Archive

ShareThis Page
Football strong? Cal U’s ‘team spirit’ | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Football strong? Cal U’s ‘team spirit’

Brutally beating a man unconscious is the latest allegation to tarnish California University of Pennsylvania’s football team, which for the past two years has become better known for some players’ skirmishes off the field with the law.

In response to charges against six teammates who allegedly ganged up on a West Chester man last week, then left the scene chanting “football strong,” Cal U interim President Geraldine Jones has ordered a review of the football program.

“I have told our Vulcan football players that we will strictly adhere to a zero-tolerance policy,” said Ms. Jones, who canceled last weekend’s Cal U game against Gannon University. Team play resumes Saturday.

But based on court records, some players’ “team spirit” should have been flagged years ago. Reportedly at least 19 players, past and present, have been arrested since 2012. All those charged, some facing repeat charges, should have been automatically benched upon their arrest.

Of the six teammates recently charged, three have prior arrests; two have pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.

A person shouldn’t end up in a hospital with brain injuries, allegedly inflicted by members of the home team — some of whom have prior arrests — before the university takes notice. Forget sportsmanship. This is about human decency.

And if this sickening culture, on and off campus, is beyond cure, then there should be no Cal U football program.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.