From ABC's Good Morning America
[+]
by Paul M. Banks
It's amazing that Notre Dame football has been able to attain a 7-5 record and a bowl berth this season. The season has been a tremendous disappointment on the college football field, with the plaque of injuries the ND Fighting Irish have endured; decimating their crop of skill position players to the point where you see 2nd and 3rd teamers everywhere you look.
But what they've dealt with off the field concerns much bigger issues; huge issues and topics that make football look very insignificant by comparison. Two very young people lost their lives in incidents connected to the program. The Declan Sullivan tragedy is still being investigated internally; no resolution has been announced yet.
And then there's the Lizzy Seeberg case, which the state of Indiana closed last week. The next day, the Feds re-opened the case.
The incident allegedly occurred on September 1st. The alleged assault victim, Elizabeth "Lizzy" Seeberg of Northbrook, IL was diagnosed with clinical depression and possibly committed suicide nine days later. (The overdose on anti-depressants looks a lot like a suicide, but hasn't been confirmed). Seeberg's alleged sexual assailant is currently on the Notre Dame football team.
The identity of the alleged may or may not come out in the coming weeks. The fact that the only true witness has passed on makes things rather murky. But what we know for sure is that an incident of this magnitude is not receiving the amount of media coverage that it should.
While the tragic loss of Declan Sullivan and his macabre tweets forecasting his own death made every wire service, every network, every website and saturated the news cycle during the 10 day attention span (on average) that American news consumers possess, Lizzy Seeberg has gone somewhat unnoticed and under-reported by the press.
And that really is the only opinion and judgment I have for you in this post. I think it's a crime that the media isn't saying much about something that is literally a "Federal Case."
So I invite you to click on a must-read piece about what happened to the Seeberg family. Authored by Notre Dame alum Melinda Henneberger, Editor-in-Chief of Politics Daily. It tells the story of the Seeberg family, who have sent 11 members of their clan to the University of Notre Dame, and how ND has treated them in response to their loyalty will likely shock you.
I don't claim to know much about the facts of this case, but I'm hoping to become more educated on it. Henneberger's piece is a good start.
Here's a couple especially powerful excerpts:
Tom and Mary's daughter Lizzy, a 19-year-old freshman at Notre Dame's sister school, Saint Mary's College, committed suicide in September, 10 days after reporting that she had been fondled against her will by a Notre Dame football player whose aggressiveness terrified her so much that she froze, cried, and broke out in a rash.
Her fear for her safety in his dorm room after another couple left them alone was 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, she said in a police statement, until he was interrupted by a cell phone call and angrily "threw her off." The accused, a star whom head coach Brian Kelly has publicly praised in interviews both before and after Lizzy's death, has a history of behavior problems that continued even after he was recruited by Notre Dame; he was suspended during his senior year in high school for throwing a desk at a teacher who'd taken away his cell phone. Yet after Lizzy's allegations, he never sat out a single game, during a time that he could not have been "cleared," because he was not even interviewed by authorities until five days after she died -- 15 days after she'd filed her complaint. "How did they even know it was a 'he said/she said,' " Lizzy's mother Mary asks, "when they didn't talk to the guy for 15 days? They didn't know what he'd say."
Between 10 and 11 p.m. on August 31, she and a friend had a couple of beers in one of the guy's rooms, then went to the football player's room to have a "dance party." After the other couple left, according to the report Lizzy filed with police, the player told Lizzy to drink out of an opened beer container, and though she was hesitant, she did so, she said, because of the "tone" of the demand.
He "began to talk to Lizzy about his sexual activities and ask her about hers," an account by the Seeberg family lawyer says. "Lizzy did not feel safe. She asked to go to the restroom," but he insisted there wasn't a ladies room on the floor, and said she would "have to pee in the sink."
"I was extremely scared at the time of the assault," Lizzy told police, "and believed my safety was at risk resulting in doing what he asked of me." After she got out of the room, she immediately told her friend about what had happened, and e-mailed her therapist in Chicago.
The friend Lizzy told about the incident in detail immediately after returning to campus that night was not interviewed by the authorities until Sept. 22 -- the day before the Seebergs' meeting with Notre Dame's lawyers. On Sept. 23, the investigator in charge of the case at the university's police department told Mary Seeberg that he didn't know just how quickly they could finish looking into the allegations: "They said they were pretty busy because it's football season and there's a lot of underage drinking." The investigator also told the family that he had conducted a phone interview with the young man who'd sent Lizzy the menacing text, and had told him to "knock it off and not have any more contact."
Paul M. Banks is CEO of The Sports Bank.net , a Midwest webzine. He's also a regular contributor to the Tribune's Chicago Now network, Walter Football.com, Yardbarker Network, and Fox Sports.com
In other news, a University of Virginia lacrosse player beats his girlfriend to death and is arrested. His defense team currently is going with "She was on Adderall and had been drinking, so actually it was nobody's fault that she died from a beating. Actually, she was probably abusing Adderall, all the kids do it...yes, even though she had a prescription bottle of it in her room."
ReplyDeletehttp://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2010/12/lax-murder-defendant-challenges-cause-death-ruling
This makes college sports look...oh, so wholesome!
Yes, the Yeardley Love story...terrible.
ReplyDeleteWhat gets me is that every aspect of universities *except* athletic departments seems to be up for scrutiny, cost-cutting, or just plain cutting. I just looked up the sports program at SUNY Albany (home of the disappearing French and other humanities programs); I'm not sure how extensive it is, but it sure has a fancy website (with lots of sponsors, which probably plays a role): http://www.ualbanysports.com/ .
ReplyDeleteNotre Dame's behavior is reprehensible, and just plain sad. Maybe I'm naive, but I expect better of a Catholic institution. They've taken their eyes off the real goal, and are worshiping idols instead.
Maybe I'm naive, but I expect better of a Catholic institution.
ReplyDeleteCatholic "institutions" have earned themselves a horrible reputation over the centuries and in recent years. I wouldn't blame Catholicism here, but I would not expect it to be any less corrupt than any other institution.
Well, I'm gonna go ahead and say it: condemning so many expressions of sexuality is bound to produce believers who break the social contract. I'm not saying every believer does so; I am saying that the Catholic Church's doctrine around sexuality and the guilt that "sinners" suffer is bound to produce some anti-social behavior, and a lot of cover-ups about that behavior.
ReplyDeleteSo there. Bring it on. Meanwhile, though, jock culture has its own pathologies, universities only care about the bottom line -- this is not just a story about Catholicism.
@Marcia: and Notre Dame's love affair with football seems to be a Catholic variation on Muscular Christianity (originally a Protestant phenomenon), which basically offers an outlet for near-worship of the male body without getting into messy issues like sexual desire, or dealing with the female body at all. So, yeah, lots of denial and sublimation and condemnation and other unhealthy stuff going on, with results that are hardly surprising.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, this is hardly a Catholic problem, though it probably plays out a bit differently in a Catholic environment. I just wish somebody would figure out whether athletic teams are really good for the bottom line, as opposed to name recognition, which I won't dispute. Of course, being known as that school where one kid was killed while filming a football practice in a hurricane and another died after being assaulted by a football player is not exactly the kind of name recognition one wants.
The standard line we get here at Big State is that "the football / basketball / shuffleboard team brings in its own money, and that's why they get to have those fancy stadiums while we can't keep our libraries open very late at night."
ReplyDeleteI can't quite figure out if that's true or not...the other justification I've heard for Big Sports is what Cassandra says: Name recognition, aka: rich kids come here because it has good sports.
Last thought: Friend who has been keeping me apprised of the Yeardley Love business is from Atlanta. I asked her if the university's response had been conditioned in any way by the "southern school" business. She replied that certainly, in Atlanta, "men get away with all kinds of stuff because of that 'boys will be boys' thing."
Will Catholic boys be boys?
I don't know. Our own, non Catholic, Second String State U and our non-Catholic Big Southern State U both have pretty awful records in terms of violence on campus...and don't get me started on the alcohol accidents.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Cassandra: Actually, there have been a number of studies of athletics' effect on the bottom line, and for the most part at the big-name sports schools it isn't good. Only a few (at last count under 12) athletic departments nationwide actually turn a profit. The rest are net takers from the institutional budget. The ones that do turn a profit are all in the big conferences where they benefit from football and men's basketball television money, and Notre Dame, which has a private tv contract with NBC. So from a financial standpoint, athletic departments are actually a drag on their schools. This cannot be disputed.
ReplyDeleteThere are usually two counter-arguments offered by the supporters of athletics. The first is that the unprofitability of athletic departments is mostly a result of Title IX, and that the two big revenue sports--football and men's basketball--do make money which is then used to subsidize lesser sports, especially women's sports. There is some truth to this claim, but the argument is weak nevertheless for two reasons, First, because Title IX has been an unqualified success on its own terms--creating gender parity in sports. And more importantly, because women's sports have become so ingrained in the culture now (in terms of participation, rather than audience) that any attempt to roll back Title IX would cause more uproar than a major tax hike. Title IX is here to stay, so there is no point in debating its effects on athletic department budgets.
The second, slightly stronger, argument is that success in the two revenue-generating sports translates into more applications for admission and more alumni giving. The statistical correlation on that score is quite strong, especially on the application side, and it is difficult to argue against it. The donations are trickier, since a lot of those donations are specifically for the athletic department, and serve only to cushion its operating losses. Proponents argue that giving to athletics is a gateway drug that leads donors to giving for academics, but to my knowledge there is not a single study that backs that claim up. More importantly, it all begs the question of whether the money spent/lost on athletics is worth the slight uptick in applications and giving? Boosters say hell yes, and critics say hell no..
As a former college athlete, I have mixed feelings, but think that two issues tip the balance away from preserving the status quo. The first is that the two revenue sports function as cost-free minor league systems for the NBA and the NFL. I'd be in favor of keeping the system we have, if those two leagues would contribute money to balance the books of big-time sports schools. That isn't going to happen though. The second is that jock-culture, or whatever you want to call it, has pretty evident problems, and the two revenue sports tend to be source of most of those problems. Problems that could be in some measure mitigated if the only athletes on campus were in non-revenue sports--even though the Va Lax case doesn't conform to that prediction.
The easy way out of the dilemma is to scrap football, which is both the biggest revenue generator, and the biggest cause of Title IX related revenue loss (to make up for the huge football rosters, schools have to run several women's teams). Ditching football while running a successful men's basketball program can balance the athletic department's budget. Indeed, my own undergraduate alma mater (a div II powerhouse) has never had football for this very reason, and its athletics mostly break even. Of course that isn't an option for the schools in the big conferences, but it is at scores of non-conference, or non BCS conference schools, and I'd like to see it happen in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath.
The only way out for Notre Dame: Rudy the hell out of it. Anytime this things are brought up, "Fighting Irish" fans are supposed to scream "RUDY" or mention that stupid film to change the subject or down it out.
ReplyDeleteTo be serious, this is why I'm opposed to all college sports but Chess; they want to have a football team, fine, but they do it by themselves. I think people are scared of these meathead coaches and their phlanax of goons when it should be vice-versa because the f-ball team has been something of a liability since the 1990s. To use a car analogy, the football team is a solid gold Rolls-Royce hood ornament welded onto the nose of a clapped-out `89 Buick.
@ Marcia: Total BS. Twelve years of Catholic education turned me into an agnostic, not a sex offender.
ReplyDeleteIt's the jock mentality, IMO.
@ Archie: The other solution is to professionalize the football team. Then it no longer counts against Title IX and you can have the wrestling and men's volleyball teams back.
ReplyDeleteBesides, given the drag on academic standards and quality of student life represented by treating all the football players as "students," not to mention the time commitments expected of the players, it makes more sense to pay them, then have them pay tuition if they plan to take classes. It worked for Alan Page, who went to law school while playing for the Vikings.
Lastly, it would bring the feeder-team system out in the open.
Kari,
ReplyDeleteTwelve years of Catholic education didn't turn you into much of a reader, apparently. Responding to Contingent Cassandra, I said it's the ones who DON'T question the sexually repressive doctrine who are more likely to experience the kind of cognitive dissonance that leads to sexual abuses of power (to be fair, I'd say that about fundamentalist Baptists, too, though). That's not you, clearly.
But I think we all agree that university politics and big-name college athletic culture are to blame here, whatever else is in the mix. I just wouldn't be too quick to subtract repressive sexual doctrine from it entirely.
I'll sign on for "detrimental repressive sexual doctrine" if we don't make it solely Catholic, or Christian for that matter. I'm trying to think of a major religion that doesn't exist in a culturally misogynistic and sexually repressive context which a large number of its adherents claim that religion supports, and coming up blank.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear I'm not actually against religion at all. I am against misogyny and repression.
I'm at a Canadian institution, and big sports is not an issue up here, and I am profoundly grateful for this.
Merely: Deal. I just feel weird saying that about religions that aren't my own.
ReplyDeleteArchie,
ReplyDeleteExcellent explanation of the issues related to college sports and money. Your synopsis is dead-on. Unfortunately, as a college football fan, I'd really hate to see it go on the BCS level at least. As for Midwestern Miracle Univeristy where I teach, it would be a Godsend. The football team sucks and the players suck as students. Lose-lose for me.
Anyway, feel free to sign me up for getting rid of basketball. I have use for it despite playing it in high school. That was before the days of players being covered in tattoos I'd rather not see.