Sickening Images from Racist ... err ... Trojan Nation

Adande

wrote about this in Sunday's Times.

Pom Pom's excuses about this incident were nothing short of pathetic. He simply thought that they should not have posted this stuff on the internet. Apparently, the content itself was not offensive--it was just wrong to post it on the net. As much as I dislike KD, if this happened at our school, I don't think you would hear the same excuses from our coaches.

by Barnes2JJ on Mar 12, 2007 8:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

FYI -- Adande did a piece yesterday...

... and he was NOT happy about it.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/columnists/la-sp-adande11mar11,1,7762258.column?coll=la-headlines-spor ts-columnists

Under the title of "USC racial 'joke' is no barrel of laughs," Adande had more than a few choice quotes for his column (all boldface added).

This one's incredible, even for The Humanitarian.

I asked Carroll about the controversy and he said: "It's not a controversy, it's a mistake.

Adande didn't stop there.

[The Trojans] need to talk about it more. Drill it into their heads with as much repetition and redundancy as a blocking scheme. Because clearly they didn't comprehend the dangers of taking inside jokes outside, especially on the Internet where anyone can see. No player would post Saturday's game plan on the Internet, so why would they think it's OK to post a racist joke?

But WAIT, there's more:

It's not as if bad ideas are limited to the football team. A couple of years ago, a fraternity thought it would be cute to have a U.S.-Mexican border themed party, complete with barbed-wire fence and warning signs in the yard. ...

With direct reference to that image above:

The "White Nation" page brought someone from outside the initial group who posted an offensive picture and suggested African American babies should be incarcerated.

Adande's best stuff was in regard to some letters to the Daily Trojan calling the matter a problem of political correctness:

... On the [Daily Trojan's] website comments section, a number of people blasted the negative response to the Facebook group as another case of being "politically correct."

I hate that term with a passion, and I'm sick of people swinging it like a machete whenever people really mean that they miss the good old days when you could mock or disrespect people's race or gender without repercussions.

And, of course, Adande made sure to mention in the article this bit of news:

This wasn't even the worst news associated with USC athletics this week.

Prized basketball recruit O.J. Mayo was one of four males cited on misdemeanor marijuana charges when officers pulled over a car in West Virginia. ...

Ladies and gentlemen of the Nation, I submit to you that Adande has swung back at $C, and has done so with a regulation MLB bat, complete with about a dozen crooked nails sticking out of the business end, and the top six inches of said bat soaked in charcoal lighter and set ablaze.

Well done, JA. Bravo.

MIM

by Meriones on Mar 12, 2007 8:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Somehow I missed that. Okay Adande is down.

But when will Plaschke, Modesti, and Dillbeck speak up on their beloved Trojans?

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2007 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

Thanks for posting the pics. Neither the article about this in the Times, nor Adande's piece, mentioned the Swastika or how horrible the cartoon is of the baby. These pics really bring home the hideousness of this incident.

But, don't forget, Pom Pom only thinks this was a "mistake." And, according to Pom Pom, the "mistake" was the morons' posting this stuff on the net and not keeping these racist insults to themselves!

Just incredible!

by Barnes2JJ on Mar 12, 2007 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm Curious ---

a what point does an sc football player step over the line?

Obviously, racism, back door dealing with agents, academic dishonesty, and violent crimes are ok.

What's now appearing to be just as obvious -- there are no lines, no standards of conduct -- if you play football.

And, there appears to be no teaching going on -- off the playing field -- if you are in the football program.

This website does not just taint the football team, it taints the entire university.

That any sc student, whether on a team or not, would post something like this shows a total lack of understanding or appreciation of "diversity" and the roles that symbols create in perpetrating intolerance and hatred.

I am a "true believer" in Free Speech -- even stupid exercises of the right. I would prefer not to censor these idiots. I'd rather the ideas be made public so that they can be subjected to scrutiny, critiqued, and be the subject of a dialogue that educates not only the idiots that posted them but the entire community.

What is most troubling is not that these remarks were made in the first place. That was bad enough.

But, the total failure of the university and press to use them as a springboard to question the beliefs expressed and the manner in which they were made is disgusting.

The students have failed.

The university and the press have failed in a more important way.

No one has been more critical of our football coach for his work on the field.

But, all of us who criticize him as a coach have deep respect for him as a person.

Our coach would respond.

Our administration would respond.

And, if we owned a newspaper, like sc owns the Times, our newspaper would respond.

How much lower can sc go? I'm sure they will show us.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 12, 2007 8:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How far is too much?

Well... OJ got away with murder, but he was still invited by Pom Pom to the practices. There doesn't seem to be any sense of decency associated with that program, and worse yet, I know fans who have share the sentiment, "whatever. they gotta do what they gotta do to win." Talk about spitting on the concept of "university".

I am almost proud to say that I'd gladly take KD with a WORSE record than he has now than take $c and their unbelievable track record for thuggery.

by bruinbunz on Mar 12, 2007 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

*share

man i really need to review my posts before i post them.

by bruinbunz on Mar 12, 2007 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For Southern Cal

A player only steps over the line only when they lose. Anything else, acceptable.

by stevenucla on Mar 12, 2007 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not my take

Fortunately, I don't read the fishwrap, so I don't have it firsthand (and frankly I don't want it firsthand, but that's another story.)

I think this guy is saying, "Hey, fellas, it's OK to have these racist things going, just don't get caught. Do your racist thing - be racist - do all of that. Just don't get caught. When you get caught, it's embarrassing, and we have to play it down for a while."

Who at BN thinks AA is a class guy for an African-American? We all think he's a class guy, PERIOD. (And if I included someone who doesn't want to be included in the ALL part of that last sentence, then one of the two of us needs to leave this place.)

I think this latest bit from the fishwrap is just more of the same trOJan apologists doing what they have to do to preserve the plantation mentality that goes on over there. There's the haves, who's daddies sent them off to make it through the tough times of academia armed only with their Porsches, an unlimited checking account, and the syllabus for Senora Ross's class. Then there's the black kids who play sports for a few seasons then drop out.

I'm sure that's an overgeneralization, but not by much. IMO.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 8:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

A plantation

that is exactly what that football program is looking like right now. No other way to spin it.

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2007 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lack of institutional control

At some point, someone is going to have to point out the lack of institutional control. Isn't that when the NCAA really begins to look at a program? Pete the Cheat Carrol may keep saying this is an isolated incident; but there are too many "isolated" incidents for this to stay down for too long.

Also, I believe we should be able to go after good hard-nosed Clean players. Any self-respecting parent who wants their kid to play and learn to be a responsible adult should have no problem choosing UCLA over Fig. Tech. That is the one good thing I can say about coach Karl.

by FullertonBruin on Mar 12, 2007 9:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

SC Lawyers

Apparently SC AD has added PR specialists to the team of lawyers who they have on staff. I'll bet the PR types and lawyers come to the same meetings, and I would love to be a fly on the wall with a recorder for those events. Their budget is growing and may require another boost in football ticket prices to pay the bills. The next building to be built may be the annex to the AD where these types can have nice downtown type digs!! Of course, asking what is right and wrong will never be discussed only the specific PR and legal ramifications of an act or omission. OJ Mayo is fortunate as he will be cushioned by these "specialists" until this eligibility runs out or he opts to the NBA.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by BillSouthBay on Mar 12, 2007 9:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Bifurcation at USC

I am very proud of my law degree that I got from the USC Law Center. It was and is a great law school located at an inferior university.

When I went to law school, many years ago, the Law Center took great strides to distance itself from the undergraduate schools. They "separated" or "bifurcated" the campus.

We ran a completely different class schedule, vacation schedule, etc..

Even though I have absolutely NO identification with sc, I am still embarassed that they are now tainting my graduate school degree.

As usual, the greatest power we alum's have is the power of our checkbooks. The next time the Law Center asks for a check, I think I'll tell them to clean up the football program becasue, though I'm in no way associated with the undergraduate program, it is like a nearby sewer that is overflowing and stinking up my law school.

sjh

PS. For some reason, sc has become somewhat "trendy" amongst kids graduating from Houston high schools. I always tell my friends the simple rule we have for our daughter, Jenny (15 and an honors student): She can go to college or not go to college. She can go to cosmetology school. If she chooses to go to college, she can go anywhere she wants. BUT, SHE CANNOT GO TO SC. Lately, I've been telling my friends about the lack of respect for diversity on the undergraduate campus and the lack of sensitivity to both the neighborhood in which sc is located and and the community it should serve. Finally, I'm concerned with the way female students are treated on the campus; it is not a place I'd like my daughter to go to school.

71 -- you hit it right. There is a plantation mentality in the undergraduate program. Until sc deals with these issues, no matter how much money it has, it will never be a "great university".

The athletic programs, not the classrooms, seem to be the anchor of the undergraduate reputation. One reason people out of state, like those in Houston, start to think about sc is because of the exposure sc gets through sports.

It's a two edged sword. The athletic edge will soon tarnish the academic edge.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 12, 2007 10:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My sone used to harass me

constantly. (He was living with my ex, so I didn't get all sorts of things first hand.) He was a good athlete, and was calling throughout high school telling me that one sc coach or another had called or visited, but no one from UCLA had come by. He regaled me with stories about how he was going to get the full scholarship with all the Jarrett/Bush perks.

I didn't think that was funny.

He ended up his high school career with an ERA higher than his gpa, and neither was enough to get him invited anywhere. So he went to what was called (with sweatshirts and everything) the "University of California at Eugene." I thought that was pretty clever of those Ducks.

Even though he was pretty merciless, I raised him well enough so that he shares the universal feeling of contempt for justsc. In fact, he came up with a nice phrase to explain how they got away with stuff. I was ranting about something and going on about how justsc would surely get busted for something, and he said, "Now wait, don't forget the 'sc Sleaze Factor'."

And we can take note of that. The "sc Sleaze Factor" and the absence of a critical press in Los Angeles will probably get them a pass on all of their recent scandals.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Sone" is

another form of spelling for "son."

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh yeah

Is that the olde English spelling? Or is that "sunne"?

by rick.2012 on Mar 12, 2007 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I knew I wouldn't be able to get away

with that one.

The only good part about getting called out is that it was from a fellow worshipper at the shrine of the dismal science.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

tenth week

I've been doing a lot of worshipping recently. . .

by rick.2012 on Mar 12, 2007 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Simply disgusting

And I'm not even talking about the group itself, as disgusting as that may be. I'm talking about the reaction, or lack thereof, from SUC on this issue. You can call it an inside joke, but no label distracts from the fact that it's a racist, bigoted, and morally reprehensible stain on an already tarnished University (and I use that term loosely in this case).

So now what? With Senora Ross, they have no academic credibility. With Cheatey Petey and Free House Bush, they have no athletic credibility. Now they're trying to burn the last bridge they have with the greater society by not specifically saying that "this is not representative of us". They'd rather make excuses for it and in doing so, indirectly support their right to be a bunch of bigoted, white-hood-wearing assholes.

by Tydides on Mar 12, 2007 10:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Swastika???

Just the swastika alone and what it has stood for through the years should be reason enough to bring suspensions down on any player involved and at a minimum, reprimands to the Coaches involved (not opposed to suspending or firing them either).

Last but not least, have the NCAA knocking on their door wanting an explanation about "lack of instituional control".

The reprehensible part of this is the school trying to whitewash it. Where is their integrity & honor (I know, hard to read, harder to write those words)???

by artybruin on Mar 12, 2007 10:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Head-shaking, jaw-dropping disgust

That someone, anyone, would hold such revolting views is nauseating. That someone would post such hatred on the Internet, and make no attempt to separate themselves from their "academic" affiliation is stunning. That said university and coaches would downplay the whole affair as a joke, political incorrectness, and a mistake is, sadly, typical. That the players who posted this dreck would not be suspended or punished in any significant way is, once again, utterly typical. This is not political incorrectness, this is being proud of one's stupidity.

Pom Pom's take? "It's not a controversy, it's a mistake." Of course it is, Pete. And No-rent Reggie was just an accounting error.

And, might I add, where would the SUC program be without its black players? Wouldn't it be great if all the five-star recruits walked out en masse, in protest? Let's see how cocky your boys would be then, Pete.

Much as I dislike KD as a coach, this would just not happen at UCLA. And, somehow, if it did, KD, Guerrero, and the university would be men about it.

Disgusting. Just disgusting.

by BruinLuv on Mar 12, 2007 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

the bright side

Yes, there is most definitely a bright side to this story. . .

This football season every black player (and, for that matter, every player who finds this offensive) on every team the Trojans play will have THIS to think about.

[Locker Room] "Yes, my friends (to African-Americans, Jews, communists, gays, etc.), THIS is what they think about YOU!"

Remember Ed Norton in "American History X" (great movie!!!)? He didn't think those swastika tattoos were so cool when he was getting the crap kicked out of him on a daily basis.

The real joke is that regardless of whether or not this whole thing was INTENDED as a joke or not, these players are going to have to learn the hard way. Some things just shouldn't be joked about. Regardless of whether or not EVERY Trojan feels this way, too bad.

In a perfect world, those who hate on this level deserve to feel that same hate returned, with interest.

by rick.2012 on Mar 12, 2007 12:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Attention Menelaus

You probably need to update the list of scandals that are linked in the preface to this.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 12:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I know, I know

I keep meaning to, and the more I wait, the more I have to do! These guys at Southern Cal are going to make that list a full time job.

Hopefully, I'll find some time soon. Fortunately for me, but not for Mrs. M, the M family is expecting another little one in a week or so. So, life has intervened a touch in my blogging habits....

by Menelaus on Mar 12, 2007 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good for the M Family

I assume you'll name him Ben, which is only fitting, of course. Or name her Ben - doesn't matter.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a girl

Though Ben did come to mind before we knew. I even considered Ben's daughter's name, on the theory that if it was good enough for him, it'd be good enough for me....

by Menelaus on Mar 12, 2007 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nothing wrong with that thought process.

We would all do well to emulate Ben.

(Now, if Ben would just emulate Coach Wooden for six teensy, weensy, measly games.)

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thirty years ago

Theotis "Big Foot" Brown was a major hero. My ex drew the line at both "Big Foot" and "Theotis," which I thought was a little narrow-minded of her.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Many congratulations!

How about Jackie Ann, after Jackie Joyner-Kerse and Ann Meyers?

Wishing the entire M family all the best.

by bruinbabe2000 on Mar 12, 2007 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or Luc Richard

by Ajax on Mar 12, 2007 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Luc Richard Menelaus

It's got a nice ring to it.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ugh

Before I said that I didn't think this was a scandal and was more of an example of how these people are idiots.

That was before I saw these pictures. Now that I see them and realize they put these on Facebook for all the world to see I see why it's a big deal.

I mean, if they want to be thought of as KKK racists they are welcome to. We live in a country with free speech and are entitled to do that.

But damn they and the university deserve to catch all the hell for it. Their black coach that gave them the name "White Nation" doesn't think its a big deal when they post a picture about all blacks being criminal? Their black teammates don't care? The Humanitarian doesn't care about how these white teammates posting up pictures that would make Stormfront beat their chest in pride might affect team chemistry?

What the hell is going on over there?

by njbruin on Mar 12, 2007 12:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Those wacky kids

Heck, they were just fooling around, having a little fun. Nothing to get excited about. Means nothing.

Sounds a little like the propaganda emanating from Berlin starting in about 1933 or so.

Have we heard the latest spin from the Ministry of Propaganda, er, Heritage Hall about this?

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The way I see it...

is that the second those idiots posted those comments and pictures online it was no longer an "inside joke".

by king James on Mar 12, 2007 2:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What about the Faculty? Students? Daily Toejam?

This is the perfect time for an "educational institution" to use this as a teaching point. There should be "teach ins", classroom discussions, articles in the paper, and statements from the university making clear why this is offensive.

I am shocked by the lack of institutional reaction.

And, what about Mike Garret? What in the world is he thinking?

Is winning so important that he is willing to accept this blatant bigotry?

This is not a "little deal". Can you imagine what the nation would be saying if this happened at a southern school? The truth is that my experience in the south leads me to believe that in many ways the south has learned how offensive this stuff is. It's time for sc to do the same.

The academic side of sc, if there is one, must take a strong stand, now. If not, it is conceding that it is not relevant and that the school is nothing more than a football factory.

Finally, there will be fall out. I wonder how much our 2008 fball signing success was influenced by this crap at sc. I hope they eat this one, big time -- that athletes of all colors refuse to go there.

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. Even for sc.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 12, 2007 2:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The lack of outrage

The lack of outrage even for a immoral and delusional fan base (which will accept anything to have a powerhouse football team) is stunning. Even the so called Trojan fans who keep beating their chests calling themselves classy (while taking snide shots at BN) haven't voiced much outrage on this kind of gross behavior. Not to mention they are not holding Peetie accountable for his cavalier attitude towards the whole mess.

That is a sick fanbase over their at South Central. The way they have made excuses for this inexcusable behavior, goes to show these losers are nothing short of bunch of cultish freaks, who will accept anything in the name of a powerhouse football program. Just sad.

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2007 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The silence is deafening

Haven't heard much from Conquest Chronicle or whatever his name is.

I think the silence coming from those guys is as eloquent a statement as can be made about their collective integrity and character.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Conquest Chronicles

I don't pay attention to blogs that have nothing to offer except for the company line.

Pete Carroll is a recruiting machine!! Wooooooooot!

Hell who cares if he allows his kids to post images of swastikas and black babies in handcuffs.

Carroll is a dreamy recuiting machine. He is all kinds of awesome!!!!

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2007 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Paragon SC

Addressed the issue on Monday
http://www.conquestchronicles.com/story/2007/3/12/204334/781.

by sfatoo on Mar 13, 2007 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whoa -

Boy, did chronicles ever call them out. Wow. Pretty strong language. I never thought he would call for --, no wait. Er. He, uh, didn't exactly call for anything.

Gee, I guess calling it wrong will fix everything. No need to hold the players, coaches, administration accountable for anything.

And wow - did that ever spark some controversial comments. No, wait. Uh, there was one. And he was upset because the Facebook was supposed to be private, not public.

So bottom line - the commentary I've seen from justsc is hey, that was bad. You guys should make sure you're not caught next time. Can't you do things the way Jarrett and Bu$h did?

The billion dollar education at justsc sure builds character. But I guess when you live in the Big house on the plantation, as long as the "you know who" don't get out of their place, it's all good. Some people will continue to send their kids there to become part of the trOJan family. And the athletes that choose to stay or to go there deserve each other.

(I'm glad I moved to Florida. Now I don't even have to drive past that place any more. For 30 plus years I've made a living with words, but in all candor I can't think of any to describe the utter contempt I feel for that institution and those who adopt the mindset of that place. But that's it. justsc does not warrant any more expenditure of time or energy. They are what they are, and they will never change.)

by Fox 71 on Mar 13, 2007 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I saw that ...

He sounds just as outraged and saddened as Rumsfeld sounded after seeing the Abu Gharib pictures. That is why I don't pay much attention to SuC bloggers. They will never hold their Dear Leader acccountable. No matter what.

by bluestreet on Mar 13, 2007 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wish I Could See this on the National Stage

I know it is basketball season, but is extremely frustrating that I haven't seen this in some of the huge national sports outlets! They will bring up parking permits years later, but not images that blatantly cross the sports line? I hope it does make the headlines!

by uclagirlie on Mar 12, 2007 2:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The story has been on Drudge Report

for the last few days. I know many regular readers of BN probably do not care much for Drudge, but the site has a huge audience and at least the story has been linked there.

It would, however, be nice if the mainstream media paid more attention to this.

by Barnes2JJ on Mar 12, 2007 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Drudge Report.... Who has a Connection at ESPN?

Drudge Report, Awesome! I have been checking that site, but not this weekend. They took it off of the main page but you can see the link they had on the "Recent Headlines"

by uclagirlie on Mar 12, 2007 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

BEFORE WE GET ON OUR HIGH HORSE ...

Whether it's UCLA or SC, we all have a lot of work to do before we can claim that we are on the moral high ground when it comes to race.

Is there any excuse for the Clay Matthews website? Absolutely none.

However, before we dislocate our shoulders patting ourselves on the back as Bruins as models of enlightenment, don't we need to do a little more to improve the number of black students at UCLA. I can't recall the website that was established by Baron Davis, but it was posted here only a few weeks ago. (Maybe somebody can find it and post it again.)

To be fair, SC has done a lot to improve its surrounding neighborhood. A few years ago, I beleive Time or Newsweek did a cover story on that subject and ranked SC #1 for its community involvement program.

I bristle when SC folks launch into hate speak when it comes to UCLA, and it really is no better when it comes from UCLA folks about SC. Perfectly reasonable people seem to think that hate-speak that would be unacceptable in any other venue is perfectly acceptable when they talk about a rival school like SC.

Why don't we all try to grow up. Enjoy the diversity of our city and try to use sports to improve our attitude about the world. There is no excuse for using sports to denigrate one another.

by uclagradscdad on Mar 12, 2007 3:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Please

Whether or not UCLA has the right admissions policy with regards to African Americans is a completely different issue from this specific case in which Southern Cal administration, coaching staff is brushing aside obvious expression of hate/racism as a mere joke. It's a different deal.

I know you are being defensive because you are trying to be defensive about your son's school. However, your post totally misses the main point.

by bluestreet on Mar 12, 2007 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Missing the Point??

I agree with bluestreet. I'm sorry, but if one my relatives, friends, fellow athletes, coworkers, etc. made a group like this on a public website I think I would definitely question my perspective on how I felt towards them. What if your child had joined this group? I don't think you would use the same attitude. Just because it was a football team does not make it alright. Sports are sports, but these team players are part of a community. UCLA admissions is a problem and we discussed that issue and it is in the spotlight, this must be too!

If USC has made strides to improve relations with the community, it should also be recognized for the problems that still exist. Especially when it comes from players and coaches who become role modes (by association) to those children in the community. If my father was a coach on that team (which he does coach football at the college level), I definitely would question his coaching techniques and my support for him in the position he has.

by uclagirlie on Mar 12, 2007 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, Now I'm Really Pissed Off

This is not about admission policies. It's about a university's failure to see bigoted behavior and deal with it in a forthright, honest, and sensitive way.

Yes, the diverse nature of UCLA's student body has changed. But, that is not because of a lack of effort or intolerance.

It is the direct result of court and legislative action that curtailed "affirmative action" admission policies.

In fact, the legislation was a direct result of the UC system's widespread and successful efforts to recruit a diverse population of students.

State schools fall under these regulations. If the student body is becoming less diverse -- complain to the legislature.

UCLA was always at the forefront of affirmative action admission policies. The campus suffered the backlash from the success of the efforts to eliminate affirmative action criteria from the selection process. The legal process changed the face of the campus; the campus did not decide, willingly, to turn away from diversity.

How dare you try to use those results to support an argument that we, as members of the Bruin community, do not have sufficient traction on the moral high ground to express our outrage at what is going on at sc?

There is a huge difference between struggling to find an "affirmative" action admission policy that will hold up against a court challenge and failing to respond to the bigoted web site created by student athletes.

This isn't one of those "Can't we all get along issues."

There are moral issues where people of conscience can't "go along to get along".

To get along on this issue would require us, and all people who hate bigotry -- whether Bruins or not, to look the other way.

Looking the other way in the face of hatred is cowardice.

You may be a bruin dad of an sc grad -- I have more at stake. I am a Bruin undergrad and an SC Law Center grad.

I am outraged that there has not been an academic reaction at sc to this outrageous, blatant racism. Outraged.

I just read the Daily Trojan and the responses from the student body. The Trojan article was critical but weak. The reactions make me sick.

Challenging bigotry has nothing to do with imposing a PC standard. Only a complete fool would take the argument in that direction.

Do you think we would be any less passionate were the Facebook article posted by UCLA players?

The difference is that I cannot even conceive that under the same circumstances Karl Dorrell would call it a joke, Dan Guerrero would stay silent, that the Chancellor would not speak, that our faculty would not teach the important lessons that must be taught on a campus that just does not get it.

Challenging our credentials to express our outrage by telling us we are patting ourselves on the backs when doing so is missing the point of our responses.

I am reaching my first anniversary as a member of this community.

This is the first time I have ever written a post that might be construed as a "personal attack." I can understand that many will take it in that direction.

I do not mean to make this personal. But, I think your original post was offensive and could find no way, to write a kinder and gentler response.

Let me just end by saying that I know that none of the posts in Bruins Nation represent the total package of who we are, our values or our beliefs.

I trust that you wrote in good faith. Please, trust that I did, too.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 12, 2007 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tired of outrage. Try thinking.

You say, "UCLA was always at the forefront of affirmative action admission policies."

Unfortunately, we are now at the bottom of the barrel in terms of admission of African-American students. I believe the number of kids we admitted to the freshman class last year was 96. Even Cal beat us.

I repeat, Matthews was totally out of line. There is no doubt that he was wrong.

The issue isn't simply whether there is latent racism at SC, UCLA or the society at large. The issue is what are we going to do about it? And, recruitment of minority students is the starting point in rectifying the situation.

When this topic has come up before on bruinsnation, there has always been a significant number of folks to come to defense of UCLA's recruiting and admission policies for African-Americans. The usual line is GPA and test scores are color blind, or go to junior college first. I don't think that's a sufficient answer.

When the Times printed the latest statistics above UC minority admissions, they ran an article that profiled a black engineering student and his efforts to try to find black students on campus at UCLA -- it turns out a rather difficult problem.

I see a lot of high fiving and cheering for the Bruins basketball team, but I wonder whether the same students are as accepting of our basketball and football players in other activities on campus?

I started with the proposition that we should all get off our high horses, and look at the real situation. I stand with that position.

by uclagradscdad on Mar 12, 2007 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Try making some sense

What do our admissions policies have to do with bigotry and racism? Nothing. So until you make that connection, you can find another soapbox from which to complain about the makeup of the student body, because you are comparing apples and oranges.

We have a problem with minority admissions. They have a problem with racism, hatred, and bigotry. You have yet to show how these are at all related, so we will have to treat them as independent problems, and quite frankly, I would much rather have an admissions problem than a racism problem. Would increasing the numbers of black football players on SUCs football team have stopped these imbeciles from doing what they did? I doubt it.

by Tydides on Mar 12, 2007 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you are charging UCLA with racism

even latent racism -- explain what is being done to limit the number of minority students on campus.

I have served on an admission committee at a school deeply commited to diversity. Truth be told, we accepted a lot of minority students who were also accepted by schools they viewed as "better schools". Our acceptance rate was high. Their acceptance rate of us was lower.

Don't tell us that the numbers are low. Tell us, specifically, what UCLA is doing to hold those numbers down.

And, then tell us how that equates to what is going on at sc.

It doesn't and that's the point you refuse to see or discuss.

What is the nexus between our admission policy and their website?

And, to assume on a "sports blog" that we accept the fact that there is less diversity, today, than there was years ago is flat out wrong.

We don't discuss it here because it's not a pedominant topic. But, when you use it the way you did -- we will.

Make your case, factually. The floor is yours.

sjh

PS. If you haven't noticed, not one of us feels good about the low numbers of Black students on campus. We don't call it an "inside joke" , irrelevant, or a "PC" issue. We take it seriously. We just want you to prove your case before you try to play the race card on us to stop us from criticizing what's going on at sc.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 12, 2007 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your position

With all due respect you are just trying to shift the focus from the specific issue on this thread and trying to compare two unrelated situation.

Here we have a case of just despicable, hateful, disgusting situation taking place right under the noses of USC admin and coacing staff, who are trying to gently sweep it under the rug. It is appalling at all level.

You on the other hand is trying to bring a policy discussion concerning UCLA's admission policies which really has nothing to do with this aformentioned act.

You are trying to shift focus and trying to in some ways play down the ramifications of these heanous acts.

Frankly I find it insulting and appalling and to me it comes across as an apologist making excuses for his son's joke of an institution of higher learning.

by Nestor on Mar 12, 2007 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey $Cdad, don't you know anything about state

law? UCLA, like every other public university in California can no longer use Affirmative Action because people like these racist $C students and their families voted for Proposition 209!

Conveniently, private schools are exempt so they can still populate their athletic "plantations" with students of color without really have true diversity on campus.

By the way, even without Affirmative Action, UCLA has a greater percentage of Asian and Latina/o students than $UC.

UCLA has far better Ethnic Studies and Womens Studies departments than the spoiled children ever will.

Finally, $C has legacy admissions, where you get extra points when applying if your parent, grandparent, etc. is an alum. This is an inherently racist policy (how many Black people were at U$C one, two, or three generations ago?), and UCLA has no such policy.

Stop being an apologist for a pretentious, elitist, racist institution, especially when it is doing its best to cover up the bigotry of its so-called students!

by PeterUCLA on Mar 13, 2007 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good Points

Your post is an accurate reflection on the state of student recruiting at all schools that are bound by state regulations on affirmative action -- both in California and elsewhere.

A little history will show the irony of the position we are in today, post 209.

At the time of the push against affirmative action, a regent from the Central Valley was railing against the policies that he felt "discriminated" against "white students". The policies were defended by the state universities; they tried to make clear the value of a diverse student body. The idea was that all in a classroom benefited from the richness of background and experience presented by a diverse class of students.

During the debate, it was pointed out that the state schools used "legacy type" policies; and that legislators and others with influence were using their clout to gain the admission of more "white students" with lower "qualifications" than the general population than were being admitted under "affirmative action" criteria.

In fact, during the debate, some statisticians made clear that "race and class neutral" standards might actually work against the "white" students the regent was trying to get into the state schools. The statisticians saw a trend in the Asian communities that lead them to believe that without overt attempts to "balance" the admissions process, the UC schools would have predominantly Asian student bodies because those applicants had higher grade point averages and better test scores.

I have put many words in "quotes" because the words evoke volatile reactions -- we really have no shared sense of what they mean, they are more susceptible to emotional reaction than intellectual definition.

However, having been at the center of the debate of these issues for most of my academic life -- both as a student and faculty member -- I want to reiterate that to simply look at the number of students of any race on a state campus and then draw a conclusion that the institution has not made a good faith effort to achieve diversity is wrong.

You are right to point out that one must look at the faculty, curriculum and attitude on a campus to determine whether it truly values diversity or simply uses it to bolster its athletic programs.

This topic is about the attitude at sc.

The website presents a simple case study of sc's commitment to creating a diverse and egalitarian campus.

I think we are quite right to challenge the institutional reaction.

And, contrary to sc dad's belief, I think we have the firm footing on the diversity "moral high ground" to do so.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 13, 2007 6:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, he's right

Adhering to to the law regarding Affirmative Action while trying to find ways to increase minority enrollment is exactly the same as associating yourself with the Ku Klux Klan. Good point.

by Tydides on Mar 12, 2007 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you freaking serious?

Are you seriously comparing Southern Cal FB players using disgusting racial images and language to what is happening at UCLA re African American enrollment?

The LAT probably has a spot open in their sports department for a wrtier with your inclinations.

by Ajax on Mar 12, 2007 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're missing the point

Take a look at Baron Davis' website --

weshouldnotbetheonlyones.org

by uclagradscdad on Mar 12, 2007 3:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Once again

Low minority enrollment numbers != Ku Klux Klan association.

(For those unfamiliar with programming languages, != is "does not equal")

I fail to see how our admissions policies are bigoted. Some may say that it's racism by exclusion, but certainly not bigoted and hateful. Completely different degrees of offensiveness here.

by Tydides on Mar 12, 2007 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dad, I could not disagree more.

Question: Why does the presence of a hate website at sc cause the focus to shift to UCLA? There is no connection. End of story.

Next and more relevant question: Why don't you pull your child out of sc and send him or her somewhere else?

That would be making a statement, in my opinion. That would make your position clear to yourself, to justsc, and most important, to your child. Remember, character counts, and instilling good character into one's child is about as important a task for a parent as anything.

I think your attempt to shift the argument away from justsc towards UCLA is both absurd and simply obfuscation. The hate website was not generated by UCLA students, but rather by sc students. All the sophistry in the world won't change that. Your comments seems to be that UCLA must change in order to change the plantation mentality at justsc. Sorry, that won't work. That is a major non sequitur. Do you really, truly need a refresher in where UCLA stands on this question? Maybe we could bring Rafer Johnson, or Ralph Bunche, or even Angela Davis in to explain how things were and are, and what UCLA as an institution did.

So I do not agree that the focus should be on Westwood. The question that should be asked (and most notably by you, since your child is going there) is just what is sc going to do. In fact, since you have a child going there, you should be screaming the question -- WHAT IS sc GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS PROBLEM? So far, it seems that justsc is going to do nothing. That action vindicates my own feelings about that alleged institution. What does their inaction and silence say to you, who are (I assume) contributing some funding to some extent to that place?

Let's put it this way - if my child were going to sc (which would never have happened in a million years, but you are you and not me), I would tell him or her that the money flow is turned off until a transfer to some other school takes place. If your child is there on a scholarship, then your child could probably earn a scholarship at some other school as well.

But I would make it clear that the sun would not set again on my child as a student at justsc. I'm not saying that any person who remains affiliated with that school thereby adopts the mindset of the hate website. That is as big a non sequitur as you are trying to pull off with your argument. I'm saying that anyone who resigns/leaves in protest has made his or her position more clear than those whose chiildren (and funds) continue at the school. In this case, just sc is silent on the issue, money would seems to talk quite loudly.

And on reflection after writing this missive, I guess I am getting in your face. I try not to do that. I think ad hominem arguments are the refuge of the lazy. I tried to address my comments to your arguments. but every time I started down a particular path, it always ended with the fact that your child remains at justsc. If you don't feel this is a moral dilemma, then there is no argument that will make you think it is. That's between you and your conscience.

End of rant.

by Fox 71 on Mar 12, 2007 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Recognizing the Good and not the Bad is the Point?

I have seen that website, and think it is a valuable resource for prople to try and engage the conversation on admissions at UCLA. From my last entry,"UCLA admissions is a problem and we discussed that issue and it is in the spotlight, this must be too!" I agree as you do that we aren't perfect, but my belief is that in order to identify positive strides such as athletes using their position to help UCLA admissions, the negative also needs to be brought to attention.

By discussing positive efforts being made in our community, such as increasing the diversity at both schools, there is a strong need to discuss negative events just the same. In any classroom on any campus, this lack of respect by athletes and coaches isn't going to be a "SPORTS" discussion. It may start with sports, but the website they made will result in a debate on the results this issue has on race and society equality.

by uclagirlie on Mar 12, 2007 4:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Advantage: Good Guys

I believe someone here posted the seemingly-not-so coincidental successful recruiting weekend we just had occurring right after this scandal broke out.

I know we are often cynical about the repercussions (or lack thereof) of $Cs numerous transgressions. They (literally) get away with murder.

Fact is, I think it is making a difference.

I believe it's only a matter of time before the Evil Empire crumbles. It's only a matter of time before we return to our rightful place atop the Pac-10, playing for BCS championships, enjoying decisive recruiting victories, and enjoying long winning streaks against those clowns.

It's only a matter of time.

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 12, 2007 7:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

With KD at the helm...

we aren't prepared to truly take advantage of Troy's inevitable fall.

by bornagainbruin on Mar 13, 2007 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, this big class isn't for KD

He won't be here in 2008.

If he wins the Pac 10 and a BCS bowl, he'll go to the pro's.

If he doesn't win the Pac 10 and a BCS bowl, he'll get fired.

This excellent class will be coached by someone else.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 13, 2007 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still have a sickening feeling

I fear a near miss for the conference championship ("It was a moral victory for the squad, Chris. I really think we've turned the corner and are headed in the right direction.")

I fear a non-BCS bowl, but not some 23rd tier bowl done at an abandoned drive-in theater with Steve Lavin providing color commentary, which we almost win. ("Well Chris, the team showed real heart and courage. We've come a long way. If it weren't for a few failures by (fill in names of scapegoats du jour), we would have pulled this one out.")

And I fear an 8-5 season. ("Chris, any way you look at it, this was a successful season. We're well out the learning curve. We just about have our system in place. As soon as I get the right staff in place following the departure of (insert current scapegoats), we'll be in a position to do some great things.")

DG can look at this and see improvement in the mediocrity level. That will get Coach Dorrell another year. That's what I fear. And it makes me sick.

It puts us in a no win situation - in order to have a chance in the future, you have to hope for either a spectacular season or for an abject failure of gargantuan proportions. My heart wants us to go 13-0, but my head tells us that even if the other team didn't show up until halftime, we do not have the leadership to win any close or tough games. So my head says a below .500 season is a real possibility. So to get rid of Coach Dorrell, do we have to turn our backs on our core beliefs and root against the Bruins. I just can't do that.

It's got to be unconstitutional in some sense. It's like being sentenced to prison, but not being told how long you're in for. You're the con law guy -- doesn't that violate the Fifth Amendment or the Commerce Clause or something like that?

by Fox 71 on Mar 13, 2007 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fox, send your post to DG

Your post says it all. I also fear another lackluster season next year given the "leadership" of our team.

Honestly, apart from a scandal involving barnyard animals, I do not see what it will take to get rid of this guy. He wins just enough to stay around. I suppose if every alum stopped donating, that might do the trick, but apart from that, I have no idea how we, the people, can stop the insanity.

And, as you hilariously point out, KD certainly has the cliches down pat about the team "improving all the time." If we really were improving that much, we would be undefeated every year.

Now, on to b-ball where the team really has improved each year.

by Barnes2JJ on Mar 13, 2007 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes we need to keep the pressure on DG

If we remain completely silent on this issue, in terms of what we demand of our coach and program, until our first loss, then we will not be taken seriously. We need to regularly make sure DG is aware of where his fanbase stands. We are not cranks, we just want what is best for the program. All of us who have criticized KD are willing to eat big servings of crow if we are proven wrong, but if we are silent except for losses, then we come off as reactionary. I am holding my tongue while the tournament is underway out of respect for BH and the team, but when Spring practice starts, we need to make our voices heard.

I don't think DG is satisfied with our program, but he is not in a great position thanks partly to 2005's mirage 10-2 and beating SC this year. Also he cannot fire one of the very few black head coaches in D1 without giving the impression that he has given him a fair shot. And just that term "fair shot" is loaded with interpretations. DG doesn't want backlash like ND got with Ty Willingham, especially in light of our sad admissions records for black students right now. Plus KD does have control over these kids and they are behaving themselves for the most part. Compared to Petey, KD is a saint in that regard.

These circumstances have forced DG to be very tactful and deliberate in how he handles the situation. He can't be reactionary, though it drives us up a wall. And in light of these things we need to be measured in our approach as well. We have to make a reasonable argument early on and build pressure throughout the next 6-8 months so that if our standards are not met, then we can say with authority KD needs to leave.

by isodore on Mar 13, 2007 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have no problem with KD staying on board

as maybe senior mentor, or as head babysitter or NCAA watchdog. Nobody says he's anything other than a great guy.

He's just a lousy coach. In fact, his mojo is so bad he should stay away from the stadium on game day.

But DG is much too timid - let him call out the Black Coaches Association and offer to trade KD to the alma mater of any one of those guys and see what happens. It's awfully easy for them to berate a school for firing a black head coach, but somehow none of them want the Willinghams or the Dorrells ruining their Saturdays.

by Fox 71 on Mar 13, 2007 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I sent a nice letter

to the Alumni Association explaining why I was not going to contribute (which I posted somewhere in BN.) I doubt that they care, and I doubt that they told DG about the letter.

But I felt better sending it.

by Fox 71 on Mar 13, 2007 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it violates the.....

"WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING" law when they hired him. It is very much like Art's law of gravity, just because you can jump out of a perfectly good airplane, doesn't mean you should.

by artybruin on Mar 13, 2007 12:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The big part of the story

is the coach initiating the acceptance with calling his unit "White Nation." It sounds like that led to a broader stroke of intolerant expression. The ignorance started with the coach. Give these kids a class on tolerance/social welfare, that'll open their eyes. Just because they're playing together and getting along as a team, doesn't mean they are really understanding the big picture with race and society and saying these kinds of pernicious things. The fact that SC isn't taking action to educate these players is what makes the school and program bad.

by bruin95 on Mar 13, 2007 2:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If you don't think Pete Carroll,

his father and his uncle haven't ripped Clay Matthews a new one for his website, you're not thinking.

by uclagradscdad on Mar 13, 2007 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah sure whatever

I am sure Pom Pom is having his White Nation boys running extra laps.

The Humanitarian is also a strict discipliniarian.

Whatever scdad. Whatever.

by Nestor on Mar 13, 2007 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

because that's the impression I get when Cheatey Petey and Co. dismiss this incident by saying that they're not concerned and excusing this behavior by saying it's an "inside joke".

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the "underground SUC newsletter" where you're privy to all the REAL information about how Petey is a strict disciplinarian and how SUC has condemned these guys and their views. Actually I can't subscribe to it: It doesn't exist.

by Tydides on Mar 13, 2007 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dad, you sound like you're trying to convince

yourself. I haven't seen or heard that justsc is doing anything but downplaying the whole incident. The plantation mindset is alive and well on Figueroa.

Nothing is going to happen until scdads who keep pouring money into that cesspool say enough is enough. Apparently there are still plenty of scdads who don't think it's significant. That's OK - if your conscience can handle it, so be it. Frankly, you can endure much more than I think I could if our roles were reversed. In a way, I admire you. But in another way I'm scratching my heading wondering what happened to the "uclagrad" part of your name.

by Fox 71 on Mar 13, 2007 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

$C Dad

You may be a Ucla grad, but by the above posts you have shown your TRUE COLORS.

I understand you might be torn. Is it that inate paternal instinct that prompts you to defend your son or daughters alma mater? Are you one of those fans that dons the ketchup and mustard during football season, only to molt during the basketball season into blue and gold? Or does it just sicken you to realize all that $$ your spending on your kids "education" is a huge waste?

I kinda feel for you, $C dad. But I think all of us can learn something from you: "Don't let your babies grow up to be trOJans!"

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 13, 2007 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where's the proof?

Dad, let's look at the facts. All statements by Carroll and the University suggest that this was all just a big misunderstanding, just a "mistake" to publish this on the internet, instead of laughing about this fun facebook at home in private.

Let's ignore KD's "abilities" as a coach for a moment--if something similar happened on the UCLA team, do you think he would react the same way as Petey? I doubt it.

If SC and Carroll had any huevos, they would not have swept this whole incident under the mat. A public stance, demonstrating strong disapproval, is just a tad more courageous and also sends a message to everyone else, wouldn't you agree?

I just sent a letter to the Times on this. I won't hold my breath that it will be published, but this story deserved a longer life than it was granted by the media.

by Barnes2JJ on Mar 14, 2007 5:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If this happened at UCLA

and KD tried to downplay it as a mistake (and I don't believe he would go that route) our alumni, students, and the larger Bruin community would have none of it. And you can bet it would be splashed all over the local papers.

As appalling as this so called joke turned out, I think the reaction from the so called "Trojan Family" is even more distasteful not to mention disgraceful.

by Nestor on Mar 14, 2007 6:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

scdaduclagrad has not been heard from

in a few days. I'm betting (or at least hoping) that he's doing some serious re-assessing of priorities in his household. I truly hope the Bruin education and character come through and he very vocally pulls his kid out of the plantation cesspool over on Figueroa.

That sort of call would make me proud to call him a Bruin brother.

Come on scdad, do the right thing.

by Fox 71 on Mar 14, 2007 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Double Standard

Or, more accurately, standard vs. no standard.

Let's look at some the UCLA "scandals" and compare them to the U$C felonies:

UCLA
- Jim Harrick bought a lobster dinner for a recruit! And he lied about it! For shame!
- Baron Davis bought a SUV at a price below blue book! Outrageous!
- DeShaun Foster kept a Ford Expedition for two weeks for a test drive! That punk!
- Lazy fat ass football players used handicapped parking decals! Criminals!
- Dragovic played for no pay on a team with salaried players! That greedy scum bucket!

U$C
- OJ (I just wanted to put that in there :) )
- Reggiegate
- Mark Sanchez rape fest
- Jarrett free rentolooza
- Senora Ross Spanish extravaganza
- White Nation fun house

UCLA got punished/reprimanded in one way or another on every single occasion.

U$C? NOT ONCE!!! Not yet at least. The piper better come a'callin' or I will kick his ass!

by tasser10 on Mar 14, 2007 9:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

By the way

I'm not saying UCLA shouldn't have gotten in trouble for those infractions (except the Dragovic one which still pisses me off), I am just pointing out the difference in the seriousness of the wrongdoings and the difference in the resulting punishments. It kills me.

by tasser10 on Mar 14, 2007 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs