diggerfoot
Humanity Hiker
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,601
- Reaction Score
- 9,038
There is one particular point of view on this thread that I find particularly disturbing, to the extent that I see no point in arguing with such. Framing this along a responsibility - authority continuum (obedience to authority is not the same as taking personal responsibility), I do not think any kind of case can be made against the author, at least not in regards to her being responsible.
She called herself a doe-eyed girl; that is taking responsibility for her own actions. She stuck with the whole process and now is reporting on her experiences so that other doe-eyed girls may benefit; feeling a responsibility to others is becoming rarer by the minute and should be applauded, not derided. In contrast, two of the coaches in question displayed a distinct lack of responsibility. The most striking in contrast (though not the most disturbing incident) is a coach who divides the squad in two and pits them against each other. Reporting on that may be an example of pure venting on the author's part, but it describes a situation that is not defensible for any purpose, hence it provides a responsible service.
She challenges the transfer rule, which has spurred some debate. From a philosophical/moral/ethical perspective there would be no difference in the rights between coach and athlete as seen by Mills or anyone else. Freedom/liberty would call for either to be able to leave and to accept what natural consequences await. Without an NCAA authority or other governing body or pact a coach would leave and find a willing suitor commensurate to his/her ability. The EXACT thing would happen for an athlete deciding to leave. Thus it is only because of governing authorities that there is a difference in what happens between coach and athlete when it comes to leaving one college for another.
You may or may not think the authority is legitimate and necessary in its role; you may or may not think the transfer rule is necessary for the system the authority wants to maintain. Yet in every way this particular author has been responsible in her actions and in the one condition she would like to see changed. To deride her for that is at the least authoritarian and, I would say, irresponsible.
She called herself a doe-eyed girl; that is taking responsibility for her own actions. She stuck with the whole process and now is reporting on her experiences so that other doe-eyed girls may benefit; feeling a responsibility to others is becoming rarer by the minute and should be applauded, not derided. In contrast, two of the coaches in question displayed a distinct lack of responsibility. The most striking in contrast (though not the most disturbing incident) is a coach who divides the squad in two and pits them against each other. Reporting on that may be an example of pure venting on the author's part, but it describes a situation that is not defensible for any purpose, hence it provides a responsible service.
She challenges the transfer rule, which has spurred some debate. From a philosophical/moral/ethical perspective there would be no difference in the rights between coach and athlete as seen by Mills or anyone else. Freedom/liberty would call for either to be able to leave and to accept what natural consequences await. Without an NCAA authority or other governing body or pact a coach would leave and find a willing suitor commensurate to his/her ability. The EXACT thing would happen for an athlete deciding to leave. Thus it is only because of governing authorities that there is a difference in what happens between coach and athlete when it comes to leaving one college for another.
You may or may not think the authority is legitimate and necessary in its role; you may or may not think the transfer rule is necessary for the system the authority wants to maintain. Yet in every way this particular author has been responsible in her actions and in the one condition she would like to see changed. To deride her for that is at the least authoritarian and, I would say, irresponsible.