That image, culled from the social networking site facebook.com, prompted the University of Iowa to crack down on the "egregious" pictures and "politically incorrect statements" found on athlete's pages. Basically, athletes will have to sign a form outlining the department's guidelines for social networking sites, and will be subject to punishment should any random search (conducted by the department) turn up any "partial or total nudity, sexual misconduct, underage alcohol consumption, use of illegal drugs, hazing and obscene gestures."
There are numerous problems with this, all stemming the one overarching problem with social networking sites in general. That problem is this:
The individual in question does not have control over what gets posted to social networking sites. I don't do anything illegal (that I know of), yet I'm sure that at the next party I attend, you would be able to take a snap shot of me looking pretty downright filthy. And if that picture gets posted to facebook? I can detag myself - and that's it. There is no control over what gets posted to these sites, and thus, is it really right to hold the athlete responsible for what gets found? There is nothing you can do about somebody posting a picture of you in cyberspace. All you can do is hope it doesn't get found.
My question for the University would be this: What is this policy aiming at stopping? Is this really the best way to combat athletes making themselves look like imbeciles, or is it the best way to combat the public finding out about it?
The steps to "this policy stops athletes from acting STUPID" goes like this:
a) Athlete does something stupid
b) Random frat-dude takes a picture
c) Random frat-dude posts pic to facebook
d) Admin finds out about it
e) Athlete is punished
IF (and it's a LARGE "if" here, folks) the athlete is smart, he or she will connect the dots as such: I don't have control over what goes on facebook, so I'd better be on my best behavior 100% of the time. This is the only logical way that this plan will combat the larger problem of athletes acting stupid. Oh sure - it may stop the CityBoyz from posting cash-eating pictures, but it won't stop dudes from throwin' signs half-cocked at a party. I don't think I'm going way out on a limb saying that this is a reach.
This policy may pull the wool down over the public eye, but it certainly doesn't curb the larger problem of athletes being stupid. All it does is add a confusing layer to the already muddled waters of "social networking sites," while at the same time being horribly unfair to the athlete, who is playing the roll of unwilling participant in a photo shoot that he/she was not aware of. Go out and act stupid - just make sure it doesn't end up on facebook, boys.
Maybe an actual analysis of Iowa football forthcoming. Maybe.
Posts
7 comments:
Dead on brother... all this is some sort of hastily thrown together idea by the University to try to stem the tide of STUPIDITY that has infested their Football squad the past three years... this is quite possibly one of the most blatant "bandaid" solutions they could've come up with as well...
Like you said, if they're so concerned about it, why not go straight to the source of the problem here? It's not that pictures of these things surface on the internet, it's that these activities are happening in the first place!! Crack down there and you won't have to worry pictures.
The message right now is "don't get caught" not "don't do it"... Which seems like a poor way to deal with the issue at hand.
Champ, I respectfully disagree. First, that money picture, which is OUTSTANDING, was taken after Douglas was kicked off campus and the team.
Second, there have been massive amounts of transfers and dismissals of offenders on the Iowa football team. All the guys who were flashing money and gang signs in the first wave of facebook pictures last August? Gone. All of 'em. I don't know what more you want than that.
Third, this is the most pragmatic step the University can take. It would be far, far more objectionable for them to start parenting the guys while they're on campus, or providing more vigilant surveillance or something.
At some point, the guys have to learn two things as part of the maturation process: 1) that there are opportunities out there to do both good and bad things, and 2) that the bad things come with serious consequences. That's precisely what we've seen out of Ferentz and company. You can say "Crack down on that" and assume the "problem" (as if there's just one easily identifiable symptom or cause) will go away, but that's not true in today's new media age.
These guys are big men on college campuses, and they--like everyone else on every other campus (except for, like, BYU or a Bible school) are prone to momentary lapses in judgment. That's been the same everywhere you go for decades. You can't eliminate it. What you can do is make sure the UI doesn't get hit with unnecessary embarrassment in the process, and that's what this rule goes to. There's no value in (or need for) vague and aggressive stances like yours. Let the conduct codes handle the behavior, and let the facebook policies restrict the flow of bad PR from public sites. The two policies go toward different aspects of bad behavior, and it seems to me that you'tr making a reckless assumption of incompetence when you suggest the UI thinks the facebook policy will take care of both.
OPS,
Isn't the mere fact that there has been so many dismissals from the Iowa football team a signal that there has to be some sort of culture change up there? I agree - you can't baby sit kids, especially men who are a lot bigger than you are, and are "big men on campus." And I do admire Ferentz's willingness to punish offenders - I guarentee that Douglas would still be eating money in an Alabama uniform.
However, I tend to agree with Champ in that this policy seems aimed at the PR aspect of the problem, and not the problem itself. Which is fine, if it were worded as such. But it's not, and thus, sounds like a "bandaid" solution. Trust me, after Slocum's "fuck lion" tirade, I know all too well the evils of these social networking sites in terms of PR for a university.
Maybe Iowa's being revolutionary, and these sorts of agreements are going to become commonplace, but I still think that it sends the message of "we don't care if you're doing it, just don't get caught."
However, I tend to agree with Champ in that this policy seems aimed at the PR aspect of the problem, and not the problem itself.
That's exactly what I said too, FYI.
Which is fine, if it were worded as such.
"What we're concerned about is creating inappropriate material on a site that the public can access and associate with the athletic program," Hines said.
But it's not, and thus, sounds like a "bandaid" solution.
What, precisely, do you take issue with in terms of wording that you don't think the UI is addressing well enough? They're freely saying they're tackling the PR/embarrassment aspect of the problem with this policy. I don't think there's any question about that. I also get the notion that you're making the assumption that it automatically means they're also trying to use it to control discipline itself, and I'm not so sure there's any evidence to support that theory.
OPS, good points, and that picture is the epitome of perfection, I concur.
If all they're trying to do here is to cover the public embarrassment front, then they've put a policy in place that will stem some of the tide, and I have no problem with that. Another question I have, how did this become public? You'd think this would've been something that a rules and regulations meeting and agreement could've taken care of and not broadcast to everyone.
Just for the record, I don't have any problem with the way discipline has been handled at Iowa, I just feel as though there has been a bumper crop of this sort of nonsense in that program recently. I don't think they need to "parent" the players or even have to watch over their shoulders, but like you said, they do need to send a message with serious consequences.
I think that what I overlooked the first time through here was that this is more dealing with someone taking stupid pictures and putting them online can bring a lot of undue flak to your school, and not so much some sort of flagrant violation or act.
All this said, I still think that a harsher stance on the behavior in and of itself would probably be just as effective in the long run. Lets say some kid signs this, gets a picture taken of him by some other person at a party doing something stupid, that kid posts it, and all of sudden the whole thing is off and running again... all this despite the fact that the player did not violate this policy in any way shape or form.
The picture still gets out, the University still gets embarrassed.
I was unclear in my "worded as such" phrase. I would have liked to see something from the university saying
"and this policy - in conjuncture with more stringent athlete behavior discipline - will go a long ways towards improving the blah blah blah"
It doesn't say that any measures are being taken to combat the actual problem. Hell - it could just say "We believe that our current discipline strategy is an aggressive stance towards..." and I would have been fine with it. But, as it is written now, it comes off as being a bandaid solution to the larger problem.
I honestly thought the whole thing was kinda funny - and probably never meant to be debated this heavily.
I know. It really got out of hand. Brick killed a guy.