DADvocate

I've been thinking about this long and hard. I'm one of those folks who believes very fervently in the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" in the realm of criminal justice. But it does seem to me, more and more, that cases are being tried in the media far too often, and there is no patience or faith in the criminal justice system to take it's course.

This kind of thing isn't just true of priviliged white males; in almost every case without clear cut evidence (and even those where there is) if there is a high profile case, the country goes crazy and picks a side before the Grand Jury has even convened. This is especially true in he-said-she-said cases. This cuts across all racial and demographic lines.

As to priviliged white males getting a bad rap, the bad apples really set us up to get dumped on as a group. Just last night I was walking past two very nice SUV's populated by what must have been 5 priviliged white males, and they are cat calling women who walk by and then started calling me, in no polite way, a homosexual. They were just out, looking to pick a fight.

I grew up in Island City with a lot of very stand up, all American, raise a little hell priviliged white males. 9 out of 10 of these cats I am proud to call friends. But there's always that 1 jackass, with his cronies in tow, that cast a long shadow over all of us.

I've seen the same thing happen when it came to not-so-priviliged black males. 9 out of 10 are the best folks you know, but when one thugg-life shows up, cronies in tow, things start gettin' nuts.

It ain't privilige or oppression, it is kids who grow up with parents and schools and juvenile centers that let them get away with anything, so they push and push and cause bad things to happen.

But the folks who get pushed by these malcontents don't care to make distinctions.
 

Weird how some people just like to cause/find trouble like the guys in the SUVs. If they found real trouble they probably wouldn't know what to do.

You're experience reflects mine. I never thought about it when I was growing up because I didn't feel "privileged," probably because my Dad made me work and behave.

My parents still live in the old family home and when I drive to visit I think, "Wow, I grew up here!?" And, there was that small percentage who wanted to drink and cause trouble.

I think that many people love it when they see someone, whom they perceive as having something they want but don't have (such as wealth, success, privilege), take a fall. In the case when the fall is a crime, they want the person to be guilty due to their own jealousy, resentment, etc.
 

and sometimes, these people who are priveleged or seen as, have attitudes that make when they fail much more satisfying.

its part if it can happen to them, then thye are human like us... and it somehow makes us more comfortable with where we are in life. at least thats my opinion
 

Thanks for the critique, but there's a serious logical error in your reading of my opinion on Duke lacrosse. It's patently obvious that not all male athletes who play collision sports are misogynistic drunks. But that's quite different from saying that problems on such teams are not common on many campuses, including elite ones.

My issue has nothing to do with the specific question of legal guilt or innocence in the indictment of the Duke players. It has to do with a common subculture of drunken loutishness on such teams. Some in the press have now documented this issue with prior arrest records for Duke's lacrosse team. But it happens all over, not just at Duke.

Talk to students on college campuses with football, ice hockey, rugby or lacrosse. The teams can be in NCAA division I, II or III, or NAIA. Ask students what the players on these teams are like. Ask them about the party culture. Ask them, now that the administration has cracked down on the frat houses for many drinking and hazing scandals, where the drinking and hazing are centered.

Ask them what happens to women who accept invitations to the parties thrown by these teams. Ask them about the nature of the films shown at these parties. Ask them about the live entertainment.

Ask them about the sleep they've lost when players from these teams gather in a dorm room for an unofficial party.

Ask them why they don't dare take their concerns to the college administration. Ask them about threats.

This is not to say that every player does it. The students will tell you that it's not everybody. So ask them about someone who's on one of these teams who isn't part of the team culture.

Then go ask that person the same questions.

Of course, not every place runs that way. D-I football programs can't afford a scandal, so they hire people to monitor team behavior. Some schools are blessed with good coaches and good ADs.

But at lots of places, the problem is very real. Students are at best annoyed, more often intimidated, sometimes physically harmed. And where's the outcry? The administration turns a blind eye, says in loco parentis is dead, keeps things out of the papers and away from boosters' attention.

By the way, I am very familiar with Mr. Munoz, having met him on several occasions and more recently having introduced him at an event in Cincinnati that I emceed.