Law and Order: College Edition

Between April and September, there isn’t much to do except follow college recruiting, watch videos from pick-up games, and argue pre-season rankings. Well, I mean, when it comes to college football and basketball. I can’t act like there are five months of No Sports At All, especially given all of the Pub posts that obviously contradict this assessment. But for someone who loves college sports, this is a slow period, and I find myself doing a lot of reading. A weird thread seems to have popped up this year: recruiting players with criminal records.

I don’t think that we’re about to see a rash of juvenile offenders entering the NCAA, but it does seem to be in the news a lot. Lane Kiffin offered a scholarship to Daniel Hood, a man who was convicted of a heinous crime when he was 13. He has shown contrition and the victim has openly forgiven him. Lance Stephenson was accused of misdemeanor sexual assault. He eventually signed with Cincinnati, who said that they were not deterred by his then-impending court case. Now, there is a confusing story about Anthony DiLoreto, who was accused of aiding a friend in a bank robbery, and may or may not pursue college basketball. He had initially received a scholarship to play at Cal Poly, but then chose to focus on the charges instead. Now, he and multiple coaches have said that DiLoreto had received a scholarship offer from St. Louis University. For him, his arrest may not have hindered his career, but rather, it may have given him that extra oomph of press and energy.  Stephenson pled guilty to disorderly conduct; however, DiLorento pled no contest and could now face up to 3.5 years in prison.

These stories have prompted some discussion of whether or not convicted felons should be given college football and basketball scholarships. It’s really easy to just make a snap judgment and make a pronouncement of “oh for fuck’s sake…NO!” but I am not made of knee jerk reactions (for what I am made of, please check out Grey’s Anatomy the book, not the crappy TV show). I percolate, like, well, a percolator.

For starters, I doubt that people would be against convicted felons making good, redeeming themselves, or showing signs of rehabilitation. There are many programs that make it easier to hire people with a criminal record, and for those people to prepare for and find jobs. We wouldn’t off the top deny someone the chance to get an education or work (except where that is in the best interest of the safety and security of others). The justice system seems built for that – you get convicted, receive a sentence, and pay your due back to society so that upon release you can start again, even if it doesn’t always work that way. I don’t think that denying a college education to someone is where this knee-jerk reaction comes from.

I think that it comes from the idea that scholarships, especially scholarships to play ball, aren’t some sort of right, but rather a high privilege bestowed upon the best. Many people wish they had a chance to play at that level, and to see people who have done such monstrous things get picked must sting. Moreover, it’s sort of unsettling to hold in high esteem and literally cheer on someone who was convicted of a stomach-turning crime. A college football scholarship doesn’t just allow one to attend college and get an education, but it opens the doors to be idolized by your peers (and weird, obsessive fans) and allows one to enter professional sports. It’s a prestigious thing, but not only is it prestigious, it is also high profile. I mean, a Fulbright Felon wouldn’t get this kind of attention because Fulbright scholars, as smart as they are, are not generally symbols of an entire region.

Tennessee football is bigger than Daniel Hood and his conviction, but Tennessee fans want to have pride in their program and their players. I can see that conflicting pretty strongly with his conviction, even though he has served his time and been forgiven. Which is why I am uncomfortable with such scholarship offers, but I cannot argue for them to be banned. In the end, while I don’t want kids to be looking up to felons, my bleeding heart does support the idea that a person is not defined by their mistakes. I would hate to actively deny someone the opportunity to receive an education and make the most of their life based solely on one act for which they have already done their time.

Tags: Anthony DiLoreto, Daniel Hood, Lance Stephenson, Lane Kiffin, scholarships and crime, Won't somebody think of the children?!
Categories: Domestics

This entry was posted on Monday, August 17th, 2009 at 4:00 pm and is filed under Domestics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.