In Defense of Philly Fans

On Monday, my attention was drawn to a post on Crossing Broad about the myriad complaints of Tampa Bay Rays players and staffers as they recalled the 2008 World Series. The post drew its material from an article penned by Tampa Bay Times Rays beat writer Marc Topkin. Topkin's column is replete with gripes about the weather, which (as we all remember) caused a significant delay during Game 5, and frustrations over an extended stay in the remote locale of Delaware. The rain-delayed contest created a lodging predicament for Tampa Bay's traveling party, which had originally planned to return home to prepare for either Game 6 or the offseason; therefore, the team had to scramble to find new hotel accommodations. Judging by the tone of the piece, one might think the Rays were compelled to stay at a Motel 6 in Claymont. Instead, the squad found shelter in the cozy confines of the Hotel du Pont in Wilmington.  Not too shabby, huh?

The "Delaware" excuse strikes me as particularly ridiculous because the distance from Citizens Bank Park to Wilmington is roughly equivalent to the drive from Tampa to St. Petersburg. Nevertheless, the Rays have a point about the weather. As we all know, baseball was meant to be played indoors, on a glorified carpet, in front of a crowd so listless that the only sound one hears at the "Trop," aside from the occasional cowbell and the ball-strike calls from the home plate umpire, is the steady hum of the air conditioning system.

However, the treatment bestowed on Tampa Bay's ball club by the "Philly fans" emerges as the primary cause of the Rays' ruination in October 2008. Below is a sampling of the Rays' memories of their Philadelphia "welcome," per Topkin:

Pitching coach Jim Hickey:

My ex-wife was there and she was appalled at the behavior of their fans, especially toward ours. At one point she went to get the security guard, who was actually an on-duty police officer, and he laughed at her and didn't help at all.

The fans lived up to their belligerent level. They revel in that type of thing. They wear it as a badge of honor, but it really ought to be a source of embarrassment to them.

OF Rocco Baldelli:

Anybody who talked about the city of Philadelphia at that time, nobody is exaggerating any of those thoughts and comments. Whatever the opposite of hospitable would be to you, that's what the people of Philadelphia were to us at that time.

It didn't seem like the people of the city were happy that their team was in the World Series. It seemed like they were more happy and excited to take out their anger on the opposition and to degrade us.

They were lined up on the street "gesturing" at us. Many, many gestures. They were banging on our bus.

And, to say the least, I don't think our family and friends who were at the games were able to enjoy it as much as they should have been able to.

I think it's fair to say we didn't make a good impression.

Honestly, these unfair general assessments based on isolated incidents offend me. Yet, somehow, I have swallowed my natural urge to lash out belligerently (we're born with it, apparently- kind of like original sin) and have opted to forgive. I can empathize with the Rays. For them, the idea of playing in front of any fans, let alone passionate fans who can make noise without resorting to mindless gimmicks like the cowbell, must have seemed completely foreign during the '08 World Series.

Less excusable and more odious is the stubborn refusal of lazy sports writers and personalities to disabuse themselves of the trite "Philly fans" trope. You know what I mean. In all likelihood, you've seen the occasional "hot take" on ESPN. You've heard the radio rants. And you've read the cliché-ridden sports columns and scrolled through the "listicles" that document the many sins of Philly fans. But, just in case, let's review the talking points:

"They" threw snowballs at Santa Claus (and the Cowboys, too!). "They" threw batteries at J.D. Drew. "They" cheered when Michael Irvin was carted off the field after sustaining a career-ending injury. "They" vomit on little girls. "They" booed Donovan McNabb on Draft Day. "They" criticize their own players. "They" get drunk and rowdy at games and physically assault or insult fans of opposing teams. "They" had the great misfortune of not being born in Boston (otherwise known as the greatest sports town on Earth, according to Bostonians) or New York (generally acknowledged as the center of the universe, according to New Yorkers).

In sum, we Philly fans are regarded as uniquely awful, a menacing monolith that threatens the fragile peace within the sports world. We are collectively defined by the worst elements of the fan base, forced to answer for the crimes of our drunken and unruly brethren. Meanwhile, other cities avoid the general stigma that attaches to Philadelphia when fans behave badly. Cleveland was able to move past "Bottlegate." No media figure dared call out "Boston fans" as a group when a number of Twitter twerps unleashed racist invective after Joel Ward, a black hockey player, scored a goal in an overtime playoff game against the Bruins. Were "L.A. fans" collectively shamed after Bryan Stow was nearly beaten to death for the crime of rooting for the San Francisco Giants? Does anyone recall the sterling reputation of Cardinals fans experiencing some measure of tarnish after an ugly encounter with Ferguson protestors? Was there any sustained outrage after a number of Yankees fans threw garbage on the field after a call went against their team in the 2004 ALCS? Why hasn't the ugly incident with Steve Bartman forced us to reconsider how we view Cubs fans? In these cases, we did not bother creating generalizations because such thinking is stupid and illogical.

Nonetheless, if any of these incidents had occurred in Philadelphia, one could easily predict the Pavlovian response from the national media. For example, in some of these cases I could easily foresee "First Take" provocateur Skip Bayless hysterically demanding that Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf call in the National Guard.

There seem to be different rules for Philadelphia sports fans. Anecdotes about boorish behavior in the stands are offered as proof to support the myth of "Philly fans"; meanwhile, acts of generosity from the fan base are ignored and evidence that suggests the caricature of Philly partisans might not match reality is dismissed as exceptional. Who cares if Philadelphians helped the Phillies raise nearly one million dollars for ALS patients? What does it matter that the overwhelming majority of spectators can attend a game, keep to themselves, and avoid ejection from the stadium or arrest? Part-time governor and full-time Jerry Jones companion Chris Christie thinks Philadelphia fans are the worst in the country, so it must be true!

The entire exercise strikes me as a grand example of confirmation bias. However, a disconcerting number of sports scribes cannot seem to let go of the delicious irony that within the "City of Brotherly Love"  there might exist some unruly fans. Rather than aspire to nuance, acknowledge the ubiquitous nature of bad fan behavior, and undertake an investigation of the problem, they continue to advance the "Philly fan" myth for the sole purpose of filling column space in a newspaper. So it goes.

-30-

On the Anniversary of 9/11, a Brief Personal Recollection

As the sun rose to greet the world on September 11, 2001, there was nothing to suggest that this particular day would deliver such terrible death and devastation. Then again, omens only exist in literature and hindsight.

I was just beginning my sophomore year at St. Joseph’s Prep. Aside from shaking off the rust of summer vacation and reacclimating myself to the tedious routine of a school day, I had few concerns.        

 

It was 2^nd Period. I was in Room 301, the Physical Science Lecture Room. Fittingly, the course was U.S. History. Class had just commenced when Mr. Scott, the A.P. Government teacher, entered the room with a grim look on his face and whispered something to my instructor, Mr. Lindsay. After Mr. Scott departed, Mr. Lindsay shared with us the news: a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. We said a prayer and then went about our business.

Frankly, this initial report did not disturb me too greatly. I had never been to New York and had never seen the World Trade Center towers. I was too young to remember the ’93 attack orchestrated by Ramzi Yousef. I vaguely knew about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda from the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, but at that moment I thought this event was an isolated minor tragedy, not a major act of terrorism. I imagined a small plane had struck the building and naively hoped that few people were injured or killed.

Terrorism was a relatively foreign concept for a teenager in the halcyon years before 9/11. Sure, there were domestic incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing in ’95, the Olympic Park bombing in ’96, and the Columbine shooting in ’99. However, I was inclined to believe these were the actions of madmen who just wanted to kill innocent people. The notion that such delusional individuals would possess any kind of motive worth a moment’s consideration was beyond the comprehension of my self-righteous mind. Ultimately, I felt safe. Military violence and political terrorism were actions that happened in far-flung regions of the world; they were not part of my provincial reality. Besides, what had the United States ever done to provoke another country or terrorist cell? We were the good guys.            

It wasn’t until 4^th period- my lunch break- that I began to grasp the gravity of the situation. I entered the cafeteria and bore witness to a bizarre scene. Nearly everyone was on a cell phone. I didn’t own such a device and didn’t know anyone in my neighborhood who had one. The mood was chaotic; few people were actually eating lunch. As I waited in line to buy a soda, I noticed the aforementioned Mr. Lindsay in front of me and asked him what was happening. I’ll never forget his response: “Our country is under attack.”

What? How is that even possible? I ate quickly and then walked into the main atrium, where a large TV had been positioned for students and staff to watch the news as it unfolded. It was here that I first saw the depth of the destruction that had occurred. It appeared as if a bomb had been dropped on Manhattan. Smoke billowed from the ruins of the World Trade Center. Soon replays of earlier events showed a passenger jet flying into the South Tower and both buildings collapsing after being consumed by flames.       

Not long afterward, school was cancelled for the day and we were all sent home to face an uncertain future.  

In attempting a broader description of the events of 9/11, I find my command of the written word lacking. After all, how can anyone adequately capture the collective shock of watching a large plane deliberately crash into a skyscraper as its twin burns nearby? Or the national disbelief as both towers collapsed in a heap of twisted steel and rubble? Or the shared horror that gripped us as our observational detachment broke and we slowly realized that thousands of human beings were passengers on the doomed planes or workers and first responders buried in the World Trade Center debris? Or the painful reality that once-happily anonymous folks would suddenly assume the burdensome label of “9/11 families”; that sons would grow up without their mothers, that daughters would be deprived of their dads, that wives would become widows, and parents would have to bury their children? And all for the crime of living in the United States and going to work on the wrong day, or boarding the wrong plane. It doesn’t make any damn sense; no words, however eloquently arranged, will ever change this fundamental inanity.     

So, in lieu of a definitive summary or a provocative analysis, I present my personal recollection, incredibly minor and insignificant though it may be, betraying an embarrassing ignorance of the world during my teen years. I also offer my sincere hope that the disorientating darkness that enveloped that day will no longer define it.    

 

-30-

  

We Need to Talk About the Way We Talk About Politics

There is an oft-cited, infrequently applied rule which we are told to follow when engaging in polite conversation: never talk about politics or religion. While I intend to break the former portion of this law (I’ll leave God alone for now), I hope you stick around to read and consider my argument, for I do not want anyone else to get caught in the web of inanity that our politicians and media have spun.  

Without further ado, here goes:

The way we talk about politics in this country is completely and utterly stupid. If you find yourself taking offense at this statement, I have two things to say to you: (1) The ease with which you get angry suggests you watch too much cable news; and (2) I’m sorry I’m not sorry.

Most importantly, our political discourse suffers because we are too easily outraged. Our news media, cognizant of our society’s bizarre anger fetish and anxious to expand the debate to appeal to the largest audience, focuses on items that provoke anger at the expense of critical thought. For example, the news networks had a field day covering the recent Donald Sterling imbroglio. Audience and analyst alike were afforded an opportunity to express their shock and indignation at the racist ranting of a demented octogenarian. Lost amid the sanctimonious browbeating was any serious discussion about the more insidious evils of institutional and structural racism, but such talk might veer into uncomfortable territory for an industry that remains overwhelmingly white.  

Partisan networks like MSNBC and Fox News frame news segments in a way that will stoke anger within their viewership. While Fox News scours the news wire for any instance in which liberals are undermining the country’s so-called "traditional principles" and examines every nook and cranny of the country to ensure that Sharia Law is not being imposed, MSNBC is patiently explaining to its viewers how Republicans are ruining the "governmental utopia" President Obama is attempting to create. Meanwhile, CNN either ghoulishly obsesses over the fate of missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 or provides “expert analysis” of the trial of whatever wayward white person Nancy Grace has fashioned into a celebrity.

Moreover, we too readily cling to the ideological paradigm of liberal-versus-conservative, needlessly dividing ourselves into camps to which most of us do not comfortably belong. As Nick Gillespie affirms in a recent opinion piece for Time Magazine, Americans have been rejecting the false choice between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Gillespie points to a 2013 Gallup poll that shows 42 percent of Americans declaring an Independent political affiliation. Moreover, the author relies on polling to prove that broad areas of agreement exist on seemingly divisive issues like gun control and same-sex marriage, among others.  

Furthermore, the language of politics relies too heavily on clichés and talking points that enable the speaker to avoid the difficult task of actually saying anything of substance. If I were given a quarter every time I heard a Democrat declare that his Republican opponent wanted to “ship our jobs overseas,” I could retire tomorrow. Conversely, the irritating Republican talking point about President Obama’s “feckless” foreign policy ignores the fact that the administration has essentially adopted President Bush’s aggressive counterterrorism campaign. For example, Obama has expanded military operations involving drones; these machines have infiltrated sovereign countries and in many cases indiscriminately killed terrorist and innocent civilian alike. The drone program actually screams for greater scrutiny, but the Republicans in Congress might have to drop their bellicose posture and blind devotion to the Defense Industry in order to pursue a serious inquiry. On second thought, it is probably safer (and more politically expedient) for them to stick with the “feckless” bit.   

Additionally, this toxic environment has turned numerous charlatans and hucksters into millionaires and pseudo-celebrities. For one-time incompetent vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, political know-nothingness has become a lucrative cottage industry. Commentators like Ann Coulter and Ed Schultz have garnered fame and attention more for the extreme statements they make than for the intellectual value of their comments. Despite his controversial past, Al Sharpton has parlayed his fame into a daily show on MSNBC. Rush Limbaugh has made a fortune wading in the toxic swamp of conservative talk radio.

Finally, and most deleteriously, this noxious political environment has disenchanted innumerable voters. The resultant shrinking of the electorate has further empowered ideological extremists, party loyalists, and special interest groups.

Going forward, we would all do well to remember that idle complaining is easy. Visceral reaction is even easier. Getting educated on the issues and developing a nuanced opinion is a bit more challenging, but such is our duty as citizens. Otherwise, we’ll continue this fruitless cycle of changing our proverbial clothes every election season and then complaining that we don’t like the way we look.

Ultimately, as I survey the current landscape of our political discourse, I cannot help but recall an observation made by George Orwell, who remarked: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Perhaps by turning down the volume on our televisions and radios and resisting the reflexive urge to look left or right as we confront the problems we face, we might find the enlightenment we so desperately crave.


-30-

At St. Joseph’s Prep, the Tuition is Too Damn High

Anniversaries hold a cherished place on the calendar. They provide us with an opportunity to share memories of the past, anticipate the future, and ponder the changes that have occurred in the interim. They are times for celebration and reflection. Yet, as I observe the ten year mark since I graduated from St. Joseph’s Preparatory School, I feel the occasion demands much more of the latter than the former.

While I look forward to reconnecting and reminiscing with my former classmates, I cannot shake the feeling that our reunion will devolve into a wake, for we are celebrating a St. Joseph’s Prep that might no longer exist. Indeed, our alma mater has been fundamentally altered since we departed its hallowed halls. 

Before I begin, allow me to clarify: I do not intend to engage in an exercise of arrogant nostalgia. I loathe the “back in my day” malarkey that spews forth from predecessors who seek the comfortable blanket of self-righteousness to shield them from their fears of aging and irrelevance. Furthermore, I bear no animosity toward the current generation of Prep students, nor do I entirely blame the current administration for a situation that they have inherited as a result of short-sighted decisions from previous school leaders. Nevertheless, the Prep has a problem. 

The tuition is too damn high.

When I commenced my studies at the Prep in September 2000, the tuition rate stood at $10,000. For the recently concluded academic year, the Prep charged a staggering $19,900. If the Prep had imposed the same rate in 2013-14 as it had in 2000-01, adjusting only for inflation, the school would have issued a much more reasonable fee of $13,528.[1] So what accounts for the $6,372 difference?

Perhaps an analysis of the Prep’s expenditures in recent years might provide us with some guidance. In the autumn of 2000, the Kelly Fieldhouse was completed at a cost of $7.3 million;[2] the christening of the gymnasium culminated a twelve-year, $25 million capital campaign.[3] By September 2008, the school unveiled a brand new cafeteria, dubbed the Sauter Dining Hall, and 16 new classrooms in the renovated rectory, which was re-named Jesuit Hall. The renovation and expansion cost the school an astonishing $21 million.[4]

Aside from their state-of-the-art aura, the newer edifices on campus can be distinguished from the old building by the window design. The Kelly Fieldhouse, the Sauter Dining Hall, and Jesuit Hall each feature large windows that provide an unobscured view of the North Philadelphia community that surrounds the school. By contrast, the older Villiger Hall, built shortly after a devastating and destructive race riot on nearby Columbia Avenue in 1964, was constructed with very small windows designed undoubtedly to mitigate potential property damage. In explaining his design choice, the architect of the Kelly Fieldhouse, John Blatteau, affirmed: “‘we were trying to bring back the connection to the neighborhood.’”[5]

The larger windows are nice, but what Philadelphians really need from St. Joe’s Prep are open doors. In a city in which the median income sits at $37,016 and the poverty rate from 2008-12 was measured at 26.2%,[6] a $20,000 annual tuition constitutes a cost-prohibitive investment. Although the Prep provides financial aid to 35% of its student body with an average package of $7,000,[7] $13,000 still seems unattainable for a significant number of Philadelphia families. Even though the school obviously offers more lucrative aid packages to families that demonstrate a higher need, one wonders whether the “sticker shock” wards off parents of talented students from North Philadelphia and the increasingly destitute Northeast. [8]

Whereas this observation is merely hypothetical, the stagnancy of the Prep’s demographics are indisputable. In 2000, 19% of the student body hailed from Philadelphia; 18% resided in New Jersey while 63% were culled from the Philadelphia suburbs.[9] Today, the breakdown falls in this way: Philadelphia (20.67%), Philadelphia suburbs (58.35%), and New Jersey (20.98%).[10] Over the past fourteen years, I have attended, taught, and visited the school and thus feel very comfortable making the following generalization: the school remains disproportionately affluent and overwhelmingly white. Racial diversity has emerged as one of Philadelphia’s greatest features, yet the Prep has failed to tap into this asset in a meaningful way.

As the Prep’s coffers swell from the exorbitant tuition it imposes on its students, investments have been made in projects that provide the campus with incredible aesthetic value to the detriment of an aggressive urban recruitment campaign. The school has followed a trajectory that mirrors the path pursued by many colleges and universities, which have focused on beautifying their grounds and devoting capital to amenities that provide little educational benefit as they pass the buck (literally) onto the student.

 

***

The mission of Saint Joseph’s Prep as a Catholic, Jesuit, urban, college preparatory school is to develop the minds, hearts, souls, and characters of young men in their pursuit of becoming men for and with others.

-St. Joseph’s Prep, Mission Statement

Besides the physical changes at 17^th and Girard that have occurred over the past decade, the Prep has also given itself a cultural makeover. The stewards of the school have embraced an Ignatian identity that was frankly nonexistent during my years as a student. While the motto “men for and with others” remains, other Jesuit vernacular, like cura personalis, has been added to the Prep’s philosophical dictionary. Moreover, the Prep has taken great pains to mark its physical space with an Ignatian stamp. The dining hall features a walkway with twelve bronze plaques that commemorate St. Ignatius’ physical and spiritual journey. Draped along the walls are the names of Ignatius’ original companions, the cohort that formed the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). The walkway leads to the Ignatian Room, which houses a bronze statue of the founder of the Jesuit order. The opulence of the place is trumped only by the irony of dedicating such a building to a religious order that takes a vow of poverty and to a saint who abandoned a comfortable existence in Spain for an ascetic life served in obedience to the Pope.

In charting a new cultural course, it appears the Prep has lost its way. In truth, no one would quibble with the decision to steer the school toward Ignatian principles. Yet the Prep would have been better served if it simultaneously recommitted itself to the values that led to its foundation in the first place. St. Joseph’s Prep opened its doors in 1851 to educate immigrant Catholics escaping the persecution of nativist elements in the city.[11] Anti-Irish Catholic sentiment in Philadelphia had engendered a riot in 1844 that resulted in the destruction of two Catholic churches in the city. As late as 1889, the Prep did not charge a tuition fee.[12]

Philadelphia has certainly changed in the past 160 years. Although there are fewer Catholics in the city, as evidenced by the Archdiocese’s increasing divestment from Philadelphia, intractable poverty continues to pose a major challenge. After a devastating fire in 1966 destroyed the school building, the Prep’s decision makers could have joined in the white exodus to the more comfortable environs of the suburbs. Instead, the Prep remained in the city and courageously committed itself to North Philadelphia. However, the boldness of this decision has been diminished somewhat by the school’s inability to educate the young men of this city in more substantial numbers.

By catering to a majority of wealthy students, the Prep can only exacerbate the tremendous socioeconomic inequality that defines the Delaware Valley. While it is certainly important to offer privileged young men an opportunity to experience an impoverished environment and cultivate in them a social consciousness, it is arguably more important to provide students mired in poverty with an opportunity for social mobility that only a stellar education and superior networking can supply. This does not mean that the Prep should diminish its academic standards in order to accommodate poorer students (just as it should not lower the academic bar for students whose parents can pay the full tuition rate); instead, the school ought to identify and recruit the best and the brightest of Philadelphia’s pupils and provide them with an outstanding education that they might then use to ameliorate the destitute condition they inherited by accident of birth.

An intensive urban recruitment campaign will also inject some much-needed diversity into the student body. Such a strategy emerges as the best way to create the empathy required to develop men “for and with” others. Students left unexposed to poor and/or minority peers are more susceptible to fall into a pattern of “othering” folks mired in poverty. If the status quo is maintained, the Prep runs the risk of perpetuating a culture of paternalism and patronization. Poverty would remain an abstract force exerted outside the walls of the school, something to which one is temporarily exposed during a brief service trip or a community service initiative. I doubt such a culture is Ignatian. It is certainly not Christian.    

 

***

It is quite likely that no one in any position of power at St. Joseph’s Prep will read this essay (or, more to the point, gives a darn what I think about the state of the school), though I can anticipate the criticism that might be directed toward me if it is issued. “You don’t know what you’re talking about!” It’s true. I do not have access to the financial ledgers of the school; even if I did, I lack the expertise to offer a constructive criticism of the school’s expenditures. However, I do know what it is like to grow up in a large, middle-class Philadelphia family. I know what it is like to struggle to meet the financial demands of an unreasonable tuition fee. I know what it is like to sacrifice in order to gain access to the elite academic institutions in this city. I know not to be fooled by the sleight-of-hand trick being played when a lavish building is dressed in the humble garb of Jesuit history. And I know this: the financial path that the Prep has taken, if uncorrected, will price out the Philadelphia students most in need of a Prep education.  


-30-

---

[1] A cost of inflation calculator can be found at: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

[2] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rXl8Y-fBCd4J:www.sjprep.org/s/80/images/editor_documents/Admission/international_/preppa_-_eo_flyer_-_13_12_05.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[3] Maria Panaritis, “Prep School Dedicates Fieldhouse,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 20 November 2000. http://articles.philly.com/2000-11-20/news/25614853_1_students-school-leaders-joseph-s-preparatory-school

[4] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rXl8Y-fBCd4J:www.sjprep.org/s/80/images/editor_documents/Admission/international_/preppa_-_eo_flyer_-_13_12_05.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[5]Panaritis, “Prep School Dedicates Fieldhouse.”

[6] http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/42101.html

[7] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T3tY-7HtD1wJ:visual.ly/top-ten-myths-about-st-josephs-preparatory-school+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[8] http://thephilanews.com/poverty-up-in-northeast-8711.htm

[9] http://articles.philly.com/2000-11-20/news/25614853_1_students-school-leaders-joseph-s-preparatory-school

[10] http://www.sjprep.org/s/80/index.aspx?sid=80&gid=1&pgid=1183

[11] http://www.sjprep.org/s/80/index.aspx?sid=80&gid=1&pgid=1217

[12] http://www.sjprep.org/s/80/index.aspx?sid=80&gid=1&pgid=1221

The Curious Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal

“Facts,” observed John Adams, “are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”[1]

 

So, here are the facts.

 

On a cold December night in 1981, Police Officer Daniel Faulkner observed a vehicle traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street and initiated a traffic stop. After surveying the situation, Faulkner requested the assistance of policemen working the wagon detail. He then exited his patrol car and encountered the wayward motorist, William Cook, who had gotten out of his car to engage the officer. A physical altercation ensued and Faulkner subdued his attacker with a flashlight or a nightstick. From across the street, a black male sporting dreadlocks ran toward the scene and fired his gun at Faulkner, striking him in the back. The wounded policeman spun around and, as he fell to the ground, shot his assailant, depositing a bullet into his chest.

 

Undeterred, the dreadlocked gunman sought to finish his task. Standing over Faulkner, the assassin peered into the eyes of a man who was twenty-five and recently married; of a policeman whose performance record contained zero disciplinary actions and numerous commendations; of a determined dreamer who hoped to rise to the position of police commissioner or to attain a law degree and work in the District Attorney’s Office; of a fellow human being who aspired to become a father in the not-so-distant future.[2] The gunman pulled the trigger, firing the fatal bullet. Officer Faulkner laid dead on the street, executed for the crime of performing his duty.

 

The murderer attempted to flee, but only managed to make it to the curb. Police officers arrived on the scene quickly and apprehended the suspect. His name was Mumia Abu-Jamal, formerly known as Wesley Cook. By a stroke of coincidence, Abu-Jamal’s brother happened to be William Cook, the driver who had been involved in the initial confrontation with Officer Faulkner.

The testimony of four witnesses assisted in the reconstruction of the incident. A fifth eyewitness, the aforementioned William Cook, asserted on the scene that he was not involved in the murder. At the trial of his brother, William refused to testify, citing his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

 

The murder weapon, a .38-caliber Charter Arms, was registered to Abu-Jamal. The bullet removed from Abu-Jamal’s body was traced back to Officer Faulkner’s service weapon. Both guns were discovered and retrieved at the scene of the crime.

 

After being transported to the hospital to treat his gunshot wound, Abu-Jamal allegedly stated: “I shot the motherfucker and I hope the motherfucker dies.”[3] The confession was overheard and recorded by Priscilla Durham, a security guard who worked at the hospital.

 

These are the facts, and they are indeed stubborn things.

 

Nevertheless, these truths have been submerged in a sea of obfuscation as the events of 9 December 1981 recede into the abyss of the past. Floating along in this body of water is Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has emerged as the vessel that represents all that is wrong with the American system of justice for both his advocates and his opponents. Over the course of thirty-two years, Mr. Abu-Jamal and his supporters have transformed the case from a local homicide of a police officer into an international referendum on the persistence of racism in American jurisprudence. They have wielded America’s history of racial intolerance as a rhetorical shield to fend off the compelling proof of Abu-Jamal’s culpability. They have encouraged others to view the case with an historical telescope rather than a microscope, which has engendered a form of myopia in which broad historical context supersedes even the most basic knowledge of the crime.

 

Abu-Jamal’s legal team has marshaled an impressive stable of wealthy celebrities and influential academics to support his cause. These patrons have afforded Abu-Jamal the credibility and, more importantly, the finances to construct a platform upon which he can rail against the perceived shortcomings of America’s justice system, whose protections have enabled Abu-Jamal to make his case for innocence in appellate proceedings for three decades, to no avail; whose caution led to the overturning of Abu-Jamal’s death sentence on the grounds that jurors might have been confused about the instructions that they received before commencing deliberations during the penalty phase of the trial; and whose restrictions have not silenced Abu-Jamal’s voice during his incarceration. In short, Mumia Abu Jamal’s “persecution” is mythic and risible.    

 

Consider, for example, the claim that Mumia was not granted a fair trial. A reasoned analysis of the trial transcript reveals that the biggest impediment to Abu-Jamal's obtainment of an impartial hearing was Mumia Abu-Jamal himself. The defendant created incessant disruptions throughout the court proceedings; for instance, he spent a considerable amount of time demanding that John Africa, the founder of the radical group MOVE, represent him. Africa possessed little in the way of formal education, much less any knowledge of the intricacies of American law. In this instance (and in quite a few others) the judge, Albert Sabo, was forced to save Abu-Jamal from himself by refusing his motion and instead appointing a public defender of Mumia's choosing to serve as secondary counsel. The judge’s ruling was based purely on the application of legal precedent and did not preclude Africa from offering the defendant advice and counsel during the trial.

 

Moreover, the transcript is littered with instances when Mumia insulted Judge Sabo and repeatedly revisited issues on which Sabo had already ruled, ranting like a petulant child when he did not get his way. The defendant did not seem to care that his disrespectful behavior toward the judge might have reflected a general disregard for officers of the law and the law itself, which likely influenced the jury. In the end, if Abu-Jamal’s sympathizers would like to proclaim that Mr. Abu-Jamal's trial was a circus, they would be remiss if they did not include the identity of the ringmaster when formulating their argument.

 

In spite of the myriad petitions that Abu-Jamal’s defense team has offered in court, no new trial is forthcoming. The exculpatory conspiracy theories, which have relied on the testimonies and recollections of petty criminals and serial prevaricators, have only exposed the desperation to which Abu-Jamal’s lawyers will resort to free their client from his rightful sentence. With his appeals finally exhausted, Mumia Abu-Jamal will spend the rest of his life behind bars.

 

Undoubtedly, there will remain individuals unconvinced of Mumia’s guilt who will regard the prisoner as a martyr to American racism. They will point to our nation’s past as proof of a present injustice. Mumia Abu-Jamal’s supporters would be well-advised, nonetheless, to keep in mind that the light of history can blind just as easily as it can illuminate. Otherwise, they will continue to fall for the cynical sleight-of-hand that Abu-Jamal has employed to conceal the truth, which has been determined by a jury and reaffirmed after numerous appellate proceedings: Mumia Abu-Jamal murdered Daniel Faulkner on December 9, 1981. Case closed.

 

 

-30-

---

[1] http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html

[2] This general sketch of Officer Faulkner was gleaned from the following book: Faulkner, Maureen and Smerconish, Michael, Murdered by Mumia (Guilford, CT: Lyons Press, 2008).

[3] Marc Kaufman, “Abu-Jamal Said He Shot Officer, Two Tell Trial,” Philadelphia Inquirer, June 15, 1982.

Johnny Manziel and the Fraud of Collegiate Amateurism

One of the more frustrating aspects of the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as Division I) system has been the extent to which subjectivity factors into the determination of the best teams in the nation. Unfortunately, such a shortcoming seems inevitable in a game as physically demanding and as ubiquitous as college football. One could not reasonably expect student-athletes to endure a twelve or thirteen game season and then compete in a March Madness-style tournament (which would add another six games to the schedule for the eventual champion and runner-up), all the while playing at an optimum level. Therefore, subjective comparison will remain a fixture of the college football ranking system for the foreseeable future.  

In spite of this subjective streak in college football, few aficionados and analysts would deny that Johnny Manziel was the best player in the nation when the dust settled on the 2012 season. Manziel, a redshirt freshman who emerged from third-string obscurity to lead the Texas A&M Aggies to an 11-2 record, won the Heisman Trophy after a stellar campaign that was punctuated by a stunning win over the vaunted Alabama Crimson Tide in Tuscaloosa. Manziel’s meteoric rise mirrored the stunning progress of the Texas A&M program, which in the span of one year morphed from a middling Big 12 team into a Southeastern Conference powerhouse. While the Aggies’ reversal of fortune was due in no small measure to the outstanding coaching of offensive wunderkind Kevin Sumlin, the emergence of Manziel stands as the primary reason for Texas A&M’s football renaissance.

Texas A&M’s victorious season on the gridiron was reflected in the program’s financial ledger. By the time the 2012 season ended, the Aggies had raked in nearly $120 million.[1] For his troubles, Coach Sumlin earned a healthy raise that bumped his annual compensation to $3.1 million.[2] As for the players who were primarily responsible for turning the dream season into a reality, well, they got nothing. Nothing for dedicating themselves year-round to the task of sculpting their physiques in order to withstand the physical punishment of a football game. Nothing for waking up in the early morning for meetings and tape study. Nothing for attending interminable practices and mandatory study sessions. Nothing for ensuring that their broken bodies would be mended in time for the next game by visiting the training room. Nothing for an 11-2 season and a Cotton Bowl victory. Nothing for wonderfully representing Texas A&M University under a spotlight that outshines the one under which the university’s highly-paid administrators labor.

 Nothing.

Well, not really nothing. A free education is certainly something. So is access to an expansive and influential booster network that could facilitate an outgoing player’s quest for employment. Moreover, one cannot adequately valuate the privilege of playing in college football’s best conference in front of hundreds of thousands of rabid fans. So the players received some compensation.

However, some compensation does not equate to adequate compensation, especially in the case of Johnny Manziel. According to one estimate, Manziel’s Heisman season produced $37 million in media exposure revenue for Texas A&M.[3] This figure does not include the profits from the university’s merchandising operation, which included the sale of Manziel jerseys (er, #2 jerseys- gee, I wonder why that number is popular?). Rather than receiving a reward for his sensational season, Manziel has instead been saddled with a heavy burden: he has become the “beneficiary” of an insane level of media attention.

The ESPN network, which played a significant role in cultivating the “Johnny Football” ethos, now seeks to exploit the new sports hero whose pedestal it created. Gone are the days when Manziel could commit the common college student sins of oversleeping, underage drinking, and shortsighted tweeting under the cloak of anonymity. Now every one of Manziel’s actions is scrutinized and inanely “debated” on ESPN shows like "First Take." Articles are written on ESPN’s website about the “questions” with which NFL evaluators are contending as they analyze the “controversies” that surround the quarterback.[4] The most recent scandal involves an NCAA investigation of an accusation that Manziel was paid in exchange for autographing memorabilia. According to ESPN Sports Business reporter Darren Rovell, if the NCAA substantiates the allegation it could deem the quarterback ineligible for the infraction of “accepting money for promoting or advertising the commercial sale of a product or service.”[5]

One can safely bet that ESPN’s coverage of this imbroglio will avoid the touchy issue of the NCAA’s obvious hypocrisy on this front since the network just secured a twelve-year television contract for the BCS playoffs (set to begin in 2014) for the princely sum of $500 million per season.[6] After all, it’s uncouth to attack a business partner. If ESPN did revert to a journalistic approach in covering this investigation, perhaps its reporters would ask the NCAA why the organization continues to enforce the principle of amateurism on its student-athletes while the other members of the college football landscape profit like bandits. Why are the student-athletes compelled to play for free, for “love of the game," when the game has been commercialized by the NCAA and its member institutions? Even the sacrosanct bowl games have been adulterated by the presence of corporate sponsors (Discover Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio). While coaches drift from one job to the next in search of the highest payday and athletic directors move their universities from one conference to another in search of the highest television rights payout, college student-athletes are left twisting in the wind. Their destinies are shaped and contorted by the influence of money, but the foolish and self-serving enforcement of the amateur ideal prevents them from accessing the wealth that they create.

Alas, no one should expect the network, or any sports “journalist," to ask these questions. Everyone is too invested in the narrative of a star quarterback who could not handle the pressures of fame, who selfishly put himself ahead of the team by accepting money. As reporters myopically focus on Manziel, a bigger scandal remains unexplored: namely, the absurdity of the college football business model, which generates hundreds of millions of dollars for universities without distributing any of the spoils to the laborers. And that is just an objective fact.      

 

-30-

---

[1] http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/05/texas-am-one-of-13-schools-that-made-100-million-revenue-in-2012.html/

[2] http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21786912/kevin-sumlin-gets-extension-salary-raise-to-31-million

[3] http://www.thebatt.com/a-m-football-season-manziel-generate-37-million-in-media-exposure-revenue-1.2973571#.UgMGoxXD_IV

[4] http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9542030/nfl-eye-johnny-manziel-wrong-reasons

[5] http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9537999/otl-ncaa-investigating-johnny-manziel-profiting-autographs

[6] http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/21/espn-lands-12-year-agreement-to-televise-playoffs-bcs-bowls/