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.
97, your point 2 was spot on and wonderfully put!
Your point 1 was fucked up & so completely not your place to try to mediate, I actually find it hard to reconcile the same person wrote point 2!
You can't just erase or remove things that make people feel uncomfortable. This entire thing makes me feel uncomfortable, but WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT, and even if someone adamantly disagrees with the viewpoint of another person, you still don't erase it. You discuss it, you shine a bright light on it, and everyone hopefully learns a valuable lesson. That post and more importantly, the discussion it had created should not have been deleted.
Taking down statues is not erasing history and not sure why that has become a rallying cry for so many. A statue is up to honor a person and if their ideals and actions do not reflect what is acceptable behavior then it is fine to take down.
I agree wholeheartedly with your point that taking down statues is not erasing history. I will say, however, that you can draw a pretty distinct difference between statues of people like Bo and the story of confederate statues, to which that argument is most often asserted. The point of erecting statues that honored the men of the Confederacy was specifically to honor the abhorrent part of the individual's story. For people like Bo, the statue is intended to honor their achievements and has no connection to their failures. You could make an argument that specific failures do not necessitate a removal of the statues honoring the good in the individual or their achievements.
To be clear, I am not taking the position that Bo's statue should stay. Just saying that an argument that leaving up the statue to honor his achievements along with some spotlight on his failures is a more reasonable position than "we should leave up monuments to racism because it's part of our history."
Nothing I wrote made any mention of a statue. Now, had the post yesterday not been erased from history, you could have read other people's points of view and opinions, including my own.
As for the statue and building with his name, that's not up to me and regardless if the statues were removed or the name changes. Nothing is going to change how I feel about how social norms or the culture at the time helped hide a predator.
Personally what I find even more alarming is that this sort of reaction to someone saying something you don't like, or even if you misinterpret something that they say, it discourages anyone from having honest discussions about anything. Instead you feel that you have to simply pander to people when you open your mouth, rather than state your opinions. This is not how a civilized society advances.
I disagree with your basic assumption, as this is not just "something that makes people uncomfortable". There are real victims, tons of them, and Bo knew about the abuse and could have stopped it. Next, removing the statue is not erasing Bo -- his name will still be in the record books as football coach, AD, etc.
But to leave up a monument built to honor a man's greatness, much of which was a supposed dedication to "the team" (or teams, as AD), when much of that greatness has been found to be decidedly not great is totally ridiculous.
TL;DR take down the honorifics -- lose the statue, change the name of Schembechler Hall. The man has been found to be unworthy of honors.
I think they need to put something up in Schembechler Hall about it. Big and visible. I don't think it's remove-statue territory.
I would move the statue inside the building so people would have the choice of seeing it or not.
As michigan fans/alums/students, this is obviously tougher to stomach than previous allegations across our sport. However, I do think some comparisons are valid, though not for "rah-rah" and rivalry reasons.
I think football, especially amateur football - one of my favorite things in this world - is more likely than other sports to have scandals be covered up. The teams are large and the players cycle through, the coaches and admins have more power and responsibility for success, the players have less leverage, and the institution takes on outsized importance. And then the myriad of people who tie their self worth and image to that institution may protect "the brand" over the values it should represent.
The winged helmets are beautiful - but they matter less than what they're supposed to represent. Community, leadership, victory, being "best." But also a university that stands up for the disadvantaged. We will always fall short of the ideal, and certainly we've not been victorious in the last fifteen years. Bo and Yost both espoused those values, but also fell short - and the consequences were far worse than wins and losses.
We must recognize and combat the impulse to protect the brand over our values.
Uh, am I the only one who thinks this has little to do with a WTKA podcast and the things said on it and more to do with how it’s not a great idea to constantly voice disgust and disdain for people don’t believe The Right Thing on any number of topics?
Take down podcasts, make statements, allow your employees to trash other professionals in your ecosystem, whatever. It’s your blog. It’s just totally ruining the experience for people.
It's ruining the experience for you. Seems like most people have appreciated the discussion.
This article is a good contribution to thoughtful and healthy dialogue.
What’s not thoughtful or healthy is treating people like Sam Webb or Craig like crap, consistently belittling people on social media, and things of that nature.
I don’t have a strong opinion on any of this. I just know it’s not representative of how people of good will like Sam and Craig should be treated.
I honestly thought the WTKA Roundtable was a great discussion that looked at the issue through multiple lenses and evoked some great discussion. Was Craig wrong about his "we can't know how much Bo knew?" Yes, but that comment didn't warrant taking down the podcast and Sam certainly didn't deserve to be attacked for facilitating conversation
Dave Chappelle recently spoke about people who use this approach to any disagreement:
"I’m torn, because I like a warrior for a good cause, but I’m really into tactics. You’re not gonna nag people into behaving in a way that’s — in fact, if you continue with this tone, even if you’re right, you’ll be very hard to hear."
You may not be "the only one" ypsitucky, but you and those who may agree with you are wrong.
Does that make it better if you have company?
Couldn't agree more. I won't read anything Ace writes because of the way he conducts himself. Even in times where he's right, he approaches situations with immaturity and vitriol instead of taking opportunities to educate people and help them grow.
His interactions with Sam on Twitter are the perfect example. Yesterday's podcast discussion clearly exists in a gray area, Ace is treating it as if Sam was way outside the lines and treated him as if he's some kind of terrible person. It just gets old after a while living in the same space as someone who's always on attack against people with different views and opinions. I find Ace to be extremely intolerant.
I've just decided to stop bitching about it here and just go elsewhere. He writes the basketball stuff on this site and hey, whattya know, we have the best independent basketball website in the country with UMHoops.com to get hoops analysis from. I like the other stuff here so I still read that.
I listened to the entire discussion yesterday before it was taken down. From my view, it was perfectly reasonable, especially in the fact that it provided reasonable positions from multiple viewpoints. There was no pandering, ad hominem, or grandstanding. Regardless what substantive merit the listeners ascribe to the content of each viewpoint, everything expressed was relevant to the question how the University should act, if at all, to address the legacies of flawed men who have contributed greatly to the standing of the school.
There should absolutely be room for Ace's viewpoint as a victim of abuse to be presented if he wants to share it. More important, I think, would be the opinions of the victims of Dr. Anderson. At the same time, there needs to be oxygen left in the room for dissenting views to be expressed without shutting down the discussion altogether. At the end of the day though, this isn't a discussion among the regents, but a discussion on a sports blog, so whatever.
See Hab, you're walking that fine line that, if followed to its logical conclusion, eventually allows Nazis or other heinous views to be included in the discussion.
This is not to say anyone in this discussion was in any respect anywhere near heinous, just that in insisting that all views are valuable (even when one of them, in more than 1 listeners opinion, was advocating for continuing to sweep a heinous act under the rug) you start to abrogate the responsibility to declare some views not acceptable & not worthy of consideration.
Sorry, ridiculously long sentences.
Bypassing all the fluff and going right to the nuclear option -- I like that. But thing with fear is that, so long as you're afraid of it and avoid it, it has power. And this is precisely what happens in these kinds of situations -- we don't allow a certain viewpoint (or rather, a person espousing a particular viewpoint) to not enter into the discussion because we are afraid of the consequences of what might happen if they are permitted to speak.
But what if instead we stepped into that fear and engaged that person? What if we allowed someone to voice an opinion consistent with the views espoused by the Nazis of old? Chances are, the idea dies on the floor, either to angry shouts or to laughter. Now, what if the person who espoused that hated view, by virtue of having been included in the discussion, is exposed to other ideas and treated with respect, not on account of the value of the idea they brought, but because they were a human with inherent worth? I've literally seen it happen before. But if we're not talking about it because we're afraid of the other views, all we do is stay in our own little echo chambers becoming more and more convinced that we, and we alone are right. Our ideas become our identity, and we, as a people, are lost in the shouting.
This comment is so ironic I honestly thought it was satire for a moment. Your advocating for the removal of dissenting viewpoints is literally a Nazi policy.
There should absolutely be room for Ace's viewpoint as a victim of abuse to be presented if he wants to share it.
He wrote the lead article on this site about the topic. He did that before the podcast. There isn't an issue of Ace not having a platform to share his view on this; its an issue of no one is allowed to even in hypothetical terms discuss a viewpoint that doesn't align with Ace's on this.
We're agreeing with one another. I'm just doing it from a more global perspective. Ace should have his say, as should others. You're saying that Ace has had his say, and now, it's time for others. Potato, potato.
I see where Ace is coming from. I see where Brian is coming from. I am totally fine (glad, even) that there is not a total agreement between the two. This issue is not clean. It's not simple. It's not static.
I am still processing all of this. This post is well written. I am appreciative for it.
I would give this post a million +s if I could. My sense is the majority of people feel this way (or are inclined to feel this way). Unfortunately the nature of message boards and Twitter tends to push us all towards the extremes. Not only must all opinions be black or white (metaphorically), they must be expressed with confidence, volume, and disdain turned up to 10. Moving back to the (real)world of grays would do us all a bit of good.
A good write-up. I thought Sam was rather clearly doing his job as a radio host and asking questions to spur on conversation. Now, maybe sports radio isn't the place to have detailed, nuanced discussions about institutional indifference to sexual assaults, but that's a different discussion.
The panel actually, somewhat organically it appeared, covered all of the major outlooks I've heard about Anderson. Personally I think you tear down the statue and change the buildings named after Schembechler and Canham and recognize their part in allowing Anderson to abuse people for 40+ years. You don't mince words, you don't try to "it was a different era" bullshit. You own it, you pay out the $800M+ to victims, and you make sure it doesn't happen again.
As for Craig, he sounded a lot like a lawyer, and that's not surprising. I was once a lawyer and it felt like he was laying out both sides of the argument regarding how you handle Bo's legacy, and while I agree with Brian that Bo had to have known and even if he didn't he had a duty to know, as a defense you would frame it more as a by-gone era when men like Bo weren't equipped to handle or process such a situation as systemic sexual assault by a team doctor. Again, I think that argument is bullshit but I didn't hear it as Craig trying to absolve Bo's role in anything. YMMV on that end.
I've said it elsewhere but even if Bo didn't believe the sexual assaults were actual assaults, or he didn't understand the nuances of what Anderson was doing, the fact there was such a reputation around Anderson and it made his players uncomfortable would have been enough for Bo, had he cared, to just have Anderson moved away from working with athletes. Like, coaches back then did everything they could to gain a miniscule edge over their opponents and commanded their teams like tyrants, and it beggars belief to assume that Bo didn't pick up on tensions around Anderson. But he didn't care because doing so, addressing what was going on, made his life slightly harder and since it wasn't his rectum being violated he turned away. So while Bo might not "evil" by one's personal definition of the term (and he certainly isn't as culpable as Anderson), him not giving a shit is enough in my eyes of justify his removal from idolatry at the school. Don't memory hole him because that never works in practice and minimizes the pain and suffering of his victims in my opinion, but the status quo can't be maintained.
Craig said that the AD had no input in selecting who the doctors were. If a coach today asked for a new doctor, he would be ridiculed for going outside of his lane. We don’t know what Canham and Schembechler discussed. This was a department wide failure. Canham has more culpability than Schembechler, in my opinion, but they didn’t put up a statue of Canham.
My counter-argument to that is that Bo and Canham heard the rumors and the complaints, and they absolutely had the power to say "hey, can you send us a new doctor?" They weren't beholden to what UHS sent them, and that's doubly true if UHS apparently fired Anderson for some of the same behavior we saw in the AD.
They didn't care to fix an issue because they didn't want it to be an issue.
I heard the podcast (on MGoBlog before it was taken down yesterday). And I cringed while Craig was talking, mostly because he generally seems like a sensitive guy and I thought to myself, "wow, he's coming across kind of insensitively and I bet he doesn't mean to." My suspicion is that he was trying to make a very nuanced observation about trying to adjudicate facts in the absence of perfect information. (FWIW, I believe that observation is beside the point, and in any event it's virtually impossible to deliver sufficient nuance in a medium like talk radio). I'm reassured to hear that he regrets that.
As for Sam Webb convening that topic, and Brian, Seth, and Craig being willing to engage on it. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. Even if -- perhaps especially because -- they could not do so in a perfect way. "Difficult conversations" are called that because they are difficult. Discomfort is the appropriate response to participating in them. Hearing apologies made for Bo -- and anyone else who was in a position to do something about it at the time -- being aired and debunked is a necessary element of a community coming to terms with what has happened.
I've always tried to be supportive of Ace, but I don't know man. The constant battle cry against anything or anyone that does not fall 99% in line with his world views has grown very tiresome. This blog and community would probably benefit from him moving on.
I know message thread disagreements don't usually lead anywhere good, but I'd imagine if I was Brian I would get annoyed with people making suggestions about what to do with my employees/friends.
You can always not read his posts if they ruin your day. As long as One Frame At A Time is a thing, I'm an Ace fan.
I happen to like Ace's writing as well. But this has little to do with Ace's writing or his posts, and everything to do with how Ace coerces/forces how his other employees post. And that's the problem.
It's okay to say that Ace is a great writer and provides great content for this board while also feeling that the way Ace conducts himself on a public social media platform is very off putting and quite frankly, his social media persona makes him come off as being an ass.
We as the readers of this blog can have an opinion and have this message board to share it. Whether Brian cares or not is entirely up to him. It's his blog and he can employ who he wants. At this point, and probably at no point, am I going to stop coming here and reading their great work. But it is rather off putting when only Ace's view is the accepted view.
It's his blog and he can employ who he wants.
This is essentially all I took Chris' reply to say. Yes of course we can share our opinion of whatever (within board rules) on an open forum with it's owners. But surely it must be tiring to have hundreds of people backseating how to operate your site and who to employ. Voice disdain with Ace, but unsolicited advising can be tiresome.
Whatever views or opinions Ace, Brian, Seth, BiSB, or Matt EM might have on outside stuff does not effect my day one way or another - which is one of the points I was trying to make. The other two, you seem to share with me: it's Brian's blog and we aren't going to stop coming on here one way or another.
Ace is a good writer, podcaster, and is very knowledgeable about basketball specifically. I read his articles and learn a ton about the game.
That said, the thing with Ace is that he takes extreme positions on everything and only accepts his point of view. Maybe he doesn’t think he is an expert on everything... but he is positive that he knows more than *you*. A limited list of topics (off the top of my head): sexual assault, healthcare, CFS/me, pronouns, abusive parents, Covid, the economy, landlords, Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
If you question his position? Blocked. You disagree? Banned. Difference of opinion? You’re an idiot. Handled a conversation differently than he would? Silenced.
Seth said yesterday that Ace is the victim of targeted online harassment- that is just not true. Go look at what he has tweeted the last 48 hours. Is he the harasser or the harassed?
I think both can be true. I have seen people harass Ace for really stupid things. But he also harasses and belittles others.
I feel bad for Ace for several reasons, but I've also seen plenty of others handle adversity much better.
That's the part I struggle with. A lot of bad stuff happened in Ace's life, but he just does not seem to know how to move forward and deal. So my sympathy gets balanced against wondering what the hell he was thinking during the great 'I don't need to pay my rent." incident and a line of other stuff.
Ace is a good writer, he has good perspectives on a lot of sporting topics, It might be time for him to, as we said in the Air Force, "Shut up and color." for awhile.
"Shut up and color," is my favorite phrase I learned from the AF.
I did listen to the podcast yesterday before it was removed. I have not read the report. One important point was made by Craig Ross. Anderson was terminated by the UM health service, and was then assigned to the Athletic Department. I earned degree in hospital administration from UM in the early 70’s and spent my career involved with hospital operations. I am not clinically trained, but trained in the business side of healthcare. From the very early days of my career, I learned two lessons. Physicians resent non-physicians questioning their abilities and behavior. Second, physicians protected their own. I experienced this issue first hand when I was personally sued for suspending privileges of a surgeon following a patient’s death. Again, I have not read the report, and this is sports related blog. However, a fundamental question needs to be asked of UM’s medical establishment. Why was Anderson not banned from UM and reported to the Michigan state board of medical licensure for termination of his right to practice? To expect non clinicians to be the watch dog and disciplinary party associated with Anderson is just wrong. Tragically, this same protection of physician attitude concealed Nasser for years at MSU.
"Anderson was terminated by the UM health service, and was then assigned to the Athletic Department."
That was the obvious opportunity for Canham and Schembechler to say "no fucking way is this dipshit going to have his paws on the athletes we profess to care about." That wouldn't have cured Anderson's glaring issues, but at least it would have prevented the athletic program from acquiring his stink.
He was not terminated there. Surprised Craig would say that but I did not listen to podcast to know if he really did or not. He was transferred over there as seemingly a deal to not see general population students anymore. AD had no heads up whatsoever that they were dumping this monster on them.
I get the desire to remember history, but the "add a plaque" stuff seems like horse-shit to me.
When my four year old kids sees his statute on campus, even one with a plaque, and he asks who that is, I have no clue what I'm supposed to say. You don't acknowledge victims with statues of those complicit in their abuse-- no one thinks a Holocaust memorial should be a big statue of Hitler with a plaque.
Ross hemming and hawing was entirely predictable, as was Sam suggesting conciliatory strategies. Both of these people depend heavily on access to a program that is full of people enamored with Bo and some people who were around during the long period of abuse. I was really hoping Mgo would just do a podcast on this topic, because I don't think people in sports radio really know how to address topics like this.
Thanks for this. I think it is a well written and reasonable explanation. I also think the podcast was actually a really good podcast that furthered the discussion. Seth, Brian, Sam, and Craig all made good points that helped dive into something that is uncomfortable, but important. I heard Craig's section coming from a lawyer / mediator point of view and not from a common sense standpoint.
I 100% disagree with Ace's take that this podcast should have been taken down. You don't advance people's thinking and evolve as a society by shoving your viewpoint down people's throat and refusing to acknowledge anything that is different than yours. This is true even if, and maybe especially if, you're in the right. People are complicated and they come from widely different backgrounds and experiences. They are not just evil and wrong if they disagree with you, but if you condescend and talk down to people, they will be defensive and turn on you.
Posted yesterday, and it went out with the podcast comments, still--I believe--bears repeating:
1. Since 2000, in the US Dept of Justice's estimation, what Anderson did is considered rape. Yes, times were different, but it was heinous. The fact that people did it with smiles on their faces, or laughed about it, tells us that we have evolved. It doesn't make it better then.
2. Bo was widely considered a Cro Magnon in his own time. He was detested by a serious portion of the UM community, understood to be hard to work with, as an administrator, and sometimes tyrannical. And his coaching, in his own time, was often criticized as old-fashioned. Some of us have always found it unfortunate that he was so lionized. And--further--that values he embodied could remain prized.
To place this in a different light: We can work to remove our judgements and actions going forward from the political sphere, and agree on what most of us agree on: He laughed at this stuff and accepted it THEN because he didn't want a scandal. That's enough, in my view, not to crucify him, but to justify his statue coming down.
The political implications remain. They won't go away. Football, like patriotism, is often the refuge of a certain brand of scoundrel. That won't stop now. But those of us who care should not shy away. Only two days before we had people here--people who reversed course two days later--justifying Bo's sadistic practice practices for those who were buying. They were part of the same ball of wax.
Bo was an enabler and in this case failed as a person, coach, mentor and administrator. Why he did so is just speculation. It is not known if it was to avoid scandal. His reasoning cannot be known and would be largely immaterial to my personal view of this disappointing and terrible failure.
Hopefully Ace quits
I appreciate Brian's post and found it necessary to ask the board yesterday where it went as I thought the discussion was not only valid but needed. I actually still have the front page podcast post up on another tab as I forget to close them out all the time and go back as needed. Still don't get the plaque thing that was suggested as I believe it's about as thought-provoking and effective as the 5-second disclaimer before watching Jackass for the first time.
From yesterday's post:
If you keep the name on the building (we're not recommending that), include a plaque about what happened. History is history.
Huh? Was everyone on the podcast saying we should include a plaque detailing sexual assault, trauma and compliance as some sort of epilogue underneath the tarnished accomplishments of Bo? Is that what the victims want or are people just assuming that a 2ftx3ft plaque pushes the envelope or affects the community who is subjected to those horrors? I mean I'm all for creating social awareness and being transparent with the public but I'm not sure how creating a pseudo-memorial in front of an inanimate object like a statue or building is what's needed, especially if the victims/relatives aren't asking for such a thing. Do the right thing and take the statue down, remove the name and reach out to people who've been affected to address their needs. A plaque should be the last action step within this whole process. The thought is nice and well-intentioned but I think you're reaching here.
This was a great post. Personally I agree with Brian. I think the conversation was useful - it was helpful to me as I considered the report. I love Craig. I also trust his intentions.
Comments