42 - Bruins Nation

42

by Nestor on Apr 14, 2007 9:27 AM PDT in Events Comment 21 comments

Tomorrow baseball is going to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's breaking the color barrier. I am sure we are going to see a lot of articles celebrating the historic milestone set by one of the greatest Bruins of all time. I wanted to share with you one of them that moved me:

One thing that Robinson did not need to feel was alone. In the stands, Rachel was part of a crowd that was estimated to be 60 percent or more black. Among them was a young pitcher named Don Newcombe. In the latest issue of Dodgers Magazine, Ben Platt writes that the 20-year-old future Dodgers star was heading to Nashua, N.H., for his first minor league season but had to stop in Brooklyn to meet with Rickey -- and to see his friend.

"Jackie tried to be gracious, but he was really nervous," Newcombe told Platt. "Jackie was afraid of how well he was or was not going to do and he didn't do very well that day. But he was out there in a Dodger uniform, playing a strange position at first base, which was another worry for him. But he was the kind of man who had no fear for no man or no problem that was going to face him."

Coffey noted that Rachel was "wary, feeling equal parts excitement and trepidation. It was the beginning of an experiment, and if you are mature and realistic, you know experiments don't always work."

The first pitch was imminent. Baseball's color line was about to be broken. "Robinson trotted out to first base in the top half of the inning, a smile creasing his face," Eig wrote. "The Braves sent their first batter, Dick Culler, to the plate. Culler hit a ground ball to third base, where Jorgensen scooped it up and threw to first. Robinson squeezed it for the out. It was a simple catch, but the crowd expressed its delight as if they'd never seen anything quite like it.

Beautiful stuff. Make sure to read the whole article, which was written by Jon Wesiman (Dodger Thoughts) at SI.Com's Inside Baseball.

For all the details on tomorrow's festivities at Chavez Ravine (and nation wide) make sure to check out the coverage on Dodgers official team site (BTW they are in first place!). As bruinbabe pointed out below all the Dodger players are going to wear number 42:

The Dodgers -- all of them -- will be wearing No. 42 on Sunday at Dodger Stadium in honor of one of their own. It's the 60th anniversary of the day Jackie Robinson put on a Brooklyn Dodgers uniform in a regular-season game for the first time, thus re-integrating Major League Baseball forever.

Robinson will be honored in each of the 15 ballparks where games will be played this April 15, but the big ceremony will be in Chavez Ravine, six decades and 3,000 miles from Flatbush and tiny Ebbets Field, where Robinson went out to play first base. The Dodgers defeated the Boston Braves that day and the grand old game was never the same.

Commissioner Bud Selig will be there. So will Rachel Robinson, Jackie's seemingly ageless widow and the founder of the Jackie Robinson Foundation, which offers college scholarships to underprivileged minority students. And when the Dodgers take the field to play the Padres, each and every one of the starters will have on his back the famous No. 42. That's the number Selig retired on the occasion of Robinson's 50th anniversary in 1997, but was "unretired" by the Commissioner's proclamation for the day on Sunday.

Dodgers are doing it the right way.

Unfortunarely the coverage on UCLA's athletic department and administration have been shamefully very bland. I happen to think our athletic department could be doing lot more than just this to honor one of the immortals sons of Westwood:

The UCLA baseball program honored Robinson prior to its game against Washington on Saturday, April 7. Prior to first pitch, fans were asked to stand for a moment of reflection as the public address announcer highlighted several of Robinson's accomplishments, both at UCLA and with the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Uhm ... why couldn't our baseball team do something this weekend specially in a series against the Trojans?

What is stopping our football program from honoring the legacy of Jackie Robinson (a legacy which Dorrell used/flaunted to land his head coaching gig) during next Saturday's spring scrimmage.

What is stopping the Morgan Center from honoring the legacy of Robinson through all its athletics programs including basketball and track & field in which Robinson left his mark. If the UCLA Sports Information Department had shred of professional savvy they would make sure to release statements from Savage, Dorrell, Howland, and all other UCLA coaches honoring number 42. But as usual most of the officials from Morgan Center are a day late and dollar short.

Oh well ... we will try to do our part by paying our tribute to one of our greateast heroes from Westwood.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

42

42...the answer to the ultimate question of the universe

by bluejoe on Apr 14, 2007 11:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Who knew the ulitimate question was about a Bruin

With the 42 title I too wondered where The Hitchhikers Guide reference would come in.

by isodore on Apr 14, 2007 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jackie's Canadian ties

Even the country of Canada wants to be attached to such a great individual and his legacy. He got his pro start in Montreal. We have public service messages promoting the history of Canada and one of them is Jackie's story of his time in Montreal after his service. As a Canadian and the biggest Bruin fan in the whole damn country, I am glad that we could contribute in our own small way. A true hero whose example is sorely missing in the world today.

by sjcmcm41 on Apr 14, 2007 11:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Morgan Center an embarassment

How can they not not do more to celecbrate the important accomplishments of one of the most influential Bruins ever?

by Ajax on Apr 14, 2007 6:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What's amazing

is how Robinson is only "one of the" most influential Bruins ever. At almost any other school he'd be clear cut #1.

"Believe it or not, a website called FireHowland.com now exists."

by SuperBruinMan on Apr 14, 2007 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There was a very nice tribute

Before the Dodger game tonight. Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson will salute #42 before the Dodger game tomorrow night.

On a personal note, I would like to ask that Mr. BB's family be in your prayers the next couple of days. His grandfather passed away this morning. Mr. BB sounded fine (this was to be expected) but the timing could have been better (Mr. BB was in Chicago for one of his bachelor parites, and today was my wedding shower). However, we take comfort that he went peacefully.

by bruinbabe2000 on Apr 14, 2007 8:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We mourn with you.

And we pray with you for consolation.

by Fox 71 on Apr 14, 2007 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

R.I.P.

BruinLove to all.

by pocho on Apr 15, 2007 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

bb

Our prayers are with Mr. BB.

by Nestor on Apr 15, 2007 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Much love

coming to you and yours

by tasser10 on Apr 15, 2007 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Many thanks

I talked to Mr. BB again, and I think the reality is starting to hit him. He was supposed to go back to Birmingham today, but he is staying in Chicago with his brother and they will head up to Green Bay as soon as plans are in place.

Mr. BB's sister was pretty emotional yesterday, but I thanked her for still coming to the shower.

I'll update more as my computer access is limited.

by bruinbabe2000 on Apr 15, 2007 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

RIP

Prayers and support are with you and yours at this time.

by Barnes2JJ on Apr 15, 2007 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

42, NOT JUST ANOTHER ANNIVERSARY

If you didn't notice the article in today's California section of the Times, the efforts to increase black enrollment seem to be paying off. (Below is a link to the article.) I hope things work out this coming fall, and I further hope that this is only a start.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-admit15apr15,1,5480840.story?coll=la-headlines-california&am p;ctrack=1&cset=true

One other note -- When I started a UCLA, the cost of attending (fees) was only $220 a year ($800 for non-residents). It's now almost $10,000 a year for residents (almost $25,000 for non-residents). The foregoing is exclusive of books and living expense.

One of the great things that built California into the world's 6th largest economy has been the promise of an affordable higher education for all of its residents. Unfortunately, that promise has been virtually abandoned.

The tradition that brought Jackie Robinson, Ralph Bunch, Tom Bradley, Rafer Johnson and many others to UCLA needs to be reaffirmed by a commitment to making a UCLA education affordable for every student in California who can gain admittance.

With all the smack that has been delivered on the SC - UCLA issue (contrary to the litany of SC sins that was printed the other day, I don't think we Bruins have a corner on moral purity), to me the big difference between the two schools is the promise that anyone who can make the grade academically can attend a UCLA without regard to cost.

The big difference between UCLA and SC over the years is that UCLA has been a truly a democratic institution. People from all kinds of backgrounds come together at UCLA based upon their performance. Rich or poor, we say, if you can do it, you can come to UCLA -- that's our reason for being -- and UCLA will give you the tools to go on and have a good life. Hopefully, in the process, you will do something for the community and help build our state.

Starting with the Reagan administration through to the current day, we have allowed fees to climb to the point where a kid who has the grades to go to UCLA has lots of other opportunities at basically the same cost. Particularly for well qualified, highly sought minority students, UCLA is competing against Ivy League schools which will offer them essentially a free education.

In my view, California needs to return to its original commitment of offering a first class, free education to every student who can gain admittance. Whatever the ethnic background of our students, our committment should be that UCLA offers a truly diverse experience of students from all backgrounds (rich, poor, middleclass, black, white, hispanic, asian, whatever) for any kid who can demonstrate the academic ability to gain admittance.

by uclagradscdad on Apr 15, 2007 10:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

For ONCE

this guy identifies the proper culprit. When he started waxing poetic, bemoaning fee increases, I thought we were going to get another idealistic (read: unrealistic) pie-in-the-sky rant over how some other situation that is out of UCLA's control is somehow its fault.

As far as a "free" education from Ivy leagues go, if you look at the general breakdown of financial aid packages being offered across the board, you'll find that there is no way an education is "free". Sure, you'll get a significant portion in grants, but that's only impressive as a percentage, because once the reality hits that you're still on the hook for 20k a year in loans, that education ceases to be "free". For an instate student, a UCLA education is generally less expensive than any private school of the same academic caliber after factoring in what you still owe when you graduate. UCLA may nickel and dime you as a student, but the big fee increases come from the Regents, and there needs to be some invisibility and accountability there.

I assume when you say that "we" have allowed tuitions to increase this way, you are referring to the American public, and to be honest, I'd really like to see the reasons why it costs so much more to educate a student for four years now than it did even a decade ago. These are the answers I'd like to hear from our government.

Our use of Cal's 209 circumvention techniques might be the best we get as far as blurring the line 209 set down for us. Doing more would amount to brazenly flouting the law itself. Nonetheless, it was refreshing to see that you finally tabbed the right culprit this time. Hopefully that's a start as well.

by Tydides on Apr 15, 2007 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ivies

If your family's income is under a certain amount Harvard IS free. You won't get stuck with that extra 20K. I don't know how low, but I think it's a reasonable amount.

"Believe it or not, a website called FireHowland.com now exists."

by SuperBruinMan on Apr 15, 2007 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

Not all the Ivies, but Harvard and Princeton, I believe have recently inplemented this idea as part of the financial aid program. On the public university side, Virginia has implemented a similar program.

Basically, any student whose family income under $40,000/year does not have to take out loans to pay for educational expenses; tuition, living expences, etc.

by bruinhoo on Apr 16, 2007 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

WITHOUT ANY POETRY ...

the reason fee increases have been tolerated is largely because the citizens of California have forgotten what a great deal the people of California made when they agreed back in the days of Gov. Culbert Olsen to invest in first class, free educational college eduacation.

In the 50's, 60's and 70's when California was still committed to higher education, over half of the Phd's in the world came from California schools -- primarily, UC's. The aerospace, agricultural, electoronic and other technical developments that made California's economy the best in the nation came from UC schools.

Now, poorly developed states like Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, etc. have copied our model, and they are attracting the businesses that grew California's economy. Meanwhile, we keep pushing up the cost of attending a UC.

We need a recommitment to higher education by putting pressure on our politicians to put money back into the UC system and rolling back the fee increases that have made it much more difficult to get kids to go to UCLA.

In constrast to SC, starting the 30's when UCLA came to Westwood, UCLA took poor kids out of east LA (in those days Boyle Heights was Jewish) and other poor neighborhoods and gave them a great education at a very reasonable cost. That is the tradition that brought us Jackie Robinson. We should return to it.

by uclagradscdad on Apr 15, 2007 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I haven't kept track of the changes.

But things have really changed. Now, we are essentially the same as Ivy League schools (except of course our Basketball team is better -can't say the same about the Football team.)

When I started (in 1964), fees really were $121.80 per semester (which we thought was a little high, and which REALLY made the trOJans mad.) My folks were not rich at all and could only provide minuscule assistance. I paid my way through school with what I made during the summer (I worked 60 hours a week, and my take home pay was $56.25). And I only took out one loan, because the passbook interest rate was slightly higher than the loan interest rate. So I took the loan, put it in the bank, and at the end of the year, paid the loan, and netted something like $10.00 in pure profit. (Big time playing of the arbitrage game, for sure.) My highest pay rate was when I worked for the school as an usher at Pauley (yes, I got paid $2.00 an hour to watch Coach's teams.)

I was by no means at the top of my high school class in GPA's and didn't max the SAT's. How I got accepted is beyond me. But I did, and I survived financially. But somehow, the entrance requirements gradually ratcheted upwards, as did the costs of attending.

I knew it would happen sooner or later (it was bound to, I suppose), but I agree with scdad. There ought to be some way that a generation of Bruins can be turned out who are not immediately in a huge financial hole. I haven't thought things completely through, but somehow I feel that Coach Dorrell is at least partly responsible.

by Fox 71 on Apr 15, 2007 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's preserve this moment of unity!

Fox -- My story is much the same as yours, and I agree Koach Karl must have done something to cause this current problem.

by uclagradscdad on Apr 15, 2007 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

The politicians now just pay lip service to education. They like to tout it as their central campaign ideologies to get elected, and as soon as they get into office, what gets cut first? None of them care enough to change this disturbing trend. It's one of the reasons I'm so jaded by politics. When a prominent political figure finally stands up and delivers on the promises made to the people before the promises made to his financial backers, then maybe I'll finally have some hope.

by Tydides on Apr 15, 2007 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would love to see the State budget

And, well, the national budget while we're at it. Over $439 billion for "defense" i.e. making war in 2007, up from $410 in 2006. Education was reduced from $56.5 billion to $54 billion. Hmmm...I don't know...could it be that our priorities are somewhat RIDICULOUS? As an out-of-state student in 1991, I paid just under $10k/yr before becoming a resident, then paid $4k a year. I am shocked to hear how expensive it is now...

Here's a link to the US Budget...if you can stomach it.

by tasser10 on Apr 16, 2007 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs