nfl: a strange beast

Michael Vick is currently the leading vote-getter for the NFL MVP. And people are going fucking nuts about it.

Vick and his cohorts operated Bad Newz kennel - a kennel that abused pit bulls and bred them as bait for dogfighting rings, as well as funded the gambling side of the operation. In 2007, he pled guilty to federal charges in the dog fighting investigation (amongst a slew of minor state and federal charges). Additionally he was suspended by the NFL due to his illegal, cruel and reprehensible behavior - and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He served almost two years in federal prison and was required to provide to a fund for the care and rehabilitation of the dogs rescued from his kennel. (Note: of the 51 dogs rescued, only four were euthanized. Over half of the remaining dogs now have permanent homes).

I understand the backlash against Vick; backlash from animal rights groups, no-kill shelters, the general populous. This is largely because we can all relate. After all, almost all of us has had encounters house pets at one time or another, and those of us who own pets consider them part of the family. And yes, the Vick incident hits close to home for me; especially seeing Cayenne (and Lily too) represent the breed brutally abused. Abusing animals is unfathomable to us, and just plain wrong.

But this turn of events reveals the strange beast of the NFL.

Earlier this year, Ben Roethlisberger was accused of raping a woman in Florida nightclub. No charges were filed. Yet this is not the first time Big Ben has been accused of sexual assault. He tends to go after almost any female that moves. Abuse - physical, sexual, emotional - against any human is also wrong. Yes, he was suspended for six games by the league. However, there was minimal (if any) backlash from women's abuse organizations, women's rights organizations, etc.

Then there's the whole Brett Favre "sexting" scandal. Favre allegedly sent inappropriate messages to former Jets gameday reporter Jen Sterger. She claims harassment, even though the communication was allegedly mutual. Keep in mind Favre is married (to someone who looks exactly like Sterger, strangely enough). There have been no legal repercussions as of yet, and honestly, there might never be. Sure, Favre screwed his reputation and his marriage, but it's his to screw up. Oh, and did you notice any backlash from the Council for Marriage and Family or the like?

But what about NFL players and murder? Enter Ray Lewis, indicted on murder and aggravated assault charges. However, charges were dropped against Lewis in exchange for his testimony against his two "friends". He got a year of probation, misdemeanor of obstruction and a hefty fine. No suspension. No backlash from anyone that I recall - although this was just over a decade ago. And he was named Super Bowl MVP a year later. Today, he is one of the most revered linebackers in the NFL. I'm not denying his talent or on-field charisma, but everyone seems to have forgotten the past murder charges. Call me crazy, but involvement in a murder is a bigger crime than animal abuse (as trite as that sounds).

What I'm saying is that the punishment should fit the (alleged) crime. I don't condone what any of these players (allegedly) did. In the case of Vick - he paid his dues, served his time, and should be allowed to play the game.

And for the record, I don't think Vick (or any of previously mentioned players) should be MVP for the reasons listed above.

against the MU grain

I was at brunch recently with some friends, and somehow we got on the topic of education - more specifically, attending college at Marquette.

I made the comment that had I graduated high school ten years later, I likely would not have gone to Marquette. Why? It's political and religious views, as well as belief and value system, have become increasingly conservative since I've attended, and thus been affiliated, with Marquette.

Granted, I don't expect Marquette to be left-wing liberal; it is a Catholic, Jesuit institution after all. For example:

You can't, and likely never will be able to, distribute condoms on campus. Remember the Catholic church's stances on premarital sex. And it still thinks one should only engage in sex for procreation. While I completely disagree with that (and would be a total hypocrite if I didn't) - it's the 21st century people are going to have sex at college. Period. They might as well be proactive and safe about it (considering the alternative). And why you think Planned Parenthood had a clinic 3 blocks from campus proper? Pure genius on their part.

The mandatory philosophy and theology credits. I was even quoted my senior yearbook stating this requirement should be done away with. Really. Yes, I know that these courses make up the foundation of a Jesuit, liberal arts education. In reality, I didn't mind the philosophy so much; if anything, it enhanced my critical thinking skills. Theology...well, I took the required intro course, Buddhism and Judaism. I was determined not to take another course that revolved around the Bible. As a result, I still know very little beyond the basics of the Bible - despite being raised Catholic. I did enjoy learning about different religions. However, today at Marquette they do not offer "outside" religion courses - all the theology courses are Bible-based.

Views on homosexuality. If you know me, you know my views on homosexuality are in direct conflict with the Catholic church and thus, Marquette. While it did recognize LGBTQ groups, they were not, and still are not, allowed to meet on campus. I guess this is better than nothing. And then in May there was the whole Jodi O'Brien fiasco. In brief: O'Brien is openly lesbian, a feminist, & professor and department chair at Seattle University (also a Jesuit institution). Her areas of study and research are in the areas of anthropology and sociology (specifically gender, sexuality and religion); including extensive research on lesbian sexuality and support for sex-sex marriage. Upon completion the interview process, she was offered the position of Dean of Arts & Sciences at Marquette. Now, one would think the selection committee would have done its due diligence and reviewed her academic work BEFORE offered her the position. If they had done so, O'Brien never likely would have been offered the position due to her views on same-sex marriage (which are in direct conflict with the "fine" Catholic church). I suspect the increasingly conservative board of directors and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee forced Marquette to rescind the offer.

Due to these developments, I often question Marquette and what they are teaching the current college generation. Academic freedom and acceptance of others should always remain intact as it ultimately makes all of well-rounded individuals. Yet apparently, Marquette believes "academic freedom" and "acceptance of others" only apply if it falls within its stringent belief and value systems.

When I was done essentially bashing my alma mater, one of my friends said, "But Marquette needs you. They need someone who doesn't think like the majority."

I thought about that statement. In a sense, she's right. I may be upset at and disagree with Marquette's stance on many issues. However, it proves not all associated with Marquette are right-wing nutcases.

And in the end, wouldn't it be ironic if I used what I learned at Marquette to question the institution itself?