All posts by Editor

Freshman guard Terry Rozier scores a career high 16 points in the Cards 102-54 victory over the Rutgers Scarlet Knights.

Cardinals defeat Rutgers 102-54

When Louisville first played Rutgers in New Jersey a little over a month ago, they left with their closest margin of victory on the season. Beating the Scarlet Knights 83-76. When Rutgers re-matched the Cards Sunday night in the KFC Yum! Center, they left with a 102-54 loss.

            We shot the ball well and when you do that and don’t turn it over and play hard, it makes your defense better and you play better in all phases of the game,” Head Coach Rick Pitino said. “I am very excited about the victory. Our guys just nailed their focus. They really pay no attention to whom they’re playing and they just play hard. They aren’t always going to win but they will play their butts off.”

            Senior guard Russ Smith came out and immediately hit a three-pointer, which was followed by three’s from senior small forward Luke Hancock and junior guard Chris Jones. The shots kept falling.

            The Cards shot 56 percent from the field. Seven different players hit from behind the three-point line combining for 16 made three-pointers.

            Hancock scored a career high 25 points, hitting six of eight three’s in the process. He also pulled down six rebounds.

            Freshman guard Terry Rozier hit four three’s and scored a career high 16 points. He also led the team in assists with four and steals with three.

            Sophomore forward Montrezl Harrell led the Cards with nine rebounds and added two blocks.

            The Cards had 23 assists and committed only nine turnovers. They had 11 steals among Rutgers’ 18 total turnovers.

            The Cards have won four in a row and are in the last month of regular season play. To improve team spirits and just simply have fun the players and coaches, including Pitino, are not shaving until they lose a game. Last year the Cardinals ended their season on a 16-game win streak and Pitino held true to his promise of getting a tattoo. Card Nation hopes that the light-hearted magic of Pitino’s antics will work two years in a row.

            “What we try to do in the dog days of February is try to do things that make sure we have fun. People get tired. I told the guys, ‘let’s have some fun.’ February is a tough month. I have never had a beard in my life, not even in college,” Pitino said.

            The beards may be a good thing to adopt because the rest of the Cards’ schedule is more than tough. Road games at Cincinnati, SMU and Memphis and then UConn at home once more will give the Cards plenty of opportunities to clean their faces.

            The Cardinals host USF Tuesday, February 18 at 7:00 pm. 

Screen Shot 2013-12-10 at 7.39.02 PM

Cardinal Towne: Can new management solve old problems?

By: Savion Taylor

Cardinal Towne has transferred ownership to American Campus Communities. The change took place a little over a week ago.

The reason behind the change in management is unknown. With students already upset with the cost and previous management of Cardinal Towne, how will this new management group plan to address those concerns?

Cardinal Towne is one of the newest addi- tions to U of L’s selection of off-campus affiliated housing. The facility opened in August of 2011.

Although it is just two years old, it is beginning to show its age.

Multiple students have reported problems regarding staggering rates and management’s unwillingness to quickly respond to maintenance problems.

With apartments ranging from $690 to $880 per month, students are also responsible for parking costs too. It costs $840 per year to park in the garage beneath the apartments, which some residents consider to be too expensive.

Abby Minrath said, “It’s ridiculously expensive for a student to be able to afford parking and I already pay $700 a month for my rent.”

Tenants who cannot afford that are being told to get an Old Louisville parking pass — which The Cardinal reported as an option for students back in September.

We printed a retraction in our Oct. 15 issue at the request of the university and Old Louisville Neighborhood Association. It seems as if the advice being given to Cardinal Towne residents directly contravenes University and Old Louisville agreements.

What was advertised as a luxury home away from home has now become a pricey burden for some of its residents.

“I think Cardinal Towne is over priced and the management is lazy,” said one resident of two years.

The student spoke of an incident of her fridge breaking. She reported the claim to maintenance, just to be told that the mess is hers to clean.

Another current resident, who has been living in the facility for only seven months, has already had her fair share of issues.

“I feel like it takes forever for tenant concerns to be addressed and the work is always half done. I needed a wall painted. I placed a request in August and nothing was done until November. On top of that the color was completely wrong.”

Residents say they would like their maintenance requests addressed within a timely manner. They want the work to be done correctly and for management to improve on student relations tremendously.

When asked if the student would recommend Cardinal Towne to future tenants, they replied, “It wouldn’t be my first suggestion.”

Attempts to obtain a reply from Cardinal Towne’s management were directed to American Campus Communities Public Relations representative Gina Cowart. Neither Cowart nor any other representatives from American Campus Communities were available for comment at the time of press.

Photo by Sasha Perez

Photo by Austin Lassell

U of L athletics serve many positive purposes

By Michelle Lewis–

During the “Year of The Cardinal” as this past year has been dubbed the University of Louisville saw a huge jump in admission applications and quality of applicants. The school has also seen increased national exposure and a sizeable increase in both the number and amount of donations campus wide. Student and faculty as well as alumni have rallied around the success of the athletics department and everywhere we look we see people decked out in their red and black. This isn’t just a local phenomenon either, fans have reported spotting “Cut The Nets”, College World Series, and Sugar Bowl apparel being worn across the country, and even in other countries.

“When we took our grandson to Disney over the summer we were surprised to see so many Louisville t-shirts. Everywhere we went somebody commented on the Cards. It was literally everywhere we went on the trip, be it the parks, Walmart, or dinner. Even in the airports when we came through Atlanta and Raleigh. In Birmingham we got at least three ‘how bout them Cards’ in an hour” recalled one pair of fans who attended the football game against Memphis last week.

“I was in India and Japan for business a few weeks ago. I have made multiple trips overseas the last few years and if someone recognized where Louisville is they knew us for the Derby or our bourbon. Well this time when I checked into my hotel in Tokyo I gave the clerk my credit card and reservation information he looked at me and said ‘Ah, Louisville Cardinals, you watch them?’ said Speed School graduate Desmond Miller.

Not everyone is as thrilled with the university’s attention to athletics. There’s been quite a bit said lately about the university over-valuing athletics or even that some sports like football don’t belong on campus. There is a lot of misinformation floating around about how tuition dollars are being used for the new and expanded athletic facilities we see driving down Floyd and how the university is misusing our or our parents, hard earned money to pay the coaches on campus. This is just not true.

The University of Louisville’s athletics department is completely self sufficient and operates at a significant profit. Between ticket and apparel sales as well as donations athletics not only supports itself but puts money back into the general scholarship fund each year. A New York Times article from this past August stated that over the past several years the athletics department has given back at least “$350,000.00 annually plus a one-time $2 million donation to finance a pay raise for faculty and staff whose pay has been frozen” due to decreased funding of higher education from Frankfort.

According to the university’s office of admissions there was an increase of 11.5% in applications in 2013 compared to the previous year. Those applicants are also said to have the highest average grade point average and highest ACT scores of any applicant pool in UofL history. The increased success in sports has put the university in the homes of millions of high school students who may never have otherwise known about UofL and has attracted those students to our campus.

Many high school students are looking for not only quality academics but also a thriving campus and social activities, such as sporting events, that help provide a real “college experience” and they have discovered they can have that in Louisville, Kentucky.

“Sports help unify us, they help build school pride and campus morale. Maybe it’s not quite right or fair, but sports are a big part of how we relate to one another. They feed our competitive nature whether we’re players, coaches, or students. I here that from instructors and advisors too when I visit my guys’ classes and check in on them.” stated Clint Hurtt, the defensive line coach for the Cards. “Athletics give us a rallying point and create camaraderie for the players and the fans. That’s true of all sports, not just football or basketball. Whether it’s soccer or volleyball or the ladies playing field hockey, they’re all here to be Cardinals and they all give us a chance to be proud of our school.” he continued.

Coach Hurtt also pointed out how big an impact sports have in the lives of the athletes on campus. “Some of these guys don’t come from the best situations. A lot of them, for their families, sports are their way out of a bad, or even dangerous, neighborhood. Sports are a way to teach them discipline and give them motivation. That’s not just our guys, that’s every sport that probably has at least one or two athletes who are here, who are learning to be leaders, who are having that chance to get an education who might not otherwise get that chance and that’s one thing we’re proud of as coaches. Louisville players are succeeding in the classroom as well as on the field.”

There is a lot that can be improved in how we see or value things both on campus and in society as a whole but sports do matter and are worthy of our time and attention, especially when the athletes are working so hard, on and off the field, to give us something to be proud of and earning the support they receive on game day.

 

Photo by Austin Lassell/The Louisville Cardinal

images

Finding the balance between simplicity and excess

By Daniel Runnels–

 

Reduce, reuse, and recycle. The three R’s are well-known. You can even put a cute little symbol on a bumper sticker or product packaging to let it be known that you are into being green. To be sure, lots of us are really good at the third R – recycling is pretty easy these days. It just means putting your plastic bottle in the blue bin instead of the black one, or leaving glass and cardboard in a different container so that the recycling people pick it up on Thursday morning instead of the trash people on Wednesday morning. What about the first two R’s? Those are much harder. Part of being green means simply having fewer things, reducing the amount of stuff you have. This is largely contrary to the way we do life.

 

We get conflicting messages about having material wealth. President Obama constantly hails consumer spending as the answer to many of our countries problems – Just get out there and buy stuff! It will increase capital flow, banks will start lending again, companies will invest in new products and new hires, the nation’s deficit will plummet and all will be well – rarely a word about whether or not you actually need a third TV.

 

Pope Francis, on the other hand, recently outlined a fairly biting critique of global capitalism, a system that encourages over-consumption. His recent publication is not so terribly different from other church writings on economics, but it is made powerful by his decision to live humbly. Instead of taking residence in the apostolic palace, he stays in a modest guest room. He teaches by example.

 

There is something romantic about choosing to live humbly. I am reminded of a man I met a number of years ago during a summer I spent in southern France: Rogelio, a Mexican hombre who has lived just about everywhere. He was so cool! He spoke multiple languages, kind of looked like Tarzan, and had very few material possessions. He wore plain white t-shirts every day and kept all of his belongings in a small black duffle bag.

 

Rogelio was pretty inspiring for me. So care-free! And able to pick up and move across the world at the drop of a hat! Wow!

 

I have, at times, felt like I was living a Rogelio-like existence. The feeling of not being tied down by things is very freeing. I learned something though. If you don’t have anything, you don’t have anything to give.

 

My friend Rogelio doesn’t have a car, so he can’t take a friend to the airport when they need it. He doesn’t have a couch so he can’t give someone who is passing through town a place to sleep. He doesn’t have a kitchen so he can’t cook a meal for his buddies.

 

How can I reconcile these two opposing models? Living humbly is both green and idyllic, but I want to be able to bless people and honor them in tangible ways. A couple years ago I got some great advice from Manuel, a teacher at a school where I used to work. He suggested that one of the most important things is “not to be a slave to anything.” This is how I think I can square this circle. It isn’t healthy to feel bad about having and buying nice things. The problem is when these things start to occupy an outsized importance in your life. If I make sure that the things I have enhance my life and put me in a position to honor others, I think I reach the correct balance.

Letter to the Editor: Response to “Religious theories” article

By Lloyd Fowler–
I read Adam Dahmer’s opinion piece entitled “Opposing religious theories could be reconciled through science.” I am a senior at UofL and a member of the church, Third Avenue Baptist Church, that was pictured in Adam’s article. It was a well written article and it exposed to me new theories in science that I find fascinating and exciting. My church was pictured in the article, so I thought it would be appropriate to share that the Bible teaches us that Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6) and that science cannot reconcile religious theories. It’s the inclusively, exclusivity of Jesus, not metaphysics nor vacuous dynamism that saves people to Heaven. Jesus is inclusive to all who repent and believe, but is exclusive because He is the only way. I will throw in a caveat that I do believe that science is consistent with Christianity.
I just finished listening to a sermon by America’s most famous theologian, Jonathan Edward, called “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” for a paper that I am writing for POLS 495. It is deep and heavy about why Jesus Christ is our greatest need. Jesus is our greatest need because sin has separated us from God since the Garden of Eden. Apart from Christ, we (sinners) are in the hands of an angry God who hates sin and rebellion against his creation and His authority. God will crush sinners upon judgement day. Science cannot reconcile this reality of our sin nature.
Jesus Christ (fully man yet fully God) was in the hands of an angry God on the cross. He did not commit sin, but he bore our sin. He remained perfectly holy, simultaneously being crushed by the Father because our sin had been placed on him. He died the death that we deserved. We should have had God’s wrath poured out on our own sin instead of our perfect sinless substitute, Jesus (2nd Corinthians 5:21). If we repent, turn from our sins, and believe in Jesus Christ (Mark 1:15) then we are no longer in the hands of an angry God, but rather in the hands of a God who redeemed us through the life, death and resurrection of His son. We become co-heirs with Christ in the inheritance of salvation as sons and daughters of God (Romans 8:17) when one becomes a Christian. When the Father looks on us, He no longer sees our sin, but Jesus’ perfection and righteousness because we are attached to Jesus through faith. Nothing I do will save me because if I could save myself by being a good person then Jesus died for no reason (Galatians 2:21). God’s love and redemption is so shocking when one considers what we truly deserved to begin with apart from Christ. It’s even more shocking that God would kill a sinless man, His Son, for the redemption of sinners! Yet, God did it because it pleased Him!
The Bible has over 40 authors that wrote the Bible over thousands of years and they communicate the same consistent message that we cannot save ourselves and that we need Jesus Christ as our substitute before the Father for our transgressions against Him and His perfect creation. Genesis 3:15foreshadows that Christ will crush the head of the serpent, Satan. The Lamb in Revelations 5 describes how Christ was the ransom for many. The Bible tells the same story from Genesis to Revelations! The advances in science, no matter how exciting, cannot reconcile what God has already reconciled through Jesus.
What I explained in the second paragraph is the Gospel. It’s the good news of how Jesus Christ saves sinners. If you would like to hear more about it please come check out Cardinal Christian Fellowship in Humanities 100 at 7:30pm on Wednesdays. Our last meeting for the semester was Thursday, but please come explore who Jesus is next semester. Cardinal Christian Fellowship is a campus ministry of Third Avenue Baptist Church, the church that was pictured in Adam’s article. Thank you for allowing me to explain that science cannot reconcile religious theories when Jesus is the only way.
Photo by Sasha Perez/The Louisville Cardinal
271326699_470

Men should not grow their hair out

By Val Servino–

 

Growing up, I never imagined long hair would become the thing to have – but then Justin Bieber came along. Maybe it was his Canadian wiles, maybe it was his prepubescent voice, but suddenly every John, Dick, and Stanley was rocking the side-bang.

 

It got worse.

 

Bieber cut his hair. The look stayed.

 

You maybe forgot to schedule your hair appointment that week. Between work and class, it’s understandable. But after week four, the side-bang becomes less of a Justin Bieber and more of a bob, straight out of your mom’s high school yearbook photo. Not a cute look.

 

If you have any interaction with the male populous, you will know that this is called ‘flow’ or occasionally, ‘lettuce.’ No one is quite sure if this is a subconscious recognition of the innately feminine nature of this odd breed of long-maned men, or simple coincidence.

 

Speaking as a recovering ‘flower,’ I realize the allure. “If Jeff Bridges does it, why can’t I?” you ask yourself. “Patrick Kane flow will surely make me a better hockey player,” you think – and maybe it’s the placebo effect, but it seems to work for a while.

 

But contrary to popular belief, you are not Jeff Bridges, nor are you Patrick Kane. Your long hair will not make girls date you, win you a Stanley Cup, or miraculously clear up that acne you’ve been battling since 2005. You may want to call the Proactiv people for that.

 

At this point, you’re probably thinking to yourself, “Screw you, man! It’s my hair!” and that is your prerogative. However, if we’re being honest, girls only look for two things in guys: buzz cuts and six-pack abs. How good are your odds? And employers, well, they care less about core strength and more about professionalism.

 

Do yourself a favor and chop the ‘lettuce,’ dudes.

This article is in response to an article written on Total Frat Move, which can be found here: http://totalfratmove.com/why-girls-should-not-cut-their-hair-short/

Photo courtesy of alibaba.com

U of L and faith: Sophomore Morgan King

By Lynnsey McGraw–

Meet Morgan King. She is a sophomore at the University of Louisville, majoring in Nursing and minoring in Spanish. Living the very busy life of a college student along with having a job, she still finds time to have faith and grow in Christianity.

Does faith affect her academic life?

“My religion and desire to help others and be like God directed me to choose Nursing as a major, but I don’t feel like it directly affects other aspects of academics,” King said.

How about being faithful and being part of a sorority and other community groups?

“I am in the sorority Pi Beta Phi,” King revealed. “I am open with my sisters about being a Christian and some of our values and traditions are based in Christianity, but we have people of a variety of faiths and we accept each other and respect each other no matter what we believe.”

King is also involved with the best buddies program and habitat for humanity group here on campus.

Apart from the sorority, how does she interact with the rest of the university’s population? Does being a Christian affect her social life?

“Yes, being a Christian affects my social life,” she said. “I chose to associate with people who have similar beliefs and want the same things out of life and eternity that I do because we have more to talk about and we want to encourage each other and we enjoy similar activities. However, I do not shun others with different beliefs because God tells us to love everyone. I also enjoy community service events and things to help others instead of just partying all of the time like many people do.”

Does she feel other students try to hide their religion because of judgement?

“I feel that people are usually fairly open with their religion due to our ever-accepting society, but there are definitely some who hide their views, or at least aren’t very open with them, due to fear of judgment. Many people do have preconceived notions of ‘atheists,’ ‘Christians’ or ‘Jews.’ Although we are making strides forward, there are lingering stereotypes and some people are afraid others will lump them into a group instead of respecting them as an individual.”

 

Photo by Sasha Perez/The Louisville Cardinal

Dexter-Morgan

Newest Netflix addiction: “Dexter”

By Sammie Hill–

I began watching “Dexter” with understandable reluctance and only after encouragement from others. After all, a show about a serial killer could only be disturbing at best, right? However, after several episodes, I realized that the allure of the show lied not in the violence but in the relatable problems of Dexter Morgan’s conflicted identity.

 

A forensic analyst who doubles as a serial killer, Dexter learned to tame his overwhelming urges to kill by only targeting other murderers. His foster father, a policeman preoccupied with justice, viewed Dexter’s desires as an opportunity for killers who evaded the criminal justice system to finally get the punishment they deserve.

 

Upon learning of his son’s desire to kill animals and eventually people, Dexter’s father trained him to carefully select his victims—murderers—and meticulously execute his crimes in order to avoid detection and capture. This instilled in Dexter a “code” that he follows in lieu of a conscience.

 

As the series continues, Dexter learns of his past, which helps explain his murderous desires and also makes him question his father and the “code” he had unquestionably followed all his life.

 

Torn between the choice of embracing or deploring the “monster” he is, Dexter addresses the internal struggles that virtually all human beings face at one point or another in life—issues of self-doubt, morality, identity and authenticity.

 

Although it sounds strange to develop an affinity for a serial killer, fans of the show can’t help but sympathize with Dexter. In Dexter, viewers see pieces of themselves. He may be a “monster,” but his desire for normalcy, his confusion regarding a traumatizing past, and his conflicted identity are all painfully human.

 

“Dexter” confronts these issues, crafting an engaging storyline and relatable characters. I’m only on season two, but “Dexter” is slowly helping to fill the gaping emptiness left by the departure of “Breaking Bad.”

 

Photo courtesy of mordbilyamusing.com

images

A modest proposal: Cannibalism should be reconsidered

By Adam Dahmer–

 

Last issue, I spoke at length of things divine. The response was surprisingly negative, with some of my readers condemning my irreverence, and others at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum chastising me for being “preachy.” I appreciate the level of engagement from my readership, but I feel that some of you have been woefully underexposed to provocative journalism. For those of you who were offended, I wrote this article, in hopes that I can show you what a truly controversial opinion piece ought to look like.

Cannibalism, the consumption of human flesh by human beings, is widely frowned upon in
Western Society. People eschew the “other red meat” in all but the direst of circumstances, when physiological forces like madness or starvation compel them to abandon social norms. This is, in my opinion, a flaw in the social structure of our civilization which, for various reasons, ought to be corrected.

In the first place, there is no shortage of historical precedent for cannibalism – not the desperate, half-hearted sort practiced by castaways, or the depraved symptom of psychopathy – but wholesome, decent, community centered cannibalism. In fact, cultures throughout history, and from various geographical regions, have used cannibalism as the ultimate means of honoring the dead. This sort of veneration comes in two forms: indocannibalism, and exocannibalism.

Exocannibals devour pieces of their worthiest enemies, while indocannibals eat the remains of their departed loved ones. Both practices have decided benefits. How better to acquire the noblest attributes of your foes or ancestors than by osmostically, by digestion?

The concept is unscientific, yes, but certainly poignant in its symbolism. Realistically, exocannibalism would probably fail to gain wide acceptance in the developed world, simply because no one wants to be eaten by their enemies, even in a complimentary way.

To my mind, that seems selfish. The unlucky porcine at my breakfast table didn’t begrudge me his bacon, and surely human beings ought to be held to a higher moral standard than pigs. Nonetheless, in the case of cannibalism, as in all interactions of the flesh, consent is paramount to social acceptance. If people don’t want to be fed to hostile strangers, I suppose they can’t ethically be forced to do so, no matter how unselfless their motives. After all, despite any nominal connection to a certain cannibalistic serial killer—no relation—I would hardly advocate immoral cannibalism; to the contrary, strict ethics must apply.

All in all, indocannibalism presents a far more likely candidate for a successful social movement than its violent alternative.

How many times has a beloved great aunt told you “you’re just so cute, I could eat you up?” Through indocannibalism, in what is surely a touching eulogy-of-action, you could finally say the same of her.

How often have you wished that a relative could be part of you forever? Well, wish no more! Some of the nutrients derived from your loved ones’ bodies will likely come to compose some molecules your very DNA, passing along from generation to generation in a glorious, doubly personal genetic inheritance.

Additionally, cannibalism gives the deceased an excellent asset in estate planning.  Real estate and money are, of course, valuable bequeathments, but they couldn’t compare with the prestigious privilege of taking the first bite.

Finally, a willingness to be cannibalized is a testament to the virtue of the departed. Nothing is more generous than giving your surviving family members your very last and dearest earthly possession –one that you kept with you your entire life.

In addition to a wealth of new funerary traditions, cannibalism would contribute enormously to the public good. Cemetery plots, and the caskets and vaults that fill them, entail vast expenditures of time and money, and the gross misuse of valuable resources like timber, steel, urban space and arable land. Concurrently, the recession economy has made hunger a growing problem, even in the United States. By eating the dead, we could handily eliminate two social ills in one a single, swift action!

Cannibalism would also serve as an added incentive to stay in shape, since no one would want to be remembered as being unpalatably fat, bony, or gristly, or as containing an unsafe level of trans-fats. Regular exercise and a healthy diet would ensure that everyone was at least as edible as his or her peers. As the saying goes, we have to keep up with the Joneses.

After reviewing the evidence, a reasonable person could only come to the conclusion that cannibalism is not an evil to be shunned by polite society, but a social good—even a moral imperative! So, the next time someone asks “What’s eating you?” elevate your chest, uplift your eyes, and declare with pride, “No one yet, but one day, my children!”

Does football have a justified place in college?

By Daniel Runnels–

 

We are a football nation by now, right? Baseball occupies a special place in our national identity and we find time for basketball, but as Stephen Hayes pointed out in a recent appearance on Fox News, game one of the 2013 World Series got “basically the same [television] ratings” as the—apparently terrible—Monday Night Football game between the Minnesota Vikings and the New York Giants. My personal beef with the sport of football is not aimed at the NFL, but the observation by Mr. Hayes helps to set up an important point: we sure do love our football.

 

What I have come to wonder though, is why exactly football is a part of our higher education system? I’m a full-time student with an eye on a career in academia, but the whole spectacle of college football doesn’t strike me as very pertinent to what I think universities are supposed to be about: academics.

 

I’m not the first to wonder this, nor did I invent my opposition out of thin air. I owe most of my considerations to Malcolm Gladwell and Buzz Bissinger who first got me thinking about college football in a critical way. Indeed, they explain their opposition much more eloquently than I am about to do.

 

To start, I call my anti-college football views “mostly principled” because I don’t mind admitting that, although I played and watched football as a child, at some point the sport simply started to bore me—I’d rather watch paint dry!

 

In many cases, athletic competition goes a long way to inspire us to take care of our bodies. In the case of football though, there is a good deal of evidence pointing to the real damage done to player’s brains due to the repeated blows to the head sustained during each and every play. Seeing a player get knocked out on the field is a powerful image, but there is research showing that the real damage goes unnoticed throughout the course of a game. Constant hits and collisions have lasting neurological consequences that are physically hurting the young people that play the game. It is bad for their brains. Universities ostensibly exist for the purpose of shaping and enhancing young minds; does football contribute to this goal?

 

After having this conversation with a friend the other day, it occurred to me that my university’s mission statement might shed some light on exactly where college football fits into the picture. Easily accessible via the University of Louisville’s website, the mission statement of U of L states, “The University of Louisville shall be a premier, nationally recognized metropolitan research university with a commitment to the liberal arts and sciences and to the intellectual, cultural, and economic development of our diverse communities and citizens…” It goes on to list five focuses of the U of L community that include things like “educational experience” and “research, creative, and scholarly activity.” I don’t see much room in a statement like this for an activity that is inherently violent and hurts people.

 

I understand that by taking this position I sound a lot like The Fun Police. After all, I’m just a young, artsy-fartsy, liberal, ivory tower aspirant who is casting aspersions on something that a lot of people love. My goal, however, is not to be The Fun Police or to convince everyone to stop playing football. My objection is with football’s close ties to the university institution. I admit that I’m not interested in the NFL either, but I see that as a very different issue. If Peyton Manning wants to sell his labor to the Denver Broncos in the form of quarterbacking his team and getting pummeled while doing it, he can do it! That’s capitalism! We have a market for the sport and people are filling the market. As a commercial enterprise, the NFL is great at what it does and I wish it the best.

 

College football, though, is tougher for me to be okay with. The University of Louisville is a great school that has a strong tradition of academic excellence, but I’m not convinced that football helps us get there. Instead, it creates a show out of 22 young athletes doing long-term damage to their brains, and occasionally breaking an arm or a leg. That being said, my stance is entirely non-dogmatic. Maybe it would be worthwhile to hear Teddy Bridgewater, Coach Charlie Strong, or even President James Ramsey himself give a strong defense for football in the university arena.

 

Photo by Austin Lassell/The Louisville Cardinal