scottcomstock
10-27-2006, 11:57 PM
Here's a new thread for the chant/cheer discussion.
It definitely has relevance to college hockey and sports in general, and hearing others' perspectives and opinion is a good thing, and I'd really like to keep a civil discussion going on the subject. While religion vis-à-vis the offensiveness of certain cheers/chants is relevant to the discussion, I don't think that it needs to turn into a debate on Bible interpretation. People interpret the Bible differently, just as people interpret the cheers/chants differently.
WARNING -- this is over 1600 words long and took me over 2-1/2 hours to write. It’s easily the longest thing I’ve written since my Clarkson senior year that isn’t a computer program.
With that said, here's my opinion:
Attitudes and social norms change with the times, and are never static. You can see that in TV shows and movies -- what would have been considered highly scandalous on TV or in movies in 1966 is now fairly commonplace in 2006.
And so it is with college and semipro sports, although in this specific case it's getting more conservative. Here's why: There is an increased emphasis on making college and semipro sports accessible to working families, as an alternative to obscenely overpriced or otherwise unavailable professional sports. We all know the North Country doesn't offer much in the way of entertainment options, and Clarkson hockey is one of the more attractive options for people who want to spend an evening out. That includes families with children, and people of all religious persuasions (or none at all), among many others that are not students.
In all fairness, I'm only 28 years old; I have no kids, and have never been to a Clarkson home game as a spectator, or even WATCHED a Clarkson game before October 1996. I never saw a Clarkson game live-in-person until November 2001, as I spent every home hockey game during my Clarkson years down at WCKN typing out/composing graphics or running tape machines for instant replay. I don't have the perspective that many of you have about raising children, the makeup of audiences 20 or 30 years ago, or what those audiences or the pep band did. However, we've all seen the efforts Clarkson has made in expanding its hockey audience and it's reasonable to assume that they want to reach families with kids.
It's completely understandable that students, probably more so than the rest of the audience, want to set the tone and the atmosphere for the games. The students and the education they receive are, after all, why the university exists. We all know that students like to be on the edge and be exuberant, even rebellious, in celebration of their newfound independence, and what they do to set the atmosphere in a college hockey game is necessarily going to reflect that.
Some of that exuberance is obviously going to be translated into actions -- chants, cheers, slogans on signs & shirts, shouts at the refs -- which may be fine for other students, but aren't necessarily the kinds of things older people, or those with kids, want themselves or their kids to hear or see. Remember that non-students are part of the audience, and that number is going to grow.
I’m not religious, despite having been born into an Italian Roman-Catholic family, and I don’t go to church. But I know that the "Jesus hates you" chant flies directly in the face of what Christianity (whatever the denomination) teaches and I don’t agree that it’s a tame chant. For adults, it may provoke no reaction at all or it may provoke indignation or anger, depending on their personal disposition. However, most religious parents want to inculcate religious knowledge at a young age in their children. I think a lot of us have heard young children sing such songs as "Jesus Loves Me" -- I certainly have. What do you think will happen if such a child hears that chant at a game? Depending on their age & relative maturity, it may provoke no reaction at all -– just a derisive snort and a "wrong-o, pal" type of thought. But for the younger ones who have been brought up in Christianity, it may shock them, quite possibly to the point of tears. This is going to certainly infuriate the child’s parents, who did not expect to have their child brought to tears because someone decided to wantonly stomp on their beliefs at a college hockey game. It may not bother you, but it will certainly bother someone in that audience. And in a rural area like the North Country, which is home to probably many more churchgoers than the national per-capita average, it’s bound to happen sooner or later.
As we saw in that letter to the Watertown Daily Times, such words are not going to be taken lightly. Clarkson, which is trying to expand its audience, would not want to be seen as ignoring or condoning such actions, and rightfully so. In fact, I’d be very surprised if Clarkson hasn’t already reached out to that family with at least an apology, and I’d be just as surprised if the next person to start that chant weren’t ejected if not banned outright from Cheel. One might not ordinarily consider this a big deal, but it matters to a family who made its displeasure known in a public forum – the WDT – which is read by an awful lot of people in Potsdam, including the arena and Athletics staff. Even if they didn’t, it would be brought to their attention sooner or later. Finally, I wouldn’t expect that one letter to be the last of it; you’ll probably see more letters in the WDT, _North Country This Week_, the _Integrator_, and other public forums.
I agree with what observer and others have stated: at the very least, it’s in extremely poor taste and for some it’s outright blasphemous. I personally think it needs to go. As Stemmer said, we don’t need to sink to the level of Lynah’s alleged tastelessness.
"Boat-ship", I believe, is certainly on the edge, but I think in most cases it would fly over the heads of younger children and be ignored by older children and many adults, many of whom hear in music and movies the expletive for which that chant is an obvious sound-alike. However, the term "boat-ship" doesn’t make sense in the context of a hockey game – even if it were the Navy team playing – and it’s a safe bet that some parents have been asked about it by their children. I’ve heard it on the radio broadcasts and I wouldn’t think the FCC would make a big deal of it, but it likewise wouldn’t surprise me if the radio station and WCKN got a little antsy about having that on their broadcasts. I’d watch that one.
Likewise with "broken condom" and the "SLU…/RPI…" shirts – it probably wouldn’t hit the radar of the regulated broadcast media (let alone the FCC), but many parents are probably not going to want to explain what those phrases mean to their kids if they ask. I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable explaining one of those to a child.
In short, I believe it would be better for Clarkson fans to come up with witty cheers that get attention, but at the same time don’t offend the audience to the extent that cheers like "Jesus hates you" do. I know this is easier said than done, and heckling the opponent is part and parcel of being a fan. But there are some pretty smart people among the ranks of students, alumni, and fans, and I don’t think there isn’t a one of us who could come up with something that gets the opponents’ goat yet is cognizant of the audience and community.
As I said before, the above is my opinion. Take it for what it’s worth. I wrote this because it wasn’t my original intention to stop all discussion on the matter; I just wanted to keep the parent thread from completely degenerating into a religious-interpretation debate. I wrote the warning in that thread in a hurry, and didn’t have the time to think it out as much as I probably should have. I’d like to think that we could take a potential negative situation and spin it into a positive, civil discussion.
LGT!
Footnote: Please don’t take any of this to mean that I’m going to start cracking down on terms like SLUt on this board or in the chat. First of all, there are no children (of whom I’m aware) on this board, and second: in the 5+ years this board has operated, I cannot recall any complaints about the language or the nicknames we ascribe to our opponents (ie. SLUzer, RIP). For the record, except for this message, the last time ‘SLUt’ was used here was back in February.
Those of you who use the chat know there’s swearing in there (by me and others), and that unlike the Roundtable, I disabled the profanity filter. There are no young children participating, and you have to register to even go inside. If I make the chat logs available, profanity will be sanitized in the same manner as the Roundtable.
Because of federal law (COPA) I do not solicit, and will not accept, registrations for the Roundtable from those under the age of 13. For the same reason, I also will not accept registration requests for chat if I have reason to believe the requester is less than 18 years old. Of course, this doesn’t stop children from lying about their age or simply reading the posts – you don’t need to register to read them – but there isn’t much I can do short of demanding a faxed ID or parental note from everyone who registers. There are much worse places on the Internet for kids, who shouldn’t be surfing unsupervised in any event.
It definitely has relevance to college hockey and sports in general, and hearing others' perspectives and opinion is a good thing, and I'd really like to keep a civil discussion going on the subject. While religion vis-à-vis the offensiveness of certain cheers/chants is relevant to the discussion, I don't think that it needs to turn into a debate on Bible interpretation. People interpret the Bible differently, just as people interpret the cheers/chants differently.
WARNING -- this is over 1600 words long and took me over 2-1/2 hours to write. It’s easily the longest thing I’ve written since my Clarkson senior year that isn’t a computer program.
With that said, here's my opinion:
Attitudes and social norms change with the times, and are never static. You can see that in TV shows and movies -- what would have been considered highly scandalous on TV or in movies in 1966 is now fairly commonplace in 2006.
And so it is with college and semipro sports, although in this specific case it's getting more conservative. Here's why: There is an increased emphasis on making college and semipro sports accessible to working families, as an alternative to obscenely overpriced or otherwise unavailable professional sports. We all know the North Country doesn't offer much in the way of entertainment options, and Clarkson hockey is one of the more attractive options for people who want to spend an evening out. That includes families with children, and people of all religious persuasions (or none at all), among many others that are not students.
In all fairness, I'm only 28 years old; I have no kids, and have never been to a Clarkson home game as a spectator, or even WATCHED a Clarkson game before October 1996. I never saw a Clarkson game live-in-person until November 2001, as I spent every home hockey game during my Clarkson years down at WCKN typing out/composing graphics or running tape machines for instant replay. I don't have the perspective that many of you have about raising children, the makeup of audiences 20 or 30 years ago, or what those audiences or the pep band did. However, we've all seen the efforts Clarkson has made in expanding its hockey audience and it's reasonable to assume that they want to reach families with kids.
It's completely understandable that students, probably more so than the rest of the audience, want to set the tone and the atmosphere for the games. The students and the education they receive are, after all, why the university exists. We all know that students like to be on the edge and be exuberant, even rebellious, in celebration of their newfound independence, and what they do to set the atmosphere in a college hockey game is necessarily going to reflect that.
Some of that exuberance is obviously going to be translated into actions -- chants, cheers, slogans on signs & shirts, shouts at the refs -- which may be fine for other students, but aren't necessarily the kinds of things older people, or those with kids, want themselves or their kids to hear or see. Remember that non-students are part of the audience, and that number is going to grow.
I’m not religious, despite having been born into an Italian Roman-Catholic family, and I don’t go to church. But I know that the "Jesus hates you" chant flies directly in the face of what Christianity (whatever the denomination) teaches and I don’t agree that it’s a tame chant. For adults, it may provoke no reaction at all or it may provoke indignation or anger, depending on their personal disposition. However, most religious parents want to inculcate religious knowledge at a young age in their children. I think a lot of us have heard young children sing such songs as "Jesus Loves Me" -- I certainly have. What do you think will happen if such a child hears that chant at a game? Depending on their age & relative maturity, it may provoke no reaction at all -– just a derisive snort and a "wrong-o, pal" type of thought. But for the younger ones who have been brought up in Christianity, it may shock them, quite possibly to the point of tears. This is going to certainly infuriate the child’s parents, who did not expect to have their child brought to tears because someone decided to wantonly stomp on their beliefs at a college hockey game. It may not bother you, but it will certainly bother someone in that audience. And in a rural area like the North Country, which is home to probably many more churchgoers than the national per-capita average, it’s bound to happen sooner or later.
As we saw in that letter to the Watertown Daily Times, such words are not going to be taken lightly. Clarkson, which is trying to expand its audience, would not want to be seen as ignoring or condoning such actions, and rightfully so. In fact, I’d be very surprised if Clarkson hasn’t already reached out to that family with at least an apology, and I’d be just as surprised if the next person to start that chant weren’t ejected if not banned outright from Cheel. One might not ordinarily consider this a big deal, but it matters to a family who made its displeasure known in a public forum – the WDT – which is read by an awful lot of people in Potsdam, including the arena and Athletics staff. Even if they didn’t, it would be brought to their attention sooner or later. Finally, I wouldn’t expect that one letter to be the last of it; you’ll probably see more letters in the WDT, _North Country This Week_, the _Integrator_, and other public forums.
I agree with what observer and others have stated: at the very least, it’s in extremely poor taste and for some it’s outright blasphemous. I personally think it needs to go. As Stemmer said, we don’t need to sink to the level of Lynah’s alleged tastelessness.
"Boat-ship", I believe, is certainly on the edge, but I think in most cases it would fly over the heads of younger children and be ignored by older children and many adults, many of whom hear in music and movies the expletive for which that chant is an obvious sound-alike. However, the term "boat-ship" doesn’t make sense in the context of a hockey game – even if it were the Navy team playing – and it’s a safe bet that some parents have been asked about it by their children. I’ve heard it on the radio broadcasts and I wouldn’t think the FCC would make a big deal of it, but it likewise wouldn’t surprise me if the radio station and WCKN got a little antsy about having that on their broadcasts. I’d watch that one.
Likewise with "broken condom" and the "SLU…/RPI…" shirts – it probably wouldn’t hit the radar of the regulated broadcast media (let alone the FCC), but many parents are probably not going to want to explain what those phrases mean to their kids if they ask. I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable explaining one of those to a child.
In short, I believe it would be better for Clarkson fans to come up with witty cheers that get attention, but at the same time don’t offend the audience to the extent that cheers like "Jesus hates you" do. I know this is easier said than done, and heckling the opponent is part and parcel of being a fan. But there are some pretty smart people among the ranks of students, alumni, and fans, and I don’t think there isn’t a one of us who could come up with something that gets the opponents’ goat yet is cognizant of the audience and community.
As I said before, the above is my opinion. Take it for what it’s worth. I wrote this because it wasn’t my original intention to stop all discussion on the matter; I just wanted to keep the parent thread from completely degenerating into a religious-interpretation debate. I wrote the warning in that thread in a hurry, and didn’t have the time to think it out as much as I probably should have. I’d like to think that we could take a potential negative situation and spin it into a positive, civil discussion.
LGT!
Footnote: Please don’t take any of this to mean that I’m going to start cracking down on terms like SLUt on this board or in the chat. First of all, there are no children (of whom I’m aware) on this board, and second: in the 5+ years this board has operated, I cannot recall any complaints about the language or the nicknames we ascribe to our opponents (ie. SLUzer, RIP). For the record, except for this message, the last time ‘SLUt’ was used here was back in February.
Those of you who use the chat know there’s swearing in there (by me and others), and that unlike the Roundtable, I disabled the profanity filter. There are no young children participating, and you have to register to even go inside. If I make the chat logs available, profanity will be sanitized in the same manner as the Roundtable.
Because of federal law (COPA) I do not solicit, and will not accept, registrations for the Roundtable from those under the age of 13. For the same reason, I also will not accept registration requests for chat if I have reason to believe the requester is less than 18 years old. Of course, this doesn’t stop children from lying about their age or simply reading the posts – you don’t need to register to read them – but there isn’t much I can do short of demanding a faxed ID or parental note from everyone who registers. There are much worse places on the Internet for kids, who shouldn’t be surfing unsupervised in any event.