A Moment Of Insanity

It is a grassy knoll on the west side of Woodward Avenue in Detroit, unobtrusively surrounded by gothic churches, party stores and blocks overrun with weeds and discarded automobile carcasses. To a passive observer, the park-like cul-de-sac looks out of place; a small center of rebirth fostering in the middle of an urban war zone.

The irony, of course, is that not so long ago the corner of Virginia Park and Woodward was the middle of a war zone: the 1967 Detroit riot. And the most notorious occurrence of the riot took place at this corner 45 years ago today: The Algiers Motel Incident.

It was just past midnight on July 26, 1967. Days before, a police raid on a "blind pig" after-hours club at 9125 12th Street near Clairmount - the heart of Detroit's black ghetto - had erupted into a riot. The violence resulted in death (43 people, mostly black, were killed), destruction (entire neighborhoods were torched or looted), and a "white flight" exodus to suburbia which led to Detroit having a black majority within five years.

Earlier that day, officers were told that Patrolman Jerome Olshove had been killed in the vicinity of the Algiers Motel. Reports of sniper fire were coming in. Tensions were high among law enforcement officials; when reports of sniper fire near the Algiers were received that night, a combined force of state and city police, national guardsmen and private security police responded. Among the officers: Ronald August, David Senak, Robert Paille and security guard Melvin Dismukes.

The motel annex was a three-story brick building, originally one of the big bourgeois houses of the Victoria Park neighborhood. It had been converted into apartments and rental rooms, and when police arrived they found 10 black men, two white women and no guns.

One hour later, three of the men - Aubrey Pollard, 19; Fred Temple, 18; and Carl Cooper, 17 - had been shot to death at close range. The others had been assaulted after being forced into spread-eagle positions against a lobby wall, then kicked out of the motel by officers.

The bodies were discovered three hours after the incident by a second patrol party. None of the initial party had reported the incident; it was not until after The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press broke the story several days later that August filed a report. After several hours passed, August revised his report, claiming he had shot Pollard by accident. According to the report, presented in The Algiers Motel Incident by John Hersey:

He says, "You are not going to shoot me, are you?" and I says, "No, I never shot a man in all my life and I have no reason to shoot you." He then grabbed my shotgun and pushed me to the bed and I screamed, "Get back." We both stood up from the bed and then he let go of the gun and I pulled the trigger. The safety was on and the gun did not fire. I released the safety and he reached for the shotgun again and I pushed him away and fired one shot that struck him ... I didn't want to shoot him. I wanted to put him back out there with the rest of them but he just wanted the gun and he wouldn't let go.

In a series of court cases - including a murder trial, federal conspiracy trial and federal civil rights violation trial - Wayne County prosecutors maintained the killings were the deadly result of a bizarre "game" played by police intended to frighten those inside the annex to confessing to the sniper fire that had been reported earlier.

According to witnesses, several of the black men were randomly removed from the lobby into one of the rooms and threatened at gunpoint to tell police the location of a gun they believed had been used in the reported sniper attack. August's shooting of Pollard was part of this "game."

Prosecutors maintained that three white officers - August, Senak and Paille - went out of control and executed the three victims.

August was charged with first-degree murder, but because of the publicity the trial was moved to the Lansing suburb of Mason. On June 10, 1969, August was found not guilty by an all-white jury. His attorney, Norman Lippitt, had told jurors that what happened in the Algiers was a defensible act in an undeclared war, and that Detroit officials had failed their police officers with indecision in the early hours of the riot. According to a July 23, 1977 Detroit News article:

Some call it a riot. It was not a riot. It was a war! A war - where every police officer, every Guardsman and every soldier was working in a battleground. Ronald August is guilty of working under these conditions. Guilty of working days and nights with little or no rest. Guilty of standing idle while looting and fire-bombing and sniping was going on. Guilty of being shot at in the street. Guilty for not being allowed to shoot criminals. This is what happened in those first days of that war in Detroit - while the mayor and the governor and the President were indecisive.

Senak said Temple was shot by other officers when he grabbed Senak's service revolver while handcuffing him. Two of Temple's friends, Roderick Davis and Larry Reed, testified under oath seeing Temple in the hallway when they were kicked out of the Algiers. Paille was charged with first-degree murder in Temple's death, but the charge was dismissed when a Detroit Recorder's Court judge ruled his statements inadmissible because he made the statements before he had been advised of his constitutional rights.

No one was ever charged with Cooper's death.

Dismukes, a black security guard employed by the motel, was acquitted of charges he clubbed one of the annex occupants during the raid.

There were no winners in the Algiers Motel incident. Three lives were erased, and while the families of Pollard and Temple were paid $62,500 each by the city of Detroit as restitution, money cannot make up for the loss of life.

While all of the officers were cleared of charges, none ever served on the force again.

The 1967 riot was the third racial uprising experienced in Detroit during the 20th century, and shattered the image that Detroit was a haven where poor people came to fulfill the American Dream. In 1925, racial animosity had boiled over when a black physician, Ossian Sweet, purchased a home in a white neighborhood on Detroit's east side. In 1943, racial tensions spilled over into a riot where 34 people were killed. The 1967 uprising was not only the third riot, but the third time federal forces had been deployed to Detroit; U.S. troops were in the Motor City in 1943 and 1863 as well.

According to Hersey's novel, there are four primary causes of racial violence: unequal justice; unequal employment opportunities; unequal housing; and unequal education. While all played a factor in the Detroit riot, it is the first - unequal justice - which resulted in the Algiers murders and, many believe, the acquittals. It is the prime cause of deep anger and resentment, experienced by the black population at two points: what happened with the cop on the street; and what happened with the prosecutor, attorney and judge in the courtroom.

The day after the August verdict, The Detroit News gave its opinion. In part, the editorial read: "Black fears that justice would not be done 'in this white man's court' -... will consider their fears confirmed." It is now 45 years after the Detroit riots, and when one looks at the public outcry surrounding high-profile court cases and racial incidents such as Rodney King, Malice Green, O.J. Simpson and Trayvon Martin, one wonders if things have changed.

Nuclear Fallout

And after the atomic bomb dropped on Happy Valley this morning, do we have enough provisions to survive?

That's the big question after the National Collegiate Athletic Association's sweeping announcement about Penn State University, where NCAA president Mark Emmert and Ed Ray, the chairman of the NCAA Executive Committee and Oregon State's president, brought the hammer down big time on the Nittany Lions' football program.

I have mixed feelings about the penalties placed on Penn State. I'd like to believe this is, first and foremost, about the children - and I believe some of the penalties do just that. I'd also like to think this is about changing the culture, not just at Penn State, but in collegiate athletic programs nationwide - and I think the jury will be out on that for a long time.

Let's analyze the fallout, shall we?

PENALTY #1: A $60 million sanction. According to Emmert, the $60 million is equivalent to the average annual revenue of its football program. The NCAA ordered PSU to pay the penalty funds into an endowment for "external programs preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims and may not be used to fund such programs at the university." School leadership followed this by strongly noting none of this will be from taxpayer dollars.

This is, to me, the most important aspect of the penalties levied against PSU. While no amount of money (or any other penalty, legal or otherwise) can ever truly answer for the horrors against society, it's at least a legitimate start in the right direction. This helps the victims ... and isn't that what this is primarily supposed to be about?

However ... I believe it should have been more. While it's estimated the PSU football program brings in $60 million annually, that's gross income; some reports have Penn State's net football income at $15 million. I'd have liked to see the financial penalty be closer to $210 million, which would be that net income figure multiplied by every year Paterno enabled former assistant coach and convicted child rapist Jerry Sandusky through his silence on the topic.

I think it would have also been a nice touch to have Penn State be responsible for some sort of annual check for, I don't know, $5-$10 million a year to external programs dealing with the prevention of child sexual abuse.

PENALTY #2: A four-year football postseason ban. I have no real issue with this, to be honest. Given the nature of the scholarship reduction, plus the strong possibility bowl officials would treat the scandal-impacted program like plutonium, Penn State's potential for reaching post-season action is shaky at best starting in 2013.

But if we're going to play "what if?" games, let's turn this a different way; an alternative would have been to allow PSU to compete in post-season bowls, with the stipulation that its share of the bowl proceeds goes to - you guessed it - external programs dealing with the prevention of child sexual abuse. That way, should the Nittany Lions compete in a bowl game, the victims are assisted.

PENALTY #3: A reduction of scholarships for a four-year period. The scholarship reductions mean Penn State's roster will be capped at 65 scholarship players within a few seasons. The normal scholarship limit for major college football programs is 85; playing with 20 fewer will likely be crippling to a program attempting to compete at a national championship level.

This is essentially a loss of 80 scholarships over a four-year period. Ouch. Big, fat ouch.

The rest of these penalties, a program can overcome. This one ... not so much. This is the biggie. And this is where the "sins of the father" truly impact those who had nothing to do with the problem.

Sadly, virtually every time the NCAA sanctions a program, the students and coaches negatively impacted had no direct involvement with any of the true culprits. When the University of Southern California was penalized for the transgressions of Reggie Bush, not only had the former Heisman Award winner already been active at the professional level, but his coach had bolted to the NFL as well.

Destroying a program by hammering people not involved in a scandal just doesn't feel quite right. Had I been asked by NCAA leaders, I would have lessened this aspect of the penalties, removing perhaps only five scholarships rather than up to 20.

I fail to see where this particular penalty helps either the victims or ensures college athletic transgressions won't happen again. When you look at the history of NCAA infractions, they go back decades. What happened at the University of Miami, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Southern Methodist, USC, and so many other programs, can and will happen again, because there is absolutely no way to stop people from caring about wins over ethics.. The PSU sanctions will not prevent infractions at NCAA programs.

This punishment comes off as vengeful and vindictive by the NCAA, and not only punishes football players who had nothing to do with the scandal, but also negatively impacts all other aspects of campus life - football and non-football, athletic and academic. Football is the school's moneymaker program; this move will ultimately destroy far more than it solves.

According to ESPN's Adam Rittenberg, "The NCAA and Big Ten are making it very easy for current Penn State players to transfer. Players who signed national letters of intent with Penn State in February may be released from those letters and allowed to go elsewhere without penalty. If players pledged to Penn State decide in the next year that they want to compete elsewhere, they shouldn’t face much, if any, resistance. And if Penn State players decide they don’t want to play football but remain in school, their scholarships will be honored until they complete their degrees. "

Despite these allowances, the loss of scholarships is the one aspect of today's announcement which deeply troubles me. Like a lot of observers, I believe this will ultimately result in a noncompetitive program for a decade, probably even longer. Penn State might not recover from this until 2030.

In discussing the penalties this morning, ESPN Radio's Colin Cowherd noted that unlike USC, which appealed the NCAA's decision for two full years, Penn State had no such option. Further, he noted, USC was able to "stockpile" high school talent while appealing, thus allowing it a better chance at competitive success than PSU, which had no such grace period with which to work.

Also unlike USC, Penn State has the Sandusky stigma to deal with, which other college recruiters have definitely used this past year ... and will be hanging over the program for an indefinite period.

PENALTY #4: A vacation of all wins between 1998-2011. With the wins from 1998-2011 vacated, Paterno moves from 409 wins to 298, dropping him from first to 12th on the winningest NCAA football coach list. Penn State also will have six bowl wins and two conference championships erased.

As Cowherd stated this morning, this penalty is "rear-view mirror" stuff. The way I look at it, Paterno was so concerned about the public image of his program, he allowed a child rapist to continue preying on the innocent to save his empire, taking the "Win At All Costs" mentality to a level never seen before. JoePa basically tried to protect his legacy by sacrificing young boys to a monster.

That's why I have no problem with the NCAA stripping Paterno of every victory - all 111 - dating back to 1998, when he apparently first found out Sandusky was sexually abusing children.

Had Paterno "done the right thing" ethically and morally in 1998, it's quite possible that his recruiting might have been impacted for a few years - thus reducing the number of wins. And if he'd done it in 2001, he might have been fired (as he was last November) for allowing Sandusky to roam the campus of Penn State. Either way, by covering up the entire scandal for 14 years, he and his program were able to benefit both financially and in the win-loss column.You have a head coach, athletic director and university president conspiring to cover up crimes that would have (a) cost them their jobs, (b) damaged Penn State's ability to recruit top players, and (c) ultimately hurt the football program's chances of winning more games.

What happened in State College, Pennsylvania, is no less an NCAA violation than boosters paying players or players hawking jerseys for tattoos.

The wins he oversaw since 1998 are questionable and tarnished beyond reproach. Ultimately, we want honors to be reserved for the honorable.

Joe Paterno no longer deserves such distinction.

This is why I am comfortable with this aspect, just as I was when the statue of JoePa came down yesterday morning.

As for Paterno's legacy ... it's destroyed. Pre-November, the perception of JoePa was as solid as the mighty oak, unshakably ethical, his "Grand Experiment" proving to the world that melding athletics and academics in the collegiate environment would work. Now, that oak has been shattered into a million slivers of wood, unable to outweigh the weight or quality of one tree.

What is frustrating to me, and to many observers, is the continued "circle 'round the wagon" mentality the Paterno family continues to display regarding JoePa's legacy. I get it; until eight months ago, he could seemingly do no wrong, and suddenly his public image ... and his statue ... and his records ... no longer exist, at least not in any way, shape or recognizable form. But to continue to openly complain about the process, that the NCAA's sanctions "defame his legacy" and are "a panicked response to the scandal that led to them" ... well, those arguments aren't flying, guys.

When the Freeh Report came out a few weeks ago, the Paterno family felt the compulsion to announce it was going to conduct its own investigation, asserting the report was filled with opinion disguised as fact.

The fact this "investigation of the investigation" would cost millions - millions that could, and possibly should, go to Sandusky's victims seems lost on them. Earth to the Paternos: JoePa enabled a child molester to roam around Happy Valley and the campus of Penn State for at least 14 years, and swept it under the rug. It doesn't even matter why he did this anymore ... just that he did. And while the Paterno family may have some understandable reasons to defend him, this doesn't mean taking every opportunity to try to publicly clear the name of a man whose legacy has been so visibly tarnished ... especially since the tarnishing was due to his own actions (or inactions, as the case may be).

The Paternos need to take ownership of the fact much of this entire ordeal could have been easily avoided, had JoePa handled the situation better in 1998 ... or 2001 ... or at all. Honestly, nothing anyone with the last name "Paterno" has to say right now is in any way helping his legacy on the national scale. Or the actual victims, period.

There is great irony in all of this. The Paterno family's inability to acquiesce is doing more harm to JoePa's legacy. If they really wanted it to be about the victims - as they have claimed time and time again - at some point, they need to realize something: the Paternos aren't the victims ... the children Sandusky abused (enabled byJoePa, senior vice president Gary Schultz, athletic director Tim Curley, former president Graham Spanier, and possibly others) are!

If "Penn State" is plutonium to potential bowls, "Paterno" is high-grade uranium to the outside world.

An Open Letter To The NGJ

So I was mindlessly trolling the Internet, as I am wont to do far too often, and was surfing through my favorite news generator, Fark.com.

The basic premise of Fark is for individuals like you or me to "link" interesting stories from virtually any news or information website in the world for all to see, whilst creating your own tagline. It's funny, it's crass. Sometimes it's even vulgar. And it's all real stuff published online.

The site is divided into seven categories - Main, Sports, Business, Geek, Entertainment, Politics, and Video. Some of the stories cross into multiple areas; a story on the Octomom might be in both Main and Geek, or a story about Michael Phelps in both Sports and Video.

So there I was, mindlessly trolling the Internet, as I am wont to do far too often (yes, I am repeating myself on purpose!), and I happened upon this gem: "Why Every Social Media Manager Should Be Under 25," written by the newly-graduated English major who just took your coffee order.

As I am sure you can imagine, from the part in quotes, the Next Generation Journal story had all the qualities of a train wreck. The headline oozed of entitlement, ego, narcissism.

Oh, so juicy!

So I clicked. And I read the original post, written on July 20th by Cathryn Sloane, a 2012 graduate of the University of Iowa.

And read.

And reread.

And then read all the post-blog comments - all 400-plus of them.

And then read the response to the Sloane commentary by Connor Toohill, founder and editor of NextGen Journal, and a student at the University of Notre Dame, written July 21st (and co-signed by managing editors Kelsey Manning and Robert Casty).

And read. And reread. And then went back and forth between the two posts, and the hundreds of comments about both posts.

And I said to myself, "I need to reply as well!"

Here is my commentary.

---

Dear Connor, Kelsey, and Robert (and Cathryn),

First, some props, given I've already read the multitude of comments - many scathing - surrounding both Ms. Sloane's initial commentary and your follow-up. It's often difficult to throw one's opinions out there for the world to see, especially when it seems to either target or endorse a specific demographic. It takes equal strength of mind and character to stand up for someone - an individual or group - when it seems under attack for how said viewpoints are expressed. And I agree that any and all "personal attacks" are out of bounds (although I suspect many of these perceived personal attacks are not personal, when looking at the big picture).

Having said that ... oy vey iz mer!

One of the gripes younger generations have is being taken seriously by older generations. It's the whole vicious "I can't get experience without work, and they won't hire anyone without experience!" cycle. Yeah, it's painful, it pre-dates even old-fangled media like television and radio, and will likely be around long after MySpace is dead and buried. (Oh, wait - it's already dead and buried? My bad. Replace "MySpace" with "any currently existing SNS".) I get it. There is some legitimacy to this viewpoint. And yeah, it sucks.

But ...

There's a reason many professions require some form of experience in the field when looking to hire anyone - managers, employees, even interns currently in college or high school. There's a reason social media employers are "looking for five to ten years of direct experience" - they want to know you have not just a passing interest in their product, but the working tools that will allow you to both learn and grow. When Ms. Sloane wonders "why they don’t realize the candidates who are in fact best suited for the position actually aren’t old enough to have that much experience," she misses this entire point. If a human resources department is given a directive such as "five to ten years" of experience, it's because they want someone more seasoned in that position. Throwing an entire profession "under the bus" - whether intentionally or not - tends to alienate the faction being run over. This leads to Angry Birds - er, Angry Professionals. - who are quick to defend their fiefdom.

Making vast generalizations about any group of people (whether religious, business, school clubs, whatever) rarely furthers open discussion. Instead, it usually leads to lines in the sand. Ms. Sloane's OP appeared to argue only the young adults of today (basically, those who use SNS regularly) should be social media managers ... and they (and only they) truly understand how social media works. This theory is completely flawed.

Just sayin'.

I suspect most social media outlets are not looking for people who solely know how to Tweet, or Like, or ... whatever they do on LinkedIn. They want individuals who can market their websites effectively. It's marketing, pure and simple. The argument that being capable of using social media makes one more qualified to use it effectively ... is not true. Being part of the social media generation (whatever that means) doesn't mean one is qualified to actually work in the industry. I mean, I know how to put a tape in the VCR; it doesn't mean I'm qualified to build or repair a VCR. I use an iPhone and iPad, but haven't the foggiest how to create apps for them. I used to be a journalist; while I am a competent writer, I'm not sure how easily this would transfer to writing, say, novels, TV commercials, plays, or film scripts. (I do manage three debate team/league websites despite having never taking a single course in HTML, so I guess I got that going for me, should this whole "teaching" thing flame out. Speaking of which ...)

I'm currently a high school debate teacher (have been for 13 years); my pre-hire experience included a full year of student teaching (in high school English). I used to be a news reporter/photographer; I wrote for the college newspaper prior to gainful employment. Did these pre-employment experiences make me an amazing teacher or journalist on Day 1? In Year 1? Not a chance! In both cases, I was young, cocky, and probably way too abrasive (yes, all of these - even though the teaching gig started when I was 35). I had some successes, made a ton of errors, and (hopefully) learned from my mistakes, because more experienced professionals were there to offer me guidance, constrictive critiques, shoulders to cry on, and time to discuss new and not-so-new ideas. I guarantee students I had in the classroom even five years ago would get a much stronger and better education if they had me today, because I'm a much better, more confident educator than I was previously, thanks to my own experiences and the input from a network of other professionals.

Experience does count.

Now, I personally believe the older generation often disses younger adults because of its ageist views. (The opposite also holds true, BTW.) I've probably been guilty of it at points during my 48-plus years on this planet. I agree when you state, "All of the benefits of youth, and of the 'next generation,' are important to have in the national conversation. We don’t claim that they should dominate or supersede direct experience. But we do believe those benefits, and the voices of the ‘next generation’ overall, should be present. That’s especially true at a time of rapid transformational change, and when issues that are largely out of our control, from deficits to climate change, will impact us immensely." Hell, part of my job is to make this happen! Some members of my era - and older - are already burned out, or well on their way, in a number of vocations; we need youthful vigor and idealism to make their way into the current marketplace across the board.

But (here we go again) ...

The OP headline itself is questionably worded, and can be seen as quite disrespectful and downright insulting to many older folks (i.e., over 25 years of age) who helped create and craft the current world of social media. "Why Every Social Media Manager Should Be Under 25" smacks of entitlement and ego. It comes off as a holier-than-thou posture. It was the first thing readers saw, thus making the strongest impression. And when veterans in any calling believe their profession and professionalism is being questioned by someone who has never stepped their shoes, it tends to make them (a) defensive and (b) irritable. You note that responses accused "our entire generation as [being] arrogant, entitled, naïve and ignorant." Dude ... the OP headline alone leads to that impression!

It can't be "absolutely off-base" when you leave yourself open to that line of attack!

FYI, I am printing out copies of both the OP and your response to use in my high school debate classes. One of the major things I try to teach my squad is how to frame sound arguments, and avoid logical fallacies. It will be interesting to get their views on what was written in both commentaries, and to see how they frame responses to your cases. I suspect they will find holes large enough to drive Mack trucks through, but I could be wrong.

Now ...

As an educator, and a late-40s member of our society, I truly hope you are all able to not just read the comments (all of them, on both posts), but understand what is being said. Have a Socratic seminar. Do some brainstorming (live or on Skype). Group discussions can be beneficial ... as long as you are open to the comments and learn from them. If you really do value "the diverse voices, perspectives and priorities of our generation into the national dialogue," then you must embrace the comments, good and seemingly hurtful, and advance from there. Carte blanche throwing the multitude of statements from people in the profession, who care about the profession, and want nothing more than to see it continue to grow and succeed with young, eager people like you, won't work. Griping and bitching about how "they just don't understand" or "they're all assholes" or whatever, won't help you here.

I hope you make some damn good lemonade!

Sincerely,
Paul L. Gaba

Eagles Dare

When I was in high school, one of my various extracurricular activities was going on campouts as part of the Boy Scouts of America's Detroit Area Council Troop #23.

It didn't start out that way, mind you. My scouting origins started elsewhere; first in the DAC's Cub Scout Pack #1019, followed by Troop #1019, both stationed at Hickory Grove Elementary School, within a metaphorical earshot of my Bloomfield Hills upbringing. But at some point during my scouting years, I made the transfer to Troop #23, following in the footsteps of my father (and a number of other relatives).

Troop #23 was the last remaining all-Jewish troop in the Detroit metropolitan area, making it both unique among scouting organizations and more conducive to the unique philosophical world that comes with being Jewish. It also had a long, proud history within the metro Detroit scouting community. It was founded in 1910, and its scoutmaster, Nathan Trager, had been its leader for decades.

Being active in the scouts was an amazing experience, filled with friendships and networking, proactive thinking about the future, learning valuable life skills, and those campouts - both weekend and summer. (I tell you, there is nothing in the world like going to a winter scouting jamboree, pitching a tent in three feet of snow, and cooking meals on a portable propane stove!)

Being part of the Boy Scouts also led to many an awkward moment with high school friends, who didn't "get" the scouting lifestyle. I didn't let the overt or covert mocking that took place impact me, though; I wore my olive green uniform with pride, earning a ton of achievements (in the form of merit badges) and accolades (in the form of ranks), including the highest honor - that of Eagle Scout - on March 16, 1982, four days before my 18th birthday.

I was Eagle Scout #104 out of the 105 achieved under Mr. Trager's leadership; #103 was my close friend Mark Lawton, and #105 was Trager's grandson, Jeff. That I achieved Eagle was somewhat remarkable, since despite my love of the scouting life, it was not an absolute love; I enjoyed a roughly 18-month-long self-chosen sabbatical (hey, teenagers are known to be indecisive at times), and returned to Troop #23 with just enough time to achieve the honor. In doing so, I became the first member of my immediate family to reach the rank of Eagle (my father didn't quite get there, but he did become a member of the BSA's exclusive Order of the Arrow, scouting's "National Honor Society" of sorts).

My Eagle status came in handy when looking at potential college club memberships and gainful employment opportunities, as it showed I could be counted on as a responsible member of society, with a plethora of leadership and world knowledge skills, who could (despite the aforementioned sabbatical) set out and achieve goals.

Sadly, Troop #23 met its demise a few years after I earned my Eagle. A combination of reasons - including (but not limited to) apathy, dwindling numbers, the changing demographics of the area, and costs - led to the group's death.

But I treasure my memories of being part of Troop #23.

As for the BSA's decades-long stance opposing the allowance of gays to be part of its insular world ... not so much.

Some background: In 1991, following the high-profile removal of several scouting leaders from their positions due to sexual orientation, the BSA released an official statement prohibiting gay people from acting in leadership positions: "We believe homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout law that a Scout be clean in word and deed. Homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts." And in 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that as the BSA is a private organization, its policies are legal.

Since then, many pundits - including a number of Eagle Scouts - have taken the BSA to task for its discriminatory policy. Specifically, they note the idea a private organization can legally discriminate is ludicrous. Individuals interact with private groups on a daily basis, they note; under the SCOTUS ruling, theoretically, stores can refuse you entry. Restaurants and bars can refuse you service. Electrical and water companies - many of which are privately run - can refuse to maintain you as a client. Doctors can refuse to treat you. Hospitals can divert you en-route to other facilities, effectively refusing to save your life.

Others have questioned whether the BSA is truly even a "private" organization, given conflicting evidence over its status. In 2005, Fox News noted the BSA "enjoys massive and unique tax-funded support from governments both local and federal. On the local level, for example, the city of San Diego was targeted because it allowed the Boy Scouts' headquarters to operate in a city-owned park for $1 per year and to use other city-owned facilities without any rent. On the federal level, the Pentagon provided an estimated $6 to $8 million from 1997 to 2001 to assist a Boy Scouts Jamboree -- an event which is traditionally held on military bases."

About the taxpayer support, American Civil Liberties Union spokesperson Linda Hills stated, "The Boy Scouts can't have it both ways. ... If they truly are a private religious organization, free to engage in any form of discrimination they choose, then they are not entitled to a government subsidy."

Why is this important today? If you haven't been following the most recent news, in April of this year, Ohio mom and Cub Scout den mother Jennifer Tyrrell was ousted from her son's den leader because she is gay. Tyrrell contacted the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and begins an online petition to end the policy. National media, including the Associated Press, ABC News, CNN, MSNBC, the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, begin following the story.

In late May, Zach Wahls - an Eagle Scout raised by two mothers in Iowa - delivered 275,000 signatures of Tyrrell’s petition to the BSA’s National Annual Meeting. In early June, the BSA announced it would be reviewing the policy, which - if adopted - would throw out the national ban and allow local chartering organizations to decide whether or not they would accept gay youth and leaders.

Sounds like a plan to me!

Not so fast, there. Despite the national petitioning and informational presentations, Tyrrell, Wahls, and the rest of the open-minded and forward-thinking scouting world still lost the battle, after a clandestine 11-member committee "was unanimous in its conclusion" there was no place for gay people in the scouts. "Scouting believes that good people can personally disagree on this topic and still work together to achieve the life-changing benefits to youth through Scouting," said the Scout's statement. "While not all board members may personally agree with this policy, and may choose a different direction for their own organizations, BSA leadership agrees this is the best policy for the organization."

Um ... the committee has been discretely examining this issue for two years.

So much for that whole post-Wahls "we'll review the policy" thing from seven weeks ago, I guess.

The real problem with scouting entering the 21st Century - where, guess what? Homosexuality is a part of our world! - is that the BSA is a group guided by the Southern Baptist Convention, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Mormon Church. Until the influence of these conservative religious groups wanes, a new policy is doubtful, if not wishful thinking. As the Los Angeles Times noted, what's really happening here is a purely business decision about the BSA's sustainability, driven by the influence of these powerful religious benefactors. Roughly 400,000 of the 2.7 million BSA membership "belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," which "encourages members to become involved in the Boy Scouts, and has its own section on the Boy Scouts of America webpage."

GLAAD President Herndon Graddick noted, "The only 'character development' and 'values-based leadership training’ the Boy Scouts have taught our young people in this case is that blatant discrimination is OK. Tossing aside the hard work and leadership of a committed mom because of who she loves is not a ‘value’ that a majority Americans want taught to their children."

In response to the BSA's most recent decree, a number of high-profile scouting alum - including gay actor George Takei of Star Trek fame - have blasted the decision. "These policies by the BSA reinforce that gay people are unfit to be part of this national organization because of who they are. They perpetuate the irresponsible and unsupportable stereotype that gay people prey upon children. And they must be met with staunch resistance until they fall," Takei stated in his blog.

Even presidential candidate Mitt Romney - himself a Mormon, as well as former member of the Boy Scouts of America's National Executive Board - endorsed the idea during his 1994 senate campaign:

"I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

I am both an Eagle Scout and proud supporter of marriage equality. I believe these actions are completely un-scoutlike and extremely discriminatory, and make me ashamed of the current BSA leaders. IMHO, they are in direct opposition of everything the organization is supposed to stand for. The BSA is an organization charged with guiding its members and helping to shape and mold boys into young men as future leaders of tommorrow. In today's society, as well as future societies, this means teaching tolerance and acceptance of ALL peoples - regardless of sexual orientation. "Do a good turn daily" does not mean to ban youth leaders and future Eagle Scouts simply because they are gay. In the scouts, our leaders always told us to respect everyone, not just those in a BSA uniform.

I cannot see how the BSA can uphold the old oath and law and still exclude some Americans from their ranks. They may as well be reclassified as the Bull Shitters of America.

There may be some hope at the end of the tunnel. The Minneapolis-based North Star Council refuses to accept the national decision, and will continue to accept gays and lesbians as leaders - and as scouts. Scouts Canada is open and accepting of LBGT youth and leaders, "regardless of gender, race, culture, religious belief, sexual orientation or economic circumstance." Further, counter-balancing the homophobia and financial clout of the churches are gay-friendly policies (backed by the financial clout) of board members like Ernst & Young and AT&T, both of which have expressed severe reservation of the Scouts' ongoing anti-gay policies.

Until then, the fight continues.

It would behoove the BSA to go full-throttle inclusionary, not just for moral reasons, but financial and survival. The statistics bear it out: the organization has experienced a proportional membership decline among younger generations. The BSA is an organization that offers merit badges on citizenship - in the community, the nation, and the world. The BSA should be taking into account such citizenship - at all levels, including its highest - is inclusionary. If not, Troop #23 won't be the only aspect of the Boy Scouts of America relegated to footnote status.

The Great Deceiver

The family of former Penn State University football coach/icon/legend gone bad Joseph Vincent Paterno insists former assistant coach and convicted serial child rapist Jerry Sandusky was a "great deceiver" who "fooled everyone," including the all-time winningest coach in major college football history, for nearly 14 years.

At least, that's how the Paterno family worded it in a statement released yesterday.

But it turns out JoePa and the other three PSU leaders named front and center in the 267-page Freeh Report - university president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and school vice president Gary Schultz - were the great deceivers who fooled everyone in this sad, pathetic saga of betrayal. After all, Sandusky didn't appear to hide many of his heinous acts, witnessed by people ranging from graduate assistant Mike McQueary to unnamed janitors, who feared they'd be fired if they reported what they saw in locker rooms and campus showers.

According to the report, authorized by the PSU Board of Trustees and released Thursday by former FBI director Louis Freeh, the quartet "failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade." This conspiracy of silence enabled Sandusky, convicted last month of 45 counts of sexual abuse of young boys, to continue to prey on his victims, the report concluded.

The Freeh Report lays out the story of a stunning and systemic failure of leaders to properly act in leadership roles. While power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the evidence contained in the report, including emails from 1998 and 2001 (when Spanier, Paterno, Schultz and Curley concealed the Sandusky child rapes), is devastating to the reputations and legacies of each, who were overly concerned with how Sandusky's actions would potentially negatively impact the pristine image of PSU ... and not concerned at all about the health, safety and welfare of at-risk boys being sexually abused by Sandusky.

"In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity," the report states, "the most powerful leaders at the university - Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley - repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse."

Deceivers, all of them. Over and over again.

Key points of the Freeh Report include:
• Paterno and others showing "callous and shocking disregard for child victims";
• Evidence showing Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley knowing of the 1998 investigation, while Paterno "failed to take any action";
• PSU letting Sandusky retire in 1999 "not as a suspected child predator, but as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy," allowing him to groom victims;
• Paterno being "an integral part of this active decision to conceal," justifing his firing last November;
• PSU not alerting authorities to the 2001 assaultl an intervening factor in not reporting it was a conversation between Curley and Paterno;
• PSU failing to adhere to federal law requiring reporting crimes such as the ones Sandusky committed; and
• that PSU "concealed critical facts ... to avoid consequences of bad publicity."

Hey, Penn State powers-that-be: want to avoid "consequences of bad publicity"? Here's a novel idea: don't cover up illegal activities ... whether for one year or for 14 years! We are a fairly forgiving society. We, as individuals and collectives, have pardoned many a person and group for their indiscretions over time - as long as we believe the apologies rendered are legitimate, meaningful, honest. Some pundits have stated if JoePa had actually nipped this in 1998 - and as the Supreme Benevolent Entity at PSU he certainly had ample opportunity and ability to do so - he would have created so many positive observations about "integrity" and "honesty" and all the shit he purportedly cared about so much, he'd be declared a saint by now.

The Paterno family doesn't buy the "avoid bad publicity" claims made in the Freeh Report. "To think, however, that [Paterno] would have protected Jerry Sandusky to avoid bad publicity is simply not realistic," said the family in its Thursday statement.

It isn't? Have you studied the way virtually everyone throughout world history has ever reacted when one of their family or employees (in particular, those who have a largely positive image) are remotely accused or implicated in some form of illegal or illicit activity? They close ranks, circle the wagons, protect and defend their own, using that same logical fallacy.

The Paterno family's position is understandable. JoePa was larger than life, an entity unto himself, who molded the lives of countless young men who chose to play football for him at a major university gridiron power. And his son Jay Paterno has been out there on the front line, representing the family, speaking to the media, defending the legacy of his father.

"This episode is one chapter in a very very big life, a life that was led with integrity, honesty and commitment to this university," Jay Paterno said on ESPN.

I get it. It's understandable the family wants to defend him. If I were the one in front of the camera, defending a family member for some unspeakable horror, maybe I'd be saying some of the same things. I don't know, and I hope to never find out.

But the family is dangerously placing blind faith in a lame excuse that isn't effective. The whole "integrity" and "honesty" thing ain't working, son. Jay Paterno, you need to shut the hell up and quit mugging for the cameras every chance you get. The evidence is overwhelming against your dad; it's not just smoke and mirrors. Seriously, just accept it, admit your father had his faults, and offer an frigging heartfelt legitimate apology on behalf of the entire Paterno clan to the victims and their families.

It would be the decent thing to do.

Then again, if JoePa had done the "decent" thing years ago - and showed he cared about the lives of children being harmed time and time again by Sandusky, rather than actively covering up the crimes for years - we probably wouldn't be discussing any of this.

Paterno could have spoken out in 1998 - but didn't. Or in 2001 - but didn't. Whatever his rationale, he did nothing (or, in the case of the 2001 assault incident witnessed by McQueary, he did the absolute minimum). And while it's true JoePa stated in November, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." ... well, I call bullshit. According to the report, Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno never alerted the school's board of trustees about the 1998 incident and investigation. They failed to comply with the federal Clery Act by not reporting the 2001 incident to university police. Hell, according to the report, "None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct."

"In short, nothing was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity."

Despite what Jay Paterno and Matt Millen (who played for JoePa) have claimed on ESPN, CNN and other media, this entire ordeal was anything but one "mistake" in a 60-year career. Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley engaged, orchestrated, and participated in a criminal conspiracy to protect and enable a child rapist. They didn't "slip up" or "not do enough." They used their power and influence to impede punishment for Sandusky, allowing him further access to victims. This is more than a blemish on (specifically) JoePa's career, it's character defining and criminal. If he hadn't died from lung cancer, it's very possible he would have died in prison for enabling and abetting such action - alongside his buddy Sandusky.

Maybe the university should rotate the statue of JoePa 180 degrees. That way the statue can look the other way ... just like Joe did for so many years.

The Decision

It was thirteen years ago today - July 5, 1999 - when I made The Decision ... to take my talents to South Fork.

LeBron James' one-hour televised narcissistic announcement - which, after months of planning and contemplation - led to him earning a bazillion dollars, a bazillion Miami-area fans, a bazillion Cleveland-area death threats, and one (so far) National Basketball Association championship ring.

My choice resulted in none of these.

The Decision was made with surprisingly minimal advanced planning. I say "surprisingly" because the year before it took me something like a month to decide which computer to get (a Gateway), yet seemingly less such analysis took place before I partook in the entire "get a job 1,200 miles out of state, and all that goes along with it" lifestyle change.

Flash back a couple of months. For the 1998-99 school year, I was blessed with the opportunity to do my student teaching at The International Academy, an all-International Baccalaureate magnet-type high school in Bloomfield Hills. My student teaching was officially limited to the first semester; I was a paid graduate assistant the second semester, where I continued working with my cooperative teacher (Mary Wermuth) and teaching 11th grade English, as well as serving as a faculty advisor for the school newsletter, Future Problem Solvers, and literary magazine. There was even an opportunity to teach full-time at the IA starting in the fall of 1999, but the job opening went to a more experienced instructor, and the realization set in that my teaching future was elsewhere.

Thus began the Great Job Search.

I can't remember all the suburban Detroit districts and schools where I sat across from administrators and Language Arts department heads, answering questions, presenting my portfolio, discussing lesson and unit ideas. There were at least two dozen. And each time, I ended up receiving a rejection letter. Livonia. Rochester. Mount Clemens. Clarkston. West Bloomfield. Birmingham. Lake Orion. Even Bloomfield Hills, where I had been employed for four years as the assistant manager of its educational radio station, WBFH-FM. Shot down in flames, a large 0-for-Michigan.

Whilst tooling around metro Detroit and interviewing for jobs, I kept my options open. Perhaps there were opportunities in Lansing, Grand Rapids, Saginaw, Battle Creek, Mt. Pleasant. I kept my eyes and ears open.

Around this time, we had a family function in St. Petersburg, Florida, where my cousin Karen and her husband Emad were having a celebration to renew their wedding vows. I can't recall how, exactly, but I discovered taking place the same weekend - a mere 10 minutes away from the family function - was a job fair called the "Great Florida Teach-In" ... and I decided, what the heck, since I was going to be in the area, anyway ...

So while the rest of the family flew down to the Tampa area, I opted to drive down and make the occasion a job search opportunity as well.

At the job fair, I did a number of short interviews - "meet-and-greet" is probably a better description - which led to four more detailed sit-down discussions. Pahokee offered me employment as an English and yearbook teacher, but I felt its location (on the shore of Lake Okeechobee; basically, a long ways from any form of metropolitan life, as far as I could tell) did not make it a good fit. I was intrigued by an offer from a school in the Florida Keys, but - again - location was a concern. I was excited about an IB teaching position at Osceola High School in the Orlando area, but was not offered the job. An administrator at the school did say he believed there was an IB opening in Martin County, about 45 minutes north of West Palm Beach, and gave me the contact information for the Martin County High School principal, Joan Hunt.

I called Ms. Hunt from my car while sitting in the Osceola parking lot; she passed me along to her counterpart at South Fork High School, Dan Noel, where there was an IB English opening. We set up an interview for late morning on July 5.

So there I was, underneath the burning Florida sun, having pulled up to the school wearing my suit; and then drove up Mr. Noel, wearing a white polo shirt and bright red shorts.

Yeah ... to say I was overdressed would be an understatement.

We went inside his office and discussed (among other things) the teaching position, my experiences in Detroit, and his recent injury (having stepped on a conch two days before). He gave me a guided tour of the sprawling campus on a golf cart (cool factoid: South Fork, located in Stuart, is the only high school in the U.S. to have a golf course on campus, which is used to teach golfing and turf management), and asked me a few times, in reference to my attire, "You sure you're OK?" I, of course, said, "Yes I am!", which was as blatant a lie as I could come up with at the time. And no, I don't think he believed me for some reason.

After several hours of discussion - including the possibility of doing the PA announcing at Bulldog football games (yay, broadcasting background!) - I was offered the IB English position. I asked if I could think about it and get back with him; he said yes.

While driving north toward Michigan, I called Mary Wermuth and talked with her about the job opportunity at length. By the time I hit the Florida-Georgia border, I had accepted the position. And I was excited beyond words!

The next four weeks were busy. I had to return to Florida to find a place to live. I had to pack up my furnished two-bedroom apartment. I had to get a land line (back when those kinds of things were important), hire movers, donate tons of stuff to The Salvation Army, and catch up on the summer reading material both the senior and junior IB classes had been assigned (lots of Russian Literature). And, oh yeah, I had to move to a new home, some 1,200 miles south of Detroit.

It was not an easy transition. My going-away party (which was in small part an excuse to clean out the freezer and refrigerator) was filled with laughter, gifts, and plenty of tears. After the movers packed everything up, I visited my mom and stepfather, where a few more tears were shed. I stayed that night at the Cleveland residence of my friend Naomi Katzman, then drove south for two days, continually asking myself, "What the fuck am I doing?"

I still ponder that question at times.

I won't go into all the events and details the past 13 years have offered. Suffice to say, there have been numerous highs and numerous lows, both personally and professionally. I've been homesick and sick of administration. I've since interviewed for jobs at a number of other schools in Colorado, Michigan and various locations in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties, switched employers in 2002, and switched residences four times.

It's nearly 5,000 days since I accepted the opportunity to work in, and move to, Florida, and for some reason I'm still here. I guess the positives have outweighed the negatives in the grand scheme of things.

I stand by my decision.

Dancing In The Streets

It started as a small business with a $800 loan from family members.

It became one of the most amazing start-up businesses since World War II.

"It" is the Motown Record Corporation.

Motown!

You'd think, having grown up in the shadows of Berry Gordy Jr.'s famous enterprise, that at some point previously I would have actually visited the historic landmark where artists like Marvin Gaye, Diana Ross & The Supremes, Stevie Wonder, The Four Tops, The Jackson Five, Martha Reeves & The Vandellas, Smokey Robinson & The Miracles, and The Temptations, had gotten their individual and collective start.

Yeah, you'd think.

So when Chris Grindrod - in Detroit with his wife, Ketra, for both his and his father's birthday - contacted me about spending some quality time together during my 12-day Michigan summer vacation at the birthplace of Hitsville, USA, well ... who was I to turn down the opportunity?

Twist my arm, please!

Chris, Ketra and I spent about three glorious hours at 2648 West Grand Boulevard, part of a tour group of about 50 from across the world who took in the sights and sounds of music history. Our tour guide was more than up to the challenge, filling our ears and brains with stats and facts and details like a seasoned professional, not an early 20s Broadcast Arts major from Wayne State University in his third week on the job.

The exhibits include a fascinating collection of historical photographs, artwork, music, costumes and other memorabilia from the Motown era. Each item tells a story - from the explosive popularity of Motown’s artists throughout the world to the amazing detail on the rise and tragic fall of Marvin Gaye.

Gordy, a former boxer and automobile worker, got his start as a songwriter for local Detroit acts such as Jackie Wilson, whose single "Lonely Teardrops", written by Gordy, became a huge success. When Gordy got his first royalty check, it was for less than $2. He and Robinson talked about the meager earnings, and he quickly realized the more lucrative end of the business was in producing records and owning the publishing.

What, exactly, makes the "Motown Sound"? According to The Supremes CD boxed set liner notes, the Motown Sound was crafted with an ear towards pop appeal, typically using tambourines to accent the back beat, prominent and often melodic electric bass-guitar lines, distinctive melodic and chord structures, and a call-and-response singing style that originated in gospel music. Pop production techniques such as the use of orchestral string sections, charted horn sections, and carefully arranged background vocals were also used. Complex arrangements and elaborate, melismatic vocal riffs were avoided.

Gordy designed the "Motown Sound" like a factory. The studios remained open and active 24 hours a day; artists would often go on tour for weeks, come back to Detroit to record as many songs as possible, and then promptly go on tour again; everyone in the house was called upon to add backing vocals or sounds, as needed. Gordy held weekly quality control meetings to ensure that only the very best material and performances would be released; if any one person at these meetings thought the song being reviewed had no chance of success, it went back to the mixing board ... or down the tubes altogether.

Our guide also noted that one interesting thing about the "Motown Sound" was the positive messages its songs presented to listeners. Upbeat messages, even in the slow songs, were a common theme. Additionally, the performers had help grooming their images and dance movies, their attire and hairstyles. Motown artists were told their breakthrough into the "white popular music" market made them ambassadors for other black artists seeking broad market acceptance, and that they should think, act, walk and talk like royalty, so as to alter the less-than-dignified image commonly held by white Americans in that era of black musicians.

The "echo chamber" was a very cool feature of the house. Before the age of synthesizers and computer-aided recording, Motown engineers created special sound effects by ingenious means. The innovative echo chamber is basically a hole cut in the ceiling; when the famous “Studio A” was in use, the effects created by the echo chamber were relayed to the recording studio. They can be heard on recordings such as "Where Did Our Love Go" and "Dancing In The Streets." Other record companies quickly created their own versions, in an attempt to capitalize on the Motown idea.

Speaking of "before computers," in 1959 Motown created its first recording studio, "Studio A," which was open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We experienced "Studio A" as part of the tour, just as it was with original instruments and equipment used during Motown’s Detroit era. We got to stand where Motown greats stood and recorded their hits. We also got an up-close view of the original control room equipment used to record the "Motown Sound": a three-track recording console from the early 1960s that was upgraded to eight-track capacity by Motown’s in-house engineering department. (It replaced a two-track recording console that was used to record Motown’s earliest hits; voices and instrumentals were recorded on separate tracks which enabled producers and engineers to adjust the individual elements of a song after the recording session was over.) As broadcast majors ourselves who worked with reel-to-reel and equipment which by today's standards seem primitive, both Chris and I marveled at the similarities to when we first got into radio.

Motown was all about diversity, too, which might explain its 45 subsidiary record labels (in varying genres); from Motown to Tamla, from Rare Earth to Black Forum, there was an amazing range of ways for Gordy to get his artists aired. Our host explained part of the rationale was to keep radio stations from blocking Motown-contracted artists due to the prevalent racism that existed at the time. (Tamla is actually the company's original label; Gordy founded Tamla Records several months before establishing the Motown Record Corporation. Gordy originally wanted to name the label "Tammy" Records, after the popular song by Debbie Reynolds from the 1957 film Tammy and the Bachelor - which also starred Reynolds. When Gordy found the name was already in use, he decided on Tamla instead.)

Two staples of the Motown Sound were the studio band The Funk Brothers and the songwriting trio of Holland-Dozier-Holland (Lamont Dozier and brothers Brian and Eddie Holland). According to our guide, The Funk Brothers - keyboardists Earl Van Dyke, Johnny Griffith, and Joe Hunter; guitarists Joe Messina, Robert White, and Eddie Willis; percussionists Eddie "Bongo" Brown and Jack Ashford; drummers Benny Benjamin, Uriel Jones, and Richard "Pistol" Allen; and bassists James Jamerson and Bob Babbitt - played on more number-one records than The Beatles, Elvis, The Rolling Stones, and The Beach Boys ... combined.

One cool tidbit none of us knew until the tour was the background on how Martha Reeves got into the music business. According to our host, Martha was actually working at Motown as a receptionist when her big, and surprising, break came about. She was beckoned to help with background clapping and finger-snapping in the echo chamber, did a bit of impromptu singing, and grabbed the attention of Gordy ... who told her, basically, go find a few friends, and we'll make you a singing group.

Sometimes, timing and location is everything. What was it Martha sang? "It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there ... so come on - every guy grab a girl everywhere around the world ..."