Dartmouth's Basketball Team Embarrasses This Alum, But Not as Much as the NLRB Does

The men’s basketball team at Curmie’s undergrad alma mater, Dartmouth College, is an embarrassment.  No, not because they’re terrible, although they are: they have secured last place, alone, in the not-exactly-elite (in basketball terms) Ivy League.  They didn’t win a road game all year.  As of this writing, they’re 337^th (of 362) in the NET and 339^th on KenPom.  They haven’t had a winning record in 15 years, and currently sport the longest active streak (dating back to 1959) of not participating in the NCAA tournament.  They weren’t very good back when Curmie was a student there; they’re worse now.

But “disappointing” isn’t the same as “embarrassing.”  Not being very good basketball players is one thing; being narcissistic little assholes is something else again.  The reason the Big Green’s hoopsters are in the news, alas, falls into the latter category.  The players voted today (as I write this on March 5) to unionize (!), thanks to a heightened sense of self-importance by some rather mediocre athletes and a remarkably inane decision by the NLRB’s Regional Director, declaring them “employees.”  All 15 players signed the initial petition to join Local 560 of the Service Employees International Union, and 13 of them voted to unionize.

The Regional Director in question is Laura A. Sacks of the Boston office.  (Curmie believes people who do remarkably stupid things in their professional capacities shouldn’t be able to hide behind an important-sounding title.  Walking lawyer jokes like Jake Krupski ought to be similarly disgraced.)  The decision itself is inane on its face, but the rationale is even worse.

Here’s the decision; let’s look at a couple of key points.  First off, there is no argument with the college’s position that financial aid is offered exclusively on the basis of financial need; indeed, four players on the team receive none, whereas one gets a full ride.  Athletes don’t get special housing or other such perks.  Again, no one claims otherwise.  A fall term message to players “encouraged” them not to schedule courses during potential practice times, particularly between 2:00 and 5:00 in the afternoon. 

Conversely, that message told players they should “[F]eel free to register for courses in the following time slots: 8S/8L, 9S/9L, 10, 10A, 11, 12.”  Here’s where Curmie’s experience becomes relevant, because he knows what that means.  About 90% of all the courses I took as an undergrad were in one of those time slots.  Afternoons, certainly after 2:00, were almost always free.  One doubts that much has changed, even given the considerable interim.

Remember, too, that since Dartmouth is on a quarter system, students take only three courses at a time, so there’s less likelihood of scheduling conflicts at all; unless a particular course necessary for a player’s degree plan was offered only in the afternoon and only during basketball season, problems are rare if not altogether absent.  It’s also unclear why the team couldn’t practice in the evening, as there are multiple places on campus with basketball courts, and much of “practice” is film study or time in the weight room.

Also worthy of notice is the fact that NCAA and Ivy League regulations prohibit teams from requiring too much practice time: “In-season, student-athletes may participate in a maximum of four hours of CARA [countable athletically related activity] daily and a maximum of twenty hours of CARA weekly….  When a sport is not in-season, student-athletes may participate in a maximum of six hours of CARA each week.”

Yet, curiously, Sacks and her minions based part of the decision on the bizarre belief that athletes should be treated differently because the demands on their time exceed those required of participants in, for example, music, theatre, or journalism.  In a word, BULLSHIT.  First off, those activities are year-round; there’s no “off season,” and certainly no time cap.  Curmie was required to spend more than four hours a day and more than 20 hours a week not infrequently (especially but not exclusively during tech weeks) when he was in school, and he's certainly expected that kind of commitment from students throughout his career as a director and technical director in college and university settings. 

The other variation on this theme was that Curmie realized early on that if he was going to be an active member of the debate team, he was going to have to spend a lot more than 20 hours a week.  He opted instead for doing research to help the team when he could, administering one of the divisions of the high school invitational tournament hosted by the Forensic Union, and occasionally brainstorming with more active team members.  But those active debaters spent dozens of hours a week working for the team.  Same with the editors (at least) of the college newspaper, the directorate of the radio station… the list goes on and on. 

It’s also frankly nuts to claim that the Ivy League is taking students out of classes willy-nilly.  Virtually all league games are played on Friday night or Saturday.  Wanna guess, Gentle Reader, how many road games Dartmouth will play this year on a Monday through Thursday while classes are in session?  The answer is… wait for it… one.  Yes, one.  Another came between the end of classes and the end of finals.  Yet somehow, we get an official NLRB ruling with nonsense like “if, for example, the team is traveling on a Monday…”  Is Sacks incapable of looking at a schedule?  Furthermore, there was no rebuttal to the coach’s testimony that players sometimes missed road trips, with his blessing, because of class responsibilities.  In the Ivy League, education matters more than sports.  It really does.

So the whole “taking them out of classes” business is nonsense.  Moving on.  OK, get this: Cade Haskins, one of the students who keeps getting quoted, says that although the college makes it clear that “it is understood by both the faculty and coaching staff that class attendance takes precedence over participation in athletics,” he often prioritized basketball.  The fact that he can’t abide by the rules is an argument in his favor?

The precedent for this action is a decision a few years back when the Northwestern football team successfully convinced the NLRB that they were employees, but because they compete in a league that includes state universities (Dartmouth doesn’t), federal law apparently makes it impossible for the NLRB to make a ruling against the university in this instance.  Of course, unlike Dartmouth or indeed any other Ivy League school, Northwestern does give athletic scholarships, so, arguably, players are indeed employees, doing a job in exchange for financial considerations.  Still, it’s ironic that it would be Northwestern, a school far more noted for its academics than its athletics, that would be the target for such a unionization effort.

There are more ironies at play, too.  It would be impossible to name an athletic conference that cares more about the importance of education relative to sports than the Ivy League does, and there are few teams in any sport in the Ivy League more inept than Dartmouth men’s basketball… well, with the possible exception of Dartmouth women’s basketball.  If these folks are “employees,” Curmie would hate to see the amateurs.

Oh, but alumni contribute to the college because of the basketball team!  (Seriously, that’s an argument!)  Luckily, Curmie had put down his mug before reading that part, or coffee would’ve come out his nose.  There’s an alumni group, you see, Gentle Reader, that contributed over $300,000 to improve the basketball facilities!  Curmie got a missive from the alumni fund the other day.  That $300k for basketball would amount to about 7/10 of 1% of the unrestricted giving to the college last year (that doesn’t count the tens of millions of dollars designated for other specific uses.) 

It goes without saying that the basketball team at Dartmouth loses a lot more money than it brings in.  Don’t expect to see games televised except on ESPN+, and whereas Curmie’s other American school (his MA is from a British university), the University of Kansas, has sold out 16,300 seat Allen Field House every game for the last 22 years, Dartmouth can’t fill 2100 seat Edward Leede Arena even half full for Senior Night. 

The fact that according to the NLRB decision, “[N]o current members of Dartmouth’s men’s basketball team participate in NIL activities” sort of tells it all.  They’re eligible to do so, but local businesses don’t care enough to pay them as spokesmen.  Why?  Because they aren’t going to attract positive attention.  Curiously enough, the “whiny loser” image isn’t one that advertisers choose to foreground.  They’ll do their own ads or hire actors who know how to read a line. 

But if NIL threatens merely the idea of collegiate sports as we know them (see Curmie’s commentary here, here, and here, for example), the prospect of having to remunerate student-athletes will—nay, should—spell the end of intercollegiate sports altogether.  Many colleges are considering cutbacks to athletic programs as it is.  Curmie wrote last year that another Ivy League school, Brown, “had to cut some varsity sports a couple of years ago: losing money on athletics was one thing; losing that much money was untenable.”  

Whereas part of Curmie says “Good!”, the fact is that cheering on the home team is, or should be, very much a part of student life.  Curmie saw dozens of athletic events—football, baseball, basketball, hockey, lacrosse, ski jumping—as a student and doesn’t want future generations of students to be denied that opportunity. 

But if pampering a cohort of mediocre narcissists will cost even more time and/or money than it already does, the tipping point draws nearer.  There are some outstanding colleges and universities that don’t have athletics teams at all, or who play only in Division III or the NAIA: Brandeis, CalTech, MIT, NYU, and the University of Chicago come to mind.  Brooklyn’s St. Francis College recently eliminated all its Division I athletics programs, citing finances.  Indeed, only a handful of athletic departments break even; most lose millions of dollars a year, the shortfall made up by increased tuition and fees borne by other students, a goodly number of whom couldn’t care less about whether the basketball team is any good.

It's also probably worth mentioning that the two players quoted in the Politico article linked above are, predictably, not among the best players of even the remarkably unsuccessful team on which they play.  They’ve totaled 153 points and 50 rebounds in 26 games (let me save you the math, Gentle Reader: that’s less than 6 PPG and 2 RPG between them); both have more turnovers than assists.  They… erm… have little hope of a career in professional basketball.  Yet they seem to be at the center of the self-glorification.  Figures.

To be fair, there will be appeals after appeals, and it’s unlikely that college officials will have to negotiate for the services of hoopsters in the near future.  That doesn’t make the initial Regional NLRB ruling any less ludicrous.  Ultimately, the argument comes down to this: are athletes are treated significantly differently from participants in other extra-curricular (or co-curricular) activities?  If the answer is no, then there’s no case.  If it’s yes, then the rationale is that because jocks have been coddled in the past, they should be even more coddled in the future.  Color me unimpressed.

Curmie is loath to quote Donald Trump with anything even bordering on approbation, but on this one, he’s got it right.  If these guys want to be considered employees, the correct response is “You’re fired.”  Laura Sacks ought to hear those words as well.

On the Trans-cendent Hypocrisy of Elon Musk

Admit it: you didn’t really want to see
a picture of that smug bastard, did you?

No one who was actually paying attention ever really believed Elon Musk’s palaver about being a “first amendment absolutist.” That sounded good at the time, and it was indeed was Twitter needed; it just wasn’t who Musk ever was or ever will be. 

A few days after Musk announced that he was purchasing Twitter, Curmie wrote: 

Musk, of course, fancies himself as a sort of Nietzschean übermensch, so superior to us mere mortals that he cannot be expected to abide by quotidian standards of integrity, much less compassion or empathy. Curmie, equally obviously, views him as just another wealthy and petulant narcissist with delusions of grandeur. Oh, and an asshole of the first order; mustn’t forget that. 

Establishing appropriate boundaries for free expression on a site like Twitter is, of course, a monumental undertaking, requiring considerable deftness of touch. Allow it to become a free-for-all, and the slur-shouters will ultimately chase away everyone else. Clamp down too hard, especially in ways that could be perceived as favoring one point of view over another, and we get Pravda rather than truth. (See what I did there?) 

Curmie isn’t sure anyone could simultaneously complete the trifecta of taking an absolutist stand on free expression, eliminating spam, and curtailing the use of defamatory language, as Musk initially promised. But even if it is indeed possible, it’s clear that Musk isn’t the guy to do it: he lacks the intelligence, the capacity for nuance, or especially the humility to negotiate that minefield. He is, as Curmie suggested over a year ago, just “another boring and hedonistic super-rich guy…. longer on braggadocio than on ideas.” His claims that people on Twitter could even disparage him without repercussions lasted about a week. 

The Super Bowl provided us with two lasting images that are relevant to this discussion. First, there was the whole business of sharing a luxury box with Rupert Murdoch, an act which did little for either his non-partisan or anti-media credentials. Then there was the threat to fire Twitter engineers because his Super Bowl tweet generated fewer engagements than Joe Biden’s. It may be remotely possible that someone somewhere might someday be as absurdly wealthy as Elon Musk without being an insufferable narcissist, but it’s pretty damned unlikely. 

So, Gentle Reader, where is all this scaffolding going? This: the self-proclaimed absolutist on free expression has decided unilaterally to forbid the use of certain slurs on Twitter. Reasonable enough, yes? Except that the “slurs” in question are “cisgender” and “cis,” which are simply objective descriptors of people whose self-perception of gender aligns with their biological sex at birth. The term has been around for decades, although it is far more prevalent in common parlance today than in yesteryear. But that’s sort of the point: everyone knows what it means, and that it isn’t a slur, although some folks would like to pretend to be offended. And here I was, thinking it was the liberals who were “snowflakes.” 

Curmie, like most people, is cis. Indeed, there are few demographic descriptors that fit him as accurately. “Old”? I’ll accept that, although is 67 really old? “White”? Sure, mostly, but there’s about 3% Native American in there. “Left-handed”? Yes, for one-handed things (writing, throwing) but not for two-handed things (swinging a baseball bat or an axe). But “cis”? Yes, unequivocally. 

Some people, though, including a number of folks very dear to me, aren’t cis. That’s why the term has meaning, because “X” is meaningless unless there is a concomitant “not-X.” Perhaps, as has been argued by some folks, Curmie’s friends and family members who are trans or gender-fluid have something wrong with them. I don’t believe that for an instant, but I do not seek to stifle the expression of arguments with which I disagree. 

This would differentiate Curmie from both Elon Musk and James Esses, who has, to quote The Hill’s Sarah Fortinsky, “repeatedly expressed views that widely would be considered anti-trans.” Those posts, and, for example, misgendering and dead-naming trans people, are, of course, just dandy in Muskistan. But calling a cis guy “cis”? Ooh… but he doesn’t like it. In the words of Curmie’s then eight-year-old cousin, tough noogies. And Curmie will countenance deadnaming when conservatives are forbidden from calling Kid Rock anything but Bobby Ritchie. 

So let’s drop the act, Elon. Like so many other hypocrites—the “parental rights” crowd, for example—you have no interest whatsoever in free speech. Indeed, you’re unwilling to even fight governmental censorship the way your predecessors at Twitter did. You want to claim that you’re a First Amendment advocate, but really you just want to control the discussion and maximize your profits. Your fervor for free expression withers when someone actually says something you disagree with, especially if they’re demonstrably right, which would make you other than infallible. You are simply another fragile rich boy who stomps his feet when he doesn’t get literally everything he wants. Worst of all, you’re boring. Please go away.

Caitlyn Jenner, the ESPYs, and Narcissism

Curmie has been reading a lot of late about Caitlyn Jenner’s acceptance speech (transcript here) of the Arthur Ashe Award for Courage at the ESPYs. It was indeed a pretty impressive piece of rhetoric, highlighted by this already much-quoted sequence:

If you want to call me names, make jokes, doubt my intentions, go ahead, because the reality is I can take it. But for the thousands of kids out there who are coming to terms with being true to who they are, they shouldn’t have to take it.

That’s great stuff, and might even do some good.

It is beyond question that Jenner has shown courage throughout the transitioning process, and has given some comfort, intentionally or otherwise, for others in the trans community. Curmie is by no means an expert in such matters, but he does have a former student and a family member who have transitioned (in opposite directions, as it happens), so he isn’t quite as ignorant as he was even five years ago.

Here’s Arthur Ashe, because

Curmie is tired of seeing photos of Caitlyn Jenner.

Does Ms. Jenner “deserve” the Arthur Ashe Award? Is her particular brand of courage more significant than that of dozens of other athletes, past and present, in facing down disease, political oppression, or any of a host of –isms and –phobias that repress the human spirit? 

Curmie doubts it, and has long suspected that the award is more about calling attention to the ESPYs (especially this year, when the program migrated from ESPN cable to the parent company, ABC) than to honoring the recipient. And controversy does build ratings, after all. Sports columnists from Bob Costas to Frank Deford have raised eyebrows at the selection. The name of Lauren Hill, who played two basketball games for Division III Mount St. Joseph before succumbing to inoperable brain cancer—oh, and by the way, raised over $1.5 million for cancer research in the process—was one name floated about for the honor. (Hill did posthumously receive “Best Moment” recognition, a sort of Miss Congeniality award, at the ESPYs.)

Moreover, there’s something a little unsettling about propping up Jenner as a role model for a transition that took place only decades after she presumably understood her real identity. Please forgive Curmie a little skepticism at the notion that the tribulations associated with these changes aren’t eased a little by worldwide fame and a fortune probably north of $100 million. That’s a little different situation from Joe at the carwash who wants to come out as Jo.

Still, in a world in which transgender people are disproportionately victims of violence, and disproportionately prone to suicide, there is good to be had from the publicity surrounding Jenner’s selection. If even a handful of those kids struggling with their identity think they might have an advocate, good. And if even a handful of judgmental people pause and take a single step towards acceptance of and respect for those other than themselves, that’s good, too.

Except…

There were those who argued vehemently that Jenner should have been eliminated from consideration based on that fatal traffic accident in February. As the investigation continues, a few things have become clear. First, the crash was unquestionably his (he was still Bruce, then) fault. Second, there seems to be no evidence that Jenner was chemically impaired, speeding, or talking or texting (any of which might lead to a felony charge under the circumstances). Rather, police are saying he was simply driving ”HUA” (head up ass). Third, Jenner’s celebrity status undeniably led to a kid gloves approach by local authorities, not to mention the press. “Bruce Jenner Severely Traumatized After Fatal Car Crash” read one headline. Curmie suspects that Kim Howe, who died as a result of Jenner’s negligence, might be unimpressed at his (now, her) suffering. Fourth, two lawsuits are currently pending against Jenner, at least one of which asserts that she still refuses to accept responsibility for the wreck. Here’s Jessica Steindorff, the driver of the Prius involved in the accident:

I find it difficult to understand how the culture we live in can honor a person who is responsible for taking a life and injuring several others with both an award and a reality show. For an individual who is such a positive role model in many aspects of her life, Caitlyn has failed to do the right thing and take responsibility for her actions.

There are lots of responses here—not least of them that the notoriety that allows Jenner to get preferential treatment in some ways also attracts attention from those who want to benefit—in terms of money, publicity, whatever—on a celebrity’s vulnerability. Would Steindorff have sued you or me, Gentle Reader? Perhaps more readily. Perhaps not at all.

Moreover, people are often masses of contradiction; the good and bad angels of our beings are often both loudly heard: Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were slave-owners. That doesn’t make their place in the American pantheon any less secure; it merely reminds us of the mortal fallibility of us all. Bill Cosby made us laugh, and broke new ground for African-American entertainers; he is also a serial rapist. In Curmie’s field, Dion Boucicault was one of the most significant proponents of copyright law… and one of the most egregious plagiarists in history.

So the fact that Bruce/Caitlin Jenner had a moment’s breach of responsibility and is, perhaps under legal advice, reluctant to claim agency with respect to those actions does not present a strong case against her receiving the Arthur Ashe award. But now comes what to me is a more damning revelation, published in the UK’s Daily Mail, that the award was the product of a quid pro quo arrangement which granted the splashy April coming-out party to Diane Sawyer of ABC.

Naturally, ABC denies the linkage, and let’s just say that the Daily Mail is not the most reputable of all news sources, nor is “reports have emerged” the most compelling of sourcing. But the timing of the award announcement and the fact that NBC had previously been regarded as the frontrunner to get the big Jenner interview (largely because E! Entertainment, which will air the upcoming reality show “I Am Cait,” is an NBC affiliate) make the allegation more than a little plausible.

All of this devalues an award which already was suffering from a crisis of integrity. One needn’t be as cynical as Curmie to suspect that the Arthur Ashe award was a mere commodity to be used as a bargaining chip by a mercenary network looking to cut a deal with a narcissistic former athlete. Indeed, whereas it’s remotely possible that the award selection was on the up-and-up, Curmie would bet the ranch that this deal was as crooked as the proverbial dog’s hind leg.

So whereas Curmie is supportive of Caitlin Jenner’s independence and cognizant of the risks she took to get there, he’s not at all thrilled at the notion of honoring an attention whore. Caitlin Jenner, like Lance Armstrong before her, is philanthropic and inspirational precisely up to the point at which being so ceases to accrue to her personal benefit. There are a host of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender role models in the world. Caitlyn Jenner does not appear to be among them.

NOTE: Curmie was about 3/4 done with this piece when his netpal Jack Marshall posted on this topic. You can read his comments here.