Author Archives: djlwsu

Justice derailed: Chad Johnson and the domestic violence question

Posted on by Standard Reply

While appearing in court to formalize a plea deal Chad Johnson faced a new and unexpected challenge.  In 2012, Johnson was arrested and charged with domestic violence following an incident where he “allegedly head-butted his new wife during an argument.” Since then he has undergone therapy, and publicly talked about his failings, contributing to this plea deal where he was to avoid jail time.  In a sense, the court appearance was a mere formality.  Yet, that changed when Broward County Circuit Judge Kathleen McHugh asked if he was satisfied with his attorney, that all changed

Chad Johnson: “Yes ma’am.”

Judge McHugh: “Well you should be. He’s an excellent attorney.”

Chad Johnson: “I Know”

As to further note his appreciation and affection for his attorney, Chad did what athletes, both professional and those weekend warriors, often do: he gave him a pat on the backside.

While others in the courtroom laughed, the Judge saw little humor in his behavior (watching the video it doesn’t seem as if Chad Johnson saw any humor either), responding in kind:

I don’t know that you’re taking this whole thing seriously. I just saw you slap your attorney on the backside. Is there something funny about this? The whole courtroom was laughing. I’m not going to accept these plea negotiations. This isn’t a joke.

Despite an apology from Chad Johnson, the Judge held firm, sentencing him to 30 days in jail.
Wow

In other words, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail not for domestic violence, not for head butting his partner, not for causing a huge gash but his “attitude” and “demeanor.”   Whether or not this was a smart thing to do or whether it was appropriate (watching the video, I think it is hard to see it as disrespectful) is surely up for debate, but 30 days in jail is more than a bit excessive.  And if the issue was the court, why not contempt charges for all those who laughed.

Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless quickly weighed in on the situation.  Smith offered the following:

I can’t even put into words how disgusted I am right now at this man. This guy is out of the NFL right now because of his mouth, because of his absence of discipline, because he took things for granted. This show has been incredibly fair to this man, and you do the kind of stuff that you do, I can’t express how ticked off I am right now. You slap your attorney on the behind playfully in court? You are a BLACK MAN in court for headbutting your wife. A female judge is presiding over a case where you allegedly headbutted a female that just happened to be your wife, and you don’t have the common sense to know that you do not need to be in court playful about anything?? It doesn’t occur to you?

What is wrong with him? I don’t get it. I don’t understand it and it doesn’t make sense to me. All I know is this, you are officially a statistic for the next 30 days […] If that ain’t the height of idiocy, I don’t know what is […] “I don’t want to even say anything else. I’m scared of what else I’m gon’ say.”

Beyond the acceptance of a stratified criminal justice system, beyond the tone that positions Johnson as a stupid child, beyond the deployment of the politics of respectability, and beyond the issue being framed as one of “discipline,” Smith (and Bayless) do little to reflect on the meaning of locking someone up for 30 days for “making a mistake” or being too “playful in court.”

The sentence and the “First Take Duos” response seems to be based in this idea that Johnson was not respecting the court; his sense of entitlement was showing its face.  Those with power, celebrity, whether athletes or Wall Street executives, Hollywood stars or politicians, white college students or suburbanites are often afforded levels of privilege, impunity, and power otherwise unavailable to others. That of course isn’t available equally across the board, and race, class, gender, power and profession matter.  In this instance, it actually seems as if Johnson is being punished because of his celebrity, because of the presumptions about his sense of entitlement.  It seems that what he embodies, racially, what he signifies as black male athlete, black male celebrity, is playing out in harmful ways.  30 days isn’t nothing.

Most importantly, the Judge’s decision to punish him for his playful “ass pat” is yet another reminder that the criminal justice system doesn’t take the issue of domestic violence seriously.  He was punished with jail time not for domestic violence but for inappropriate behavior in court.   He isn’t being punished for his disrespect of women, for his perpetuation of violence, but for disrespecting the court, the law, and the powerful.   The fact that as you read the many articles in the press there is little reporting as to what happen in 2012 is telling.  The fact that the Evelyn Lozada is barely mentioned is revealing.  Little about domestic violence in this case and the broader issue; little about Johnson’s therapy.  We need to deal with the issue of domestic violence throughout society, and the judge’s decision not only feels excessive and the ultimate exhibition of power but worse it further displaces the domestic violence from the conversation.

In the end, it seems as if the court and the Judge didn’t take the proceedings seriously, didn’t take the issue of domestic violence seriously, since in the aftermath what are we all talking about . . . not domestic violence.  And that is the true shame.

 

It is the media’s fault: Hatin the Spurs

Posted on by Standard 3

I only root for one team: the Lakers.  To root for another team feels like a betrayal.  I also don’t root against teams unless they are playing the Lakers; that is pure haterism.  My love of the game, and my passion for basketball has nothing to do with hating on other teams.  Yet, I find myself increasingly wanting to root against the Spurs.  And it has nothing to do with the Spurs per se (although their clothing game leaves something to be desired) but rather the media discourse that surrounds them.  My increasing disdain for them is not so much about their incessant pick-n-roll offense or the endless 3s they shoot, but the media praise of exceptionalism.

Greg Doyel is the perfect example of this.  He recently penned, “Forget thrilling: Boring consistency may win Spurs a fifth NBA title”:

They win because that’s what they do. It’s who they are. Latrell Sprewell and Kenyon Martin and Rasheed Wallace and even LeBron circa 2007 swing hard and wild. They grip it and rip it and entertain fans by visiting spots all over the course. The Spurs don’t do any of that. They keep it in the fairway, hit the greens, don’t turn the ball over. They win the NBA Finals.

You could try to talk to the Spurs about what happened Thursday night, but you won’t get very far. They don’t say much, which is their right. Some guys, some franchises, live for the camera. They may pretend they don’t like the media attention, but they show up for press conferences in capri pants and Urkel glasses. They want that attention off the floor, because for whatever reason all the attention on the floor isn’t enough. That’s the Heat.

This is the Spurs: They come to press conferences with nothing interesting to wear, nothing interesting to say and no apologies to make about either. Tim Duncan was asked Friday about the promise Tony Parker had once made to him, about getting him back to the NBA Finals, and Duncan just nodded: Your point? So the point, Duncan was told, was that Parker had said it and now he has done it, and so has Duncan ever reminded Parker about the promise, or thanked him for delivering?  They just play, this whole team. The right pass. Right shot. Right defensive rotation. Maybe it doesn’t make for great TV. Maybe it should. Maybe the Spurs are the most admirable team in the NBA today — a team so comfortable with itself, it believes winning a game is the most interesting thing possible.

The only thing missing from the article is a quote from Billy Hoyle (White Man can’t jump) when he said, “A white man wants to win first, look good second. A black man wants to look good first, win second.”  Dog whistles or just pure screams? Given the NBA discourse, and the ways that race, nation, and identity operate, the Spurs are being imagined as exceptional and different from the league’s predominantly black players.  Evident by ubiquitous media representations of Spurs as “the very incarnation of humility” (Fareed, 2006, p. 57) and a widely circulated narrative that consistently imagines them as a team defined by “hard work, self-sacrifice, and the honor in labor in order to secure a piece of the American Dream” (Fareed, 2006, p.58), the celebrations from the likes of Doyel and Dan Wetzel are ripe with racial, nation, and gendered meanings. According to Dave Zirin, “Athletes in the eyes of many fans are too spoiled, too loud, too ‘hip-hop, too tattooed, too cornrowed – all of which translates to players are ‘too black’” (Zirin 2004).  Hard to think that the media does not share this same disdain and discomfort?

Within the NBA, the black body regard functions as “a site of spectacle,” as “a potential measure of evil, and menace,” necessitating containment and control (Denzin, 2001, p. 7).  As such, the racial signifies attached to the Spurs (and those attached to the Heat) derive its meaning from the ways in which blackness is represented on and off the court.

Nate Taylor, with “For Spurs, Every Game is a Global Summit,” reiterates the often-uttered praised for the Spurs and international players as a whole that emphasizes culture and values:

For R. C. Buford, San Antonio’s general manager, having the most international players in N.B.A. history was not necessarily done by design. For years, he has worked with Coach Gregg Popovich to build a team that fits Popovich’s system, which emphasizes teamwork and selflessness. These concepts may be easier to sell to players who learned the game far from the hype that can distort the development of fundamental basketball in the United States (ht @jacobjbg)

With ease, the Spurs yet again becomes a moment to posit a “model minority” discourse where the “nonblack” and international NBA players reflect the desired qualities of humility, teamwork, and fundamental play long reserved for whites within a sporting imagination.  Who needs facts when you have a compelling narrative.  Never mind, LeBron’s intellectual mastery of the game; never mind the unselfishness of Heat players or the hardwork of every NBA player.    Never mind, Manu’s questionable shot selection or Tony Parker’s tendency to dribble out the entire shot clock (or fact that he is a shooting PG) or the Spurs up-temp style of ball, the Spurs have come to embody the antithesis of ballers, hip-hop, and blackness  within the NBA imagination.

These comments should also give us pause at sporting level because the celebration of Spurs as being all about winning, about team and championships, compared to the Heat, is laughable given that the Spurs haven’t won a title in 5 years.  This year their ethos and focus matters but what happened last year? The year before; and the one before that?  The Heat have been in the NBA finals three straight seasons so what gives?  What about the Lakers’ over the last 2 decades?  And even the Bulls, who were also about the show, who were known for their enjoyment of life, found ways to dominate?

While I likely wont root for the Heat or even against the Spurs, the likes of Gregg Doyle and their rhetorical drooling about the Spurs is challenging me to keep to my game.

Fashion Forward: The NBA

Posted on by Standard Reply

The NBA finals are heading to game #2, and one of the biggest questions remains what will Wade, Bosh and LeBron where at the post game press conference (no reason to worry about Duncan or Parker).  Read in the context of the NBA dress code, the league’s racialized culture wars, the “larger politics of adornment” (Ford), what is “legible and illegible” when it comes to black masculinity (Neal), and countless other issues, NBA fashion is a space for some important discussions.

I had the opportunity to “sit down” (in the google hangout; although I am not visible in the video) with Dr. Tanisha Ford, an assistant professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at University of Massachusetts, and a national expert on race, gender, sartorial choices, and youth culture to talk about NBA fashion.

 

 

 

*********

 

The NBA’s “model minority”: The Exceptional Spurs

Posted on by Standard Reply

While not explicit there seems to be this subtle tone that the Spurs success reflects the number of international players.  The constant references to their unselfishness, team-first, and playing the right way encapsulates these sort of narratives and tropes.  The constant discussion of their teams intelligence (last night Boris Diaw was celebrated as a smart basketball player — nevermind that every NBA players has a high basketball IQ – right before he went for terrible steal leading to foul on Duncan) operates through a particular racial and national landscape.  The imagination of the Spurs as “model minorities” given the league’s demographics and their team roster should give us pause.  The imagination of the Spurs as hard working “immigrants” who play the game “the right way” is a window into some larger discussions and discourses

From “NBA Finals boast record international presence”

Social media has allowed sports fans all over the world to connect with one another in ways they never have before, and for the 2013 Finals, the NBA is taking that inclusiveness to even greater heights.

The NBA announced in a press release that the Finals between the Miami Heat and San Antonio Spurs will be broadcast in 215 countries and territories and be translated into 47 languages.

This year’s Finals features a record 10 international players between the two teams. The Spurs feature three French players (Tony Parker, Boris Diaw and Nando de Colo) as well as Argentinian Manu Ginobili, Brazilian Tiago Splitter, Australians Patrick Mills and Aron Baynes, U.S. Virgin Islands native Tim Duncan and Canadian Cory Joseph. The Heat feature Canada native Joel Anthony.

The Finals will be broadcast live in India on Sony Six as part of a new multiyear agreement, and many countries will have specialized experiences designed for them by the NBA.

 

Not just college students saddled by debt: Moving beyond student loan crisis

Posted on by Standard Reply

For several years there has been endless media coverage, political debate, and societal reflection on the rising cost of tuition, student debt, and the state of higher education.  Despite hundreds of articles, numerous references in speeches, and an over saturation that would make Justin Bieber and Kim Kardashian jealous, little has been done to curb rising tuition costs and the burden of student loans in an environment of shrinking job opportunities and declining wages.

These are real issues that don’t need hyperbolic historic comparisons:

The roughly two-thirds of U.S. students who take out loans to finance their college education can end up in a situation most resembling the historical concept of indenture. In medieval times, peasants would sign deeds to work land, which would then get cut in a jagged line (looking like teeth, or “dentures”). Each party would get half, and rejoining them would prove the authenticity of the contract. Colonial indentures would trade years of labor for the opportunity of transportation to the New World. The indentured could not alter the terms of the contract, no matter their circumstances. One way or another, the debt would get paid.

Erasing the racial history of indentured servants, not too mention the post-slavery realities faced by sharecroppers, these sorts of comparisons are not accurate.  Students are saddled by debt constraining options and choices; indentured servants had no options, forced to work for their “master” to pay off “their master.” The differences are immense and they matter given that today’s extensive conversation about student debt, about rising tuition costs, and the future opportunities of millennials erases the very communities  — the poor, people of color – who have historically been related to the class of indentured servants.

This discourse surrounding student debt also treats also students the same, at least within particular classed communities. The narrative that emerges is one of “young people’ or millennials being saddled with debt.  Never mind race and its impact.   According to Sophia Kelley:

Today’s average college graduate holds $26,600 in debt when he or she graduates, and the numbers for borrowers of color are more severe. A 2010 study by the College Board Advocacy & Policy Center found that 27 percent of black bachelor’s degree recipients had student-loan debt of $30,500 or more, compared to just 16 percent of their white counterparts. Additionally, 69 percent of black students who did not finish their college degree cite the high cost of tuition, compared to 43 percent of their white peers.

Higher tuition costs, dwindling scholarship opportunities, and growing levels of debt do not impact all students equally.  Race matters and we must begin to look at the realities on the ground.  We must push the conversation to make clear that neither the degree nor the debt colorblind.

We surely need to have conversations (and policy interventions) regarding student debt and rising but also those who have been left behind because of zero tolerance policies, school closures, and most children left behind.  The charter school industry and the testing culture have saddled youth of color, pushing them out of scholar rather than toward higher education.  We need to have a conversation about those students, who because of persistent inequality and the impacts of the recession on wealth caps, have been priced out of higher education. How many children, either because of school closures or the eradication of programs as a result of the sequester will never have a chance to take out numerous loans to go to college?  How many young people will be indebted, stuck, and saddled because they will not have a shot to go to college?  Focusing just on tuition and debt erases the many students who are left behind long before college.  What about the myriad of obstacles crisis that proceed graduating college with debt, that not only forms the school to prison pipeline or the fast track to low-wage, no mobility McJobs.

The ubiquity of media and political discourse around tuition and student loan debt yet again privileges the middle-class and white America, seemingly accepting that those who are not in college are not worthy of public outrage.  It is not just college students who are saddled by debt; it is not just college students that are impacted by neoliberalism.  With out outrage surrounding student debt and tuition, lets not leave these students behind yet again.

Doing work plz, laptops and college classroom

Posted on by Standard Reply

Close That Laptop in Class! | Psychology Today

 

I dont allow computers in class unless under special circumstances.  I find them distracting to the student, their classmates and myself.  I think it detracts from the culture we are trying to create inside the classroom.  Now, I have “evidence” for why my classroom will remain a computer/smart phone/ipad/pda free zone

 

Close That Laptop in Class! | Psychology Today

“Close That Laptop in Class!”

by Nate Kornell

According to one estimate, about 65% of college students bring a laptop to class (Fried, 2008). Unlike a traditional notebook and pen, computers can be a lot of fun–they have ESPN, Facebook, email, etcetera. Putting a computer in front of a college student is kind of like putting a marshmallow in front of a little kid and telling her not to eat it–the temptation is far too great. (Another example: The Kindle is less tempting than the iPad.)

I’ve sat in the back of classrooms recently because I wanted to observe great teachers. I did not expect to learn so much from observing students. I saw a lot of multitasking, by which I mean Facebook (etc). It’s not just distracting for the multitasker, I was distracted too.

A new study by Sana, Weston, and Cepeda (2013) examined the effect of laptop multitasking in a simulated classroom. Participants were shown a 45 minute lecture on meteorology. The researches summarize their first study nicely:

 

All participants were asked to attend to a university-style lecture and take notes using their laptops as a primary task. Half the participants, by random assignment, received additional instructions to complete a series of non-lecture-related online tasks at any convenient point during the lecture. These tasks were considered secondary and were meant to mimic typical student web browsing during class in terms of both quality and quantity.

The students who multitasked did 11% worse on a comprehension test covering the lecture. That’s equivalent to a whole grade lower in a class.

But what about the “secondhand smoke” of laptops–their effect on people near the multitasker? The researchers did a second study, which they summarize thusly:

A new group of participants was asked to take notes using paper and pencil while attending to the lecture. Some participants were strategically seated throughout the classroom so that they were in view of multitasking confederates on laptops, while others had a distraction-free view of the lecture. Confederates mimicked multitaskers from Experiment 1 by typing notes on the lecture and performing other concurrent, irrelevant online tasks.

This time, students who has a multitasker in their line of sight did 17% worse than students who did not.

Continue reading at Close That Laptop in Class! | Psychology Today.

 

American Exceptionalism and a culture of flopping

Posted on by Standard Reply

The NBA finals start tonight and while I am less than enthusiastic about the matchup, so much so that Chopped reruns might capture more of my attention, I am hopeful that the series will bring a lot of flopping.  Yes, flopping is what I am rooting for.  Besides the artistry and creativity, not too mention that talent required to deceive America’s best referee crew, the prospects of flopping will invariably send the NBA press corps into a tizzy. Fantastic.

The last couple weeks (and the season as whole) has prompted a series of hyperbolic, reactionary, and otherwise ridiculous columns on flopping. According to Ken Berger, “The NBA during the postseason has been as flop-tastic as ever.”  Calling for suspensions repeating acting on the job, Berger pins the game’s success on truthfulness and honesty: “ Nominal fines are doing nothing but encouraging floppers to do a better job of it so they don’t get caught. There’s only one punishment that will have any teeth with the players, coaches and front offices: suspensions.”

Israel Gutierrez seems to agree, equating flopping to cheating.

The label should push guys to keep it real.  Having the reputation as a flopper would seem to be a very unwanted label. Again, it implies you need to ‘cheat’ to succeed. And with all the other labels that get thrown around in the NBA (‘dirty,’ ‘soft,’ ‘choker,’ etc.), you’d think you’d want to avoid this particular one.

But the leader of the pack is Marshall Zweig, whose assessment of the fluidity between Hollywood and Springfield Massachusetts is so over-the –top I found myself wondering, satire.  But I think not.

The public is watching roundball criminals get away with their crime right in front of our eyes—and no one is really doing a thing about it. . . .   Fines and embarrassment are not working well enough. The league needs to up the ante. And it won’t do it unless we all get on its case. So make your outrage count.

Given the NBA discourse, and the tendency to imagine its (black) players as criminals in the post-Palace Brawl landscape, the link between flopping and criminality is striking.  And not a in a good way.

Despite the league induced panic, flopping isn’t anything new. In “Flopping in the NBA: A History of (Non)violence,” netw3rk makes this clear, seemingly reminding those who wax nostalgic that “golden age” of the NBA was defined by rampant flopping:

Flopping is to basketball as farting is to being alive; it’s annoying, ridiculous, and sometimes embarrassing reality, but a reality nonetheless. If something has been part of the game since the dribble, it’s probably more apt to refer to it as a tradition rather than a scourge.

While I don’t find flopping to be ridiculous or annoying, maybe these critics are onto something.  Isn’t flopping just another word for deception, lying, and otherwise exaggerating or making up for the sake of a particular point?  Flopping is something America has an endless supply.  Land of the free, home of flopping.  American exceptionalism at its best.  Yet, it seems a movement has taken hold in the NBA; whose got next?

One can only hope that anti-flopping movement takes hold throughout this nation

Will politicians (yes Michelle Bachman) stop flopping on the House Floor?

Does this mean politicians will no longer lament the end of civilization because mothers are working since flopping is bad?

Will politicians who blame moms working for the nation’s education failure face a fine?  The league office would surely be busy if it had to regulate the flopping of Washington, Wall Street, or Madison Ave.

And while I am talking about education, isn’t No Child Left Behind the ultimate example of flopping since it has left most children behind?

And if flopping is so bad on the hardwood shouldn’t we push to have it removed from the news arena.  I believe the “F” in FOX stands for flopping

The movement against flopping could cause more damage to advertising than the DVR.

Because aren’t commercials just flopping; deception, exaggeration, and in some instances lies to compel action from the consumer?  If flopping is bad in the NBA, surely we should rid society of this destructive and insidious influence in our everyday lives.

The examples of flopping are endless (and yes I am rhetorically flopping here).  From “the check is in the mail” to “sorry I was late there was a lot of traffic” (and are we really sorry) flopping is part of our daily praxis.  Some examples are harmless – acting like an opponent elbowed you in the face – whereas others can lead a nation into war.

Now that is some real flopping.