Editor’s Note: The post below details the harrowing allegations circling former Penn State defensive football coach Jerry Sandusky.  It includes unsettling details regarding the allegations, and may be unsuitable for some readers.

Late Wednesday evening representatives from Pennsylvania State University announced the university fired Joesph Vincent Paterno, the coach with the most wins in Division I college football, whom many affectionately referred to as “Joe Paterno,” or simply “Joe Pa.”   It ended his nearly half a century tenure with the school, saddened legions of loyal supporters sensing the inevitable and enraged other loyal supporters believing Penn State should allow Joe Paterno to leave on his own terms.  Undoubtedly, Penn State had little choice other than to distance itself from Coach Paterno in response to growing (and alarming) questions regarding his involvement and failure to adequately report hideous accounts of a sickening pattern of child abuse allegedly performed by a member of his coaching staff.  

Earlier in the week, reports emerged revealing that the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office released a  Grand Jury Presentation, which offered damning details of horrific incidents of repeated sexual abuse perpetrated by former Penn State football defensive coach Gerald A.  Sandusky.  In short, the report alleges Sandusky, while a defensive coach at Penn State and years following his retirement in 1999 used his charitable organization, “initially devoted to troubled young boys,”  as a guise to provide him access to vulnerable young boys that he might appease his own deviant sexual appetites.  His nefarious plot, as outlined in the report, is described in harrowing detail.  It  lists repeated instances of Sandusky lavishing gifts upon young men from the program, gaining their trust through said gifts and other means, only to ultimately begin a sexual relationship with each.  The boys ranged in age from eight to thirteen a the time in which Sandusky allegedly began his vile interactions with them. Dozens of adults came into knowledge of said pattern of behavior, and each did little to stop it, or made extensive efforts to conceal it from the public.   The pattern of behavior sadly bears striking resemblance to other sexual abuse scandals.

Joe Paterno early in his coaching carrer

For those unaware, Joseph Vincent Paterno is a former college football coach, who remained at the helm of the vaulted Penn State Nittany Lions from 1966 until Wednesday evening.  He presently holds the record for most victories in Division I college football, and presided over five undefeated teams that won major Bowl games (including national championships in 1982 and 1986) during the course of his career.  He came to Penn State as an assistant football coach shortly after graduating from Brown University in 1950.  He moved up in the ranks, until he eventually became the head coach of the football team in 1966.  He soon became a bastion of academic integrity and upstanding character, as he championed academic excellence and morality over athletic prowess.  He deemed it “the grand experiment,” and it paid huge dividends as his teams enjoyed continued success during his tenure.  Over the years he became emblematic of college football in general and Pennsylvania State University particularly.   Many fondly referred to him as the “Pope of Happy Valley.”  His experiment was challenged when many of his players had encounters with the law, but none have challenged his experiment more than this.  The scandal at the university will forever tarnish his legacy in ironic fashion considering his fabled title.   He is not alone.

The emerging scandal at Penn State has also implicated two other university administrators, Athletic Director Timothy Curley, and Gary Schultz, the University’s Senior Vice President for Business and Finance, as they were charged with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse.  Penn State also announced it has recently fired the University President, Graham Spanier.  According to the grand jury report, both were keenly aware of Sandusky’s suspicious behavior and did not notify the proper authorities.  Also, according to the grand jury report, others were aware as well. 

More specifically, on March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant named Michael McQuery entered the football locker room on Lasch Football Stadium on the University Park Campus around 9:30pm on a Friday evening before Spring Break.  As a he entered the locker room, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on, and further surprised to hear what he described as “rhythmic slapping sounds” he believed to be sexual in nature.  McQuery looked into the showers and saw a naked boy (whose age he estimated to be roughly ten years old) with his hands up against the wall being subjected to anal intercourse by Sandusky.  McQuery “immediately left” the locker room without intervening, and waited until the next day to report the incident to Joe Paterno.  The report made its way to then Athletic Director Timothy Curley and then Vice President for Business and Finance Gary Schultz.  Little happened thereafter.   In 1998, a parent reported her eleven year old son’s recounting of Sandusky showering with him after inviting him to the Penn State football facilities to University Police.  A police detective heard Sandusky apologize to the mother of the eleven year old, saying, “I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness.  I know I won’t get it from you.  I wish I was dead.”   Sandusky also admitted to showering with the boy to the detective.  No charges were pressed.  In the fall of 2000, two jaintors individually witnessed Sandusky engaging in sexual behavior with young boys on two separate occasions.  They both reported it to their superiors, yet little happened thereafter.  According to reports, the former district attorney in Centre County, Ray Gricar, who chose not to prosecute Sandusky when allegations surfaced in 1998 strangely disappeared in 2005.  In a more disconcerting development new allegations have emerged that Sandusky “pimped out” young boys to wealthy donors. 

Joe Paterno and Gerald "Jerry" Sandusky earlier in their respective coahing careers

Time and time again, those with the power to stop these tragic crimes opted to not to protect the children harmed.  This is despite the fact that Sandusky repeatedly, unabashedly, engaged in sexual contact with young boys in his home, in their respective schools, on Penn State’s campus and various other locations; at least three adults witnessed said acts, reported them and little seemed to happen thereafter.  Others learned of these despicable acts and remained silent (in a public sense) for years.  Consequently,  Sandusky retired in 1999 without any public reprimand, without any criminal sanctions and was given an office on Penn State’s facility after university administrators had at least some knowledge of his inappropriate contact with children.   As the public outcry bemoaning the failure Joe Paterno to reached a fever pitch, the revered coach reluctantly relented, and indicated he planned to retire at season’s end.  In so doing, he said  “I wish I had done more.”  The university finally came to its senses and released him of his responsibilities on Wednesday. 

Like so many others who find themselves transfixed in compromising situations, Paterno waited unti he got exposed to attempt to do what is right.  His failure to respond adequately to these events prior to this exposure, coupled with his stated desire to coach games after the allegations surrounding Sandusky surfaced to the public represent a callous disregard for the gravity of the horrendous acts that transpisred under Paterno’s watch.    The outpouring of support for Joe Paterno from members of the student body demonstrate a fundamental lack of concern for the gravity of these allegations and further represent a culture of willful blindness at Penn State University. 

It would seem that the rules applied differently to Joe Paterno.   He was lauded for his coaching greatness, yet failed to win a championship in the past twenty-five years, celebrated for his character development despite numerous players encountering struggles with the law.  In what might prove to be the ultimate test of his character, he chose to protect himself, his legacy, his friend  and the institution that gave him power rather than protect innocent children.  It would then make perfect sense then that one of Paterno’s disciples,  Michael McQuery, could witness the violent sexual assault of a child, elect not to intervene, report the incident later, and then proceed publicly as though nothing happened.  In light of such a culture, one can fully understand how university officials could effectively cover up this scandal for years.  Evil persisted on Penn State’s campus (and throughout Happy Valley for that matter) because the professed good people did little, if anything to stop it. 

Joe Paterno leads the Nittany Lions onto the field for the season opener against University of South Florida Sept. 3, 2005. Paterno became the 21st member of the Penn State Football family to be enshrined into the Hall, joining four former coaches and 16 players, seven of whom he coached -- John Cappelletti, Keith Dorney, Jack Ham, Ted Kwalick, Lydell Mitchell, Dennis Onkotz and Mike Reid. Former Nittany Lion coaches Dick Harlow (1915-17), Hugo Bezdek (1918-29), Bob Higgins (1930-48) and Rip Engle (1950-65) also are members of the Hall of Fame.

There have been, and will be, formal statements frm Penn State and Joe Paterno uttering contrition.  The University will distance itself, at least for now, from all those who have become toxic over the course of the past few weeks.   Nevertheless, the institution and its corresponding community’s actions will speak louder.  Beginning this Saturday, Penn State will continue playing football in the same facility where several boys were violated by one of Penn State’s own.  Others involved in the scandal, to varying degrees, will remain involved in the football program.  This should not be.  Presumably we will be made to forget this tragic incident in the days to come. 

Nevertheless, we should not forget, lest these things happen again.  We must also seek to find answers to some of the sinister questions left with all of this.  Why would Joe Paterno initially say the allegations “shocked” him, despite him having prior knowledge of the alleged incidents and offering testimony in prior investigations?  Why did Joe Paterno await for the allegations to become public before he expressed remorse for his involvement and lack thereof?  Why did McQueary say nothing publicly about the incident he witnessed over seven years ago?  Would McQueary have been more prone to intervene in the incident he witnessed had he observed Sandusky raping a young girl?  Why did district attorney Ray Gricar refuse to prosecute this case when he first learned of it in 1998, and why did he turn up missing six years ago?  Why did the Athletic Director, University Senior Vice President for Business and Finance, etal refuse to report the allegations to the proper authorities?  Why was Sandusky allowed to retire gracefully with little more than a presumptive private scolding?   Why did the general public ignore warning signs and initial reports of inappropriate conduct on the part of Sandusky?  How could an academic institution, which prides itself on achieving success honorably, fall so short of its own lofty standards merely to protect the reputation and legacy of its football program?  Why did so many people do so little to stop this continued abuse?  How many more victims are awaiting justice?  How many more took advantage of them?  Why is the NCAA so quiet during this scandal?  Why have there been no public discussions of cancelling Saturday’s game or penalizing the Penn State program?  Why is the program attempting the complete the season rather than devote its complete attention to this matter?  Is it truly more harmful in the eyes of the NCAA for institutions to lie about players recieving ”impermissible benefits” or fail to monitor  players recieving gifts in exchange for their own memorablia than it is for institutions to cover up sex abuse of children that happens on its campus?

Surely, this scandal at Penn State is more reflective of broader patterns of abuse of children by adults and communities who refuse to protect said children.  We have witnessed this in communities of faith, both in the Protestant Church and Catholic Church, politics, the entertainment industry. These patterns will continue so long as good people stand idly by.  Sadly, it appears as though we have a long way to go to convince them of that.

Almost a year ago, I wrote about the controversy circling Bishop Eddie L. Long concerning the emergence of four civil suits, filed in Dekalb County, alleging that the bishop, “through manipulation, coercion, deception and fraud” engaged in a sexual relationship with four young men while they were teenagers.  (You may read my initial article in its entirety here.)  Each of the four suits presented their allegations with damning details.  They made specific references to expensive gifts, exotic trips financed by funds from the church.  Despite the staggering nature of the allegations, and the enormity of their implications, Bishop Long received, and has continued to receive, an inordinate amount of support from his followers, other high profile preachers and notable celebrities.  When the suits reached the public, Bishop Long initially lurked in the shadows, presumably at the advice of his counsel, and offered little to no direct rebuttal to the suits’ claims.  In his first public address to his congregation, he made curiously ambiguous statements like, “I never portrayed myself as a perfect man . . . but I am not the man that’s being portrayed on television; that’s not me,” “This thing I’m gone fight,” and “I’ve got five rocks, and I ain’t thrown one of them yet.”  He never once denied the veracity of the claims, he merely stated the portrayal of him in the news media was “not [him],” which could mean a wide range of things.

News of the allegations reverberated for weeks on end, then slowly began to dwindle, until it was learned that the parties reached a settlement for a reported amount of nearly $25 million, in addition to a private apology.   According to reports, the settlement awarded the young men $2.2 million to divide equally, and then each would receive $400,000 in payments until the money is paid over the next twenty years.  The final figure totaled $22 million for the four men, and roughly $2.8 million for their attorneys.  Immediately following news of the settlement, New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. released a “resolution” statement, one which was glaring in its impotence to address the gravity of the matter.  It read:  “After a series of discussions, all parties involved have decided to resolve the civil cases out of court. This decision was made to bring closure to this matter and to allow us to move forward with the plans God has for this ministry.  As is usually the case when civil lawsuits resolve out of court, we cannot discuss any details regarding the resolution or the resolution process, as they are confidential.  This resolution is the most reasonable road for everyone to travel.”

As an attorney, I completely comprehend the notion that the resolution of a civil complaint through pre-trial settlement does not qualify as an admission of guilt or any other liability.  Indeed, wise counsel often advise their clients of the propriety of settling contentious matters prior to reaching trial for a number of legitimate reasons: sparing the cost and expense of lengthy trials, the lesser standard of proof in a civil trials (based on a preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal trials) can produce an unwanted outcome regardless of evidence in one’s favor, trial records could potentially preserve unsavory details about the matter and present them to the public, et cetera.  Jesus even admonished his followers to “agree with thine adversary quickly” with regard to court proceedings.  Notwithstanding, this controversy is different, especially considering recent reports have named a fifth accuser who also received part of the settlement.  This accuser has Bishop Long’s name tattooed on his wrist, slightly above an inscription that reads, “Never a mistake, always a lesson.”

Will Bishop Long ever explain why he sent this picture to one of the plaintiffs?

Such disturbing details, ones which Bishop Long wanted us all not to believe, deserved the fight the bishop promised.  He told his congregation, and all those watching the service’s broadcast, on Sunday September 26, 2010 that he would fight the allegations.  He told them that the man portrayed on television “was not [him].” He proudly proclaimed he had five rocks and “[had not] thrown one yet.” It was an awkward comparison considering he stood in the position of power, yet it roused his congregation nonetheless.   They expected to bishop to engage in a protracted legal battle that would ultimately vindicate him.

Nevertheless, as the parties moved towards a trial that could have potentially cleared his name of all wrongdoing, he settled the matter and kept the five rocks in his sling.  A reputed holy man seeking to clear his name of unfathomable transgressions should have sought more than the comforts a pre-trial settlement offered.  The aforementioned rationales for settlement should not have been enough for him to make this matter quietly go away.

If Bishop Long was willing to pay a reported award of $24.8 million, could he legitimately argue he settled to avoid the cost of a lengthy trial?  Should we question who is paying this sum considering the church was a named defendant in each of the four suits?  Shouldn’t his “five rocks” have provided sufficient ammunition to counteract the “evidence” presented by the plaintiffs?  Why issue a private apology if he knew he committed no wrong?  If he “was not the man portrayed on television,” would he truly find it necessary to prevent unsavory details from becoming public trial record?  Did he fully understand the implications of settling, especially for such a large sum, rather than at least offering the semblance of a fight?  The answer to all seems to be a resounding “no.”

This settlement suggests the unthinkable; Bishop Long used his stature, influence and access to abundant riches to prey upon some of his congregation’s most vulnerable members, young men seeking guidance from an influential father figure.  It would appear as though Kai Wright of The Root is right in declaring Bishop Long is nothing short of a sexual predator who used The Bible, his church and his position of power to prey upon boys.  It is a vile, despicable, unsettling revelation.  It completely disqualifies him from leading others in the faith, and those in ardent support of him should look inwardly to discover why they support the bishop.  He also violated the sacred trust between himself and his congregants.   He also aroused serious questions about his previously fiery rhetoric against the homosexual community.  It also has rendered tremendous damage to the faith.  As I wrote previously, “[Another] unfortunate truth with regard to this scandal is that it “[has] given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme.” Christianity once again has been marred by the sullied reputation of one its leaders.”  In ten short months, Bishop Long has done more to discredit the faith he has preached about for the past few decades than any of his great works did to advance it.

Jesus offered a stern warning to those who “offend one of these little ones which believe in [Him]“,  and the Bible clearly articulates the standards a bishop, pastor or preacher of the Gospel should uphold.  Bishop Eddie L. Long has failed miserably to meet such standards as evidenced by this scandal he paid handsomely to rid himself of.  While it appears he has escaped judgment in the earth, suffice to say, Bishop will have much to account for in the heretocome.  Those who continue to support him should question their motives in doing so.  Their support of him is a tacit support of a reprehensible pattern of predatory abuse and institutional neglect.   Sadly, it appears as though we have a long way to go to convince them of that.

Tupac Amaru Shakur

 Editor’s Note: This article appears in the July 2011 Issue of Hip-Hop Stardom 101

“The tragedy of Tupac is that his untimely passing is representative of too many young black men in this country . . . If we had lost Oprah Winfrey at twenty-five, we would have lost a relatively unknown, local market TV anchorwoman.  If we had lost Malcolm X at twenty-five, we would have lost a hustler named Detroit Red.  If Martin Luther King died at twenty-five he would’ve been known as a local Baptist preacher.  And if I had left the world at twenty-five, we would have lost a big-band trumpet player and aspiring composer—just a sliver of my eventual life potential.”

-Quincy Jones

Quincy Jones penned those famous words as part of the foreword in the commemorative book Vibe Magazine issued in the fall of 1998 celebrating the life and legacy of slain rapper and actor Tupac Shakur.  As Mr. Jones astutely opined, an “untimely” death robbed legions of adoring fans, ardent critics and casual onlookers alike from the opportunity to observe how the rose that grew from concrete would ultimately bloom.  We will never learn what Tupac would have become were he still with us.  Nevertheless, one thing is certain, nearly fifteen years since his death, Tupac Amaru Shakur remains a cultural icon.

His life and professional career are well documented.  Born in the East Harlem section of Manhattan one month after his mother’s acquittal on more than 150 charges of “conspiracy against the United States government and New York landmarks” in the New York Panther Party 21 case, it would seem Tupac was destined to live the life of a revolutionary artist.  His mother named him after José Gabriel Túpac Amaru II, one of the leaders of the indigenous Peruvian people’s uprising against the Spanish in 1780.  As an adolescent, he displayed his considerable artistic gifts as he bounced from Harlem to Baltimore to Marin City California.  It was in Marin City where his immense gifts led to a chance meeting with Atron Gregory, who later set Tupac up as a roadie and backup dancer for Digital Underground in 1990.

Tupac and Shock G of Digital Underground

With an outstanding verse in Digital Underground’s Same Song, a tune that appeared on the soundtrack to the 1991 film Nothing But Trouble, Tupac emerged as a rising star in urban music.  He subsequently released his debut studio album, 2Pacalypse Now, in November of that year. The album ignited fiery debates about the propriety of its release (Dan Quayle once famously quipped, “There’s no reason for a record like this to be released. It has no place in our society.”) and received Gold certification from RIAA.   In that same year, he appeared in Juice, to critical acclaim, as the combustible character Bishop.  He followed the success of 2Pacalypse Now and his appearance in Juice with his platinum sophomore album, entitled Strictly 4 My N.I.G.G.A.Z, in addition to a critically acclaimed acting performance in the film Above the Rim and a smattering of television appearances.  Afterwards, he continued releasing material that garnered critical acclaim and commercial success, beginning with his seminal work, Me Against the World (widely heralded as a hip-hop classic and RIAA certified as 2x platinum). Tupac followed Me Against the World with All Eyez on Me (also regarded as a hip-hop classic and RIAA certified as 9x platinum).

In short, Tupac transcended hip-hop and dominated the culture with his five short years in the spotlight.  He sold tens of millions of records, topped Billboard charts, appeared in major motion pictures, sparked numerous national debates on censorship and was a central figure in the legendary inter-coastal hip-hop rivalry.

On a cool evening in September in 1996 it all came to an abrupt end when an unknown gunman fired a barrage of bullets into the car he rode in on the way to a Las Vegas nightclub.  In the first several years after his death, the public was inundated with Tupac: nine posthumous albums, three posthumous film appearances, fourteen documentaries covering his career and legacy, et cetera.

Nevertheless, in recent months, it is as though Tupac is more alive today than ever.  Around this time last year, the Library of Congress added Tupac’s highly revered single Dear Mama to the National Recording Registry, calling the song “a moving and eloquent homage to both the murdered rapper’s own mother and all mothers struggling to maintain a family in the face of addiction, poverty and societal indifference.”  President Obama made a passing reference to Tupac at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner in April.  In May emerging rapper Meek Mill released his enormously popular single, Tupac Back feat. Rick Ross (the song subsequently spawned a slew of uninspiring remixes).  Last month, Dexter Isaac confessed to participating in the November 1994 shooting of Tupac.  This summer, Tupac’s fortieth birthday celebration seemed more elaborate and more publicized than prior celebrations.  Such is a testament to his lasting impact, and while also begging the question, “Is Tupac back?”

Tupac in a scene from Poetic Justice

In a word, “No.”  Regardless of the number of radio spins and digital downloads Meek Mill’s Tupac Back might accomplish, none of them will prove sufficient to warrant apt comparisons between Tupac and Meek Mill.  If anything, the song serves as a vivid reminder of the stark difference between the two and all other rappers who have emerged after Tupac’s death.  There is yet another reason the answer is no, and that is because it is as though Tupac never left us (all conspiracy theories aside).  Tupac embodied what hip-hop purports to be.

Hip-hop, when done right, is merely a microcosm of a larger cultural, economic, historical, political, spiritual struggle of African Americans in their quest for developing an identity in American society initially, and now other cultures across the world who have subsequently become impacted by that expression. At its core, hip-hop is a distinct expression of the people.  Tupac’s catalog encapsulated that expression.  As scholar Michael Eric Dyson stated, “[Tupac] spoke with brilliance and insight as someone who bears witness to the pain of those who would never have his platform.”  His work captured the joys, struggles, desperation and triumph of African Americans wrestling with an inherently unequal access to this nation’s most precious promises.  It also captured the violence, bigotry, misogyny, lasciviousness and covetousness that have plagued our society.  As Quincy Jones noted in his foreword, Tupac was a man “cloaked in contradictions.”  Indeed he was; the same man who wrote Keep Ya Head Up wrote I Get Around, the same man behind Brenda’s Got a Baby thrust How Do You ant It upon the world.

Perhaps Tupac’s greatest strength doubled as his greatest weakness, his unflinching ability to speak his mind.  This innate quality allowed for him to speak his mind, regardless of whom such thoughts might offend.  He simply had little regard for the consequences of his words.  Tupac seemingly feared the wrath his conscience would inflict upon him for keeping silent more than he feared the backlash of any person.  That desire to tell the truth of what lay in his heart, even when it revealed unseemly desires simultaneously captivated fans and incensed his critics.   It also still fascinates us today, as is evidenced by his continued relevance in the culture.  If Tupac is truly back, perhaps his reemergence will show us of who we truly are and remind us the perilous path where many of our inordinate affections lead.

Tupac and Suge Knight moments before the shooting that resulted in Tupac's death

“[I]t remains to be seen, no matter how deep this thing goes, whether the soul of Atlanta has really been stirred, whether or not Atlanta will recognize that it is facing a genuine crisis of character, character that is decaying because of fear, intimidation and retaliation.”

-Khaatim Sherrer El (Former Atlanta Public School System Board Chairman)

Roughly two weeks ago, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal announced what many familiar with the Atlanta Public School System had long feared, rampant cheating inflated standardized test scores in the Atlanta Public School System dating as far back as 2001.  An investigation, led by former Attorney General Mike Bowers and former Dekalb County District Attorney Bob Wilson, interviewed more than 2,000 people and reviewed more than 800,00 documents.  The investigation implicated 178 educators, principals and teachers alike (all of whom pled the Fifth Amendment), and revealed a “culture of fear and a conspiracy of silence infected the school system, and kept many teachers from speaking freely about misconduct.”  Eighty-two additional educators confessed to participating in various forms of cheating, including erasing wrong answers on students’ multiple choice exams and replacing them with correct answers.  The investigation further revealed how school officials ignored warning dating back to 2005 and also that they provided false statements to cover up wrongdoing.

Former School Board Chairman, Khaatim Sherrer El, warned the city for more than a year that its “political power elite and downtown business community” protected the district’s then-Superintendent Beverly Hall to conceal the cheating epidemic.  When a state investigation confirmed his deep suspicions, he remarked, “I take no solace in knowing my disbeliefs have been confirmed by the governor’s report.”  Rather, he asked piercing questions during a press conference slightly before abruptly announcing his resignation, “Why was this cheating scandal so exclusively pronounced for some children and not others, splitting sharply along racial lines, in its mistreatment of the poor and disenfranchised?” he asked.  No answers emerged, yet one thing remains certain, the scandal will lead to massive changes in the Atlanta Public School System (at the time of this writing, interim Atlanta Public Schools interim Superintendent Erroll Davis has replaced four area superintendents and two principals).

Recent reporting has further indicated that the cheating that has rocked the Atlanta Public School System might have wider ranging implications.  State investigators have begun initial reviews of “suspicious erasures” found on test answer sheets in 191 schools in thirty-five Georgia districts (fifty-eight of which were Atlanta schools).  Similarly, a three-year state investigation has discovered a high percentage of erasure marks on standardized tests at some New Jersey public schools, which has raised the possibility of cheating to boost scores.  Similar reports have emerged from Texas, and anecdotal evidence I have encountered suggest the list of implicated school systems will only grow as more information becomes public.

Public Education Director of the National Center of Fair & Open Testing, Robert Shaeffer, recently noted how the number of “confirmed reports of score manipulation has exploded,” and subsequently concluded the pressure placed on teachers by policies emphasizing standardized test scores (e.g. No Child Let Behind) “foster an environment ripe for cheating.” The investigative report’s summary from Georgia drew similar conclusions; “Cheating was caused by a number of factors but primarily by the pressure to meet targets in the data-driven environment.”  Suffice to say, No Child Left Behind, and other standards-based reform (e.g. Race to the Top) fail to meet their lofty goals and yield a host of unexpected consequences.

In arguably its most important decision of the past century, the Supreme Court in Brown famously stated, “In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.”[1] Brown introduced new notions of equal educational opportunity and established important goals in educational equity as those to be adopted by federal, state and local governments.[2] More than fifty years later, tremendous deficits in the academic performance of most poor and minority students amounts to a diminished “opportunity of an education” for millions of students nationwide,[3] and represents the most pressing issue in American education today.[4] Scores of advocates and observers have offered proposed remedies to reform education in failing schools,[5] and presently most policymakers have almost unanimously agreed upon the implementation of some form of high-stakes standardized testing—standards-based reform—as the desired means to facilitate the much needed improvement in America’s underperforming schools.[6]

Standards-based reforms, which have become the hallmark of educational reform in the modern era,[7] revolve around the fundamental belief that “all children can learn.”[8]The Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 is the capstone in this education reform initiative, and to date remains unprecedented in the depth of its stated commitment to ensuring students across the nation meet stringent academic proficiency standards.[9] Its mandates become all the more important when noting the considerable gap in the current “academic function levels of most poor and minority students.”[10]The Act embarks on the ambitious journey of narrowing that gap and decrees all children must “meet or exceed the State’s proficient level of academic achievement . . .[on] challenging academic content standards and challenging student academic achievement standards,” by 2014.[11]

While notable in its ambitions, NCLB has fallen short of such an arduous task.[12]  NCLB relies too heavily on flawed high-stakes standardized testing models and quantitative measures, and in so doing, it masks a “ceiling as a floor.”[13]  Notably standards-based reform fail to address serious impediments to learning, including “the need for improved instructional opportunities in the classroom, health of students, nutrition, housing, family support and scores of other out-of-school factors.”[14] The Act also creates extensive demands on the states while failing to provide adequate funding to meet these new federal mandates,[15] which in turn continues the ironic reality that the “educational finance systems in most states” provide less resources to students with the greatest demonstrated need.[16] NCLB also inadvertently creates an atmosphere that encourages states to lower their academic standards, promotes school segregation and discourages talented instructors from accepting positions in challenging classrooms—all incentives that stand in direct opposition to the Act’s stated goals.[17]  Instead it reveals how the accelerated pace to achieve goals based on faulty measures tend to yield faulty results.  Unfortunately, the education of millions of children was compromised for us to relearn that lesson.

-Frederick Douglass, circa 1891

Nearly two hundred and twenty-four years have elapsed since The United States of America “launched its improbable experiment in democracy;” and yet in still the nation unquestionably grapples with the problem of “the relation of the darker to the lighter races,” as it did during the time when a collection of “farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots . . . made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention.”  Undoubtedly America’s bitter struggle to navigate the quagmire of its racial caste system arises from the nation’s tortured history of slavery.

Our nation’s original text enshrined America’s most shameful compromise by allowing for the slave trade to continue twenty more years beyond the ratification of the Constitution.  Consequently, the nation’s highest law denied entire segments of the population its most precious bequest, “ the rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by [the founding] fathers.” Congress has long since sought to remedy this injustice with the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, but America has still searches to absolve its “original sin.”

Four different stories in the recent news cycle have illustrated such points.  Those stories—a congresswoman’s egregiously erroneous account of the founding fathers’ role in abolishing slavery, a Secession Ball in South Carolina, a new edition of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn that removes its use of racial epithets and a parent’s lawsuit against a local school district alleging the school district inflicted emotional distress upon an elementary school student when her school taught about slavery—demonstrate our failed attempts to reconcile our disgraceful past.

While speaking at an event sponsored by Iowans For Tax Relief last month, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said the United States was founded on racial and ethnic diversity.  Additionally, she proclaimed that the founding fathers worked “tirelessly” to abolish slavery.  Specifically, she stated, “men like John Quincy Adams . . . would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”  While she accurately described slavery as an “evil,” “scourge” and “stain on our “history,” she also heralded America at the time of European settlement as a nation composed of “different cultures, different backgrounds, different traditions,” and further added that the “color of their skin” or “language” or “economic status” did not factor into the treatment of various people.  She said, “Once you got here, we were all the same.  Isn’t that remarkable? It is absolutely remarkable.”   Nothing could be further from the truth.  As the late Judge A. Leon Higginbotham put it: “[T]he Constitution’s references to justice, welfare and liberty were mocked by the treatment meted out daily to blacks from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries through the courts, in legislative statues, and in those provisions of the Constitution that sanctioned slavery for the majority of black Americans and allowed disparate treatment for those few blacks legally ‘free.’”

ST. PAUL, MN - SEPTEMBER 02: U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) speaks on day two of the Republican National Convention (RNC) at the Xcel Energy Center on September 2, 2008 in St. Paul,

Critics of Congresswoman Bachmann’s remarks abound, yet one of the more harrowing parts of her preposterous view of American history is that so many people share it, or want to share it.  Few in attendance at the event where Rep. Bachmann made her remarks objected to her comments, perhaps because they two wanted to believe a part of American history that did actually not occur.  Recently in South Carolina, some private citizens also showcased their desire to romanticize distasteful portions of the nation’s history.

Several weeks ago, South Carolina began commemorating the 150-year anniversary of its secession with a series of public events.   On Thursday December 20, 1860, the 169 delegates of the South Carolina state convention voted unanimously to issue “An Ordinance to Dissolve the Union Between the State of South Carolina and the Other States.” The document declared that South Carolina repealed the United States Constitution and its amendments, called for a confederacy of the states and eventually led to the beginning of The Civil War.

While South Carolina commemorated its secession with little fanfare outside of the state, a privately sponsored event sparked a larger controversy.  Particularly, several South Carolina citizens organized a “Secession Ball” in the city of Charleston, in which revelers dress in period costume.  The Ball sparked controversy because of the attendants’ reckless attempt to relish a time many would rather soon forget; moments when the value of its slaves mattered more to South Carolina than its membership in the Union.  It is as NPR host Michel Martin noted during her interview with Charleston Mayor Joseph Riley, “despite being rooted in the past, certain events can cut very deeply in the present.” The same holds true for a time-honored piece of American literature.

An Alabama-based publishing company, NewSouth Books, recently released a new US edition of Mark Twain‘s classic novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The newly released edition will feature notable revisions; it will supplant the novel’s now infamous use of the demeaning racial epithet, “nigger” for the word “slave.” NewSouth Books’ newly released edition also expunges the derogatory term “injun” from the novel.  Though the book’s editor, Dr. Alan Gribben of Auburn University, Montgomery advocated for the revisions, they have fostered a vigorous debate. Dr. Gribben has explained the revisions by stating, “We may applaud Twain’s ability as a prominent American literary realist to record the speech of a particular region during a specific historical era, but abusive racial insults that bear distinct connotations of permanent inferiority nonetheless repulse modern-day readers.”

I remember hearing comparable lines of reasoning when similar debates emerged when I read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn while in high school.  Such reasoning, as compassionate as it might be, does not convince me any more now than it did then.  The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which chronicles exploits of a young man along the Mississippi River in the mid-19^th Century, has become classic American literature because of its beautiful story telling and griping portrayal of a bygone era.  Readers journeyed with Finn as he rode the curves of the Mississippi and observed along with Finn a time few living persons can scarcely remember.  That is why leaving the original text intact, with all its hurtful language, is necessary.  To remove it would be to pretend as though such harsh realities did not exist.  Nevertheless, those realities did exist, and we must face them as we must face others.   This is a lesson a parent in Michigan has yet to fully grasp.

Jamey Petree, an African American father in Michigan, recently filed a lawsuit against his daughter’s former school district, essentially alleging his daughter suffered racial bias when her teacher read passages regarding slavery.  The suit, filed in Macomb County Circuit Court in Mount Clemens, seeks more than $25,000 in compensation.  Mr. Petree’s allegations hinge on language in passages from a book entitled From Slave Ship to Freedom Road, a book his daughter’s fifth grade class read referencing slavery.  He alleges hearing references to the purchase of slaves, in addition to the use of “nigger” when referring to slaves and other derogatory references to African Americans inflicted emotional distress upon his daughter.

While I certainly empathize with Mr. Petree’s concern over his daughter’s reaction to excerpts from From Slave Ship to Freedom Road, I find his suit a terrible mistake.  Similarly to how proponents of censoring The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn took offense to language referencing African Americans.  Mr. Petree and his daughter should take offense to writings that refer to African Americans’ skin as “satan’s thoughts.”  That is the point.  Slavery was traumatic.  Any accurate retelling of its horrors should shock and appall any who encounter it.

The legacy of chattel slavery is America’s most notorious blight, and the repugnant legacy produced by slavery’s offspring serve as painful reminders of the fallibility of a nation that holds noble truths “self-evident.”  Notwithstanding, that painful history is American history.  The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, Jim Crow, racially motivated domestic terror and the like, are as much a part of American history as Lexington and Concord, Lewis and Clark’s arrival at the Pacific and/or The Louisiana Purchase.  The United States of America must acknowledge its shameful past for what it is, if it is ever to successfully bend its narrative arc above the color line and “rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’”  There is no other way.

Conforming our past indiscretions to what we desire our nation to become, or wish it once was, is intellectually dishonest and dooms are nation to continue rehearsing the feigned theater of racial reconciliation rather than merely accomplishing it.  The founding fathers did not fight tirelessly to abolish slavery. The Three Fifths Compromise is still in the Constitution.  Slavery officially ended within the union seventy-six years after the ratification of the Constitution.  Many of the founding fathers owned slaves at the time of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, including Thomas Jefferson, who fathered an entire flock of children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings.  The fact that an entire state desired to preserve its “right” to hold slaves trumped its desire to remain in the Union is not worth celebrating.  During the span of our nation’s history, it has proven socially acceptable to refer to African Americans in despicable terms.  Consequently, a work of literature such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn used the word “nigger” 219 times without apology, because the novel merely reflected the spirit of the times.  Chattel slavery as practiced in the United States represented one of the more cruel, brutal and dehumanizing institutions in the history of the world; it’s recounting should shock and upset young children.  Nevertheless, young children, particularly those in America, must learn such tragic details.  To tell another tale of America would simply be one that would find its place amongst myths, epics, fables and other works of fiction.  It would also cement Mark Twain’s assertion that “the very ink with which [our] history is written is merely fluid prejudice.”  We should strive to have the story of our nation’s future written with different ink than the one that wrote its past.

-Michael Vick (Interview on ESPN Radio’s Mike and Mike in the Morning)

Recently I used this space to discuss how sports, “like other modes of entertainment, . . . serve as a medium to convey messages of a given society’s mores.” Perhaps no figure currently embodies the polarizing nature of sports more than Michael Dwayne Vick.  His involvement in a dog-fighting ring several years ago has made him one of the more despised people in all of sports, yet his electrifying style of play endears him to legions of fans across the nation.  In the span of a few days he has won praise from President Obama and simultaneously received calls for his execution.

Nearly two years ago, the Philadelphia Eagles signed him to a two-year contract, hoping he would add an edge of unpredictability to their offensive schemes and adequately serve as the backup of the backup.  This season, when newly appointed quarterback, Kevin Kolb, left the first game of the season due to injury, Michael Vick saw himself in a position many believed would never happen again; he was the starting quarterback for a NFL team.  What transpired after that initial game has become a remarkable tale of redemption.

Michael Vick’s tenure with the Philadelphia Eagles would be mildly irrelevant if he played poorly when offered that opportunity in September.  Nevertheless, he has played spectacularly since he filled in as the starting quarterback, and many have begun suggesting he deserves the league’s most valuable player award.  In slightly more than half of a season, he has completely elevated the expectations for a team many projected to lose half of its games or more.  Now his team has won its division title and fans across Philadelphia are beginning to gleefully imagine an exciting postseason run.  He was named a starter in the 2011 Pro Bowl, is near the league lead in passer rating and has amassed an ever-expanding list of impressive statistics and feats.  In short, his spectacular play this season has showcased his exceptional skills.  It also offers deeper insight into how we view nebulous ideas such as culture, class, race and broad ideas such as forgiveness and redemption.

As a resident of Philadelphia, I regularly hear a self-described “lifelong Eagles fan” declare he/she cannot cheer for the team as long as Michael Vick remains a member of it.  They often offer anecdotes such as their parents put them in an Eagles’ jersey when they were brought home from the hospital, or how they braved the bitter cold as a toddler to attend an Eagles game with their family, or how the Eagles fare during the weekend determines how they view their week.  Now some of these same people say they feel “nothing” when the team plays (I heard similar things when I lived in Atlanta at the time of the dog-fighting investigation).  Others have said that he should never have an opportunity to play in the league again because of his status as a convicted felon.  Many others still protest him at games, both home and away, and news outlets continue to publish reports about the surviving forty-seven dogs.  While these individuals remain entitled to their opinion, I personally find it silly.

The NFL teems with examples of poor judgment and reckless behavior from its players off the field.  Ben Roethlisberger has been accused of sexually assaulting three women in two years, and currently stars in league sponsored commercials.  Brett Farve was accused of sending several female reporters, who worked for the team he played for at the time, unwanted pictures of his genitalia along with other sexually explicit messages.  It took two years for the media to give the story regular coverage, the coverage was relatively minimal, and only addressed one woman’s allegations.  Another player, Donte Stallworth, killed a man when he drove while intoxicated after Michael Vick was indicted for his involvement with dog-fighting.  He received a sentence of twenty-four days in addition to a one year suspension from the NFL.  Other players have been accused or convicted of other egregious crimes; however, none of these instances have received the same sensationalized coverage that has shadowed Michael Vick for the past three years.  There are obvious differences in each case, but it appears that the NFL (along with those who cover and follow it) values the lives of dogs more than the lives and well being of people.  Either that, or there is an enormous double standard attached to criticism circling Michael Vick.

Michael Vick deserved punishment for his involvement in the dog-fighting ring, Bad Newz Kennelz.  His actions, and those of the other perpetrators, were cruel, heinous and disgusting.  Few would argue such points.  Few should also argue that Michael Vick still owes a debt to society.

Ideally our society’s criminal justice system adheres to utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment in an effort to both to deter future wrongdoing and punish wrongdoers.  By every objective measure society has met these goals in its treatment of Michael Vick.  He was certainly punished: he pled guilty to the felony charges, spent twenty-one months in prison (and two more in home confinement), his former team filed a breach of contract action (the parties settled) to essentially void what was then the most lucrative contract in NFL history, he filed for bankruptcy, the NFL reinstated him under strict conditions and he ultimately morphed from a lauded sports hero to a social pariah in a matter of weeks.

If the story ended there, our criminal justice system has received its debt from Michael Vick.   He has earned his right to reenter society and resume gainful employment; and it should make little difference that his form of gainful employment is professional football.  He has become a faithful believer and more responsible father.  “The man is contrite.  He is humbled.  He is chastened.” As reported by ESPN’s Rick Riley, Michael Vick has given over twenty-four speeches for the Humane Society and has publicly dismissed his former friends.  Moreover, John Goodwin of the Human Society has noted Vick’s public downfall from his involvement with dog-fighting became the tipping point for raising awareness and toughening penalties for dog-fighting.  Yet and still, it has not proven enough for some, in large part because of the way in which they view animals.

Our culture has a complicated relationship with animals.  Most people in America have no notable aversions to eating meat or wearing (or using) products made from animal remains.  Additionally, while most people in our society admittedly do not relish torturing animals, few see the irony in that admission and their casual acceptance of chasing relatively defenseless animals and then killing them for sport.  Moreover, there are few public apprehensions about diminishing the acceptable level of treatment of animals many would use as pets when it serves our desires for entertainment (e.g. greyhound racing, horse racing, et cetera.).   Culture shades the lens with which we see it all.

Unfortunately, generations of people in the United States (and elsewhere for that matter) grew up raising some dogs as pet and others as vicious fighters.  For the most part, they viewed this no differently than other Americans who chase an animal in its natural habitat for several hours, shoot it, slit its throat, and then bring back portions of its carcass to brag to their friends and family.  We cannot ignore the cultural elements that shape our judgments on these issues, though many conveniently have done so because of their own bias and prejudices.  Some cultures revere dogs as an integrated portion of the familial unit, some view dogs as unclean, and other groups of people simply do not like dogs.  Sportswriter Bill Simmons noted that during a conversation with filmmaker Steve James, he learned that some “African-Americans . . . were terrified of dogs because of what happened in the 1960s and earlier, when police frequently used attack dogs to ‘quell’ racial protests.” With regard to dogs, one man’s companion is another man’s antagonist, just like with cows, one man’s meal is another man’s sacred beast.

This does not excuse or justify Vick’s prior actions.  Regardless of contrasting cultural mores, Michael Vick erred tragically, and has acknowledged so publicly.  He has accepted responsibility for his actions and encouraged scores of youth not to make the same mistakes he once did.  Perhaps those who struggle to forgive Michael Vick for his past indiscretions have difficulty doing so because they cannot fathom what could potentially motivate a person to act so cruelly towards another living creature.  Perhaps they cannot understand the inhumane treatment of a beloved animal in ways they could potentially understand driving while intoxicated or could potentially understand allowing inebriation to transform strangers into a paramours.  Regardless of whether we can relate to Michael Vick’s personal indiscretions, we all can relate to how we too err and fall terribly short of even our own lofty expectations.  We all also fall terribly short of God’s standard of perfection.  We might look better than our neighbor to ourselves, but we are a sloppy mess in the eyes of God.  Presumably, that is why Jesus instructed us fallible beings to “judge not,” or we will be judged, and judged by the same standards we judge others.

Perhaps Philadelphia Head Coach Andy Reid understood that when he offered Michael Vick a second chance.  Perhaps his own experience with his sons has offered him insight into how forgiveness and second opportunities can genuinely transform the lives of young men.  In the event Andy Reid had other motives in signing Michael Vick, we have all still witnessed a remarkable tale of how God can work wonders with imperfect people.  Will Michael Vick make the most of his newfound opportunity?  I do not know; only time will tell.  I simply believe he deserved the chance he received, and so far he has performed admirably.  He now merely hopes to peacefully gain his living running with and throwing that pigskin covered football Americans have come to love.  Hopefully, we all can begin to forgive him as swiftly as we forgive the people charged with slaughtering swine so men can throw a ball covered with its skin on Sunday.

Moreover sports captivate us because, like other modes of entertainment, they serve as a medium to convey messages of a given society’s mores.  Sports represent intrinsic human traits such as competition, perseverance, determination, passion, teamwork, et cetera.  Consequently, we believe that we might learn a significant amount about an athlete’s character and personality merely by how the athlete plays his/her respective sport.  More particularly, sports in our nation’s culture communicate socially acceptable symbols regarding power, gender roles, race, class, et cetera.

Many sports writers have said similar things. One of whom I read on occasion (Bill Simmons) uses his platform as a popular sports columnist to also discuss, pop culture, in part because of the correlation between how society responds to phenomena within both realms.  Recently one of his readers effectively asked him what five sports-related questions he would want answered if he could have any such questions answered.  In his typical verbose fashion, he offered twenty questions he would want answered when asked for five.  I found his questions amusing for the most part, and they sparked curiosity within me regarding sports in the United States.  Below is my list of sports-related questions I would want an honest answer.  Where my questions overlap with his, I indicate as such.  Naturally, I only asked questions I presume a human could answer, so I excluded a litany of hypothetical questions that I mull over at times (e.g. how would Len Bias had fared in the NBA had he not died from his cocaine overdose, what if Bo Jackson had not injured his hip, what would have happened had the Lakers been able to trade Kobe Bryant to the Bulls before the start of the 2008 season, etc.).

Were the rumors that Babe Ruth had readily identifiable African American lineage true?

As reported by Daniel Okrent for Sports Illustrated, no one disputes that Ruth’s maternal grandparents hailed from Germany; however, many have questioned his father’s ancestry despite the fact his father’s family was considered white by those who knew them.  Furthermore, Ruth endured numerous questions of his racial identity during his playing career and was the subject of many vile, virulent taunts.  For instance, Ty Cobb reportedly refused to share a cabin with Ruth on at a hunting lodge in Georgia, saying, “I’ve never bedded down with a [expletive], and I’m not going to start now.”  Opposing bench jockeys also routinely hurled racial epithets at Ruth upon observing his full lips, broad nose and “swarthy complexion.”  Babe Ruth (and his ancestors) lived in an era where passing was more commonplace than society likes to acknowledge.  My question is simple, how much of these rumors were pure conjecture and how much had a foundation in the truth?

Why was Jackie Robinson selected as the first player to reintegrate Major League Baseball?

As many may know, Jackie Robinson was not the first African American to play in the major league (see above).  All jokes aside, African Americans played in the major league until the league implemented a ban in 1887.  Consequently, Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947 sixty years later in part because Dodgers’ General Manager Branch Rickey determined that the time was right for African Americans to resume playing in major league baseball.  Rickey reportedly considered selecting other players from the Negro Leagues, including—Satchel Paige (the biggest draw and highest-paid player in baseball at the time, was considered too old), Don Newcombe and Roy Campanella—but was convinced his team would rally around a single African American who “had the nerve and the gumption to stand the gaff.”  Therefore, he selected Robinson.  While the nation has retroactively embraced Jackie Robinson as a pioneering hero for shattering racial barriers, some wondered why a second string second baseman would be selected for such a prominent place in history.  Obviously, Robinson’s temperament played an enormous role in his selection, but was he also selected because he would not presumably dominate the major league?

Bill Simmons also asked “Why did Michael Jordan retire from the NBA at the peak of his powers and play baseball for 18 months?” I also would like an answer to that question.

Bill Simmons asked this question, and I also want the answer, “which baseball stars used performance enhancing drugs and how far did it stretch back? Late-1980s? Early 1980s? Mid-1970s? I want the complete list once and for all. Everybody.”

We have heard rumors of involvement of hundreds of players in the performance –enhancing drug scandal, and it seems as though more names emerge each season.  We simply need an exhaustive list once and for all, so that players can be accurately compared and the fibbers can e exposed.

As a follow up, how prevalent is the use of performance-enhancing drugs throughout other professional sports in the United States?

How has Magic Johnson stayed so healthy since his diagnosis?  Are there really no traces of HIV in his blood stream, as he suggests?

Earvin “Magic” Johnson shocked the sports world, and reminded millions of the perils reckless behavior, when he announced on November 7, 1991 that he had contracted HIV, and would retire from playing basketball.  He had received a call October 24, 1991 from Dr. Michael Mellman, then the Lakers’ team physician, informing Magic that he must meet with him immediately.  They met the following day, and Dr. Mellman informed Johnson he had HIV.  A second test later confirmed the ominous news, and Magic made his announcement after consulting with family and close friends.  At the time, many deemed his diagnosis a death sentence, and most Americans expected to watch the legendary basketball player to wither before their eyes.  Ironically, he fared so well and maintained such pristine health, that he became a symbol to many that HIV and AIDS were as deadly as advertised.  In the years to follow, he has mounted an ambitious crusade to raise awareness for HIV and AIDS, and debunk myths that HIV and AIDS are innocuous inconveniences.  His wife, Cookie Johnson, once famously proclaimed in an interview with Laura B. Randolph of Ebony Magazine that, “The Lord has definitely healed Earvin,” and there have been other stories circulating that Magic has no detectable signs of HIV in his blood stream.  As a result, scores of people have wondered how has Magic stayed so healthy since his diagnosis nineteen years ago?  Are there really no detectable levels of HIV in his bloodstream?

Was Curt Shillings actually bleeding during Game 2 of the 2004 World Series Game?

In 2004, Curt Shilling, then a Boston Red Sox pitcher, became famous for a red stain on his sock.  He was the Red Sox with a red sock.  A bloodstain appeared Curt Schilling’s right sock as he pitched against the St. Louis Cardinals in the first inning of Game 2 of the World Series on Oct. 24, 2004.  The Red Sox team doctor reportedly placed stitches in Schilling’s ankle to hold a dislocated tendon in place.  Many (most notably Baltimore Orioles broadcaster Gary Thorne said Red Sox catcher Doug Mirabelli told him it was paint on the sock rather than blood) have opined that it was a hoax designed to gain Shilling more publicity.  Additionally, many skeptics doubted the authenticity of Schilling’s claim that the stain was indeed blood due to the color of the stain, and because the stain did not grow as he supposedly continued bleeding.  Shilling subsequently issued a $1 million challenge to anyone who could prove his sock did not have blood on it, stating, “If the blood on the sock is fake, I’ll donate a million dollars to that person’s charity, if not they donate that amount to (Schilling’s charities for ALS research),” he wrote. “Any takers?” I would like to know if the whole thing was an elaborate hoax.

What is a good approximation of how much revenue a “superstar” collegiate athlete generates for his (and in some instances her) respective school?

We need to know.  It will be the first step in determine how to appropriately compensate these “student” athletes.

What will it take for the NCAA to implement a playoff system for college football?

It’s time isn’t it?  It would seem most years as the college football season comes to a close there is seemingly controversy on how the two teams slated to appear in the Championship Game were selected.  Notwithstanding, college football fans support the innately flawed system, because it is all they have.  One would believe we would all benefit from allowing teams to face each other head-to-head rather than subjecting teams to the convoluted system of deciding who will play for a championship.

How long was the NFL aware of Brett Farve’s alleged indiscretions prior to conducting its investigation?

Why wasn’t Dominique Wilkins selected to the Basketball Hall of Fame at his first opportunity?

Those who follow basketball know Jacques Dominique Wilkins unequivocally played professional basketball at a Hall of Fame level.  Moreover, he deserved to receive that recognition at the first opportunity (what other professional sports’ league 9^th all-time leading scorer was not voted to their respective hall of fame on the first opportunity).  He did not (he was voted in on his second opportunity), despite being a nine-time All-Star, a seven time all-NBA team member, a member of the All-NBA Rookie team and one-time league scoring champion. Is there a reason why other than the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame has a flawed method of voting?

Bill asked this question, and it needs an answer: “What happened to LeBron (and to a lesser extent, the Cavaliers as a team) between Games 3 and 6 of the Boston-Cleveland series in 2010?”

Which professional athlete’s private persona is so dramatically different from his/her public persona that it would most shock the general public if they were to learn of it (e.g. Tiger Woods)?

Is there anyone else whose private persona would actually surprise the public if they were to learn about it?

Bill also asked, “What happened exactly in Kobe’s Colorado hotel room in 2003? And how much was the settlement?”

I have my suspicions, but would like a definitive answer.

I would also like to know what exactly happened in that bar bathroom in Ocmulgee, GA between Ben Roethlisberger and his accuser?

See above.

How much of professional sports is predetermined?  Do I want to know the answer to that question?

I believe this one is self-explanatory, yet in the event it is not.  Each professional sport in the United States has fallen subject to speculation that the outcome of its games are (or have been at some point) predetermined, at least in some particular instances (e.g. The Chicago White Sox scandal in major league baseball, the Tim Donahy scandal in the NBA, etc.).  How much of that speculation is true?  How much of it is merely disgruntled fans voicing displeasure after an unfavorable outcome of their team?  Do I really want to know the answer?

This past Sunday morning Bishop Eddie L. Long addressed his congregation and the public at large for the first time since the emergence of four civil suits, filed in Dekalb County last week, that alleged the bishop, “through manipulation, coercion, deception and fraud,” engaged in a sexual relationship with four young men while they were teenagers.  The suits name Bishop Long, New Birth, Inc., and the Longfellows Youth Academy as defendants, and further allege Bishop Long began a confidential relationship with the young men as their spiritual advisor, that he later lavished the young men with expensive gifts and exotic trips financed by funds from the church, then ultimately initiated a sexual relationship with each. The accusers allege Bishop Long preyed upon them as they participated in his Longfellows Youth Academy. The Academy, a ministry initiative under the purview of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, is a tuition-based program for young men, aged 13-18, which “purports to train young men to love, live and lead as they proceed on their ‘masculine journey.’” It has served as a means to guide young men for years, and all of the accusers participated at some point during their tenure at New Birth.

An image of Bishop Eddie L. Long allegedly sent to the accusers, signed with the signature, "Eddie L. Long, Amazed By His Grace."

This fact, that the accusers first encountered Bishop Long as young men seeking guidance from an influential father figure, made the disconcerting “details” in the suits all the more troubling.  The alleged misappropriations of church funds to bankroll these alleged dalliances is also unsettling.  Other evidence has also begun to leak to the public (e.g. pictures Bishop Long took of himself and sent to the young men via text message, accompanied by his signature “Eddie L. Long, Amazed by His Grace.”), which, at best, showcases serious lapses in judgment on the part of Bishop Long.  At worst, the allegations, when coupled with newly emerging evidence, depict a dreadful glimpse into a bishop who preyed upon some of his congregation’s most vulnerable members.

The staggering allegations rocked the Christian community in Atlanta and reverberated across the nation when first revealed.  Bishop Long has received an enormous outpouring of support from his followers nationwide and from notable celebrities, many of whom urge caution before rushing to judgment.  Bishop Long, at the advice of his counsel, has remained relatively quiet throughout the news of the accusations.  Nevertheless, his accusers have begun speaking to the public.  One of the Bishop’s accusers, Jamal Parris, recently spoke to a local news station, telling reporters, “I cannot get the sound of his voice out of my head, I cannot forget the smell of his cologne. And I cannot forget the way that he made me cry many nights when I drove in his car on the way home, not able to take enough showers to wipe the smell of him off of my body.” Another accuser, Spencer LeGrande, said he decided to speak out after learning of the allegations of others.  He said, “They said bishop has been accused of something, and my heart dropped.  And that was my time that God told me to release what I had to say.” Bishop Long elected not to address these allegations with specificity, but he spoke out again Tuesday saying if the media reports were true, “I’d be scared to show up, I’d be scared to look at you. But there’s something in me bigger than the situation.”  Bishop Long has continued to deny the allegations, though his remarks on Sunday, and again Tuesday, did not address them with the particularity many desired.

Bishop Eddie L. Long, left, and President George W. Bush circa 2006

For those who are unfamiliar, Bishop Eddie L. Long is the pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. When  Bishop Long assumed the pastorate in 1987, the congregation had roughly 300 members.  He subsequently grew the fledgling flock into a congregation literally 100 times its previous size, with a 240-acre campus, syndicated TV shows, an array of community programs and ministries, satellite churches in other cities, and a congregation boasting upwards of 25,000 members.  Through the years, he has risen to prominence as a key national figure who led thousands and counseled influential celebrities, athletes and political leaders. When responding to criticism of his extravagant lifestyle, he once famously quipped, “We’re not just a church, we’re an international corporation,” He went on to say, “We’re not just a bumbling bunch of preachers who can’t talk and all we’re doing is baptizing babies. I deal with the White House. I deal with Tony Blair. I deal with presidents around this world. I pastor a multimillion-dollar congregation.”

From left Bishop Eddie L. Long, Usher, Ce Ce Winans, Rev. Jesse Jackson and Pastor Donnie McClurkin

Within church circles, Bishop Long often represented the strength, insight and leadership of a godly man, with thousands pointing to him as an example that men, both old and young, should aspire to emulate.  Moreover, Bishop Long’s ministries have proven capable of achieving what many churches can only imagine, attracting men to church in droves, and transforming their lives as a result of their participation.  Consequently, his status as a leader and molder of men has triggered some of the greater sense of shock and dismay amongst those who have benefited from his ministries.  Moreover, his fervent, outspoken stance against homosexuality made the allegations that surfaced last week completely unthinkable for most of Bishop Long’s congregation.

This scandal involving Bishop Long has again shed light on the taboo of homosexuality within the black church and its crippling code of secrecy amongst many congregants.  As I have written previously, most churches in our community do not do or say enough regarding sex.  Even fewer address homosexuality in a responsible, biblically sound manner. Malik Washington offered similar sentiments when he wrote for NPR’s Tell Me More Blog earlier in the week.  He said, “[O]ur [belief that our] unwillingness to speak about [homosexuality] sustains its inability to exist is also incorrect. No, speaking things into existence does not work in reverse.” As he went on to write, the allegations levied against Bishop Long did not surprise some, because we have seen similar occurrences before.  He continued to argue that those who did not know remained ignorant because “[they] didn’t want to know. “  Regardless of whether Bishop Long’s counsel proves the present allegations false, they bring attention to patterns of abuse and neglect that plagues churches across America.  Such abuse and neglect continues to pervade houses of worship in large part because the self-imposed taboo of sex and sexuality amongst many black churches has rendered many of them impotent when forced to confront sexual impropriety.

On its face, I pray the allegations are false due to the level of influence Bishop Long has wielded over the past several decades and the irreparable harm it would cause to the faith of many who have been impacted by his ministries.  An unfortunate truth with regard to this scandal is that it “[has] given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme.” Christianity once again has been marred by the sullied reputation of one its leaders.  If any good comes from it, the scandal allows for bishops, pastors and elders alike to revisit the level of access they offer their congregants, while also providing a key reminder for churchgoers across the country that they worship God and not the person selected by God to deliver His Word from the pulpit.  Notwithstanding, if the allegations do prove true it would signal a pattern of reprehensible, inexcusable, despicable behavior on his part, such which is never an accurate reflection on the “Good News” of Jesus Christ, and such that would disqualify Bishop Long from the works of ministry.  In short, as Kai Wright of The Root offered, if the allegations are true, Bishop Long is nothing short of a sexual predator who used The Bible, his church and his position of power to prey upon boys.

Jesus offered a stern warning to those who “offend one of these little ones which believe in [Him]“, (there are also stern warnings against harming God’s messengers peradventure the accusers fabricated their allegations).  Furthermore, the Bible clearly articulates the standards a bishop, pastor or preacher of the Gospel should uphold.  Suffice to say, Bishop Long would have much to account for both on this earth and in the hereafter if even a hint of these allegations are true.  Nevertheless, the inability (or sheer unwillingness) of some messengers to practice what they preach does not negate the truth of the message.  What is right is right if no one is right, and what is wrong is wrong if every one is wrong.  God is still perfect, His Word is still true, even if we have a long way to go in showing that to the rest of the world.  I invite you to join the conversation, and share how this scandal has impacted you.

For example, with looming mid-term elections, numerous political candidates have used the planned construction of the Center as a rallying cry to galvanize their base and “demonize” the iman behind the plans despite remaining silent when the plans for the Center were first announced.  It is difficult to intuit other reasons for such vehement opposition at this present juncture when the announcement of the plans first surfaced in December of last year to little fanfare.   As Salon reporter Justin Elliott commented on WHYY’s Radiotimes recently, it is as though these political figures and their constituents did not know they were supposed to be outraged until little over a month ago.  Nevertheless, they are outraged indeed.

For example, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich argued against the proposed Center by declaring. “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington.”   Kevin Calvey, a Republican running for Congress in Oklahoma added, “ Some of the Muslim leaders associated with the mosque “are clearly terrorist sympathizers.”  Additionally, Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R. – Florida) and Peter King (R. – New York) issued a statement that reads, “This is a terrible choice to be one of the faces of our country overseas.”  Rick Scott, a Republican candidate in the Florida gubernatorial race criticized the center and President Obama by stating, “Mr. President, ground zero is the wrong place for a mosque.”

In sum, the Center and the debate regarding its propriety has become a sharp point of contention.  With all the disparaging remarks and anger strewn about, it has proven difficult to voice legitimate opposition to the Center’s construction without entering into a shouting match.  It has proven more difficult for one to have an honest discussion about the Center’s construction and express concerns, as I do, due to the misconceptions that continue to seep into the discussion.  Notably, it is quite telling how opponents have molded misleading rhetoric into public discourse to frame the language of the debate. Many opponents deride the Center as the “Ground Zero Mosque” as if the plans for the Center were to erect an enormous mosque on the site of the September 11^th terrorist attacks.  No such plans have ever emerged.  The Center has a mosque, but the Center is not a mosque; there is a difference.  It is not at Ground Zero, and cannot be seen from Ground Zero.  These are facts, facts which are often overlooked to further drive opposition to the Center’s construction while it remains politically expedient.  As Senator Harry Reid astutely remarked, “If [Republican lawmakers] are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much –needed legislation.”  Senator Reid highlighted a key observation; many who oppose the construction of the Center due to their stated desire to pay proper respect to those who lost their lives on September 11^th, should be equally concerned with the welfare of the first responders who risked their lives to attempt to save people trapped in the Towers.  No such health coverage is coming because a recent bill designed to provide first responders with health coverage was defeated in Congress.  Moreover, opponents to the Center also seem to have little problem with the fact that Muslims routinely pray in the Pentagon less than eighty feet away from where the terrorists struck on September 11^th.  Such facts lead one to believe the source of the anger expressed by the Center’s opponents comes from something other than concern for preserving the legacy of Ground Zero.  True opposition should find its home in the truth, not deliberately misleading rhetoric.

It goes without saying those responsible for the September 11^th attacks based the majority (if not all) of their justification for their erratic act of terror on their religious fervor.   Moreover, confirmed reports have established that this religious fervor was grounded in extremist interpretations of Islam.  Notwithstanding, the terrorists responsible for the attacks on September 11^th were not the first to commit an act of violence in the name of religion.  In fact, countless individuals representing all religious faiths, have perpetrated horrendous acts of violence in the name of God throughout the span of human history, even if such acts contradict the very faith to which they blindly adhere.  Our nation’s history bears no lack of exceptions, which should teach us to more readily dissociate the actions of several extremists from the actions of adherents of an entire faith.  Particularly, I do not expect anyone to associate the terrorists responsible for September 11^th with the entire Islamic faith any more than I expect one to associate the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, Timothy James McVeigh or David Koresh with all of Christianity.

One would assume in the “nation under God,” we would strive to discuss our differences more amicably.  One should also assume that those who oppose the construction of the Islamic Cultural Center on the basis of their Christian faith could find better ways to do so than by burning Qu’rans and burning mosques. One would believe that we Christians could express our differences to Islam, by showing the love of Christ, revealing His power and preaching sound doctrine.  That is how scripture commands us to handle such disagreements.

As a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I am not thrilled by the plans to build the Islamic Cultural Center in Lower Manhattan.  As an American citizen who is keenly aware of the impact September 11^th has left on America, I believe the plans to build the Islamic Cultural Center so close to the site of “Ground Zero” in this political climate is naïve and imprudent at best.  Nevertheless, the United States of America is not a theocracy.  Our Constitution expressly prohibits government intrusions on worship.  Our governing principles offer religious freedoms that are unique in the modern world, and have legal protections regardless of whether we agree with how that religious freedom manifests itself.   That is the law we are subject to.

The public outcry to move the Islamic Cultural Center sets a dangerous precedent for people of faith.  The day the general public (or the government) may pressure private citizens not to exercise the legitimate dictates of their faith, or may pressure private citizens to worship in a more “suitable” location is the day that births future religious persecution and all its progeny.  The day we tell Muslims where they can pray and sponsor other faith-based activities establishes a precedent for others telling other groups (e.g. Christians) where and when they can pray and exercise their faith.  Such restrictions are perfectly permissible in theocracies and dictatorships, but problematic in democracies.

Christians and Jews alike celebrate the depth of Daniel’s convictions when he “kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime,” notwithstanding the king’s decree that would land him in the lions’ den for thirty days if he did so.  Daniel’s faith was put to the ultimate test in part because his nation’s decrees restricted his worship.  As I have written before, scripture forewarns of a  “falling away”, along with an outright rejection of the idea of worshiping God and conforming to His truth.  There is coming a day, were Christianity will longer be the faith du jour in the United States.  My prayer is simply that I have the courage to continue in the faith when such a day arrives.  In the interim, I pray I love my neighbors as myself, even when I do not agree with what they believe.  I have plenty of grounds to do so.

January 1, 2009 Oakland BART Fruitvale Station -- Freeze frame image from Oscar Grant shooting

Shortly before the dawning of the first day of last year, an errant bullet briskly fired from the .40 caliber handgun of former Oakland transit officer Johannes Mehserle, and bore through the spine of Oscar Grant III, spilling his blood onto the cold concrete of an Oakland subway station. Pop! The distinct sound of gunfire rifled through the subway station, and momentarily muzzled the prattle of the rowdy crowd.   The previously ebullient gathering of teenagers and young adults celebrating the onset of a new year swiftly morphed into a chaotic scene.  At the sound of that distinctive “pop,” one life departed, one changed forever and dozens watched it all transpire.

It all began when officers rushed to the scene after receiving reports of an altercation on a train in Oakland’s Fruitvale station shortly after 2 ‘o clock in the morning on January 1, 2009.  Mr. Mehserle arrived with other officers, and quickly restrained an unarmed Mr. Grant, along with others nearby.  The officers essentially arrested them for “contempt of a police officer.”  What happened next varies depending on who provides the account, yet all parties agree that within a split second, Mr. Mehserle drew his gun, shot Mr. Grant in the back, and Mr. Grant died soon thereafter.

At the time Mr. Mehserle shot Mr. Grant, Oscar was subdued, facedown on the subway platform with the knee of another transit office firmly wedged in his back.  Several of his friends found themselves seated nearby as the entire scene unfolded.   They reportedly heard transit officer Tony Pirone hurl racial epithets at Mr. Grant, and then watched in horror as Mr. Grant was killed in front of them.  At least five people passing by caught the entire episode on cell phone video cameras: the confrontation with transit officers, the restraint of Mr. Grant, the shot, Mr. Grant laying on the subway platform motionless with that errant bullet lodged in his back, as his life slowly exited his frame.

"We Are All Oscar Grant" protests of the jury verdict finding former Oakland transit officer Johannes Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter

The shooting sparked intense public outrage, though it initially failed to gain much media attention outside of the Oakland region.  Nevertheless, numerous members of the Oakland community rejoiced at the news of Mr. Mehserle’s arrest and pending trial.  The prosecution sought a murder charge because Oscar Grant III’s death represented “an unlawful killing without explanation.” Mr. Mehserle faced possible sentences ranging from probation to fourteen years in prison.

As the trial drew to an end, many in Oakland waited with baited breath for the elusive serving of justice.  When a jury rendered its verdict finding Mr. Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter a few weeks ago, rather than the graver charge of second degree murder, it broke the hearts of hundreds who organized to support the Grant family and draw national attention to Oscar’s untimely death.  While Mehserle’s conviction represented the first time in California history that a law enforcement officer was tried for murder in a “line-of-duty shooting” (and consequently the first such conviction), the conviction of involuntary manslaughter seemed woefully inadequate as retribution for the life of a young man inexplicably cut short on New Year’s Day last year.

For many across this nation, Mr. Grant’s death represents the tragic belief, one forged after centuries of both empirical and anecdotal evidence that the life of an African American man is worth less than that of other men.  It reaffirms the expectation, that far too often, African American men will encounter violence at the hands of those who have sworn to protect them.  For too many, this merely serves as a dreadful reminder of other tragic tales, where members of law enforcement can take the lives of young African American men with impunity.  It also reinforced the reason many African American communities harbor a bitter distrust of law enforcement.  Certainly one can presume that members of the jury believed Mr. Mehserle’s account whereby he said he intended to draw his taser rather than his gun.

Nevertheless, at the time Mr. Grant was shot, he was facedown on the ground, with a transit officer’s knee to his back.  At that moment, he posed no legitimate threat to the officers, or those around them.  In such an instance, the use of even a taser arguably represented excessive force, rendering the defense of a mistake as moot.  Granted, the jury’s verdict was perfectly permissible under the law, and presumably followed the logical conclusion of plausible retelling of the series of events, but it does little to placate the anger felt by many who have seen the video of Oscar’s killing.  Oscar Grant III died at the hands of Mr. Mehserle, and nothing seemed “involuntary” about it.  The video footage of the shooting displayed the horrifying death of a young man at the hands of a uniformed officer.  For many, the footage offered irrefutable evidence of a crime that resulted in the death of a promising young man.  A Los Angeles jury did not draw the same conclusion, and perhaps it was due to the fact that many of them enjoy a sense of justice that others do not have the luxury to take for granted.

Oscar Grant III