[Sunday,
February 3rd is that national holiday known as Super Bowl Sunday.
For this year’s Super
Bowl series I’ll AmericanStudy a handful of great sports debates—add your
opinion into the mix in comments, please!]
[This is a
repeat post from my Super Bowl series a few years back, but to say it’s at
least as relevant in 2019 is to understate the case!]
Two of the many
complex and compelling layers to a campus and nation-wide conversation.
Throughout the
Spring 2015 semester, Fitchburg
State’s Center for Conflict Studies hosted a series of presentations,
panels, and conversations focused on football, and more exactly on issues of
violence and other controversies linked to that hugely popular sport. As I
noted in this week’s series intro, I’ve blogged about football in Super
Bowl series each of the last handful of years, and have engaged briefly in
those series with many of the issues that became part of these campus-wide
conversations: concussions
and brain trauma; rape
and sexual violence; racism;
the exploitation of college athletes. As much as I hope for this space to be
conversational and communal, though, the truth is that it’s always framed and
driven at least initially by my own interests, ideas, and perspectives, and so
these semester-long Fitchburg State conversations about football and its
debates added a great deal to my own perspective in multiple ways.
One way was
through those conversations that were planned, such as a late April
roundtable discussion of the highly controversial question, “Should
football be banned?” The roundtable featured the kinds of interdisciplinary
voices and connections that represent the best of Fitchburg State as a
scholarly community, with presentations by philosopher David
Svolba, Director of Athletics Sue
Lauder, sociologist G.L.
Mazard Wallace, exercise physiologist Monica
Maldari, and my English Studies colleague Kisha
Tracy. But besides the value of putting these voices and frames in
conversation, the roundtable also allowed each presenter to develop a
particular part of his or her identity at compelling length: Monica, for
example, talked about how her discipline and her knowledge impacted her
family’s decision not to let their young son play football; while G.L.
highlighted how we can’t discuss football without addressing the issues of
ethics, race, work and labor, and social obligations that form key parts of his
teaching and scholarship.
Alongside those
planned conversations, however, and offering an importantly complementary
window into attitudes about and perceptions of these issues, were more
impromptu debates that sprung up online. The most interesting such debate came
in the wake of the aforementioned roundtable, in emails to the entire
university community, and featured three voices: a Fitchburg State assistant
football coach, who had attended the roundtable and offered his impassioned
defense of the sport and its value; a Fitchburg State hockey coach, who had
likewise attended and argued for the value of the roundtable itself as a
layered scholarly conversation; and one of the event’s organizers, who followed
up both emails in hopes of keeping the conversation going beyond that event and
this spring’s series. These messages reminded us all that there are
individuals, in our community and in every one, directly impacted by such
debates and their potential outcomes and effects—the players most especially, in
every sense, but lots of others as well. But they also made clear that in our
21st century moment, important public conversations don’t have to
and can’t happen simply in individual places and times; they have to continue
online, and I’d love for you to share any responses to help this one continue
here!
January Recap
this weekend,
Ben
PS. What do you
think? Other great debates you’d highlight?
No comments:
Post a Comment