Category Archives: Commentary

My contribution to our decline is not my fault

Due to an accelerated decline in enrollment, Detroit has sent layoff notices to 430 teachers; those who received the notices will work until 18 December.

While this should be no surprise to anyone who observed the strike at the beginning of ths school year, union president Janna Garrison seems oddly indignant.

“It’s shortsighted and cruel for the district to play these kinds of games.  We’re going to lay the responsibility on (the district’s) shoulders,” she said.

She went on to criticize the district for its treatment of the teachers, saying, “The district doesn’t seem to be concerned what impact this has on its employees.”

It is curious that Garrison would accuse the district of being unconcerned about the impact of its actions.  When they forced the cancellation of school, the striking teachers did not seem to be concerned with the impact of their actions on the district or the students. 

The district was never blameless in the contract dispute, but the teachers made the decision to strike; without a doubt, the strike hurt a district already in decline.  In this situation, layoffs are not an ignoble retaliatory response.  In fact, considering its shrinking funding, it would be irresponsible for the district not to reduce its payroll.

If anything was “shortsighted and cruel,” it was the strike.  If the teachers believed layoffs would not occur in the wake of the strike’s effects on enrollment, then it was not the district that was shortsighted; it was the teachers who, it seems, could not see past their outstretched hands.

The Tall House

The University of Michigan has released drawings of the proposed renovations to Michigan Stadium. Take a look before you continue reading.

My first reaction was one of surprise. The proposed structures are huge. I did not expect small additions, but the drawings are larger than I had imagined.

As structures, they are attractive. They are modeled after other classic structures on campus, like Yost Ice Arena, and as such they are good-looking.

But if I may be repetitive for a moment, they’re big. They’re extraordinarily prominent. In a relative sense, they are nearly as subtle as Oregon’s highlighter-yellow uniforms.

One of the great charms of Michigan Stadium is its simple understated design. From the street, the stadium is actually underwhelming; from the inside, the stadium is just a mass of humanity and the sky. The addition of those two major structures to the east and west sides would be not just an evolutionary renovation, but a major shift in the stadium’s character.

I am not opposed to any addition of structures, but this proposed addition would essentially introduce a new stadium. That sort of change should not be taken lightly, and it should not occur without thorough input from those who fill the seats on a regular basis. If the general fan base accepts this sort of proposal, then I will not quarrel with it; I would be wasting my breath. But if the regents forge ahead with their plan despite substantial opposition, then I will have a quarrel with the regents.  This renovation should be approved by the fans who want to fill benches, not by the few who could afford the proposed suites.
—

The university says:
“In fact, since its construction by Fielding Yost in 1927, the Stadium has undergone many major changes and renovations. In 1949 it was expanded from 85,000 to 95,000 seats, and in 1956 it was renovated again to a capacity of more than 100,000. In 1957 the current press box was added. Each of these projects meant major changes to the appearance of the Stadium.”

Comparing simple capacity expansions to this renovation doesn’t work. The expansions changed the stadium by making it larger; from the inside, it was still a big bowl.

Love and Football

If you have fifteen minutes, listen to this segment of The Sports Inferno, a sports radio talk show on Detroit’s 1270 WXYT. It’s worth your time. It features Mike Valenti addressing the problems of the Michigan State University football program after MSU’s dismal fourth-quarter collapse against Notre Dame.

No, that description was too sterile. He did not address the program’s problems; he tore the program to shreds. It was not the dispassionate analysis of a media observer; it was the overflowing emotion of a passionate fan who happens to host a radio talk show. He had been getting more and more disgusted by the wasted potential and bad losses accumulated by the Spartans, and the devastating loss to Notre Dame finally brought him to a boil. A tangible, powerful, irrepressible boil.

So Valenti boiled. He ranted for fifteen minutes straight. His co-host tried to interrupt him when his voice began to fail, and he refused to stop. His co-host tried again a few minutes later when his voice became even more hoarse, and he very pointedly told his co-host to let him finish. He left no doubt that he would let no one stop him from saying what he needed to say.

Clearly, it was just that: a need. The depth of emotion in his voice and in his words demonstrated beyond any doubt that he did not simply want to express his opinions; he needed to speak his piece. He needed not just to speak his mind; he needed to speak his heart.

And it was his heart that spoke for fifteen minutes. That was unmistakable. He expressed his deepest outrage at the failings of the MSU football program, but he could not have done it out of anger. Anger will make a man do remarkable things, but ultimately, he did not speak in an effort to destroy the program; he shouted himself hoarse in an exhausting effort to expose every crevice of every destructive element within Michigan State football.

What brings a man to that point? Love. Valenti loves Michigan State football.

Some may hesitate to assign that emotion and action to football, either because it doesn’t seem to fit the violently competitive nature of the sport or because they believe sports aren’t important enough to love; neither is true. A shallow fondness does not cause a man in Valenti’s position to break character, shut down his co-host, expose raw emotions and hit every last nerve he could hit; mere pleasant associations do not evoke a passionate point-by-point denunciation of a program’s failings, from the head coach down to the last walk-on player. It’s not the love one person can feel for another — such love should be on an entirely different level — but as Valenti demonstrated, it is love, and in some ways it can be nearly as deep.

That love was deep enough for Valenti to stand by the Spartans through disappointment after disappointment, and it was deep enough that he could no longer bear to watch that football program — his football program — self-destruct. He had to speak, he had to do what he thought would help salvage the program, and he did so with a level of passion not often witnessed in any venue for any reason. He did not observe the program’s failings as a bystander; he experienced them as offenses against a close personal friend. That has to be love. Any lesser word would be inadequate in the face of the emotion in his vehement words and in his failing voice.

And that is what makes college football such a beautiful sport.

It’s not my fault he took advantage of my lack of self-control and maturity!

On Saturday, Miami and Florida International decided to dedicate their game to Don King.  In the middle of the third quarter, a huge brawl erupted; to end the melee, a number of police officers were forced to intervene.  The immediate result was the ejection of thirteen players; the end result was the suspension of thirty-one players.

Most interesting in this incident was not the fight — after the Pistons/Pacers fight, these things are fairly pedestrian — but the attitudes of the Miami players.  The general consensus seems to be that FIU players both did their part to provoke Miami and started the fight itself, and they should be held responsible for their actions.  But to listen to the Hurricanes, you’d think they were innocent bystanders, not full participants.

“It’s something they started, and our guys finished it,” Kyle Wright proclaimed.  “It’s not our fault,” Kenny Phillips insisted; “Whatever it was, it wasn’t us.”

Even forgetting Miami’s sordid thug history, consider recent history.  While FIU delivered the first blows in the Florida fracas, Miami’s behavior continues to contradict its public image improvements.  Even as the university seeks to clean its football reputation, the Hurricanes have been involved in two fights in the last seven games, and three in the last year.  They even had a near-fight in another game this season; prior to their game at Louisville, Miami players made a grand show of stomping on the logo at midfield.

Further, their behavior in the FIU game hardly demonstrated maturity.  After a short touchdown pass, James Bryant pointed at the FIU bench and took a theatrical bow toward the stands.  His behavior drew a well-deserved flag, and it also likely inflamed the apparently volatile FIU players even more.

If this had been an anomaly, Miami would have room to plead innocent.  But three fights and one near-fight in one year do not allow the football program to claim higher moral ground.  The character of the program and its players is shown on the field; on Saturday, the Hurricanes showed something.

Whatever it was, it certainly wasn’t character.

—

On that theme, here’s the startling statement of the day, from a USA Today article:

“Why is it bad? I really don’t understand. I think it’s good. It gets people to watch football more,” said Sara Cass, 19, a Miami student from New York City. “I mean, maybe it wasn’t the best way of approaching it, but a spark has been created and maybe this will help the team.”

Baseball math… part 3; You can join us, but only for a little while

1)It’s a pattern, like argyle, except it’s bad
One more thought on the expansion of MLB’s already long season: on Saturday, 14 October 2006, the Tigers won game 4 of the ALCS to complete their sweep of the A’s; on that same day in 1984, they won the World Series. The 2006 World Series will not even start until 21 October.

Also, it seems three extra rest days will be introduced into the 2007 MLB season. It has not yet been determined whether they will be added to the regular season or the postseason.  In either case, next season will be even longer.

2)Wait, don’t you know you’re supposed to lose?
In another baseball note, there is talk of making the postseason more difficult for wild card teams. One idea being floated is to give wild card teams only one home game in the first round, rather than two.

I fail to understand this line of thought. Having wild cards win division, conference and even World series is not a problem — not unless wild cards themselves are problems. The last few years have featured a wild card team in the World Series, and somehow this is a problem for baseball?

Bud Selig: either keep the wild cards and consider them full participants in the postseason, or drop the wild cards altogether. Do not make the wild cards second-class postseason citizens. If they meet your wild card criteria, then they deserve to be in the playoffs.  The only fair choice is between wild cards and no wild cards.

The 2006 Tigers have won playoff games fair and square, and previous wild card teams have done the same. If these Tigers and the previous successful wild card teams don’t belong in the playoffs, then the playoff critera — not the wild card teams — are the problem.  Don’t punish wild card teams for meeting the current playoff standards.

Hitting the fan

Before I say anything else, let me make one thing perfectly clear: as an avid sports fan, I love Chelsea football. I spend my Thursday and Friday evenings each fall following the high school teams. That investment of time should be proof that I write this as a Chelsea partisan. I hope that lends the proper tone to these comments.

As this football season has progressed, on more than one occasion I have found myself deeply frustrated. Not at the coaches, the players, or even the referees, but at what I hope is a vocal minority within our fans: complainers. Game after game, I have found myself gritting my teeth as I have listened to a few fans shout at the referees after nearly every potentially questionable call. My message is simple: this attitude has no place in high school athletics, and it needs to stop.

First, one major point: it is the job of the coaches to communicate with the referees. This is not up for debate. If there is a bad or questionable call, a coach will discuss it with the referee; if the officiating warrants further complaint, the proper parties — not fans — will make the proper complaints — not sarcastic insults — through the proper channels. It is not our place as fans to tell the officials what we thought of their calls. There is plenty of room to discuss the calls with the people around us; there are numerous sympathetic ears at every game. But when it comes to questionable calls, we should keep our voices off the field.

Next, consider the example we are setting for the athletes. They are supposed to play their best regardless of the calls they get — or don’t get — and they are supposed to respect the referees as the on-field authority, again, regardless of the calls. Just as vocal criticism of a coach during a game undermines the authority he must have to function as a coach, so does vocal criticsm of the referees undermine the authority they must have to function as game officials; when either authority suffers, the game suffers.

Also, consider the school and the community we represent. In sports, players and coaches are commonly considered the representatives of Chelsea, but it is negligent not to consider the fans as representatives of the community; in fact, as representatives, sometimes the fans are more influential than the players and coaches. As such, we are compelled to regulate our speech and behavior so as to avoid sullying the name and reputation of our community.

Finally, consider our purpose in attending the games. We are not there to be the show, nor are we there to denigrate anyone or anything; we are there to exhort our athletes. We are there to support our team. Period. And, contrary to the lessons political campaigns teach us, supporting our team does not include denigrating the other team. Sarcasm and taunts have no place in the role of fans at high school events.

In that light, we would be wise to remember this is high school athletics. This is not a major college or professional game, where one voice blends into the crowd. A crowd of five thousand is a big turnout for a varsity football game, and the lower-level teams draw even smaller crowds; a single voice can travel at many such events. The words we speak and the attitudes we project are significant.

A notable example of the danger of fan complaints occurred during the JV football game against Dexter. Later in the game, when Chelsea effectively had the win in hand, the officials made a questionable call, prompting an outcry from the Chelsea stands. On the tail end of that protest, one fan shouted, “Go back to Dexter!”

There are two problems with that incident. First, it is ridiculous to complain about questionable calls when the win is all but assured. When the game is in hand, the issue of whether or not somebody held or interfered or crossed the goal line is remarkably insignificant even in the small picture of that football game. Such words and attitudes project a cutthroat competitiveness that is out of place at the high school level.

Second, and quite simply, that sort of statement is insulting. It is insulting to the referee, particularly when there is no proof of his intentional bias, and it is insulting to the entire Dexter contingent. Think of the damage done if the Dexter fans leave with “Go back to Dexter!” ringing in their ears. Combined with the complaints of the winning fans, that insult projects an image that most Chelsea fans and residents likely would rather avoid.

One incident from last year’s baseball season provides a fitting conclusion. In the middle of the season, the varsity was playing at Ann Arbor Huron, and both the crowd and the coaching staff were becoming increasingly unsatisfied with the umpires; one mystifying sequence prompted coach Wayne Welton to speak to the umpire. Shortly after that conference, another call evoked another outcry from the fans. As the vocal fans expressed their displeasure directly to the umpire, Welton turned around, held up his hands and delivered a succinct message: “Hey, just let us play, okay?”

An excited crowd is a wonderful part of the high school athletic experience; the atmosphere of a full high school venue, as we had for the football game against Adrian, is among the best in sports. I love the passion we as a community can display on Friday nights, and I hope that passion is never diminished. But for the good of our athletes, coaches and community, we need to think before we speak. We need to be the fans; we need to let them play.

We’re gonna party! Oh, yeah, and there’s school, too.

Last Wednesday was the student count day in Michigan, the first of two days on which the public schools count their students to determine the amount of state money they receive.  (The first, in September, determines 75%; the second, in February, determines 25%.)  Normally this isn’t a major news story; most people don’t pay too much attention to count day.  But the dismal financial condition of the Detroit Public Schools, the prolonged teacher strike, and the resulting drop in student enrollment made count day a top story for Detroit news outlets.

The news stories preceding count day were dominated by gloomy estimates that the schools had lost some 25,000 students — a precipitous drop compared to the previous estimates of 9,000.  Officials cautioned that it was early, and that the numbers were not yet complete, but the number made for good headlines.

In the shadow of such dire proclamations, Detroit made every effort to lure as many students to school on Wednesday, turning schools into small carnivals with free food, face painting and raffles featuring prizes such as backpacks, laptop computers and lunch with a rapper.  However, the early numbers suggested only mixed success from the attendance blitz; some schools gained enrollment, others lost, and the best estimates still left the district with a loss of 19,000 students.

Detroit’s count day hysterics illustrate a problem with the concept of setting a school’s funding based on two days.  The problems are simple: two days is only a small fraction of the full school year, and the schools know the days their enrollment affects their finances.

Limiting count day to only two days, and particularly to only one day at a time, allows desperate districts to push to artificially pad their numbers through decidedly non-educational means — essentially the enrollment version of teaching to the test.  A school that knows its numbers are declining can make gaudy efforts to limit their losses by attracting students whose state funding stays in the district for a while, even if the student doesn’t stay; in Detroit’s case, the district appealed to students through parties and giveaways.  Even if the schools are not so calloused as to make no effort to retain students — I am not cynical enough to believe there are that many administrators who would actually do so — someone has to realize that at least some of the students who come for the iPods, laptops and lunches with rappers aren’t going to stick around for much education.

This contrasts with the free-market principles displayed in private schools; in an online Detroit News editorial, Manny Lopez noted, “The parochial and private schools already get it. Everyday is Count Day for them. If they don’t deliver a safe, quality education, their customers leave.”  But public schools can retain some level of state funding by artificially boosting attendance two days a year, even if some of those students attend only infrequently the rest of the year.  In a sense, they can receive nearly full-time pay for part-time students, if those students are part-time at the right times.

To avoid letting temporary students have a hand in state funding, perhaps a better solution would be to expand and mystify count day.  Instead of using only two well-publicized days to set enrollment, perhaps the count could be taken from more days over a longer time period.

One possibility would be to use counts from ten days over six weeks, and without publicizing the dates being counted.  This would serve two purposes: it would provide a more accurate picture of a district’s typical population, and it would prevent declining or money-hungry districts from staging count day hysterics to pad enrollment.  One unusual day, good or bad, would neither hurt healthy districts nor help ailing districts; the former would not be hurt by one below-average day, and the latter could not improve their finances with transient students.

State funding for public schools should be immune to enrollment exaggeration; if a school does not retain students, then it should not retain state funding.  The state ought to rewrite the count day policy to compel schools to focus on consistent attendance rather than iPod-driven rental students.

It’s not worth this much

“The instant replay official whose failure to overturn a bad call led to a narrow victory for Oregon over Oklahoma said he feels like he is under siege after receiving menacing phone calls and a death threat.”

This is utterly pathetic. Yes, he did not make the correct call, but menacing phone calls? A death threat? This is football! I am a big Michigan fan, but I know where the game ends and serious life begins. Football — a game, last I checked — never justifies this sort of response.

This is on par with last year’s reaction in Columbus to the Texas loss, when tight end Ryan Hamby received death threats for dropping a third-quarter touchdown pass.  As a sports fan and a human, this overreaction disgusts me.  One loss is not worth that much.  Okay, so get angry, rant on a message board or a local sports radio talk show — and then get over it.  Move on.  Find a real atrocity.

I am so confident in my identity that I want to fix it

When I drive to work, I listen to the radio so I can stay awake.  Typically, I listen to WMUZ, an advertiser-supported religious radio station.  I have my issues with several WMUZ advertisers; this time I want to address one commercial I’ve been hearing more recently.  The advertiser?  A cosmetic surgery establishment.

The commercial started positively enough, with a woman saying, “I’m confident in who I am in Christ.”  This is a good and worthy sentiment; the problem was that it was not the end statement, but simply a means to an end.  She then used that confidence to explain that her decision to utilize the services of the surgeon was a “personal decision” between her and God.  After that, she was done with God-related statements; the rest of the commercial was, obviously, centered on the establishment and its excellence.

Perhaps I am a dense man, but I cannot yet understand how confidence in identity in Christ connects to cosmetic surgery.  Does cosmetic surgery for those with no genuine physical problems originate from or demonstrate true confidence in Christ?  I have a hard time believing that concept.

Needless cosmetic surgery seems to be an effort to remake ourselves in our own images — not our God-given images, but the images we’ve created in your head, the images influenced by the societies around us.  Altering ourselves to generate happiness with our physical appearance communicates not “I praise you, God, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made,” but something more like, “God, thanks, but I think You didn’t quite get this right.”  That is not an expression of full confidence; if it expresses anything, it is heavily qualified confidence at best.

If we believe confidence in Christ requires alteration, these changes ought to occur not in our appearance, but in our perceptions and values.

On a different, but related, topic, the beginning of this advertisement highlights another problem: needless commercial invocation of God.  Please, advertisers, do not gratuitously invoke God in spots for bankruptcy attorneys, cosmetic surgeons or malpractice attorneys.

Important note: I do not know the woman who chose to participate in an advertisement for the cosmetic surgeon; this post is not meant to suggest that she is somehow a horrible person.  Her comments in the advertisement simply sparked a lot of thought in my mind.

Strike that

The district and the union reached a tentative agreement yesterday; the teachers approved the new contract this morning.

The Detroit News feels the agreement doesn’t really solve any underlying problems.  It’s a good point.  The contract gets the teachers back in the classrooms, but it doesn’t do much more than that.

The new deal is a three-year contract; 2009 could be exciting.  Assuming, of course, both that the district and city do not experience a miraculous turnaround (economically and in administrative competence) and that the teachers do not gain realistic perspective.

But at least students matter again, for another three years.