Trigger warning.
The University of Tennessee has extended a scholarship offer to Daniel Hood, "Mr. Football" at Knoxville Catholic High School.
Hood certainly has all the athletic credentials: he led Knoxville Catholic to a 15-0 record and a class 3A state title. For his prowess, he got himself 27 scholarship offers from schools across the country. Indeed, Hood's football highlight film on Rivals.com has been watched 17,594 times.
But then schools caught wind of the horrifying details of his 2003 conviction (something they began to refer to as his "character issue"). Hood and an older friend, 17-year-old Robert Sanrico, who is currently serving 10 years in prison, raped and kidnapped a 14-year-old girl (Hood's cousin no less). Excerpts of the court transcript are here, but I warn you that they are highly disturbing.
All 27 of those scholarships disappeared once schools learned of Hood's legal record. But it appears that UT has managed to look past it. "We didn't go about this lightly," UT coach Lane Kiffin said in a statement Tuesday. "We spent a lot of time researching the issue and talking to a lot of people who are well-respected in the community. Everyone spoke very highly of Daniel. He's a very bright young man who wants to move past this incident and be a good representative for the team, the university and the community."
According to UT athletic department director of public relations, Tiffany Carpenter, the victim wrote a letter on Hood's behalf urging the university to admit him.
This is incredibly difficult for me to process. I won't judge Tiffany Carpenter's choice to forgive and even encourage her cousin to move on. I recognize that every person who experiences sexual assault has to heal in her own way. It does make me wonder what kind of support she's gotten through this whole process (this is the only time she's mentioned in the coverage).
But even more, it underscores the ways in which we still don't take sexual assault seriously in this country. I'm not a fan of criminalizing minors, but this incident is so violent and the punishment so lax (Hood went to a rehab center for a short period of time) that I can't help but feel like this kid's football talent has overshadowed any actual rehabilitation and reflection that he sorely needed and still needs to do. No one mentions if he actually got ongoing therapy, if he has gotten involved in sexual assault prevention efforts, or come to any kind of conclusions about why he committed such a dehumanizing crime against his own relative.
Were he not a football player, he would probably be stuck in a dead end job with no respect, no college scholarships, and no opportunities. (Not optimum, by the way. Just truth.) If he were a young man of color, well, we all know that his punishment would have looked far different. Instead, he's a white guy with a natural talent for throwing a pig skin, and as a result, he'll get a free college education and, quite possibly, could make millions in the NFL. All that money and glory will make the heinous sexual assault of his youth seem like a bad dream. I hate that athletic talent is valued more in this society than women's bodily integrity, therapeutic healing from violent crimes for both the perpetrator and the victim, or sexual assault prevention.
Fuck football.
Email Chancellor Jimmy G. Cheek at chancellor@utk.edu if you want to express your opinion about this issue.
Thanks to Christina for the heads up.
Correction: It appears that Tiffany Carpenter is the PR rep for UT Athletics, not the victim. This was misreported in one of the pieces I read. Thanks to Regann for the info.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Culture of Football, The Culture of Rape.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13711
Football, and every other culture of privilege that annoints some people, calling them so valuable that unlike others they will not be held accountable. Men get away with rape because their talent makes them to valuable to hold accountable, or their wealth, or their political influence -- or just because they are men in a culture that values men as the default human being and devalues women (though the median person in the world population is not a white man but an Asian woman).
George Orwell's timeless warning: some animals are more equal than others.
Really? Do you have a citation for that? Because that doesn't sound right. The world's most populous nations, India and China, hold 1/3 of the world's population and the male population is already higher than the female population in both of those countries.
I had long been under the impression that women outnumbered men, and have seen that in many locations. The CIA thinks men outnumber women 1.01:1 globally, though (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html). Men do outnumber women pretty substantially at birth (CIA says 1.07:1, which I've seen elsewhere), but we have a higher mortality rate at all ages. It's possible some factors cause this balance to twist a bit - for instance, World War II killed a lot more men than women, which might've been enough to push the global population to majority female for a while, which'd be why we'd remember older "Women are the majority" stats that don't seem to hold today (since most people alive in 1945 are not alive today). Other factors might be at play, though that's the only one that comes to mind.
Well, I stand corrected. There are very slightly more men than women in the world. However, the median person 60% of the world's population is in Asia
If he's 18 now (assuming he's the average age of a high school senior), then he couldn't have been more than 13 when the actual act happened. I'm not making excuses for him, but it seems to me like he was probably a victim in this too. An older friend, someone he surely looked up to was involved, and I'm sure it wasn't the 13 year old's idea to kidnap and rape his cousin. I'm not saying its right by any means but he wasn't fully responsible for this. Maybe he still has some potential to grow into a good man.
I agree. It sounds like he was taken advantage of as well.
Reading the account, it seems like the 17 year old created a situation where an ambiguous act escalated (especially based on the prior "prank"). It's very likely Hood didn't understand what was happening until it was already in progress but he should and could have stopped it. If he were alone with the friend and cousin it could have been argued that he was afraid, but since Collins and the father were also in the house it would have been easy to call for help. If nothing else he does need serious psychological counseling.
It's definitely a complicated situation for a 13 year old to be in but an educational institution shouldn't give him a scholarship on principle, I'm sure any sane person in Hood's situation would understand.
If he does end up attending on the scholarship and attaining any sort of success, I hope he uses his fame and any possible fortune to advance the cause of rape awareness and prevention.
It sounds as though he went through an intensive round of in-patient treatment and therapy while living in a group home. while it doesn't directly say it in the other article I posted farther down, it implies that he lived in the treatment facility for a few years before being admitted to the Catholic high school.
Nothing excuses what he participated in, but I think this is a case where we could benefit from more details on what he has been doing since then. I would be very interested if anyone could find more information on the length of time he spent in the group-home counseling or other things that might show how he has spent the 6 years since the incident.
I can't find anything about a prior "prank". Where did you read that?
in the transcript it said that the two boys had duct taped Collins, the babysitter to a chair.
As a youth counselor I am around 10-18 year olds quite often and they can be easily influenced by peer pressure. However, I firmly believe that a 13 year old knows that the kidnapping, bondage, and brutal rape of their cousin is WRONG. There are some grey matters and there are some things that are as wrong as it gets, a 13 year old knows better. A 13 year old is a minor, but they still have the capacity to realize what's right and wrong. He shouldn't be allowed the privilage of a scholarship. In fact, he should probably should have gone to a juvenile detention center; other children go there for much less, such as running away, fighting, and shoplifting, why not rape?
Uh, after reading the article...I may take that back. Obviously he knew what was happening was wrong, "Hey, that's my cousin, man."
Who let's someone do that to their cousin? WTF?
Who lets someone do that to ANYONE, for that matter?
If you read the article (and yeah, it will be very upsetting for some), he was 13 at the time, and the other boy involved was 17 (the one whose in prison). It says six years ago, so yeah, he's 18 or 19 now. The article kinda paints the other boy as the leader & more active, but that may well be bull. I wouldn't presume to know the truth of their dynamic. Not clear why he didn't end up in prison but the other kid did, though I expect their relative ages were a big part of it (and the article suggests as much as well).
13 year olds aren't that dumb. They know perfectly well what they're doing.
Really? Well if that's the case we should lower the age of consent for sex down to 13 and let older men go ahead and date them. Why would we even bother with such silly things like convictions for statutory rape and pedophilia, being that 13 year olds are completely able to reason and consider the pros and cons of something like an adult. Goodness... why would we have cigarettes sold so much older then?! And what is the big deal with child soldiers anyway?
No, 13 year olds do not know 'exactly what they are doing' they are 13. When I was 13 I was convinced that I was oh so in love with a boy from my study class and I covered my mother's kitchen in a flour water mixture due to a science experiment gone wrong.
I am not comparing this to the rape of his cousin, in a direct sense, but rather that he was not fully emotionally and mentally grown. Our brains, scientifically, do not stop growing until our 20s (not even mine, being that I'm 19). That being said the court decided that his punishment would be fitting due to his age and awareness, and sent him to a group home and counseling for two years, which he completed. He grew emotionally and mentally as we all do during the years between 13 and 18. The point of rehabilitation is that a second chance is given, and how can you say you're giving a second chance when he does well and you try to take it away from him?
That just seems like a petty thing to do.
Totally! Don't all thirteen year old dudes at some point kidnap and rape their cousins?!?
It's just a phase. Everyone needs to cut him some slack, he only had like, three brain cells at that age.
Man, expecting thirteen year olds to know that kidnapping and raping someone is wrong is completely analogous to believing thirteen year olds don't have to be protected from sexual predators twice their age, right? No?
Logic FAIL.
I doubt you'd be saying the same thing if he murdered someone. 13 year olds aren't necesarilly great at decision making, but they know the basic principals. Murder is bad, just like rape is bad.
Are you kidding me? So b/c this kid's frontal lobes weren't developed we are to chalk this up to some sophomoric lapse in judgment? Where was this kid's humanity as he witnessed his cousin being violated?
Right, he's feels bad, so let's offer him redemption in the form of athletic achievement, b/c athletes have proven to be stellar examples of human enlightenment and evolution. That is so twisted!! He should be allowed to participate in a characteristically violent and aggressive sport to help him foster his humanity! Are we going to call his character flaw being weak to peer pressure? How is going to handle peer pressure from his team? Wasn't he in fact being "part of the team" as his stood by and allowed an older boy to rape his cousin? Get real he's really going to grow by through football, it's not a fucking ashram!!
The kid was given a second chance by not having a severe punishment. But he shouldn't be given a scholarship. Reading the court transcript confirms just how violent the whole ordeal was to the victim. Even if he was 13 years old, a 13 year old knows between right and wrong.
I go to UT and they definitely place too much emphasis on football above other things.
If 13 year olds knew the difference between right and wrong and needed no guidance, then people wouldn't have parents. I'm not apologizing for his actions, or saying that what he did wasn't awful, but I am saying that being at such a young age doesn't necessarily make him an awful person. He was 13, he got a second chance, and he managed to stay out of trouble, not repeat (as far as we know) and keep his grades and physical abilities good enough to originally get 27 scholarship offers. If you say you want someone to be given a second chance, and then they make something out of it and you get mad, what use is the second chance anyway?
For the record, I am not trying to be a rape apologist and if anything I say offends any rape survivors then I am truly sorry.
But is a second chance acting as though no wrong was committed? I can't fault the schools that rescinded their scholarship offers upon finding out that he is a convicted rapist. It's not like the schools said he couldn't attend their institutions or play football for them, only that they wouldn't pay for it.
No a second chance is not acting as if no wrong is committed, but if you are given a second chance, and you take it and actually make something out of it, well then you deserve to get the rewards that go with that.
"If 13 year olds knew the difference between right and wrong and needed no guidance, then people wouldn't have parents."
People's parents don't disppear after they gain a basic knowledge of right and wrong. Besides, as we all know parent's don't always offer the best examples of right and wrong. I think at 13 most children know enough not to violenty bind their cousin and rape them with household items, regardless of peer pressure.
"If 13 year olds knew the difference between right and wrong and needed no guidance, then people wouldn't have parents."
People's parents don't disppear after they gain a basic knowledge of right and wrong. Besides, as we all know parent's don't always offer the best examples of right and wrong. I think at 13 most children know enough not to violenty bind their cousin and rape them with household items, regardless of peer pressure.
Yes, basic knowledge of right and wrong is gained before the age of 13, and yes people's parents don't disappear, of course. But the idea that a 13 year old is going to make mistakes (or have aggression issues and do something terrible)is certainly true.
Yes, most young men aged 13 would not violently bind, and then rape their cousin. And most young men did not go to a juvenile detention center for it. And most people do not work that hard and that long to overcome such a violent deed they did in their own past.
He did the punishment the law dictated for his crime. He overcame his problems. He grew as a person, which is generally what happens between the ages of 13 and 18. I don't know if you did, but I certainly am not the same person I was at age 13.
He may not be exactly the same person, but a rapist once is a rapist forever.
If a rapist now is a rapist for ever, then we'd have to kill/castrate all one time ofenders.
I don't ses how we're ever to get out of rape-culture if the children of it aren't offered the chance to rehabilitate and move on.
What?
...
Seriously, what?
Convicted rapists in the US are not castrated and it is exceptionally rare for a rapist to be sentenced to death. It also is worth keeping in mind that Hood is not only a child of rape culture, but as a rapist, a SUPPORTER of rape culture.
No, you misunderstood my comment. I'm not trying to say that he will continue to rape, he may not. What I'm saying, is that he raped that girl. The label of "rapist" shouldn't just expire after a few months or years. Whether or not he's changed, he still raped someone, and so he should be treated like the rapist that he is.
Ugh, are you fucking serious? 13-year olds don't know how to tell the difference between right and wrong??? A 7-year-old knows the difference between right and wrong. Also, I'm 25, and I still have parents. I'll probably have parents well into my forties. This comment is completely illogical.
If you read the ESPN article, it doesn't sound like he's saying he didn't know it was wrong. He did. He was scared. That *doesn't* make it okay, but it means he was a kid in a terrifying, violent situation who made a bad decision.
Okay, I put that wrong maybe, but 13 year olds do not have the developmental ability to distinguish the right decision in every circumstance. In the article from ESPN it says that he was in the room but not directly taking part in the act and that he was basically scared stupid. There was no adult in the room to protect him, or to guide him, and while there may be some adolescents who have the character to stand up against a 17 year old friend they look up to and are partially scared of, this young man wasn't. He knew it was wrong in the article.
No adult in the room to protect him? Poor baby. Having no adult to protect him from the horror of someone else's rape? I can't imagine the torture he must feel. He was the victim, after all...right?
As for citing ESPN articles about anything, these are the people who refer to rape victims as "accusers."
As for another quote:
"If he were a young man of color, well, we all know that his punishment would have looked far different.
Not so fast there. Look up the name Lance Stephenson. Look up the name Kobe Bryant. These days, if a male has athletic prowess, it tends to outweigh the social disadvantagbe associated with his skin color.
I agree. I do believe that at 13 you can know right from wrong, but I also believe that at 13 its easy to get confused, scared, and misled. He committed an act of wrong at 13 and needs to learn from it. That doesn't mean severe punishment that is going to put him away for years, but it does mean learning about what he did so that he can fully accept responsibility, heal, and have true remorse for his actions.
This scholarship is a reward (and a might big one) and is the school choosing someone to represent them with this on their record.
Also, something just made me cringe about the language about him wanting to "move past this incident". It seems like they just want to sweep it under the rug and forget about it.
I would respect the school and Daniel if, instead of pushing this as a "character flaw", they addressed the issue, spoke out against rape, and used their platform for something better. That would be a fabulous conclusion to this story.
NOTE: I think when writing to the Chancellor Jimmy G. Cheek (at chancellor@utk.edu) that this would be something great to say!
They are not likely to reverse their decision.
But they may move forward in a more positive direction with feedback and encouragement from us.
BE HEARD!
I made the mistake of reading the highly triggering account of the rape. One of the most sickening things that I've heard in a while.
Also, yeah he was young when he did it. But I don't think the age of the rapist matters to most survivors. Doesn't make the rape any less awful. Still violates someone's bodily autonomy, still neglects their feelings.
I know more than a few women whose brothers, cousins, neighbors, etc, of the same age sexually assaulted them, and its still a trauma years later, whether they were 5 and 9 or 4 and 11 or 11 and 15, and so on...
The guy who raped me was younger than I was. Still stronger though!
It mattered to me that my molester was young. It made a huge difference to me.
Not to say that it isn't traumatic by any stretch of the imagination, it just made it somewhat easier to forgive what was done.
Great post. Sometimes I wish there was a feminist-centric sports blog out there...
Lane Kiffin, before coaching a single game at UT, has already demonstrated himself to be morally bankrupt, in ways even unusual for the seedy, cartoon-used-car-salesman-types associated with coaching D1 college football. This follows a whole list of recruiting violations and embarrassing insults and smears he has cast all over the US. Deadspin.com has chronicled the whole sad charade, and I'd link to those posts, but lets face it, deadspin is so sexist it shouldn't get that kind of credibility here.
This is off-topic so I'll keep it short--but I would be really interested in a feminist-centric sports blog. So let's start one! (You can contact me through my blog if you want to get serious about this.)
Read your blog all morning. I'm in. I'll contact you. Hope we can get a lot of collaborators because this would be a great niche to fill.
I agree! I'm a feminist and a huge football fan (more NFL than NCAA, but I follow the ACC and SEC), and I often feel like the intersection of gender/sexuality issues with the culture of sports in America is something ripe for commentary, but you don't see much comprehensive treatment....
Anyway, my gut reaction was to blame Kiffin, too. I'm already sick to death of him and I haven't even had to look at him on the Vols sideline yet.
Additionally, while I have very strong opinions about the culture of rape that often surrounds D1 sports (not just football), I think there is a level of nuance here that we need to be careful about -- and that is the fact that this was something Hood did when he was thirteen, and it doesn't sound like he ever really got counseling for it. This is *not* to cheapen the monumentally traumatic effect that such a violent rape had on the victim, but I think it's possible to recognize that a person can be both a rapist and a victim. If he was already a clear football talent by that age, I'm sure that the people around him wanted to mess with him as little as possible, and in that sense, too, he could be both a victim and a profiteer of the sports culture.
...what it really comes down to is this guy should probably get a ticket to some intense therapy rather than a ticket to college football idol-status.
I agree on all counts. Adolescent transgressors are always, to some degree, victims. Here he seems directly victimized by an older friend--giving in to peer pressure is not excusable, but it is understandable. It's a classic element of patriarchy. (Again: this is does not excuse or apologize for his hurtful, terrible actions or make him not a rapist too).
I do think that the holy grail of a d1 football scholarship is a bad placement for him, and I think we'd all benefit from looking at the market forces behind Kiffin's decision, because I'm pretty skeptical of the "helping him grow" pr angle. Kiffin has already screwed up his recruiting class--his performance and job is already in question--so by offering a scholarship to a talented athlete that 27(!) other schools passed on, he is boosting the talent of his team by lowering its standards. Thus, I really think the economic incentive here is what makes this choice so disgusting to me.
Its akin to a company falling behind the competition and cutting environmental corners to match the price or quality of competitors.
I know this is a bit late so I hope you see it but I'd be interested in collaborating on the feminist sports blog as well. You can email me at cravereality at gmail dot com. Thanks.
Also, I implore the moderators to vigilantly ban rape apologists on this thread, out of respect for survivors if nothing else.
I fail to see the connection between football and rape. People from all walks of life have been known to rape. That does not validate an indictment against all those walks of life, does it?
The connection between football and rape (and sports and rape in general) can be found in the hyper-masculine culture surrounding athletics. Sports heroes are the strongest, toughest, most macho men around, and they are lauded for their physical prowess and overall manliness. In American culture, being a proper manly-man also includes sexual prowess. The more sexual conquests (i.e., the more weak, feminine women a man controls), the more respectable the man. Also, talented athletes are used to being held up as heroes of manliness and athletic prowess, being worshipped by fans and desired by women. Sometimes, athletes will develop a sense of ownership over other people, especially women, or they will assume that women WANT to be with them, or have sex with them, what have you. Add to that, because of the huge amounts of money involved in sports, universities and sports franchises have a vested interest in keeping the felonies committed by their athletes under wraps. The hyper-masculinity, the sexual prowess, the super-human status of athletes, and the monetary interests of their franchises all contribute to the higher likelihood of rape by athletes and a smaller chance that the university, the franchise, or the media will give a shit about it.
This study http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e03021472.pdf points out that athletes make up a disproportionate amount of the reported rapes on a college campus. It also brings up another interesting point, that fraternity members also make up a disproportionate number of rapists. This makes sense, given the points I made above about the hyper-masculine subcultures that are in part based on sexual conquest over women.
I gotta agree with this - I'm not trying to defend a horrible crime, but the fact that 27 schools yanked their scholarship offers after learning about the record but UT decided to offer him one is an indictment against UT and Lane Kiffin, not football.
Unfortunately, football in America comes with a long history of covering up violent crimes. I recently read a book by Jeff Benedict discussing the relationship between violent criminals, football, and the organizations that support the atheltes, it's called:
Public Heroes, Private Felons: Athletes and Crimes Against Women.
The book is a bit dated, but the insight and statistics are eye-opening.
Isn't it just men's athletic talent, though? Sure, women are less likely to be perpetrators of violent crimes, but I doubt even a fantastic basketball player could retain a scholarship if recruiters discovered she had, say, assault with a deadly weapon on her legal record.
this reminds me why I fucking hate jocks so much. Bloody scumbags.
I think it's wrongheaded to lump all "jocks" together...there are some really decent people out there, AND plenty of scumbags. But when you have a system set up where people start telling the superstars they're god's gift by the time they're what, fourteen? five? ....it's not surprising what you churn out.
I mean, look at the case of Brett Favre. Been told he's a hero since grade school, huge ego masked behind an everydude persona, so now he's trying to un-un-unretire. Again. It's INSANE.
But look at the draft this year. You've got plenty of self-centered jerks, sure, but you also have first-rounders like Michael Oher or Aaron Curry with complicated backgrounds, stunning stories, and what seem like good intentions...those are the guys you like rooting for.
That's a really broad and irresponsible generalization, and isn't all that helpful to the conversation. The problem isn't people who are into sports or who are good at sports, it's that our culture continues to reward bad behavior from people who happen to be really good at sports, and a sports culture that tends to overlook or promote violence and misogyny. We should work to fix those things, not generalize about all "jocks." That kind of generalization, in addition to being rather irresponsible in its own right, will only turn off those who might be allies.
There are plenty of good sports stars out there... we as a culture and as feminists should be promoting them, and we definitely should stand against rewarding the bad ones with college scholarships or multi-million-dollar contracts.
100% with you.
That is really, really offensive language. I'm not a jock, so I don't personally take offense, but you are slurring a group of people. Make a biting critique of patriarchal forces in American athletic culture, please. But calling a group of people "scumbags"? I know feminists "jocks"!
Yeah, please tone it down BTP. I understand you're angry, but it isn't productive to demonize a whole group of people.
That's interesting that so many people got offended at your comment. Use a word that is offensive to disabled people on this website, someone gets offended and all of a sudden the offended people are the 'goddamn PC police." Say something offensive about jocks and people are allowed to get offended without question. That's really nice...
At least the moderators are consistent, if not the commenters. :)
I think in this case, the offense was broader than just saying the word "jock," which probably would have been let slide on its own. It was compounded by a hateful attitude, demonstrated by the "I fucking hate" in front of it, with "scumbags!" thrown in to boot. I don't think there is group, privileged or not, that "I fucking hate..., scumbags!" would be acceptable here.
The only exceptions I can think of are groups defined by willfully hurting people (rapists, racists etc.).
I agree it's different, but I think the offense both can cause are very similar.
I just think it demonstrates which voices accusations of being 'too PC' are meant to silence, and which voices they are meant to benefit.
(And I'm not trying to minimize the offense felt by BTP's statement.)
Ack. I should change that. It demonstrates which voices accusations of being too PC *result* in being silenced, and which voices benefit. I shouldn't have implied it was intentional.
and I should change that so it's not such bad grammar, but I'm done.
totally agreed. 'too PC', while not always incorrect, is usually used by the majority to silence dissent, or worse to dismiss negative experiences of the minority. I'm likewise glad that the moderators here are really good at jumping on it in a fair way.
I'm always surprised to see which groups commentors on this blog find it okay to other and which groups they don't. In the last month I've seen broad insults against trans people, homosexuals, "rednecks," libertarians, men, the differently abled and now jocks, all of which receive some varying degree of agreement from other commentors. And I'm not even paying that much attention, so I'm sure a comprehensive list will be much, much more extensive.
I'm going to take a gander that perhaps many more commenters have sports inclinations (read: jockishness) than there are disabled commenters.
Being personally offended is always easier than appreciating when language is offensive to others...
I'm sorry but if he was a person of color and had did this there would be know offer of a scholarship anywhere. I've read articles of high school students getting scholarships yanked for much less severe things. Hell think of the game suspensions that come just for drug possession charges. I"m sorry but no one's saying he can't go to school just that he shouldn't be getting scholarships all over the place with something like that in his recent past. There are other, better men and boys out there who would love to get this chance and have not violated a young girl in such a vicious way.
I don't care that he was 13 that is still old enough to know what he is doing is wrong and this goes beyond peer pressure because he looked up to someone. There are people I respect that I may listen to more than others but I still wouldn't listen to them if they wanted to fucking kidnap and rape my cousin
Actually, i remember this because it was so recent. In college football, race and criminal background don't matter if you are good:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004147460_rbstevens270.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerramy_Stevens
There is something about the way I phrased that that struck me wrong, so let me just clarify, that what I meant was, in college football, the most important thing is winning, and nothing else is allowed to get in the way.
To be fair the first article's sexual assault occurred once teh student was on campus vs. before applying.
The second article shows he had a prior conviction which they choose to ignore and he offended again.
I just can't imagine a person of color being arrested for somethign like this and not be sitting in juvenile or jail for much longer than this young man did as well. These college players are "supposed" to be role models. I understand forgiving certain things such as drinking and drug use. I mean FASFA uses prior drug convictions to deny student loans but this guy gets a football scholarship even though he, at the very least, allowed someone to rape his cousin? I don't see the problem in saying that violent crimes like this mean that you forfeit your right to be given perks because of other skills. Being good at football does not override damage to another human being.
Oh yeah, I see your point. It does seem likely that a 13 year old of color would have gotten a harsher sentence. And yes, I definitely agree with your points about football.
yeah, here at the U of Minnesota we had a similar situation. The latest developments are here: http://www.mndaily.com/2007/07/18/jones-charged-rape-case
That was actually a very interesting (badly interesting) case due to the night events and all the slut shaming that followed.
I held my nose and read the transcript and I think there's something very interesting (not in a good way) going on here... I'm going to issue a trigger warning for this comment.
Don't get me wrong: I lived in a college town and went to a high school where the football team was coddled in every way possible. So I know about football and rape: I know how star players are given a slap on the wrist when they decide to exercise their privilege by raping someone. But this was years ago and I have to hope that our culture has changed a little bit. And I suspect it has: just not enough.
The rape, (and yes, it absolutely was rape) did not involve a penis. It involved a tool. And I think that is the key difference here when UT decided that the value of this guy's football playing ability was worth more than the value of the rape. And I don't think that anyone could read that account and not realize that there was a rape, but I deeply, deeply suspect that because no actual penis was used, that they believe "it wasn't that bad," and so the "value" of the rape (as a negative value) was diminished.
Which is where it gets really interesting, because it's placing the value of the rape on the actions of the man instead of the violation of the woman. My suspicion (and of course there's no way to prove this) is that if there had been a PIV rape, the scholarship would not have been extended.
First, let me say I absolutely do NOT agree with UT's decision and have already sent an email to the chancellor.
I'm having a hard time with your comment. Nowhere was it mentioned at all that they are giving him a scholarship because he used a tool and not his penis. I personally believe they don't care about the rape at all and decided to put their necks out there because it is all about money. This guy is a great football player and that's all they care about it and it's wrong.
I just do not understand why you would make some assumption that has nothing at all to do with this case. Are your own feelings about using a tool instead of a penis diffusing into how you believe others would perceive this?
Like I said, I have no way of proving this, it's just a feeling that I have. People place values on rape depending on the circumstances: being attacked from a stranger in the bushes is "worse" than being drunk at a party and having some guy molest you when you passed out. Both are rape, but people are much more likely to defend the actions of the man in the latter example than in the first example as we've seen time and again in these discussions. And I think about that a lot: how we not only make a determination on the severity and value of the rape based on the actions of the woman (was she dressed provocatively?) but also on the actions of the man... there was a case where a rapist was acquitted because he helped the woman off the floor when he was done raping her. (So it's not that bad!) Like I was trying to say -- it's like rape is an amalgam of the actions and intentions of the people involved instead of the actual violation of the woman.
When I read the account, a lightbulb went off in my head and I could see someone saying "well, yeah, it was bad, but it's not like he ejaculated inside of her," and this whole construction of PIV intercourse being the only way to conceptualized sex (and by proxy: rape), and how when it came time to assign a severity to the rape, using a tool instead of a penis may have been the deciding (not necessarily a conscious decision) factor that the rape's severity was worth less than the value of the young man's worth to the college as an asset.
I am right there with you about how problematic it is the way our society views rape. I just personally don't believe that it played into this case. I do understand what you are saying though.
I just think this is another sickening case of money being more important than human rights.
This is a terrific point. The fine distinctions made by attorneys, judges, juries, and the media all to often lead to the acquittal of the accused, and that is where the problem lies. The ones that really get my goiter are of the kind you mentioned, that showing a moment of compassion for the victim somehow constitutes a shred of humanity. In public discussions of rape, people all too often search for proof that the rapist isn't really a rapist, because nobody wants to believe the rape is real. It's all in women's heads, apparently. But either way, I wish people could get it through their heads that what was going through the rapist's head at the time of the rape or any compassion he/she may have shown for the victim does not matter in the slightest if the victim was still raped. I mean, does anybody care if a murderer made a gourmet dinner for his/her victim before the act? Fuck no. It's still murder. No matter what the rapist may have done to make his/her victim "comfortable," it's still rape.
I think your analysis is really, really interesting. Also because rape is so often characterized as this thing men do blindly out of wild biological need, to benefit themselves. But, in this case, he didn't get off. He didn't have the benefit of the orgasm that he's supposed to get from the "traditional" rape in our culture that privileges genital-penetrative sex. I can certainly see people thinking this doesn't reflect that badly on his character because it wasn't "selfish"; he didn't even get off!
(And sorry if this doesn't fly, if it turns out that he somehow did "get off"; I didn't want to read the court document.)
I disagree. I don't think the reason UT is offering the scholarship has do with the nature of the rape. I mean, 26-27 other schools passed because of it. I think the reason they find his admission acceptable is because of economic reasons--their football team really needs talent right now and they are desperate enough to put a former rapist on scholarship. That is what I find disgusting about this.
Well, yes. But the point is that they had to "weight" the merits of the football ability against the demerit of the rape. And the merit of the football ability came out ahead. Twenty-seven other schools came to a different decision, but these decisions aren't being generated by a computer, they're being generated by people who are assigning value to actions when they are trying to make a decision pitting two actions against each other. And the person at UT who had to make this decision about whether or not to extend the scholarship obviously made the decision that the rape was not worth more than the football playing. And my suspicion is that the value of the rape to this person making the decision was diminished because the violation was with a tool instead of a penis.
I don't agree with this. I'm not saying that in point of fact, the rape is valued less. It's every bit a horrific a rape. I'm saying that there are people out there who feel that PIV sex is Sex with a Capital S so if a rape occurs that is not PIV rape, then it's not Rape with a capital R.
I see your point. I happen to believe the reason UT made a different decision than the other schools is because UT is in a different position from other schools--they have a disastrous recruiting class for a school of their stature, so the will put an even greater value on a football talent than the other schools did. Its a sellers market for football talent.
If a school with a good recruiting class--USC, for instance--had continued to offer Hood a scholarship, I might think something else was going on, that a human just made a strangely softened decision about the rape itself.
I think you make a very interesting point. I would add that the fact that the rape was committed with a tool allows observers to distance Hood from the crime. I think people are probably more comfortable blaming peer pressure for the crime because Hood didn't "do" anything-- he didn't get an erection, he didn't penetrate the victim with his body, etc. I think that we, as a society, tend to think about rape in sexual terms, no matter how often it's pointed out that rape is just as much about power. The fact that he did not experience anything overtly sexual (again, that's not to say that a rapist's erection is sexually motivated, but I do think that's how many people think about rape), there must be another explanation for the crime. In this case, peer pressure provides an easy explanation that takes much of the responsibility off of Hood.
In the end, I'm not sure where I stand on this case. What Hood did was absolutely wrong and I can't imagine what the victim went through and is *still* going through as a result of all this publicity. I can't imagine that Hood received adequate counseling either. I do think that his age mitigates his responsibility somewhat, but I also think it's important to look at the bigger picture. This case reminds me of the soldier who raped and killed a 14-year-old Iraqi girl. His defense is pushing his troubled background-- he was beaten and abused as a child. And I do feel for him. But I have to ask-- why is it that we, as a society, are willing to give men a pass on rape and violence against women as a result of their childhoods? How likely are we to give a pass to prostitutes? Heroin addicts? Petty thieves? It's not unlikely that any of those groups didn't suffer some kind of childhood abuse or neglect. In fact, women who are sexually victimized often use drugs to cope. There's a similar, though controversial, parallel between childhood sexual abuse and prostitution. Yet neither previous abuse nor age mitigates these crimes, as far as our justice system is concerned. As such, I have a bit of a problem forgiving sexual violence committed by men, regardless of mitigating circumstances.
i also don't see the connection between football and the crime. what if he was being offered a scholarship based on intellectual merit? would that make it different? i don't know that it would..
Holmes -- the thing about scholarships on intellectual merit is twofold:
1) Intellectual merit scholarships do not generate money for the school the way having a star football player does.
2) It's a lot easier to find A+ students who need a scholarship than it is to find an incredible star football-playing prodigy: you're going to find a lot of kids who play football and are good at it, but the sort of football player that this boy was is a lot harder to replace in a scholarship program than an academic achiever is.
So, yes, it would make a difference if this kid were an academic scholar. They would have found some other smart kid to offer the scholarship to because even if the kid *weren't quite as smart* as the rapist kid, that slightly less shiney intelligence isn't going to cost the University money because the kid isn't quite smart enough to pack the stadium with people who want to see him create an elegant solution to how infinite busloads of infinite people can be accommodated in the infinite hotel.
thank you. i am so *outside* the world of football, it completely escaped me that his acceptance to UT would turn into profits for the school (hello). and now i can see quite clearly the role of capitalism in this situation. which, you're right, does make it different fro other scholarships.
Put each passenger number k from bus number n into the room numbered Pn^k, where Pn is the nth prime number. Because of unique factorization into primes, no two passengers will be in the same room.
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
Or you could adapt Cantor's proof that there are as many rational numbers as integers, by labelling passenger k from bus n with n/k...
[/geeky mathematical digression]
Ah, but Cantor's proof relies on reducing rational numbers to lowest terms. You'd put the first person from bus 1 and the second person from bus 2 in the same spot.
An alternate way that avoids the high-computation problem of finding the kth prime would be to go by steps. At step n, take the first available (ie, not already offloaded) person from each of the first n buses into the next n available rooms.
Also, there 100% are people who are so academically gifted that universities will fight over them, they just tend to be less publicized. I've met 2 people of that caliber so far.
Cantor's proof doesn't actually require that; if you check, he actually maps every pair of natural numbers (n,k) to a unique natural number. In the case of the rationals, this does mean that the simplest version of the proof assigns each rational number to more than one natural number. You need to do a bit of handwaving about skipping over any pairs that correspond to rational numbers you've already assigned a number to in order to get a proper bijection (not that it matters since you really only need to show the rationals are smaller than N), but if you leave that out you should get a bijection between NxN and N rather than Q and N.
...and come to think of it, what you mentioned is pretty much exactly Cantor's proof in less technical terms, isn't it?
And I've also met people who are academically smart enough that universities were basically trying to headhunt them. This is at the graduate level, though, not undergrad. I suspect that a) it's more difficult to figure out which are the geniuses as opposed to just really smart people for undergrad admission and b) the public doesn't tend to be as interested in brilliant academical students as opposed to brilliant football players. It's not as if, say, mathematical theorem-proving is a spectator sport.
I don't know for certain but I'm pretty sure college football consistently brings in more money than any intellectual pursuit. When colleges look to give out scholarships the risk/reward possibility is much more favorable with college sports as opposed to academics.
Hood was 13. It's tricky to assess him, being on the bridge between childhood and adulthood. But like the poster above said, he got his break by being dealt with leniently... A full college scholarship seems pretty unjust, given the huge black mark that will forever be next to his name.
Would it be different if he was receiving a full academic scholarship because he was a genius and model student? I honestly don't know.
There was an earlier article on Feministing about how demonising rapists is a bad thing.
We don't live in a world of black-and-white morality. Rape is something I don't want to have happen, but calling it an act of irretrievable evil will not reduce the number of women raped. Punishment will not reduce the number of criminals.
This man is not the same man who was possibly as young as twelve when he raped his cousin. Think of how much you changed in those six years.
I hope that the heinous sex assault of his youth seems like a bad dream. I hope that every rapist in the world comes to think of the rape that they committed as a bad dream -- a terrible dream, one they don't want to have again. I don't care whether or not they're punished, I care that they do not repeat the offense.
That said, yes, it's true that the US is a culture where footballers, particularly at University, rape. But that does not mean each footballer is a rapist, and it makes me feel a bit sick that Feministing is asking me to actively take steps to ruin a man's life because of an offense he committed he thirteen.
But, please explain exactly HOW he would come to see the rape as "a bad dream..." that he does not "...want to have again" if he was NEVER PUNISHED FOR BEING A RAPIST.
People have to hit rock bottom to recover.
And this kid never bottomed.
Instead, he's being REWARDED.
If he got the same punishement his co defendant did - a hard decade in a Tennessee Department of Corrections jumpsuit - and them came out the other side with no GED, no college degree and a life sentence to the minimum wage workforce, he MIGHT just get the point that rape is bad.
Why?
Because in that case, he would have had to do penance for being a rapist.
In this case, he got mollycoddled - and he might just rape again.
Okay, you think he should be denied a genuine high school education because he raped someone at 13? I mean, I'm against this scholarship for probably 10 different reasons, but a 13 year old can still learn to be a decent person, and a basic education is part of that. Denying him the opportunity to learn about the world around him will only increase the chances that he holds a seriously messed up and biased worldview.
Oh yes, how ridiculous it would have been for him not to get a high school education just for raping a silly little girl! I mean, rape is bad and all, but making him complete his education in jail - that's cruel and unusual!
I take exception to this, because cruel & unusual has nothing to do with my reasoning. I'm not complaining about harsh treatment of Hood--in fact, my responses have said quite the opposite.
He was 13. For me, that means he had/has a lot of growing up to do in addition to the fact that he deserved punishment/to take responsibility for his rape.
I think taking away from the quality of his education is a pretty unhelpful punishment, because it would make him more likely to retain an aggressive, ignorant mindset, the kind that allowed him, at age 13, to rape an innocent family member.
I don't see the appeal of gleefully dooming the ignorant to ignorance.
No, he ISN'T a decent person and he'll NEVER be a decent person because he's a rapist. Once a rapist, always a rapist. The rape doesn't just go away with time.
How do you know he didn't hit bottom? And for that matter where does it say that the only way to recover is to hit bottom?
You, and I for that matter, don't know very much about this person. We don't know what he's like or the way he lives now. No he did not, to our knowledge put out a public apology, but that doesn't mean that he didn't apologize to the victim (and to be frank that is all that really matters). The fact that she wrote to vouch for him implies he must have, at some point, said something to change her opinion of him.
What good would that do society to take a young man with obvious potential to do something (and I don't mean just for football, but lets face it that could be the way he gets a college degree and goes on to bigger and brighter things) to be locked away for 10 years when he's only 13? What good would it do for the victim? None.
Not every rapist is Joe Rapist who drives a big black van around and abducts little girls and can only be one way. And as long as we keep seeing this as a black and white issue we aren't going to make any progress.
See, right there? You're (unintentionally, I think) setting up a "stranger rapist evil, acquaintance rapist misunderstood" split. You're right, Joe Rapist who drives a big black van and abducts little girls is definitely not the only kind of rapist there is. But you're using language that reflects the dangerous conviction that most people hold very strongly, whether consciously or subconsciously -- the worst kind of rapist, the most irredeemable, and the most likely to rape repeatedly, is the guy in the black van pulling you off the street.
That is not what I was trying to do, and thank you very much for pointing it out to me. What I was trying to illustrate by that is that this particular man, who was only 13 when his cousin was raped in front of him (that is how it appears to me to be, from reading the articles listed) and who was convicted for not stopping it (rightfully so) is not the same as a man who is 18+ taking a person and raping them. Whether it is the woman's best friend or she has never met them before, there is a difference. It seems vastly unjust to punish these people the same.
He didn't just watch what was happening in front of him. He helped. I won't go into more detail, but if you read the linked article, he clearly participated.
Either way, 13 is not fully developed reasoning wise. And he did what the court determined was a fair punishment.
Come on. He wasn't presented with some complex logic problem and failed due to his developing brain. He helped kidnap and rape someone, who actively resisted. It doesn't take highly sophisticated reasoning capabilities to know that's wrong.
Yes, he kidnapped and raped someone. He did a horrible thing, but that is not the same as saying he is a horrible person. He could have stopped it or gone for help, yes, and maybe he just didn't have the character to do it, or maybe he was a scared 13 year old who saw someone he trusted hurting someone he loved and didn't know what to do, so, in a really dumb and awful decision he made he followed the older boy's lead. Bad move, horrible action. Not a horrible person. You cannot make a 13 year old BOY magically into an adult overnight. It does not work that way. 13 year olds are dumb, I was you were, its a fact. Why? Because their brains are not fully developed. I am not making excuses for him, he did an awful crime against his cousin and he deserved to be punished for it. And then he was. Now let him live his life and hopefully advocate for teaching young men that the right thing to do is sometimes scary and hard, but it is a better solution overall.
He did the time asked of him, became a better person, worked hard and EARNED a scholarship. Good for him. His cousin forgave and vouched for his character. The school did research, and he passed all of their tests. If he has completed the punishment he is now a full fledged citizen again and deserves to be treated as such.
I'm a survivor of rape and I find some of what you say really...wrong.
It is not the only thing that matters if the Rapist apologizes to his victim. Maybe if you were raped that's the only thing that would matter to you, but don't assume to speak for everyone. I could give a shit if my Rapist apologized to me. You can apologize for anything that doesn't mean that you actually mean what you say or have learned anything from your violent and horrible actions.
Then you ask what good it would do to the victim to have her Rapist locked away. Again, maybe that wouldn't give you any comfort but I'd be overjoyed! I'd throw a fucking party. He deserves to be in jail and knowing that he was there would be fantastic.
And I also hate, as LSG pointed out, that you seem to be saying that only stranger Rapists deserve to be locked up or truly punished. If it's acquaintance rape it's not as bad. I'm not saying that's what you meant to say, but that's the way it comes across. And that is horrible.
First of all, my utmost apologies. I didn't mean to cause you any distress, and I completely understand where you are coming from.
You're right, the words "I'm sorry" aren't enough, and so maybe I put this wrong. Repent? I mean that he took what he did wrong, truly felt sorry for it, and made a concerted effort to ease the pain of his victim and to never make the same mistake again. You and I cannot properly gauge this, but his victim can. She has, by writing to the university said that she believes he is truly sorry, that he has taken steps to make reparations, and that she feels he is no longer a threat. I think this is the most important thing, and yes, it is the most important thing to me. I wish I had gotten an apology of that sort from my rapist.
I don't see that locking up a 13 year old could do anyone any good. I'm sorry.
Once again, I'm sorry I worded things wrong. They made significantly more sense in my head. What I was trying to illustrate is that the crime that this young man committed, especially due to his age, of not stopping his cousin's rape, and therefore being a party in it (which he was rightfully convicted for) is not the same as if a full grown man raped someone. If he knew her or not is not important at all, but the fact that he was a grown man, and therefore probably fully developed intellectually with a full sense of right and wrong and a set character.
I hope that came out clearer. :/
Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I was not saying that 13 year olds should all be locked up in these cases (although I'm assuming you mean like the 17 year old was locked up). I do think they should be put in some sort of juvenile detention program because rape is a violent crime and I'm not willing to say that just because they are young that they don't deserve punishment.
But I was talking about rapists in general being locked up, not this specific case (as I was alluding to my rape in my post and my rapist was 18). I'll admit I have a bias here since I was raped but in general, I think if you rape you go to jail.
In my post I wasn't referring to any particular rapist, just any adult rapist.
This young man though did do time (2 years I think) in a group home with extensive therapy. He managed to stay out of trouble, got the go ahead from his former victim, and has a working relationship with her.
As fucked up as it is, he was a victim too, and he did the time the courts decided on for his crime, he stayed out of trouble and is working hard to make a life for himself, why would you want to deny him the ability to do so when he has worked for it?
I'm sorry for what he did to you, and I hope you find the best way to cope for you. I was 5 when I started being molested, and my molester was 11 (13 when it finally stopped) and I do not think she should go to jail. She was only 13. She could not reason properly yet, because 13 year old brains are not fully developed.
I'd also like to point out that playing ANY D1 varsity sport is guaranteed to shortchange your education. I used to compete in DIII athletics, and I quit because it was too demanding. And that was DIII. DI athletes are exactly that; athletes. There isn't time to be a student and an athlete both in that context, which is why many schools set different requirements for GPA, board scores, etc for admission, and then protect the athletes' grades (think gentlemen's Cs) and loosen their graduation/course requirements and rigor (ever heard of "Rocks for Jocks"?).
I don't think he's going to UT to get an education. He's going to play football. Which is why he got a football scholarship. And why I think he's kind of a waste...I sure changed a lot from 13 to 22, but this isn't like dating someone your parents hate, drinking too much, etc. This is rape, and it's a fundamentally different question of character than most "kid mistakes". Other people were home (the transcript shows that) so he could have called for help. I don't think you outgrow the kind of moral decay and inner perversion that makes you a participant in something like this, at least not without a truly life-altering experience. In the fundamentals of who they are, people are like tigers; they don't change their stripes.
I agree that most people don't change, but he didn't actually rape her, he had his part in it, he could have called out, but people aren't perfect and it is understandable (not excused, absolutely) that someone might freeze.
Either way, its not as though he isn't going to be watched like a hawk, much like he was in high school, and according to the information I have read he didn't even get a demerit.
Yeah, student athletes are more athletes than students, and that is a problem, but if this will allow him to be a contributing member of society than why stop him? He hasn't repeated, he's done the punishment assigned to him, and he has made reparations with his cousin. I'm sorry but constantly stifling a man because of what ends up being a severe error in judgment (in not calling his father into the room) and certainly a lack of character at the age of 13, when studies show our brains are not fully developed until we are in our 20s is extremely unjust.
Um, he is a convicted rapist. And he didn't freeze, he participated. And his "error in judgment" consisted of a hell of a lot more than not calling someone into the room. And on what planet is receiving a full-ride scholarship to play football necessary in order to become a contributing member to society?
I'm sorry I misread the article, I thought he had only watched while the older boy actually raped the girl. My mistake.
Yes he is a convicted rapist, but he did, in fact, do what the court determined a fair punishment for him. He has grown in the last 6 years I'm sure. He straightened out and worked hard for his scholarship, even with natural talent you can't just waltz onto a field and magically throw a ball perfect. He maintained good grades and got a good gpa. Sorry, he did the work, and being that he did what was required of him for his conviction he deserves to reap the rewards of that work.
No it is not required that he get a full ride football scholarship to a good school for him to be a functioning member of society, but what is important, especially in OUR society is that he is allowed to reach the goals he sets and works for, and get the rewards he is due for the work he puts in.
I'm sorry, but all of your comments in this post have totally disgusted me.
Nobody in this post is asking for Hood's life to be ruined. Nobody is writing letters to Hood telling him what a terrible person he is. People are rightfully horrified by the actions of UT that condone and perpetuate a culture of not taking rape seriously. A culture of hypermasculine values. Yes, Hood was young when he raped his cousin, and he's probably grown, and we don't really know him as a person. But very few people in this country know him. UT is sending out a message not that rapists come in all shapes and sizes and that we shouldn't demonize rape. They are sending out a message that even if you rape someone, your dreams can still come true. Not even that your basic necessities of life will be fulfilled, that you can move on and try to grow, but that you will be given the most wonderful opportunities imaginable. What about the opportunities and dreams of his cousin?
First of all, I am going to ask you if you feel that my posts are 'disgusting' not to apologize to me. I'm a big girl and I can take criticism.
Now I am going to ask you to carefully read this, because I understand that when people get angry (as I'm pretty sure you are from you're comment on how I disgust you) they do not REALLY read, instead they pick at things and go on the attack.
No, you are not calling for people to ruin his life, just take the opportunities he has created for himself away. You say that he can still 'move on and try to grow' well he has obviously done so. He did well in school, put the time in in the football field and grew as a mature young man who got character references from almost everyone in his community -- including his cousin and rape victim. Then you say he cannot reap the rewards of his growth?
Well, Ma'am, that sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me. I will say this again, our society, faults and all, is a rewards based society. It is a capitalist society. You do well, and you are REWARDED with CAPITAL. In this instance, he did well and got rewarded with the capital of a scholarship. If you want him to be a functioning member of our society, he must be able to get what he has worked for. He worked for this scholarship, therefore he should be rewarded with it.
Now I am not trying to downplay the fact that he is a rapist, because he is. He was convicted of it, rightfully so. And he did the time for it. He went to the counseling and lived in the group home.
I'm sure you've read this further down, but I am going to restate. He will be a better advocate against rape than you or I will. He is on the inside, in the locker room, at the parties. He knows that the University, the local police, and the nation at large will be watching him (and by the states of this thread waiting waiting with bated breath) to see if he takes one step out of line. That means while he is at college the university will probably have less to worry about in the form of its football players raping girls because they will be putting a money making machine at risk. He will also be able to tell his friends who are in some of the most able positions to rape why it would be bad, and advocate against this sort of violent crime.
He did a horrible thing, and he has paid for it, both in the courts and in the court of public opinion, and if you want someone to be rehabilitated then they must be able to have the same opportunities as you or I. Ma'am I may disgust you and you may feel that I am a rape apologist (or worse), but I am not trying to be that way. I am trying to see the logic in a sticky situation. If you are a rape survivor, my heart goes out to you, and I hope that you find the best way to cope with what has been done to you. I hope that it does not include blindly hating people who have been rehabilitated according to the law and to the words of their own victim.
Thank you for your time.
First of all, your condescension is totally, totally unnecessary. Don't call me Ma'am. If it makes you feel better to assume that I just haven't really been reading your comments and that is why I've come to such a cruel and unwarranted conclusion, then fine. And also, it's not very wise to tell random strangers (even on the internet) things like, "If you are a rape victim..." let alone, "If you are a rape victim, I hope you do this and this." I'll let you contemplate how problematic that is because I do not have the energy to address it right now.
I find it interesting that you constantly refer to Hood as being such a mature and developed young man when neither of us have any way of knowing what he is like as a person and, as far as I'm concerned, his character is irrelevant. The star player of my high school football team who is currently receiving a full ride to a big 10 school was also considered by local and national sports media to be a humble, down-home kind of guy, and yet I can remember him following me out of a party and yelling that I was a fat slut because I'd refused his advances, and he once punched another student so severely that he was required three separate facial surgeries but was given a free pass because it would jeopardize the team's chances at state.
The point is that our society seriously, seriously overvalues collegiate sports, especially football, and affords students gifted with athletic talent opportunities that nobody else could dream of and are, in my opinion, totally unwarranted. Did Hood have to work hard to get to this point? Yes, most certainly, but most of the reason people like Hood are able to get to that level is that they have a natural aptitude for their sport. And congratulations to him, he is a star football player and can play on a variety of college teams and has the personal satisfaction of knowing how great he is. This opportunity would not even have been possible if he were in jail like the other boy, and while I cannot say whether or not I feel Hood's punishment was sufficient, he was certainly given an extraordinary second chance to get to this point.
Full disclosure: I don't think that athletic scholarships like this should exist, period. They're just as damaging to the students that receive them as they are to the students who do not, as they are endemic of a culture that simply cannot prioritize. We cannot know whether this scholarship will allow Hood to be a better advocate for rape or not. Again, you seem to think you know him as a person, but you don't.
To me, the question is not whether or not Hood is a threat to public safety, nor is it whether or not Hood is reformed. It is the message that this sends, and also the way that it reflects attitudes towards rape. Hood was given a second chance (and let's not also forget all of the privileged circumstances that played in to his sentencing--race, to name one) and because of that he was able to play high school football and hone his skills and get into a lot of colleges. When 27 schools turned down this scholarship and UT did not, the overwhelming message is that football is so important, and the ability to go to college for free at the expense of so many is such an inherent right for people with natural talent, that it doesn't matter what kind of a message the school inadvertently sends out to society at large. Most of the people in the country will never know Hood, but if they do know of him, it will be that he is a rapist. And despite everything, he is given an opportunity not only to be put up on a pedestal and subjected to hero worship, but to do this with no repercussions and no payment. What does this tell young men across the country? Does it tell them that rape is serious? Does it tell them that there will be consequences?
Word, KarenOh!
I fail to see how calling you ma'am is a sign of condescension. I am trying to remain calm and respectful and ma'am and sir are signs of respect. I did not assume that you hadn't read through everything because your responses were 'cruel' or 'unwarranted.' I assumed this because it didn't really make that much sense. My call for you to read more slowly and not let your emotions take precedence in your response was only so that it would be clearer, because I have made that mistake before. I also thought that the reason that your emotions may have gotten the better of you is because you had a personal experience tying you to this debate, which is why I wished that you find the best way to cope for you, whatever that may be. If I was out of line, I sincerely apologize.
I am saying that Mr. Hood is a mature and responsible young man because he managed to manage his time well, while in high school. Well enough to be able to maintain a 3.8 GPA, get a 27 on his ACT and be the best football player at his school, all while not getting in trouble. That is a very mature thing to do, and I certainly did not do that well during my high school career.
If we are judging all football players based on solely the star football players from our local high schools then every football player I meet should be able to bake cookies very well and be really good with small children. It seems that you have a bias against football players and sports in general.
He was indeed given a second chance, but the thing about second chances are that they are only as good as you make them. He did not just magically get a 3.8 GPA or magically be really good at football. Even someone with 'natural aptitude' has to practice. He maximized his opportunities.
Mr. Hood being in the locker room with men who are likely to be rapists based on the fact that they are privileged and have the ease to get out of things allows him to be a voice of reason and makes him a better advocate than you or I could be. It also makes the school's policy more likely to be stricter, because of the high profile of this case. Everyone has a lot lose if he makes even a slight error, and so they are going to watch the whole team very closely.
"To me, the question is not whether or not Hood is a threat to public safety, nor is it whether or not Hood is reformed."
It sounds as though you want Mr Hood to be a martyr for your cause.
"When 27 schools turned down this scholarship and UT did not, the overwhelming message is that football is so important, and the ability to go to college for free at the expense of so many is such an inherent right for people with natural talent, that it doesn't matter what kind of a message the school inadvertently sends out to society at large."
This doesn't really make much sense, but what I can get from it is that you don't feel that 27 schools turning him down for a scholarship sends an overwhelming message. That just one school putting the scholarship out there does. That is faulty logic. Also the way you worded this makes me think you have something against people who have natural talent, but natural talent is not the only thing you need. To be an astronaut you need natural talent, but you also have to maximize the opportunity you were given. This young man did. Kudos to him.
"Most of the people in the country will never know Hood, but if they do know of him, it will be that he is a rapist. And despite everything, he is given an opportunity not only to be put up on a pedestal and subjected to hero worship, but to do this with no repercussions and no payment."
How on earth do you think that he is going to get such hero worship if he got 27 scholarships taken away? This doesn't make sense. No repercussions? He went to a group home and did therapy for two years, he gets watched like a hawk by everyone, he got turned down for 27 scholarships he was qualified for because of this. That is a repercussion. I have no clue what you are talking about when you say "no payment."
"What does this tell young men across the country?"
It tells young men that if they rape someone they are going to have to face the consequences of it. You will go to trial, a jury will convict you, and you will do whatever time you will be sentenced to. That will not be the only thing you will have to face, you will have to know that you have so deeply impacted another person's life that they will never be the same, and that it will be much more difficult for you to obtain success.
He was tried, found guilty, served his time. He got a second chance, put himself back together as best he could. So much so that his victim wrote a character reference for him and asked that he be allowed to receive this scholarship. It was not given, it was earned.
This topic has caused more discussion than necessary. It has revealed that within our own claimed viewpoint of aspired society (feminist), that there are varying opinions about this young man and the incidents surrounding him. I'm glad that our society has progressed to the point that we may have an open and frank discussion on the topic, but I feel as if we are 'beating a dead horse'. But I have been a passive observer too long, so I must give my two cents on this issue.
Karenoh,
I fail to understand why you accost biancamano for their sympathy toward any members in these comments that we have been rape victims. Many members have expressed unnecessary negativity (bias) toward any non-harsh treatment this gentlemen has received since said incident. That because they have been affected, but not personally by this man., and feel he should never be treated as humane even though he has not shown any delinquency since. Hood has so called, 'did his time' and has become an accomplished athlete and apparent scholar as evident by the few academic details we have been show. We do not know any other details about this young man's life outside of this incident. We can only assume that this 'character issue' refers to his participation of the rape. UT knows more about this issue than we shall ever know. They know all athletic and academic achievements that he was accomplished, and I imagine every indiscretion and disciplinary action if occurred. They reviewed this young man and believed that he was worthy of an scholarship.
But all scholarships have contingents. He must perform his job and meet and/or exceed any athletic related tasks. If he is unable to perform, it can get stripped from him. If he does not keep a satisfactory gpa, it can get stripped from him. It is not "free money". He earned it.
I agree that collegiate sports are an overrated part of our hypermasculized, patriarchal society. I can go off on a tangent just on the unfairness of athletic opportunities available to women, but that is not of concern here. But as with all hypermasculized patriarchal societies, competitive events and anything that exemplified the 'success' of our societal mindset will be glorified. Sports are that example.
Nevertheless, this young man showed extemporary athletic and academic success (much better than I, and I was one of those young persons whom was offered a full-ride on academic merits only), which in mine opinion show a qualified mature male. He showed no (apparent) delinquency and show be forgiven. I'd honestly figured that as Christian-based as our society is, that this idea of forgiveness would of be throw around early. I'm not of any religious faith, but I know people can change from extreme experiences. What convinces you that Hood hasn't changed?
And just for your final statement a while back, rape victims can overcome and prosper. It is not overnight nor easy but it can happen and doe. Many people are rape victims. In fact, approximately women out 3 out of 4 have been raped in their lifetime. I was one of them and I know several that were affected and have risen and prospered. It is possible if you want if to be. That is the key issue, if you want to leave the victim mindset and become that of a survivor and thriver.
I don't disagree with most of your comment. I'm not sure why both you and biancamano got the impression that I have decided Hood is a bad person and is beyond redemption. I didn't make it clear enough in my comments that I don't have any idea what kind of a person Hood is and that he may be the most wonderful young man one could ever hope to meet. I just don't think that's relevant in this case, but I think I've explained that point thoroughly enough.
As far as the comments biancamano made about rape victims, I understand that people have reacted very strongly to this case and that it may be a result of bias because of personal experience. But I'm sorry, I don't think that is any justification to tell a rape survivor basically to calm down (albeit more politely) even if you think they are projecting their own experiences onto this young man.
I understand why you got so upset over my comment now, I didn't mean to tell you to calm down at all, other than to take a moment to make sure your arguments are properly composed. I really just wish the best healing on you if you are in that situation. I'm so sorry if it came across as anything other than that.
This comment totally brought the LOLs.
You "work hard" in this society, and you're rewarded? Gosh, won't that change the attitude of all the poor people in America-- they just haven't been working hard enough! Imagine that: even with three jobs, still not working hard enough. But you say they'll be rewarded? With capital? And the rewards are based on merit? Well, goodness, what are we feminists, we anti-racists, those of us against all forms of oppression whining about? Sheesh, I'm glad I know all it takes to succeed is hard work.
Bianca, I suggest you dig a teensy bit deeper into feminism if you're still buying the myth of the American Dream. That reality exists only for tiny, tiny fraction of fraction of Americans. To peddle the bootstraps myth is disingenuous at best, and truly damaging at worst. Educate yourself.
This comment pissed me off more than a little.
My grandmother came to this country in the '60s, after marrying and having a child as a teenager, got a divorce a lived on welfare for a time. She worked her way up, in a very by the bootstraps kind of way, to where she is one of the most respected business women in her area.
My mother grew up in a house with no running water, where she could see chickens running underneath through the floor boards. In a very by the bootstraps kind of way she joined the army and now has the highest rank you can obtain as an enlisted member of our armed forces. There are only 1% of people with this rank, and a tiny tiny percentage of them are female.
The reason I am a feminist is because I think there is still work to be done, but I think that our society is a pretty fucking decent one to build on.
Your pessimistic kind of thinking is the problem you face more than any obstacle you could have put in front of you. If you think you will fail, of course you will.
If these examples aren't enough for you, then perhaps you should look to Presidents Clinton and Obama who did not come from the cookie cutter Ameicana you feel are the only ones who can succeed.
Maybe you should do a little more research into America and what exactly the American Dream is before you attempt to school me on what is and what is not possible. We do not have equality of condition, but instead the equality of opportunity which is a far greater thing to have.
Seamster -- A full college scholarship, even an athletic one, is the opposite of demonizing a rapist.
Yes, the kid was 13. Yes, it's unlikely that he actually performed the assault himself and was an accessory. No, I do not feel like he needs to go to prison forever and ever. I personally would have liked it if he'd spent a little more time in counseling, but I'm not seeing a lot of "lock him away and throw away the key" on this thread.
But he also doesn't need to be given an athletic scholarship. Athletic scholarships are a different beast than academic scholarships (as I've already noted). A student on an athletic scholarship has been singled out by the school to say "this young man or woman is exceptional, to the point where the very purpose of the institution (higher learning for academic achievement) can be subverted to allow this person access to our program." Simply by offering an academic scholarship, a school is already creating a privileged aura around the student to say that it's ok for them to bend the rules (of admission and payment) because this particular sport that we happen to value... they happen to be very good at. And this aura follows the student around: very often the academic and legal requirements of the school are relaxed when it comes to this student: they can miss that midterm because there was an away game. They can receive extra tutoring and special arrangements to make up a failing grade because it's important that they stay on the student roster. We can overlook that kegger they attended when they were still only 19 because they're so goshdarn important to have on the team.
I know that schools are not going stop giving out academic scholarships just because I disapprove of them, but I would hope that schools wouldn't give out this incredible reward, this massive privilege with all of the implicit benefits that I've illustrated above, and all it entails, to someone who has already shown that they have the capacity to perform a criminal act and be violent against women.
I understand that we shouldn't demonize and punish rapists, but we should at least hold them accountable, and not offer them huge rewards (and the potential to further abuse their privilege) in the form of academic scholarships.
Let's continue along your line of logic that he was just a thirteen year old and has changed since then. Why does the article say he has never expressed remorse or appeared guilty for what he did? The court transcript actually goes on to say he tried to rid himself of the guilt and place all the blame on the victim and the other man involved.
I did some means things when I was younger. I'm talking about bullying and making mean jokes about classmates. The difference here is that I was still a good person inside and felt immense guilt and apologized to the people I hurt.
The age of thirteen is still young enough to make horrible mistakes, but too old to not accept responsibility and feel guilt.
I suppose my point is moot since down below mahjani posted a link to an article where he seems to express a lot of remorse. I just hope he is sincere in this and it isn't a ploy to get a scholarship.
I still do not back the decision to offer him a scholarship. He seems capable of making a fine life for himself without being handed a REWARD when he has participated in something so horrible.
A scholarship for football is not a reward for the crime he committed in the past, it's a reward for a skill he cultivated.
You can't say you want someone to have success and then limit every opportunity they have with qualifiers.
It's like saying this guy shouldn't be able to get a good job because that would be rewarding his crime. It's not that at all. He has been rehabilitated by the state, and the survivor of the crime has written him a character reference, with which we can infer that he has worked to make things right with the person he really needs the approval of for this.
A scholarship isn't a reward any more than a good paycheck is a reward. It's compensation for a service he will render for the University of Tennessee.
It's not up to us to decide how remorseful he is. It's up to the survivor, and the survivor has agreed to give him a character reference. Is he genuine? How could we ever know? But it's the best we're going to get.
If we want this guy to be punished for the rape culture that exists in the world instead of for what he did we're not doing him or the survivor justice. He has served out his punishment and attempted to make things right with his cousin. That's enough for her, which is really all that matters.
She wants him to get the UT scholarship. Who are we to call her wrong?
Oh boy. The thing is, this boy wasn't punished. He never had to serve time. He went through some counseling. I don't think that crimes should go without consequence, however; and perhaps one of those consequences should be ineligibility for full-ride scholarships. This is not tantamount to ruining his life. He can still go to college, hell he can still play college football, but he shouldn't be able to do it for free.
Secondly, the "bad dream" stuff made me sick. This happened. He committed a crime, it wasn't a dream. Perhaps you don't have any personal experiences with rape or sexual assault, but spend a moment thinking about his cousin here. She deserves our sympathy. Think of how much she has changed in six years. Think about how much her life has been negatively affected by the "bad dream" of her assault. I hope Hood thinks about his cousin and his disgusting violation of her EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.
Yes he was. He spent time in a juvenile facility.
Right, I forgot about the brief rehabilitation program before he went to high school.
"bad dream" perhaps isn't the phrasing I would use. I'm sure to the victim it will never be a 'bad dream' and that it will forever be a horrible reality. He should feel more than removed guilt. I'm not saying I want him to suffer eternally for what he did - but I am saying that he needs to realistically deal with what he did, the consequences and the reality of rape in America.
Here is the letter I sent:
Dear Chancellor Cheek,
I am writing to question the University of Tennessee's decision to award a football scholarship to Daniel Hood, a convicted rapist. While I understand that the incident occurred some time ago, Danile Hood's challenge to his conviction indicates that he did not accept culpability for his part in the rape of his own cousin. I am curious as to what steps he has taken to repair the damage he inflicted on his cousin and society. Has he volunteered substantial time for a organizations that work to prevent sexual violence? For organizations that offer free self-defense classes for women? Has he spoken out about rape and violence against women, working to educate other young men about respect for women and girls? As the mother of two sons (and a daughter), I would hope that should one of my sons commit such a devastating act against another person that our family would make sure that he spent his life acting to prevent such violence from occurring again.
While I am sure that Daniel Hood has many talents and qualities that defy his status as a convicted rapist, bad decisions do have lasting consequences. Football talent does not seem like adequate remedy for a heinous crime. I am also concerned about the letter written by Daniel Hood's victim, Tiffany Carpenter. Has she faced family pressure not to continue "punishing" Daniel Hood for raping her? Has she received sufficient counseling? Has Daniel Hood done sufficient work to attempt to repair some of the psychological damage he inflicted on Tiffany? Perhaps one thing that could be considered is awarding this scholarship to Tiffany Carpenter in lieu of Daniel Hood.
Thank you for your consideration,
I read a fabulous historical analysis of rape and in it the author quotes Patton who basically said "there's going to be some rape in war it's inevitable" and I feel like that it the connection between a culture of football and a rape culture. Both football and the military are environments of brutalizing male sexuality and trying to make men be ferocious physical machines of force and power and Generals/coaches know that you can't create that kind of machismo culture and not have rape as an ugly by-product. I'm not saying we can't have sports but I do think sports culture and team sports need to be evaluated and changed.
I agree with this post so much, but the "Fuck football" line is giving me problems. I don't want to derail, that's why I'm bringing it up 30 comments down. Is the problem really football or the anti-feminist economic system American culture has built around football? I mean, I think football has a lot of entertainment value, but I wish it wasn't dominated by misogynistic hyper-masculinity.
No shock given the things I've already posted upthread, but I have a lot of problems with "Fuck football" as a conclusion, too. I love football. I spend the time when football isn't in season following free agency blogs and waiting for the draft and then news from the minicamps. I hate the way the D1 culture often uses sports teams as a central economic driver at the expense of female students and, really, at the expense of the education of football players. At the same time, it's not the only story in football, not at all. I have a friend who's a Gender & Women's Studies major and co-caption of my (DIII) school's team.
Football in and of itself is not the problem. The best and worst thing about football I think is how it's basically the American religion -- that provides a lot of opportunities, I think, but also a lot of potential for tunnel vision and abuse. I'd really like people to take a long view of this.
Personally, I took Courtney's "Fuck football" comment very much in context, as in "fuck this young man's football-playing talent and the University's desire to win football games if they seem to come out on top when weighed against rape." Or something like that. I seriously doubt she meant to malign the sport itself, or its fans and players who manage to evade the misogynist/rape culture that does seem prominent in high-level athletics in this country. I, too, like the game but have a huge problem with certain aspects of the "culture."
;-)
This is a separate article about the incident: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4146057
It has some more information that might be helpful, including a confirmation that he has served time and that there were extensive background checks and interviews.
I am not sure how I feel about this one, honestly.
I hadn't read that article yet. Thanks for the link. I think it adds a lot of complication to this story, and everybody who wants to weigh on in this to UT should read it first. As a sidenote, I think Low (the SEC blogger for ESPN who wrote the article) covered it really well.
Yep, the article covers a lot of the questions here about Hood.
This brings a lot of questions to the table, including:
a. To what degree does a second chance extend to a violent criminal, even if that criminal has reformed themself?
b. What to do when said criminal was a minor at the time, and a young one at that?
c. How much value do we put on the actual survivor's testimony and experiences?
d. Are athletics a worthwhile enough reason to give out a scholarship to someone in this case?
I'm not sure where I fall on this. On the one hand, this would be enough for any non-white football player to never get a DI scholarship unless they were the next Reggie Bush.
On the other, though, it appears that Hood has managed to do just about everything right in this instance. He went to a juvenile detention center, received counseling, and has expressed remorse for his role in the rape. He has not tried to "move past it", and apparently has made sincere apologies to the survivor. She has made a character reference on his behalf, which appears to be the biggest point in his favor.
At the end of the day the survivor's feelings ought to take precedence here, I think. I feel like our feelings are hypothetical, whereas her experiences are what need to be really valued. We simply don't know everything about this case, or what Hood did to try to make up for it, but for the survivor it has apparently been enough for her to support him in this endeavor.
There are a lot of flaws to college athletics, and to the idea of second chances, but the really important thing here to me is the opinion of the survivor. If she has found a way to forgive him it's not up to us to call her wrong. The University of Tennessee agreed with her, along with a background check of Hood's actions since this as a barometer of the odds of him doing something like this again.
We can't just validate the experiences of survivors only when we agree 100% with them, and I think that's part of the issue here.
It's a very sympathtic piece, but I still think that
1. For the rest of his life, he shoud be doing volunteer work to prevent sexual violence.
2. That he should not be awarded a schlarship. That's not saying he can't go to college or play football.
There is a difference between consequences and punishment and between repentance and regret.
I agree with one, but not two. If he has the merit to receive the scholarship why should he not receive it? True, second chances aren't just given to you, but the fact that the survivor is giving him character references for this suggests he has in fact earned it, insofar as one can earn forgiveness.
He has an ability that can give him a college scholarship. If this were an academic scholarship I don't think we'd be so up in arms. He has a high degree of physical intelligence that allows him to perform a sport well enough to get himself a college scholarship. It's similar to the arts, where people get dance or piano scholarships based not on academic merit, but rather a unique physical intelligence skill honed over time.
In the end it's not up to us to demand an apology of Hood, or rescinding the scholarship. That's up to the woman who was raped. She has supported Hood in this, so I think it's important to support her.
No she didn't. The letter was written by a PR flack for UT, misidentified as Hood's cousin.
That's interesting. I see both quotes from the PR director and separately from the victim's letter.
From the PR rep:
"Everybody we talked to had glowing things to say about him and felt like he deserved this opportunity," Carpenter said. "Catholic gave him a second chance, and he had a flawless record at Catholic. He knows he's on a very short leash here, but I'm not sure he ever even received a demerit at Catholic."
From the rape victim:
the victim writes of Hood: "He is becoming a very mature adult and will be a great asset to any college and to society as a whole. If anyone has any concerns about our relationship or Daniel's remorse about the situation, feel free to contact me."
Are you saying that the second quote was not from the victim? If so, where was this reported? I would be interested in reading more information is it has been released.
Where did you get that info?
Eh, I misunderstood Courtney's correction in the OP. Nevermind!
We don't take sexual assault seriously because 26 of 27 schools wanted to deny somebody a shot at a college education through an athletic scholarships?
Is that what you took away from this? This is about the fact that one college was willing to offer him a scholarship. One is still too many.
The fact that 26 other schools retracted their scholarships makes it that much more sickening to me that one would still stand by their offer. That means it is obvious to the majority that this man does not deserve a scholarship, but one college still put their monetary needs above all else.
So you think everyone should give into what the majority thinks, even if they feel it is not the right thing to do?
Do you really think the difference between UT and the majority is morals? That UT thinks they are doing this because its the right thing to do? I mean, I'm against collusion and tyranny by majority but that is not what I see happening here.
That standpoint is really blind to the economic situation of UT's football operation, which is dire. The reason they went against the majority has little to do with morals, and more to do with opportunism.
I know that, and I agree with everything, but I just can't stand when people start trying to say that a decision is wrong because it goes against the morals of the majority. Yes, it does, but that is not the reason that this decision is wrong.
It has nothing to do with going along with the majority and that wasn't what I said at all. Of course I don't agree with going along with the majority all the time.
My point was that those 26 colleges believed he was undeserving and by reneging on their offer they made a strong point. The one college that went and offered him a scholarship still completely undermined the message that the other 26 colleges were sending to this man.
I'm willing to bet those 26 colleges largely bowed out because they did not want it to effect their image. UT is so money hungry they were willing to put up with the damage it would do to their image (which can be confirmed by the fact that the majority disagreed with their decision) and bring him on their team anyway.
Sorry to say it, but the majority is largely important when we're talking about how the public would perceive UT's choice to do this.
So the choices are between what the public thinks of you, and how much money you can make. Well I'm sorry but 'what the public thinks of you' sounds a hell of a lot like 'moral majority' to me. The other colleges decided that he would be too high risk in the public relations arena, a safe bet, but the other school decided that after extensive background checks, character reference from the victim herself and reviewing the fact that he didn't even get a demerit in high school after completing what the courts decided was a fair punishment they would take a risk. That is a strong business strategy. They did a risk assessment, the gain outweighed the risk and so they went for it. To be frank, I hope they make oodles of money off it.
Your reply really disgusts me. You hope the university makes oodles of money off the fact that they gave a scholarship to a man who was involved with a rape?
Even if this man does deserve a scholarship, the idea that you hope UT profits from it is sickening. Not to mention the message that it is going to send to other university's in the future, or athletes who commit crimes believing it will HELP their career.
You're worse than a rape apologist, you are hoping someone actually PROFITS from what that poor girl suffered through. I'm done with this site for now, I'm too upset.
College football is, as we have established, about money. This young man worked for the scholarship, completed the program the court ordered and was reestablished into society. He did well.
Our culture is a rewards based one. When you were growing up I'm sure you heard all the 'up by the bootstraps' stories. This is one. Just because you don't agree with the protagonist of this story's past does not make you the moral authority on whether or not he is allowed to get a scholarship and go to college or whatever. He did the time the court ordered and is DONE being punished. If you do not think this is enough, then please, get a law degree and advocate for harsher punishments of rapists.
Obviously committing violent crimes will not HELP the career of this young man. 27 schools pulled their offers because of the Public Relations nightmare this is. One school did not. In our rewards based society this is a risk they did to make money. Yes I hope this young man succeeds because it means our justice system is working, and that overall is what I want at the end of the day. I want the justice system to work and our victims to get what they need to recover and if the perpetrators can be rehabilitated then I want them to get rehabilitated.
He is not profiting on what his cousin went through. Lets stop muddying the waters, please. He is profiting from hard work and dedication. He did not write a book called "The rape I did" and make thousands of dollars off it, he plays football, does it well, and maintains grades. He is working for what he is getting. That is the American dream, and as a rehabilitated citizen he is going for it. Good for him. Yes, the school will make money, and this man will likely be a better advocate against rape than you or I ever will. Why? Because he is in the room with young men who have not gone through this. Because he will be watched like a hawk the rest of his career. He won't let his football friends make the same mistake he did, and in turn they won't let their friends make that mistake. You and I can scream from the outside all afternoon but we will never have the same impact that he could just by a quiet word or a disapproving look.
College football is, as we have established, about money. This young man worked for the scholarship, completed the program the court ordered and was reestablished into society. He did well.
Our culture is a rewards based one. When you were growing up I'm sure you heard all the 'up by the bootstraps' stories. This is one. Just because you don't agree with the protagonist of this story's past does not make you the moral authority on whether or not he is allowed to get a scholarship and go to college or whatever. He did the time the court ordered and is DONE being punished. If you do not think this is enough, then please, get a law degree and advocate for harsher punishments of rapists.
Obviously committing violent crimes will not HELP the career of this young man. 27 schools pulled their offers because of the Public Relations nightmare this is. One school did not. In our rewards based society this is a risk they did to make money. Yes I hope this young man succeeds because it means our justice system is working, and that overall is what I want at the end of the day. I want the justice system to work and our victims to get what they need to recover and if the perpetrators can be rehabilitated then I want them to get rehabilitated.
He is not profiting on what his cousin went through. Lets stop muddying the waters, please. He is profiting from hard work and dedication. He did not write a book called "The rape I did" and make thousands of dollars off it, he plays football, does it well, and maintains grades. He is working for what he is getting. That is the American dream, and as a rehabilitated citizen he is going for it. Good for him. Yes, the school will make money, and this man will likely be a better advocate against rape than you or I ever will. Why? Because he is in the room with young men who have not gone through this. Because he will be watched like a hawk the rest of his career. He won't let his football friends make the same mistake he did, and in turn they won't let their friends make that mistake. You and I can scream from the outside all afternoon but we will never have the same impact that he could just by a quiet word or a disapproving look.
Football scholarships aren't about access to higher ed. They are about access to the NFL.
There are significantly more football scholarships given even at top-50 Division I schools than there are available positions in the NFL - to say nothing of all the rest of the D-I, D-IA, and D-II athletic scholarships. For a top-tier player, of which I'd agree Hood might be one, it's about access to the NFL, but for a lot of the other players, it can be their only ticket to a college education and a college degree, which is a ticket to a much brighter future than they might have had under other circumstances.
I'm quite critical of sports culture as well as the disproportionate amount of emphasis on sports in higher education in particular - I'm of the opinion that the highest-tier NCAA football and basketball players should probably be spun out into a semi-pro league where we drop the pretense that they're amateurs out for an education - but let's be careful about generalizing here. For a lot of these guys, a football scholarship can be a ticket out of some otherwise much less hopeful circumstances.
No, that's not really true. A very small percentage of even Div 1 football players ever get drafted in the NFL.
I would argue there is a difference between denying someone a college education and denying someone an athletic scholarship. Those 26 schools probably would have let him in if he paid for it himself, and he could have gone to less expensive schools. Being allowed to get a college education is not the issue.
The question is whether he deserved to have the whole thing paid for lavishly. It is pretty unlikely that someone with a similar record would have gotten a scholarship for math or drama.
Well, if there's an ongoing safety concern, then why let him into any school, scholarship or not? If it's about some sort of ongoing punishment for a crime committed as a 13-year-old, then ask yourself that question about the larger criminal system. I doubt we'd countenance an "arbitrarily deny benefits" approach to even adult ex-cons who have done the time.
There's a reason we have a juvenile justice system with its own set of rules and confidentiality, and if it's broken, then fix the system, don't ex post facto continue to go after the juvenile perpetrator until public opinion thinks justice has been served.
Well, to be fair, a scholarship to Tennessee is kind of a big deal. Its a much more significant scholarship than one to a D2 or D1-AA school or even a mid-major D1-A. Its a historically dominant SEC football school. It would be like having 26 academic merit scholarships pulled for moral reasons and still accepting one scholarship in the Ivy League.
Except that the Ivies in theory don't give merit scholarships at all, but point taken.
absolutely true. So this is flawed, but then, most (princeton, yale, harvard esp.) do operate on the theory that 100% financial need is met--in affect promising as much as a full scholarship for any admitted students that might need it, so perhaps a better analogy would have been to say acceptance instead of scholarships.
Even though the crime took place at 13, I don't think he should of been awarded a football scholarship. What I find disturbing is the girl who wrote a letter to allow him to have a scholarship. Was she coerced and discounted about what happened? My other question, isn't he a registered sex offender? Just disturbing on many levels.
My letter:
Dear Chancellor Jimmy G. Cheek,
I am writing today because I have just read several articles regarding the admittance of Daniel Hood. By admitting him and giving him a scholarship, the university is sending the message that you reward rapists, possibly causing many rape victims feel that their voices are unheard and continue to under-report this crime.
Rape on campuses is and will always be a huge issue and continue to be under-reported, but if you and the university makes the effort to promote anti-rape education, then maybe you won't have a PR nightmare. I recently graduated UCSD and have known several of my classmates who have been raped. They need to have their voices heard so they do not have to feel fearful attending your school. If I could have it my way, I would make it mandatory to teach rape prevention in all high schools and universities. Statistics show that most rapes are date rapes in which the victim knows their rapist. Having rape prevention policies that only teach women to "never walk alone/at night" is incredibly lacking. Teaching men (the most common commiters of rape) what rape is and how to keep the men around them from committing rape is a much more effective policy. I also know many men that, once they learn the official definition of what constitutes rape, admit to having raped in the past. Most rapists don't even know that they've committed it.
Please check out Dr. Alan Berkowitz' website (http://www.alanberkowitz.com/). He spoke at my university about rape prevention and including men in the discussion (he often leads male-only talks). He is amazing. In my honest opinion (although I do not have enough info to necessarily give the best advice), Daniel Hood was probably too young to be tried as an adult for his actions and should have a "second chance" at an education and college athletics. But the public (especially the feminist audience of which I am a part of) need to know if he has had ongoing therapy to ensure that he understands the extent of the damage of what he has done and that he would never rape again. But most importantly I think you should take this moment to talk about rape, frankly and openly, and what you plan to do to prevent it on your campus. Because right now I know students are choosing not to go to your school because of this decision.
Sincerely,
Katt
P.S. I just found the link to UT's rape prevention. I am glad to know that you have self defense classes for women and Sexual Assault and Risk Reduction Strategies course. This would be the time to really promote these programs and expand them. They need to include more information about getting men in the discussion rather than just focusing on teaching girls how to prevent getting attacked or prevent them from getting too drunk to give consent. Yes, women do need to prevent being the victims of rap, but more importantly, men need to learn how not to rape (i.e. NOT having sex with a girl too intoxicated to consent, No means NO!) and how to prevent other men from committing rape (i.e. "Dude, you checking out that drunk girl? She's too drunk to give consent, and that's rape.").
There are a lot of tough questions here. For one thing, its unclear how much he really participated in the rape, as opposed to watching in horror as an older guy did something he didn't understand. And then, even if he did participate in it, did he want to do it, did he enjoy it? And is a 13 year old young enough to forgive just because of his age?
I'm curious about the victim. Obviously she isn't obligated to give out any details, but it says she's forgiven him and even wrote a letter on his behalf. I wonder if she's forgiven the older guy too, the one who's still in jail. I wonder if she would have forgiven this guy if he wasn't her cousin. Is she just a really forgiving person or has he really convinced her that he didn't meant to hurt her and/or he's changed?
If you read the article linked above, the court transcript shows he helped. He helped restrain her and he fetched items for the rapist. He didn't just stand by.
Yeah, I guess I meant did he participate in the sexual part of it (rather than just the kidnapping part of it), and, at 13, did he know that it was going to turn sexual when he was fetching those items? Was he still laughing when it turned sexual?
I really can't decide how to feel about this.
So...there's the kids who murder, and their records are sealed, and when they turn 18, yes, they've been in juv. detention all this time, but they're released without anyone the wiser.
But, according to a lot of these comments, "child offender" cases should be publicized and they should be punished as an adult and they should be punished for the rest of their lives (re: he should have to do volunteer work for the rest of his life).
Not that I'm making light of that line of thought, especially when thinking about the two boys under ten in England who raped, tortured, sodomized and killed a little girl and are getting the first option (will be released with no record).
I don't know, call me the most liberal of liberals, but I agree with the philosophy of the Norwegians, that people treated like criminals will act like criminals (and vice versa). As it is, you know this guys' family hates him on some level for putting them through this, any future dating partner or employer can google his name for the rest of his life and will see what he did when he was 13, etc. He's hardly "untouched" by his actions.
But saying that he can't have a football scholarship because he committed a crime as minor is silly to me. What, we're going to make a law now that says we won't prosecute you as an adult but you have to be that creepy guy who works at the gas station for the rest of your life? That you be forbidden from achieving any success, even if you've worked for it?
Also, how feminist is it to completely bash the victim as some moron pressured by her family who's incapable of weighing in on the situation when arguably she's the most informed person involved? It would be all raa-raa and applause if she wrote an open letter condemning him to hell.
I agree with what you said, but I don't think that anyone is hoping that he be condemned to some terrible life. It's more about what message the school is sending, especially in context.
****Warning: Triggering****
A lot of the comments on the linked article (which includes seriously triggering excerpts of the court transcript) really bother me. Almost all comments insinuate or explicitly state that publishing the details of the crime ("of a crime a 13 year old committed") is way worse than the actual crime that Hood committed in the first place; of being an accomplice in the rape of his cousin. Of helping to cover 70% of her body with duct tape, laughing all the while, and then being complicit in the forcible insertion an object into her vagina. That somehow, the weight of that crime is less than the weight of publishing an article with the details of what happened.
Example:
"Clay, digging this out on this kid proves that you are a bigger idiot than he was when he was 13!!!!!! He has apparently redeemed himself, whereas there is no hope for you!"
It also frustrates me that people call this a 'mistake' he made when he was younger. Mistakes are something common to all people. Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone rapes their cousins. It may have been a "mistake" but it was also a crime. Calling it a mistake diminishes the weight of what actually happened.
That whole "mistake" thing really bothers me too. I noticed it when everyone was talking about the Chris Brown thing and so many celebrities commented that "people make mistakes" and whatnot. Rape is not a "mistake," domestic violence is not a "mistake," they are horribly violent crimes.
The Chris Brown thing was also what was on my mind when I wrote that. . .
Ok - I have been thinking about this all morning and I have decided that, despite the fact that I know it will be an unpopular view, I do not think that Hood should be denied an athletic scholarship.
Legally, he has served his time. He has been in therapy and counseling. It sounds as though he has worked hard to become a more thoughtful and better human.
This scholarship has nothing to do with the crime he committed. Yes, he was an accomplice to a terrible crime. In that crime, the 17 year old boyfriend of his 14 year old cousin committed violent acts against his cousin while he watched and, in some ways, participated. There is no excuse for what was done. However, 13 year olds are not adults - he was tried, convicted, and has served out his sentence requirements. It doesn't mean that any of us have to like him, or befriend him, or want to hang out with him, but it does mean that legally he is once again on equal footing with other citizens and as such can be considered for scholarships.
He has the GPA, test scores, and physical ability to qualify for the scholarship. He is not in any legal situation that would preclude his receipt of the scholarship.
As a rape survivor myself, I have an instinctual reaction against this man, but the more I think about it - it is an emotional response for me rather than a logical one. For me, unless there are further requirements to the scholarship (such as never having been convicted of a crime), then, regardless of my personal thoughts about his prior actions, it is not my place to determine his eligibility for a college scholarship.
Hi majhani,
I take your point, but I can't quite agree with the thrust of your post. My reasoning is this:
If this type of athletic scholarship were awarded based solely on a set of empirical or concrete criteria--i.e. "any player whose statistics exceed X, whose ACT score exceeds X, whose GPA exceeds X will be awarded a full scholarship"--then your argument that there is no "logical" reason to deny him the funds would be right on the money. But this isn't the case. In awarding a scholarship, the athletic department presumably considers many other, much more subjective factors. Some have been mentioned above. (Note: I DO NOT want to derail this thread into a discussion of what *may or may not* be considered in awarding scholarships! I acknowledge the argument I'm making here is purely theoretical.)
I think it's likely that one of the many t