About That Podcast
We took down the mgopodcast version of yesterday's Roundtable, which requires some explanation. Unfortunately I'm not sure this explanation is going to satisfy everyone, particularly because Ace and I are currently not of the same mind on many of these issues. If it was just up to me I would not have pulled the podcast, but Ace felt very strongly about it and I did not. If you'd like to listen to the segment and come to your own conclusions it's still on WTKA's site.
FIRST, AN APOLOGY
Calling Michigan State the Fightin' Larry Nassars was a textbook definition of hubris and I should not have done that.
I do still think there was a major gap between the modern universities' reactions. MSU gave Lou Anna Simon a golden parachute and their regents fought tooth and nail against any sort of accountability. Michigan doesn't appear to be running the same playbook. Now, it's a lot easier for Michigan to do that because current higher-ups in the university are not directly implicated; almost everyone is dead. What they would do if they were looking at consequences for their own selves is in doubt.
[After THE JUMP: the segment]
OBJECTIONS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED
I don't think Sam Webb did anything wrong in the segment. We've been doing this for years and one thing that's pretty common on the roundtable is Sam bringing up arguments that he's heard other people make, on all sorts of topics, to get my reaction to them. Sometimes this feels like Sam bringing me stuff that his role as a relatively neutral radio host and recruiting reporter prevents him from addressing as directly or forcefully as he might otherwise want to.
So it's important to note that Sam began this segment saying that Michigan had a "span of indifference across decades, that "Robert Anderson was allowed to operate with relative impunity," and that "the report is a concession, now the question is what comes next." He directly stated that the content of the report was damning and that he accepted it.
Then we said some things about what was next, and Sam brought up a couple of arguments that he has seen or heard elsewhere that challenge the idea that we should take everything down and rename everything. These were:
- That Bo's culpability here was less than Joe Paterno's and that the crime that was enabled was somehow less or different.
- That there are many historical figures, like Yost, who could be subject to a similar re-evaluation.
Sam is sometimes very explicitly clear that he is not holding the viewpoint he is expressing; here he did not pause and have one of his ALL CAPS "this is not a thing I think" moments, but listening to the segment again he is clearly bringing up arguments others have made, and does directly state so in passing a couple times. We then address them. Anticipating counter-arguments and addressing them makes persuasive writing stronger and I feel that's a process we undertake on the Roundtable regularly; I'm glad Sam brought those topics up so we could talk about them.
The results of those conversations were more or less:
- Comparisons to Paterno are invalid and unnecessary because the important thing is what the standard of this university is and whether Bo met it; he did not.
- Maybe memory-holing big chunks of the athletic department's history isn't the best way to go about things and we should consider whether to incorporate Robert Anderson into the public-facing part of Bo's legacy (and Yost's racism into his) instead.
I think both of those things are worth saying and may not have been said if Sam didn't bring up challenges to our point of view. I think that made the segment stronger.
SOME ITEMS WENT OFF THE RAILS
Craig had a passage in the middle of this segment that I did not directly address on the podcast that I disagree with vehemently. He first agreed with what I said and then said "in terms of Bo, here's the problem" before launching into a discussion of how people don't see things the same way and that we can't really know how culpable Bo was based on recollections of conversations from a long time ago.
This may be true but I completely disagree with Craig's reasoning here. ESPN's summary of the Wilmer Hale report:
In addition to a former student worker saying he raised concerns to Schembechler in the 1980s, investigators were told by three former members of the football team that they told the coach that they had a problem with Anderson's treatment.
One conversation may be misconstrued in the memory. At least four—and I'm guessing the report is not complete—coupled with a widespread, jocular attitude towards the open secret in the program…
"We also learned of more than a dozen additional instances in which Athletic Department personnel heard jokes or rumors about Dr. Anderson's examinations, some of which highlighted Dr. Anderson's propensity for performing sensitive examinations for no apparent medically appropriate reason."
…means it beggars belief to imagine that Bo Schembechler did not know about the problem. And what's more, it doesn't exonerate him in any way if he didn't. It was his job to know. Schembechler was the sort of infamous coach-tyrant very popular from the dawn of time; there are many stories out there about him holding onto memories and grudges as fuel. Stories about his exacting detail at seemingly every level of the program. Stories about recruits walking in and asking for money, and then being shown the door with their recruitment over.
Schembechler was clearly capable of hearing something he thought was wrong and taking direct action about it. That's not a bad summary of his career. So for Craig to hem and haw about what we know and how the exact details of what was present inside Bo's brain felt both incorrect and beside the point.
For what it's worth, I talked to Craig about this and he wrote a response after:
I believe my comments on the roundtable yesterday were inarticulate. Or more so than usual. I apologize. I do not believe the pain of the victims of Dr. Anderson should be minimized. These victims suffered and the University (and, plainly, some persons employed by the University) enabled the reality. Nor do I believe that their accounts of what happened to any of them should be trivialized or marginalized. Their stories deserve to be heard. To the extent anything I said implied anything else, I apologize again; this was not my point of view, yesterday or today.
If the University decides to take the statue of Bo down, I will not object.
SO WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?
The university now has to address the contents of the report in a formal way. I'm not zealous about any path they take except obviously they cannot let the status quo stand. If they decide to memory-hole everything, I get it. If they take the route we suggested in the podcast where the statue is modified to include Robert Anderson in some way and the museum portion of Schembechler Hall has a prominent display explaining what happened, that feels fine to me too. But I'm just a guy on the internet. I didn't play for Bo; I wasn't abused by Anderson. It's not my call.
But are you blocked on Twitter?
I thought Craig’s comments on memories were very accurate. There is a ton of research on this, particularly around flash point events that substantiates what he is saying as well. Additionally, he goes on to say Bo should be held accountable and agrees with everything else said by the panel in regards to how they should handle his legacy. The topic of memories is a minor part of the discussion for this big of a deal.
I am shocked this resulted in pulling the podcast down I think it is one of the best round tables and makes me proud to hear that you all want accountability. You should post the podcast and be proud, this is the Michigan difference.
Well written post and I appreciate the predicament that you’re put in with this, and although I think taking it down was absolutely not warranted, I respect you for, once again, trying to appease Ace.
I’ve witnessed Ace on Twitter (back before I unfollowed him) on multiple occasions be combative with both readers, as well as with Brian over innocuous statements or opinions. I remember one time Brian wrote about (I believe Nate Johnson?) and called the victim “a female” and Ace lost his ever loving shit on Brian on Twitter, in front of the world, because he referred to her as “female” because “animals are referred to as female”. I’m still not sure what his argument was, but good god did he get emotional. I could only imagine what would happen if I did that to my boss. Well, actually I can imagine.
I don’t care if these comments result in a ban, but I just wanted to say it. This board would miss his content, but I sure would take the lost content if that means it also gets to be relieved of the person.
Ace, Craig, and Brian have more drama going on between them right now than my two middle school daughters.
Do you also have one daughter that seemingly looks for any perceived slight to then start a nuclear war over? If so, then yes it’s the same situation.
To no ones surprise, Ace continues to tweet at Sam. Put down the shovel, Ace.
Actually, it would be to a lot of people’s surprise, considering how many of us were blocked on Twitter
Completely understand why Ace is so pissed about this topic, but I rather lean to Brian’s approach to the situation.
Also can’t fault Sam for the segment. I just don’t get the rage for the conversation that happened. Sam is just playing facilitator. He doesn’t deserve the pushback.
Id say the argument is (not that I necessarily agree) that some discussion shouldn't be facilitated and that doing so amounts to bothsideism/false balance.
The podcast is a good discussion. Bring up ideas and work through the problem. I still have faith in people and hope things like this stop.
This is the second time you’ve done this Brian and I’ll say it again. You are doing a disservice to the legacy of Bo Schembecler and anyone related to him. You are accusing someone of knowledge of criminal activity and criminal negligence. I have no problem with you or others presenting evidence. But in everyone of the instances you’ve written on this you’ve framed it as Bo as guilty. In this case advocating the removal of his statues would be a guilty verdict without evidence from the accused party. Again I will make clear that I am not saying Bo is guilty or innocent. I’m saying you don’t know, and I don’t know. Bo is not in this world to defend himself. To proclaim a guilty verdict, as you’ve done each time you’ve written on this subject is the opposite of any sort of journalistic practice. Maybe your excuse is this is a blog, but that’s a bullshit excuse.
Here's another who thinks the court of public opinion is literally a court of law. Gets so tiresome.
The best part of this post was the defense of Sam Webb. It was right to do that after he was attacked by Ace, and hopefully keeps WTKA and MGoBlog on good terms.
Brian -
First, I am grateful for the work you and the entire staff do. That doesn't change in good times, or rough times. I do have a couple of 'buts', but my first point remains valid...
Second, I believe it is in poor taste to compare the Anderson case to others. Victims of abuse do not deserve to have the circumstances surrounding their experience compared to other cases. It does a disservice to the victims who deserve our unfettered support.
Lastly, and the only point in your post that I really have a hard time with, is your statement of just being a 'guy on the internet', and 'it's not my call'. I call B.S. You were vocal enough about a past coach to have arguably influenced the result of a termination, I would say your influence in a case such as this is far beyond 'just a guy on the internet'. Now I am not saying you have to draw a line in the sand and make statements about what you feel should happen, and checking out of that part of this conversation bears no shame, but to say you are anything less than influential is naive and you are better than that.
Keep up the good work. I do appreciate it in every way.
I listened to the original broadcast of the Roundtable and was quite surprised when I learned it had become a point of contention initiated by Ace. I went back and listened two more times and am even more baffled by the controversy. None of the four participants have any reason to apologize. Ace can say what he wants about the show, it's a free country, but he has no right to demand that the views of others be censored or banished.
Man, after reading this whole thread, people have made much more articulate statements than I can but I hope Ace leaves. He and his woke lackey thicc can talk feelings to each other elsewhere.
When all of this happened at PSU, there were arguments as to whether Joe Paterno should have known and if he did know what was the prevailing attitude toward child rape at the time, etc. The overwhelming zeitgeist of the blog was that Joe knew and even if he didn't he should have and that child rape is bad.
The athletes that Anderson molested weren't children (yay?) and Anderson wasn't Bo's DC, and Bo didn't let him set up a child molesting charity using UofM facilities, and all of the key people are dead or long gone, so we're in a slightly better situation than PSU.... (yay?) But it largely seems like the same situation.
It sucks not being able to have heroes.
The only two possible arguments for keeping the statue, etc. that I can see (and they are probably wrong) are:
1. Jerry Sandusky's 86 defense that took down Miami was awesome. Jerry Sandusky was a child rapist and that legacy should be tarnished. Anderson had nothing to do with Bo's wins and losses. How wide of a net does moral responsibility go? Should Desmond give his Heisman back? Lloyd was on staff, do we vacate the 97 national championship?
2. With Nassar, the OSU doctor and Anderson, there seems to be a trend of doctors abusing their power. I have a friend that was groped by her dentist while she was on laughing gas. With the doctor-patient confidentiality I think there is a lot of room for abuse and the system does not seem to be equipped to deal with these issues well.
Is Bo in the same boat as the Catholic Bishops who enabled molesters and JoPa?
If some action (asterisks or taking down statues) stops the next molesting doctor we should do that.
Trigger warnings have become a subject of mockery in many settings but this is an excellent example of their merits. What may sound like an unobjectionable discussion of a difficult subject might trigger a powerful emotional reaction in someone with a different life experience.
And both views/responses are completely legitimate.
But the thing is we need more thoughtful discussions about difficult subjects such as sexual assault and race. Not fewer. Previous generations simply didn't talk about sexual assault and that is exactly how you end up with Dr. Anderson assaulting people in plain sight for years.
Craig and Sam seem to both be reasonable, thoughtful, sincere well meaning people. Editing them will not improve society or outcomes for the victims of sexual asasult.
However, that does not mean that those conversations may not cause legitimate and very strong reactions in those that have experienced similar trauma.
Well written opinion. I always find it interesting that I find some of the best writing on a Michigan sports blog. This is a sad issue that I am sure everyone wished had never happened. The only acceptable recourse is a thorough investigation and accounting and to help the victims.
As Brian mentioned, I too wonder how the university and regents would be acting if it was like the MSU case, where many were still active with the university.
I like to think Michigan would handle it more ethically, but you never know.
When it's your ass on the line, people fight irrationally even if they're clearly guilty.
Ace is the reason I check the blog on occasion rather than multiple times daily like I did for years. He's a good writer, and I've agreed with a lot of his opinions over the years, but the more his work has tended toward moralizing and scolding rather than discussion the less it feels like I'm reading analysis. I wish everyone the best of luck and whatever.
Anyone else been examined by Dr. Anderson or just me?
People underestimate the slickness of how these awful people like Anderson and Nassar convince others from their position of authority, that they're doing no wrong. They operate in the synapses and thrive in cognitive dissonance. Bo was no doctor and very easily a guy like Anderson could convince him in legalize or doctorise the need for whatever and he likely had Bo bamboozled. That's a far more likely explanation than thinking Bo realized they were getting molested and preferred to ignore it. Bo was a very decent guy. This is someone who in wholesomeness refused to allow his tv show to have beer ads. But should have he consulted with other doctors after player complaints? Yep.
don't take the statue you down you pussies... yeah he failed in a big way. he wasn't perfect and this wasn't his only flaw. He didn't know how to deal with it. Do you really think he didn't give a shit about his players? Highly doubt it. Ask them if you really want to know. Let them be the judge of if it comes down.
id like to see any of you fuckers grow up in Yost's era and be the same righteous sjw fucks you are right now.... yeah probably not
so sick of this woke history bullshit
I didn’t hear anything offensive on the round table. The closest thing to cringeworthy was CR (unchallenged) in saying we will never know the truth re: Bo. We certainly know enough. But that did not feel at all malicious or dismissive. Just someone still attempting to grapple with a new reality for a man he (presumably) held in extremely high regard.
Frankly, I think the same is true for the notion that we keep the statue but with a plaque that says the bad things. That’s like trying to have it both ways.
Just take the statue down and rename the building. We’re not erasing Bo from history if we do; just taking away some of the worship and reverence which seems deserved.
This current culture is what Ace has prayed his entire life for. This site would be light years better without him. The guy barely writes anymore* and all he does is complain about anything he disagrees with. He’s petulant beyond belief.
*and yes I know he’s been sick, but that doesn’t excuse who he is and the close-minded, easily-offended nature of his person.
I don’t have a problem with the fighting Larry nassers. Their leadership owned that moniker.
If I’m reading this correctly about Ace’s assault I find it laughable. Some dude made a pass at him while they were smoking together and he felt assaulted? I was personally drugged by a guy that was feeding me drinks. He even put on some porn with subject matter that I don’t jive with. He made a pass at me by approaching me and laying his hands on me. I realized at that point what he was up to. I busted out of there and went on my way. Luckily, I blacked out much later that evening instead of what he had planned. That’s assault! But I always laughed it off and thought it was a funny story to tell. Still do. So some dude wanted to bang me when I don’t swing that way...not a big deal. Grow a dick, Ace. You’re a effing wimp and everything that’s wrong with this current culture.
This is not in defense of Ace, frankly I don't even know who the guy is. But something tells me that if those drugs had kicked in earlier that night, and the guy you were with had succeeded, you wouldn't be continuing to tell your "funny story" as it wouldn't be as funny.
User name checks out. But in all seriousness, I can’t disagree with that. I was lucky I suppose. Many people aren’t so lucky and I have empathy for them by knowing what could have happened.
1) Ace has described the assault here. It's more than just a dude making a pass at him. I'm fine with criticizing Ace (I personally didn't think the podcast was objectionable) but there's no need to minimize what he faced.
2) I'm sorry about your experience, and I'm genuinely glad you've been able to laugh it off. At the same time, I would respectfully ask that you recognize that not every victim of an assault is able to take your approach.
I thought the idea was to take the statue down. It’s been at the top of MGoBlog for 2+ days now. (Which is a long time for folks like myself who check the site hourly.)
Pokes head out from pandemic bunker after a year away from MGoBlog:
Nope, too radioactive. Will check again next year. Good night and good luck.
This is why the people in charge of newsrooms get on the same page behind the scenes and make statements on behalf of the publication as a whole. Maybe do that next time there's news on this topic.
I get that this topic might trigger some strong emotions in Ace, but I'm struggling to understand why this required the podcast post to be deleted. Is it that he feels like his name would be associated with the opinions expressed in the podcast? I think it's generally understood that the people speaking only represent themselves.
Ace is a fucking loser.
Notice that even everyone that is defending Ace said they didn’t have an actual issue with the podcast.
I’m not trying to be mean or take a shot but I’m at the point with Ace where I truly believe he gets psychological help and hopes he gets it.
Notice that even everyone that is defending Ace said they didn’t have an actual issue with the podcast.
I’m not trying to be mean or take a shot but I’m at the point with Ace where I truly believe he gets psychological help and hopes he gets it.
Comments