← Previous Post: | Next Post:

 

“Hostess programs have been part of college football since the 1960s. Friendly, often attractive students greet recruits, usher them and their parents around campus and promote the virtues of the school. There have long been suspicions about sexual interactions. In 2004 public scandals at Colorado and other schools revealed that sex had been arranged for visiting prospects. Although no formal campus organization was implicated in those cases, several colleges shuttered their hostess programs or rechristened them …

… with less suggestive names.”

Let’s help OSU rechristen its hostess program.

I’ll start the ball rolling with

ROSA LUXEMBURG BRIGADE

Margaret Soltan, September 14, 2013 11:57AM
Posted in: sport

Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=41197

13 Responses to ““Hostess programs have been part of college football since the 1960s. Friendly, often attractive students greet recruits, usher them and their parents around campus and promote the virtues of the school. There have long been suspicions about sexual interactions. In 2004 public scandals at Colorado and other schools revealed that sex had been arranged for visiting prospects. Although no formal campus organization was implicated in those cases, several colleges shuttered their hostess programs or rechristened them …”

  1. Derek Says:

    And, again, as per Deadspin, the hostess component of the SI story is falling apart, just at least some of the academic parts have fallen apart. OSU football may well be scummy. But it seems increasingly clear that the SI expose is at best somewhat sloppy and may well be utterly shoddy. In our zeal to confirm our preconceptions don’t we still have some obligation to something approximating truth(s)?

    DC

  2. Derek Says:

    That last comment was better intended for the previous post.

    DC

  3. MattF Says:

    Hmm. The… Ho-spitality Committee?

  4. Margaret Soltan Says:

    Derek: I’m fully prepared for the other side to have its say, and for SI’s reporting to have faults. Let’s wait a bit and see how SI responds, etc.

    This is more or less my position on the matter.

  5. Margaret Soltan Says:

    MattF: LOL.

  6. Tenured Radical Says:

    How about The Lesbian Avengers?

  7. Derek Says:

    I agree – variations on this sort of thing are likely ubiquitous across the top end of the BCS. Still, fruit from the poisoned tree and all that. It might be the fact that I am a historian, but I quaintly believe that facts matter even if they confound the narrative in which I believe.

    Dcat

  8. Margaret Soltan Says:

    TR: I thought of something along those lines — SCUM Manifesto — but worried that the reference might be a bit obscure for Oklahoma.

  9. charlie Says:

    Facts are funny things. Mainly because you can recite a whole list and they still don’t necessarily get you to the truth. At some point, it’s common sense that should guide anyone in a debate. Let’s see, young women are used in order to “guide” young male high school athletes while touring the university? But some of us believe that sex wouldn’t have been used a recruiting tool. Well, the fact is that universities have long known that sex is a major attraction for university attendance. Don’t believe me, then maybe you’ll believe Clark Kerr, former Chancellor at CAL, when asked what were the main issues he faced, said, that for undergrads, it was sex, alumni, it was sports and the faculty, parking. A few things have changed, but not undergrad motivation. If anyone thinks that SI made things up, then they’ve not been a recruited athlete. To those of us who have been, SI got it right.

  10. Derek Says:

    Charlie –
    Well, champ, argument by authority is cute, isn’t it? Unfortunately for your attempt to dismiss my argument you need to include me among “those of us who were recruited” to be college athletes, indeed who were college athletes. So while facts may be “funny things” there are times when there are facts and there are things that are not facts and there are areas where facts are disputed. And trying to distinguish between those categories matters. As I said earlier, I have no doubt that OSU is awash in scummy recruiting stories. That is not the point. The point is that this too-easy story seems to be falling apart. The comfort girls may not have been that overtly whorish, the sociology department almost certainly did not do what it has been accused of doing.
    If we want the stories that need to come out to come out we ought to be angry when the people bringing out the story take lazy and easily rectifiable shortcuts. If you are going to assert X about the sociology department, why on earth would you not contact the fucking sociology department? Because if one of the pillars of the case crumbles, it undermines the case. I’m going to let others engage in truthiness. I am going to hope for ad close an approximation of the truth as is possible.

    But do lecture me about the world of sports that only you can grasp because you are the only person in human history ever to have been recruited to be a college athlete. And I imagine you’re the only person here, say, to teach or write about sports as well.

    Dcat

  11. charlie Says:

    Sorry Sparky, a few people having second thoughts doesn’t negate the story. I have no doubt that SI did their due diligence, if they didn’t, then explain where are the slander/libel charges. If they show up, then you have some measure of credence, before that, you’re blowing smoke, as do many of our university functionaries.

    Again, what SI reported is pretty much on target with what occurred to so many former athletes and is the legacy of big time college athletes. Hell, that was my experience at USF back in the 80’s, I lived through it, so please, take your umbrage somewhere else. Nothing has changed with the culture of college sports, OSU is simply the latest example of colleges that have little, or no, institutional control of their big time sports programs…

  12. Derek Says:

    Charlie —
    Wait, so no libel suit in the week a story emerges means it’s all okey dokey? Are you really saying that? The Sociology department has made it clear that SI was inaccurate — inaccuracy is not in and of itself libelous or slanderous. Being factually wrong is the problem, not being libelous. Once again, since you seem not to grasp my point — the sociology department has flat-out not only denied the story, but they and subsequent followups have shown that SI placed players in classes they never took at times they were not at the university and used those screwups as evidence for academic perfidy on the part of the football team.

    How am I blowing smoke? I am simply saying that SI has clearly made some mistakes. And that undermines their case. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Especially since I have never carried water for DI sports here.

    I was not a big time college athlete, but was a college athlete and was recruited by DI and DIII schools, have continued to be active as a coach and now in various capacities at my DII school, and I write and teach about sports and politics. The fact that you are claiming absolute authority and are unwilling to have a discussion, and dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a “functionary” (whatever the fuck that means) based on your experiences in 1980s USF sports (ha!) is comical.

    dcat

  13. charlie Says:

    Oh I grasp your ‘points,’ such as they are. you’re simply ignoring mine. If your allegations held any water, then we would see lawsuits lining up at the courtroom door. Supposedly former players we’re either ‘misquoted’ or didn’t make the statements that they were attributed to them. Grades were given out by university departments to non deserving players. Pretty rough stuff. But instead of taking it to court, where you would think that lawyers would be glad to take their chances at being able to retire for life, we get internet blowhards like you yapping away. Sorry if I think you’re full of it, but until we get at least that much, then you and the other OSU apologist are blowing smoke. Just as what happened when Reeves Nelson, a former UCLA basketball player, when he sued SI for $10 million, claiming that their article, which had numerous sources, defamed him and caused him some kind of harm, was thrown out, mainly because the SI reporter had so many on record sources, that the judge realized that Nelson was full of it, just as you are.

    So what if SI made mistakes, the New York Times does as well. But for the most part, even with mistakes, the SI article is on point, otherwise, we would have Uncle T. Boone lining up every lawyer north of the Red River to get on board this supposed gravy train.

    Please, just forget it, you got on a losing horse with this one. No court case will ever take place, primarily because no one at OSU, or LSU, where Les Miles is coaching, the same Les Miles who ran OSU’s program when most of this occurred. And the reason that they don’t want this suit is because they don’t want the revelations of the sewer of college sports left open and undeoderized. It’s the same stench, only much greater, that wafted from the grate when I was being recruited at USF. And the reason that my experience is so important is because not only was the program put on probation, it was ended for several years. Since you have no idea what it is you’re talking about, let me tell you what that meant to The City. USF bball won back to back 2A championships back in the day, with Bill Russell and KC Jones as players. The Dons WERE San Francisco basketball, it was a measure of pride for the town. To have that program so badly run, to have the accusations proven to be true, was a big blow to not only the alumni and student body, but to The City as well. Despite that, the school unilaterally shut down the program, got rid of administrators and coaches. It was after all a Jesuit uni, it was supposed to be something other than it’s bball program, no matter how storied. That’s the lesson, I have perspective into athletic corruption that makes my perspective a little bit more incisive than your apology. That’s why it’s important.

    By the way, functionary means one who holds an office or a trust or performs a particular function; an official. It seems that not only is your argument not very good, neither is your grasp of your native tongue. Do I need to define that for you as well????

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories