance. I'm not supporter of Rene's by any means, and I think they did the right thing in letting her go.

I'm open to being shown that I was wrong on this, as I have not given it a lot of thought in the past few years.

It was more complicated than that.

I heard Portland speak on the topic at an alumni club meeting--and her expressed concern was to the fears of parents--that their daughters would leave for college straight and come back gay--due to locker room pressure to conform or to do what everyone else is doing. It was true on some college teams that if you didn't "play on coach's team" then you didn't play. That's just as wrong. The point actually has little to do with straight or gay. Substitute "drugs" or "partying" or "hazing"--or just plain "weird" for "sexuality"--parents worry when their kids go away to school.

It's also not completely fair, in general, to interpret the past in terms of current or future ethics. Sometimes the past is wrong. Sometimes the present is. Sometimes it's neither. And sometimes we won't know until far down the road. But it really was a different time back then. Our culture has changed dramatically over the past 25 years.

 

[Bob78]

It was more complicated than that.

I heard Portland speak on the topic at an alumni club meeting--and her expressed concern was to the fears of parents--that their daughters would leave for college straight and come back gay--due to locker room pressure to conform or to do what everyone else is doing. It was true on some college teams that if you didn't "play on coach's team" then you didn't play. That's just as wrong. The point actually has little to do with straight or gay. Substitute "drugs" or "partying" or "hazing"--or just plain "weird" for "sexuality"--parents worry when their kids go away to school.

It's also not completely fair, in general, to interpret the past in terms of current or future ethics. Sometimes the past is wrong. Sometimes the present is. Sometimes it's neither. And sometimes we won't know until far down the road. But it really was a different time back then. Our culture has changed dramatically over the past 25 years.

I agree with your statement on judging ethics within the time and place.

I never heard Rene speak on the topic, so I appreciate your sharing that from her talk.

I've heard that about playing on the coach's team, and I'm sure there is some truth to it, bizarre as that is. It could also have been used at some schools as a negative recruiting tactic. And even with the presence of a few gay players, my guess is that the majority of the players were straight. So the peer pressure could go either way.

Going to school straight and coming back gay is a bit far-fetched, regardless of the time and place, imo.... an irrational fear, even if an 'experiment' took place. Again, just my opinion.

 

[kgilbert78]

I agree with your statement on judging ethics within the time and place.

I never heard Rene speak on the topic, so I appreciate your sharing that from her talk.

I've heard that about playing on the coach's team, and I'm sure there is some truth to it, bizarre as that is. It could also have been used at some schools as a negative recruiting tactic. And even with the presence of a few gay players, my guess is that the majority of the players were straight. So the peer pressure could go either way.

Going to school straight and coming back gay is a bit far-fetched, regardless of the time and place, imo.... an irrational fear, even if an 'experiment' took place. Again, just my opinion.

On some teams they weren't. There were a couple well-known examples (as I heard from a good friend of mine has some connections in the women's basketball world).

And not completely an "irrational fear"--I knew a couple examples personally. But that's all the further I will go with this topic.

 

[Marylovesthelions]

Not to get too sappy but I feel like we are witnessing a massive change in the USA. People no longer feel like they have to conform to what those in authority are espousing. Those in authority have lost the high ground, IMHO. Is it social media? Is it massive corruption? Has it been caused by a sense of entitlement by the ruling (I call it "talking") class?

I don't know, but I sense people are much more willing to push back today than what I've seen since the 1970's. Back when we had massive strikes, riots and organized unions. I think it is much more fractured today, but I sense that people are really fed up with just about every institution on the planet.

Both parties are led b arrogant, evil and power hungry people. We have chosen a leader to lead the pols in the right direction to help the working class, not the welfare class, DC and Wall Street

 

[ralphster]

".... We have chosen a leader to lead the pols in the right direction to help the working class, not the welfare class, DC and Wall Street."

Yeah, right on, Mary. That's why our 'chosen' leader is filling his cabinet with Goldman-Sachs investment bankers, the CEO of ExxonMobil, the CEO of Carl's Jr., the founder of WWE, and other assorted billionaires. Because he cares about the working class. Interested in a bridge to Brooklyn I have seen for sale?

 

[Marylovesthelions]

".... We have chosen a leader to lead the pols in the right direction to help the working class, not the welfare class, DC and Wall Street."

Yeah, right on, Mary. That's why our 'chosen' leader is filling his cabinet with Goldman-Sachs investment bankers, the CEO of ExxonMobil, the CEO of Carl's Jr., the founder of WWE, and other assorted billionaires. Because he cares about the working class. Interested in a bridge to Brooklyn I have seen for sale?

All people who have proven that they get things done. This is an exciting team and not one follege professor or community organizer among them.

 

[LafayetteBear]

I'm thinking Test Board for this thread.

 

[hagberg]

It was more complicated than that.

I heard Portland speak on the topic at an alumni club meeting--and her expressed concern was to the fears of parents--that their daughters would leave for college straight and come back gay--due to locker room pressure to conform or to do what everyone else is doing. It was true on some college teams that if you didn't "play on coach's team" then you didn't play. That's just as wrong. The point actually has little to do with straight or gay. Substitute "drugs" or "partying" or "hazing"--or just plain "weird" for "sexuality"--parents worry when their kids go away to school.

It's also not completely fair, in general, to interpret the past in terms of current or future ethics. Sometimes the past is wrong. Sometimes the present is. Sometimes it's neither. And sometimes we won't know until far down the road. But it really was a different time back then. Our culture has changed dramatically over the past 25 years.

I don't think it's our culture that has changed as much as it is our awareness and - at least to some degree - our understanding. I believe you are right on regarding this being a different time. I'd say America now is vastly different than it was 25 years ago, and might as well be a completely different country than it was 40 - 50 years ago.

 

[kgilbert78]

I don't think it's our culture that has changed as much as it is our awareness and - at least to some degree - our understanding. I believe you are right on regarding this being a different time. I'd say America now is vastly different than it was 25 years ago, and might as well be a completely different country than it was 40 - 50 years ago.

"Awareness" I would say, *is* cultural. Especially as our current culture rejects any kind of absolute morality or ethics. Yet the concept of "awareness" implies that there is something to be "aware" of and thus you are kinda back to absolutes. The point is that these questions are not as simple as they may seem.

 

[dawgduice]

watching the solidarity of the Minnesota football teams is actually inspiring to me.

People seem to act like they get something (a scholarship) for nothing (60+ hour weeks to entertain thousands on Saturday playing a game that can cause grievous injuries, which most will not play professionally), and deserve to be punished for their insubordination.

Which is fine, to think that

But I was reflecting on a football team who boycotted a major bowl game due to racial segregation. At a time when that was unprecedented. and their coach supported them.

I reflected on that same coach, and his vocal support of Title IX, and how he was so far ahead of the curve in supporting women's sports in college. Giving thousands of women the same opportunity that men had for so long: to excel at a sport in order to secure a college degree.

Then I thought about JZ's comments about how the media seemed to delight in tearing down a "conservative" icon, who was probably the most progressive head coach to walk a sideline.

I reflected on talking heads like Christine Brennan and Jemele Hill, who have steadfastly REFUSED to acknowledge Joe Paterno's pioneering efforts on behalf of women and minorities.

just random thoughts this morning . . .

NOT to enter a discussion on this - but the "conservative" Icon was anything but that. As a person he identified as such but his actions were always the compete opposite. Although in a truer definition of such he would have been so. NOT in the definition used today !!! But everyone will "think" as they wish Very few EVER truly "look in a mirror" or have a skewed and dishonest view. He certainly did not.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

I agree with your statement on judging ethics within the time and place.

I never heard Rene speak on the topic, so I appreciate your sharing that from her talk.

I've heard that about playing on the coach's team, and I'm sure there is some truth to it, bizarre as that is. It could also have been used at some schools as a negative recruiting tactic. And even with the presence of a few gay players, my guess is that the majority of the players were straight. So the peer pressure could go either way.

Going to school straight and coming back gay is a bit far-fetched, regardless of the time and place, imo.... an irrational fear, even if an 'experiment' took place. Again, just my opinion.

I have a very good friend now from PS4RS who knows Rene. I don't think her side of the story has ever been told, nor will it.

that being said, I don't believe there was actual malice in how she ran the program, and a lot of missed opportunities at communication and understanding. and yeah, the cultural norms have shifted mightily since then, for the better IMHO