Another milestone in SMH history....
 

Can you imagine what kind of person it takes to write a letter like this?

I don't like tattoos and some of these hairstyles myself. But I also know it is none of my business. If I see somebody walking down the street w/the waist of their pants closer to their knees than their belly button, I'm not going to tell them to pull their pants up. I'll just SMH & move on. What makes him think his status as an alumni gives him the right to have a say so in how others in the uniform groom themselves?

I'm with you on this one. Besides my wife, I am literally the only person among my friends without a tattoo. You think I berate my friends about their tattoos? I really don't even think about it. I worry about me, live and let live.

I can't tell him it's not racist because....well it is!

And thankfully that 'older' generation of graduates (and older people in general who think this way) is dying out.

It's his opinion and he's entitled to it. Same as those who disagree with him.

It's not his fault that he didn't know dreadlocks are formal attire way before American football existed. Tattoo is also something of very long tradition.

To not know of those things is to show that he's "not been there before". People who haven't been there before being ignorant is unfortunate but often hard to avoid.

He's entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to scold complete strangers because they don't mesh with his opinion.

Thank you for adding absolutely nothing of value to this conversation.
So bravo for that

I completely agree with the "SMH & move on" and "live and let live" sentiments, and also agree that "It's his opinion and he's entitled to it."

I definitely do not agree that it's racist. I mean, the letter writer could be racist, but merely objecting to dreads, tats, and over-the-top endzone displays does not make one racist. He could feel the same way about the ridiculous beards common on baseball players, especially relievers. That wouldn't make him racist. Not enough is known about the letter-writer to say that he's racist, only that he likes traditional grooming and on-field behavior. Again, that doesn't make him racist... IMO, people are WAY too-freakin'-frequently throwing around the "racist" label, thus cheapening it for when it should actually apply.

Personally, I think dreads are kinda cool, but I also identify with the letter writer's sentiment that "players should act like they've been there before" when they reach the endzone or make a nice play. That doesn't make me racist.

Please read the letter again. Words like 'awful' 'disgusting' 'clean cut men and women of those days' 'not attractive'


Dog whistles and coded language are all throughout that letter. To think otherwise is willful blindness.

The author might as well have written 'I enjoyed sports back before integration before black people ruined it with their niggerishness'

It may not be intentionally racist, but it's racist by ignorance.

It's like how people would call food of other culture disgusting. We understand people say that because food of other culture is not within their social norms, but we also know the comment is made with lack of understanding of different culture and is of racism nature.

Using your own social norm to demean other social norm is by definition racist. People who are ignorant quite often can't understand why there could be acceptable social norms other than their own though, therefore become racists by ignorance.

Dave might want to step back and look at how he is representing his university.


I don't know that we need to label Dave as racist, or many people who are so labeled, but I think I it's safe to say there is some racial bias going on in Dave's mind

Respectfully disagree, with that caveat as stated above that we don't know enough. But "racist by ignorance" sounds to me like the all-too-familiar subtext of "you disagree with me so you must be racist."

Liking the "clean-cut" values of a bygone era does not mean you also embrace the racist (or sexist or homophobic) components of that same era.

Again, we don't know enough about Dave. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, while acknowledging that he might in fact be racist. Others are attempting to read between the lines in order to pronounce him a racist.

I agree w/hef that racist is a term thrown around too often. All racist people are prejudiced, but not all prejudiced people are racist. I wouldn't say he was racist because he did complement the kid. Racists hate individuals no matter what they do. They hate them simply because they exist. There is nothing the kid could do to get the old fart to compliment him if he was racist.

But he is extremely, and I do mean EXTREMELY, prejudiced. If you look @ his past letter writing, dude has written negatively about people w/tattoos, noisy children in public, informing the public about muslims, and welfare. He makes Archie Bunker look like an ACLU donor.

You scold the NCAA all the time. You have the right to do that. I even agree with you much of the time. Why not this guy? He can certainly offer his opinion even if it's about a complete stranger.

1. NCAA is an organization, not an individual
2. The probs I have w/the NCAA has to do with being decent to fellow human beings. The problem this man has is with a person's right to make personal choices that are none of his business.
3. NCAA is a public entity. Grooming is a personal matter.
4. SInce the NCAA is a public entity, it invites public feedback from their consumers. This kid did not invite anyone's critique of his hair.

Like I said, he has the right to his opinion. But decency demands he keep it to himself. Would you like anyone to come to you and make critiques of YOUR personal individual choices? Your brand of car? How you keep your home? Your haircut? Your diet? How much time you spend on the OOTP forum? How you play OOTP? He should mind his own business.

Just how anal and shallow do you have to be to write such a letter? JFC...

Or, to paraphrase/plagiarize a couple of sayings... "Freedom of speech is best exercised when you say what you ought, rather than what you want." :D

I agree with you on this. I personally think what he said should have been kept to himself or to a scant few close to him. But hey, he's not me. But what he said reminds me of a lot of older people that like the clean cut look. If you grew up and had long hair they looked at you like you were an animal. Even a beard for some. So no, I don't think it had anything to do with race. I've known many of them growing up. If you're not clean cut, you're a bum. They may also be prejudice as well, but the clean cut opinion to them is universal.

That said, we live in a different world today. This is a time where people are insulted over just about anything. We live in a time where a kid can't even dress up as a Native American for Halloween for fear he might get sideways glances from some. So what did you expect?

The problem here isn't about liking the value of a bygone era. The problem here is to insult the value of others. The insult is probably not intentional, therefore I call it ignorance.

Dreadlocks have been formal hair style for a long long long time, way before the "bygone era" you are referring to ever existed. And it's not just some tribal stuff, but gods and warriors in many cultures, including ancient Europe.

A key reason many modern black Americans like this hairstyle is exactly because they want to have their own styles different representing different culture. To insult that look is racist, and to not know that's insulting is ignorant.

That's not a meaningful statement, since people won't agree on how it's defined.

I can define what I like to hear as what everybody ought to say, and what I don't want to hear as just what other people want to say but ought not say. And you can define it the same way just replace my preference with yours. How would that help anybody?

It's kind of like how the golden rule doesn't work, because not everybody wants to be treated the same way.