In her screed against the lacrosse team in Sunday’s New York Times, Selena Roberts mocked those who defended the lacrosse players, claiming that they wanted her to:
lay off the lacrosse pipeline to Wall Street, excuse the khaki-pants crowd of SAT wonder kids.
In a recurring theme of her columns, Roberts has suggested that boosters exercise too much power in college athletics, that they exploit athletes to massage their own egos or to advance agendas that contradict the goal of higher education.
Yet the lacrosse team—as Roberts herself now, apparently, concedes—has a 100 percent graduation rate, many are very good students (more than half on the conference academic honor roll), and most get good jobs upon graduation.
Yet the tone of her Sunday column suggests such a record is a bad thing?
Well, see, lacrosse is a *pipeline* to Wall Street, so these kids are getting an unfair advantage. In her mind anyway, I guess.
It doesn't matter what their grades/SAT scores are in her mind. If they do badly on those things, they're priviledged bastards. If they do well on those things, they're...priviledged bastards. If they have midling scores and SATs they're mediocre priviledged bastards.
Didn't commit rape? Well, in her Brodheadian view of the world, "what they did was bad enough", so they deserve all of this anyway.
Tune into Durham-in-Wonderland every hour on the hour for Selena Roberts coverage.
Great! A good-looking bright white male athlete at Auburn U. doesn't ask Selena out on a date and 20 years later WE have to pay for it?
Ah, man, if I'd have known how much Selena was going to make us miserable about that, I'd have donated the price of her damned Burger King myself.
That excerpt was part of her trite charge of racism leveled against supporters of the Duke 3, suggesting that their supporters are necessarily hostile toward "African-American basketball stars and football behemoths."
I don't think she realized what she was saying. She did more than just talk as if doing well academically and getting a good job is a bad thing. She stereotyped and contrasted those who do to "African-American" athletes, as if in her mind the AA athletes aren't smart enough to do the same.
More condescending liberal racism from the Times.
The best line in Roberts' article: "Noone would want an innocent Duke player wronged or ruined by false charges". Did she say that with a wink to Chan Hall, the Group of 88, and her colleagues at the NY Times?
Ms Roberts, what is the "goal of higher education"?
Is it to make sure that white males graduate with enough self-loathing to carry the torch of black victimhood for future generations? Is it that they have hatred for their country? Their race? Their gender? Is it that they love all cultures but their own?
Also Ms. Roberts, what agendas do athletes have that are contradictory to higher education? To be successful? To be ambitious? To have good self esteem? Good morals? Values?
Those damn athletes,always thinking for themselves! Always so strong minded and difficult to brainwash! Always leading & never following! Damn them!
Why are the qualities our children possess such a priority when being recruited or hand-picked by institutes of higher education and as soon as the check is cashed, they're SAT wonder kids with big egos or evil racist men who orchestrate gang rapes?
Remember this is the same womyn who tried to get Hooty to let women into Augusta National.
She got an agenda. As Lincoln said, a man changed against his will is of the same opinion still.
PLEASE DON'T Confuse her with FACTS! After all she write for the NY Times, facts are an option on your f10 key.
So, lets see. Being a college athlete, getting good grades, getting your degree and going on to a successful job is a bad thing.
But stripping, repeatedly passing out cold - from something, and engaging in "one on ones" three times a week in hotel rooms is honorable and a good thing. Just a single Mom trying to put food on the table for her kids, any way she can.
Pardon me while I go mull this over........
Post a Comment