Even if you only want reforms, even if you only want petty reforms, in university sports, the only way to get those reforms would be through a mass attack on the existence of university sports. The only reforms ever achieved were achieved in football a century ago (better helmets, elimination of flying wedges, a few other life-saving changes) by a campaign (headed I think by Teddy R himself) to eliminate football.
It really is essential to understand that you never get what you demand; in respect to really vicious and really deeply embedded practices, there will be no reforms until the institution involved is threatened with a campaign to abolish it. That was the recognition (the strictly pragmatic and practical recognition) behind the slogan, "Be practical; demand the impossible." Only by demanding the impossible do mass actions get any results at all. "Bring the troops home" was an impossible demand, but it did probably prevent a nuclear war with China, as well as 'moderate' the atrocities by making them visible. It will take what the rulers will regard as a serious threat of domestic chaos to get u.s. troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. And only movements seriously demanding the impossible will raise the believable threat of such chaos.
"Abolish College Sports" is the minimal demand that _might_ bring abut some moderate reform.
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Alan Rudy Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 1:05 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Katha Pollitt on college football
I think the point, on the one hand, is that countenancing rape and other assaults is far more widespread than college sports and, on the other hand - though not noted here, is that a good number of Division I sports programs can be shown to have actively sought to prevent and prosecute assault. As Doug said, DI sports, especially, with DII and DIII sports to far far lesser extents, have deep problems but if that's the measure of abolishment then it quickly becomes necessary to call for the end of modern society (which we all call for) but can be executed like that. How've the arts done with this stuff, how has higher ed in general, the press, religion, etc. Last, there's a huge silence w/r/t the difference between revenue and non-revenue sports in DI places... it's just painting with far too broad a brush and, as a result, making a weaker argument than it might otherwise make. Alan
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:06 PM, MICHAEL YATES <mikedjyates at msn.com> wrote:
>
> Katha is not one of my favorites. But she is talking about more than the
> abolition of college sports.She is talking about how people who run
college
> sports programs and colleges themselves countenance rape and other
> assaults. Why this is so is the question. And why not talk about
abolishing
> a corrupt system? Should she just implore thepowers that be to change
their
> ways? BTW, she isn't the only New Yorker who comes across sometimes as an
> elitist!
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- ********************************************************* Alan P. Rudy Assistant Professor Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Central Michigan University 124 Anspach Hall Mt Pleasant, MI 48858 517-881-6319 ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk