Our disciplinary action
I am writing in response to Andrew Zuckerman’s column “A Necessary Reform,” (April 24) which characterizes the Athletics Department’s Student-Athlete Code of Conduct as “laughable.” I disagree with Mr. Zuckerman’s statement that “the policy sheds poor light on the university when one of its high-profile athletes such as Reed gets in trouble and is thrust into the embarrassing public spotlight. Similar situations happened at Notre Dame and Massachusetts involving men’s lacrosse players, and both schools got it right.” The “similar” issue is that each student-athlete was charged with a DUI. Beyond that similarity, the specifics of each case and each student-athlete’s past disciplinary record are extremely different.
When speaking with Mr. Zuckerman prior to his column’s publication, I do not believe he reviewed the specifics of each case. The Department of Intercollegiate Athletics believes that, for a discipline policy to be fair, baseline disciplinary action should be established for varying offenses. When an offense occurs, each case is reviewed individually to ensure the baseline disciplinary actions are adequate for the specific student-athlete who has been charged with an offense. As such, I believe the department acted with integrity and alacrity when reviewing Reed’s misdemeanor charges. However, out of respect for Reed’s privacy, I will not detail additional punitive action the department is taking.
Unfortunately, Mr. Zuckerman also indicates that a two-game suspension for Travis is “laughable.” I can testify that, for Travis, there was nothing laughable about missing 15 percent of his team’s competitive schedule, which included two televised games and the legendary in-state battle against rival Johns Hopkins. In addition, both games were critical contests regarding the team’s NCAA ranking and tournament bid outcomes. In the future, I hope Mr. Zuckerman will ensure he has the complete fact set before comparing incidents to help best ensure that his readers may draw logical conclusions.
Kathy WorthingtonSenior Associate Athletic Director
Sexism is not so common
In Renard Sexton’s response (“The problem with our cultural norms,” April 25) to the now much-discussed April 17 letter, “Waiting not-so-patiently for Skirt Day,” he makes the case that Johnny Mathias’ letter betrays a deeper societal problem: Sexism is more accepted than other forms of prejudice and intolerance. The validity of Sexton’s argument, in which he implores us to think about how offensive a letter about “Do-Rag Day” might be considered, hinges still on the extent to which Mathias’ original letter might actually be considered sexist.
I would present to Sexton and others of his school of thought that the difference between sexism and other prejudices is not that the former is more accepted, but perhaps that it is more often diagnosed. I simply question whether we are really a society of misogynists, as Sexton and the likes of Rebecca Ogle and Lindsay Wilcox seem to think. Rather, could the case not be that a smaller number of very vocal feminists over-diagnose the situation, often citing sexism when there is none in the first place? I am more of the school of thought of author Katie Roiphe, who has more or less made the case that modern feminism doesn’t empower women so much as it encourages them to play the victim. I offer this viewpoint as one possibility among many because I can already foresee the harsh criticisms I will probably draw from the very feminists I’m encouraging to think twice.
Josh CrawfordFreshmanLetters and sciences
Air Your Views
The Diamondback welcomes your comments. Address your letters or guest columns to the Opinion Desk at opinion@dbk.umd.edu. All letters and guest columns must be signed. Include your full name, year, major and day- and night-time phone numbers. Please limit letters to 300 words. Please limit guest columns to between 550 and 700 words.
Submission of a letter or guest column constitutes an exclusive, worldwide, transferable license to The Diamondback of the copyright in the material in any media. The Diamondback retains the right to edit submissions for content and length.
Letters can also be submitted online here.
