I look forward to running moguls on Mt. Double Standard.
This was going to be a bit in UV but kept going. More Dorsey!
The Free Press got its FOIA muscles going again and found out that Dorsey confessed to a couple 2007 robberies as part of a group of five kids. He was placed in a diversionary program. The crime he was acquitted from was a 3 AM incident where he was in a car with four other kids and one of them hopped out to rob some guy; the kids all blamed each other and the cases were dismissed. So… 20% chance he actually did it if you don't believe the clean years after that mean anything. Considerably less if you do. 100% chance Dorsey needed to get far away from some folk.
You'll note that this makes one of Drew Sharp's statements from Signing Day accurate and leaves the rest in the realm of the reprehensible. Dorsey clearly had a rough past and hung with the proverbial wrong crowd, but amongst the many reasons this is the wrong crowd is it seems very bad at not getting arrested. His two years on the right side of the law and his very decision to GTFO are indications he's made a break.
I'm torn about the fairness of the article. On the one hand, it seems to think this is "acknowledgement" that Dorsey got breaks other kids wouldn't…
“All cases are individuals. We are dealing with kids,” [assistant state attorney Maria Schneider] said. “The vast majority of kids stop offending. I hope this is one of them. But if he’s not, we’ll find out soon enough.”
…when he was placed in a diversionary program while three others went to trial. Those three others were 17 and 18 and were already on probation. Dorsey was 16 and not. A second 16-year-old was also involved but what happened to him is unknown, which means he was—drumroll—almost certainly placed in a juvenile diversion program. (Except his records got sealed like they should.) The guy who Dorsey robbed was told that the kid might have a future so can we go easy, and Schneider didn't dispute it, so there's that. Still, the article spends a lot of time arguing—yes, arguing—that Dorsey's potential as a football player isn't a decent reason to keep him out of the criminal justice system.
On the other, it runs a quote from Dorsey front and center:
“My goal right now is to show everybody I’m not that person who I was a couple years back then, hanging with the wrong crowd and stuff like that, showing that I’m more focused,” Dorsey said Thursday in an exclusive interview with the Free Press. “I’m focused. I’m ready to move on with my life to bigger and better things.”
And Ann Arbor, he says, is the place to do it.
“I feel like that is a great place for me, where I can start all over and make something out of nothing, make nothing into something,” he said.
That's the point. Maybe Dorsey won't make it, but he's been clean for two years and deserves a shot. If he caught a break because he had a shot at going to college, that was a good bet by Broward County. He did, and now he's going to Michigan. It's up to Rodriguez and Dorsey to make it pay off.
The worst thing about all this pressure is that a Dorsey MIP is now a big deal in a way that Kevin Grady getting frighteningly drunk and falling asleep in his car is not. If Dorsey doesn't keep his nose clean at Michigan, the rest of the team can have a spotless record and the storyline will be Dorsey this and Dorsey that. That's a hell of a burden, one that few players with "checkered legal pasts" have to deal with. When Roderick Jenrette came to Michigan State, he was carrying two burglary arrests with him—about which more later—and no one knew. His troubles were explained away by Mark Dantonio and people either respected his privacy as a juvenile offender or were lazy or were just stunned by how magnificent Dantonio's jaw was, and he was left alone.
For whatever reason, Demar Dorsey wasn't afforded that luxury. I have my theories as to why.
Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe that will help him walk the line.
The larger context. So this article is basically fine, if too insistent on making a case against the local state's attorney for not treating a 16-year-old kid harshly. But compare this seven-page story that flags down everyone on all sides with the Free Press's pathetically credulous story on Michigan State's Posse Roundup & Engineer/Woman Beatdown— or "fight" or "altercation" or "pillow hugs" if you're the Free Press.
Dell Sr. said his son did not participate in violence at Rather Hall. He, however, did say his son initially lied to coach Mark Dantonio about his presence there.
"I said, 'Man, why didn't you just tell the truth and say you were there and didn't participate in any of the physical stuff?' " Dell Sr. said. "He said: 'I don't know. I should have just told the truth.' "
That was it as far as quoted sources went: parents of Michigan State players.
Cunningham and Dell each pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor assault and battery in East Lansing district court Wednesday.
How about the pathetically credulous article titled "Legal strategy at issue in Michigan State altercation" that asserted the criminal charges filed against nine Spartans were probably just crap to get "the truth"—about which see "bzzt" link above and the additional charges levied to Oren Wilson and Myles White? Or the pathetically credulous acceptance of Mark Dantonio's bald-faced lie about Roderick Jenrette, who had been arrested for robbery mere days before he arrived on Michigan State's campus?
It wasn't until Jenrette was booted for the team for hugging a unicorn at Rather Hall that anyone bothered to look into his double-robbery past, and this was a 2008 recruit who was arrested August 1st of… 2008! Dantonio took the bizarre step of sending Jenrette home to "work on family issues" and no one bothered to see if maybe there was something up with this kid. These are the same crimes, same state, hell even the same position, except one kid was two years past his trouble and was treated to a front page column questioning him and the other was two days past it and ignored. I'm sure I don't have to draw a picture.
I got a zinger in my inbox that's a good summary:
When did Demar Dorsey become Kwame Kilpatrick in the eyes of the Detroit Free Press?
Anyway, just throw this on the ever-growing pile of evidence that the Free Press has a double standard. Soon we'll be able to put a ski lift on it.
I look forward to running moguls on Mt. Double Standard.
I'll confess up front: the comment I'm about to make is motivated by my "Michigan exceptionalism" (as some have discussed above, Michigan is "different," "better," etc.) Simply being good at football should not be enough to play for Michigan. Simply wanting to change your life should not be enough to play for Michigan. Simply having gone 2 years without having gotten in legal trouble should not be enough to play for Michigan. I give him credit for making changes and don't think he should wear a scarlet letter for the rest of life. But there are consequences for making bad decisions... even when you're 16 yrs old. One of those consequences SHOULD be (in my opinion) that you do not get a full scholarship to play football at the University of Michigan.
A related point is that Demar Dorsey is not a charity case. RR is not giving him a scholarship to get his life together (though that may be a secondary factor). RR gave him a scholarship because Demar Dorsey is a stud on the football field and RR thinks Dorsey can help him win games. RR weighed the costs and benefits (hopefully) and determined that signing Dorsey was a better decision for Michigan that not signing him. I think we can all agree this decision was about W's for M... nothing more.
Honestly, I don't know. I'm not sure a line can be drawn. Does any criminal conduct automatically preclude you from playing for Michigan? Hmm... I would say no. If you were booked for "simple battery" because of a schoolyard fight that got out of hand, I don't think you're per se S.O.L. A little marijuana possession at your buddy's house? A bit more troubling than the fight (because everybody knows that's illegal) but probably not something to bar you from Schembechler Hall. When you start getting into felony-type stuff though I get leery... and when there are multiple occurrences, I get even more leery. We know that Demar admitted to home invasion, actually came face to face with the homeowner (a scary scene for the owner, I'd imagine) and took off running (which was better than a Sean Taylor-like alternative, obviously... but still, not good). I just think that what we know of his actions puts him beyond the pale...
which isn't to say he should do life w/o parole... i just don't think he should be suiting up for the maize n' blue...
aand that said, I wish him all the best and will be rooting for him like crazy. Not sure if that makes me a hypocrite but I definitely don't want him to fail... so... I guess that means I want him to succeed!
Do you see a distinction between Dorsey and Winston/Jenrette at State?
More pointedly, is there a distinction between acquittal/dropped charges and conviction?
what makes you think you know what the 5000 previous scholarship football players at Michigan were up to in high school?
But there are consequences for making bad decisions... even when you're 16 yrs old. One of those consequences SHOULD be (in my opinion) that you do not get a full scholarship to play football at the University of Michigan.
This line of thinking can quickly lead to a terrible "one and done" policy. If you mess up, ever, then you're not worthy of playing for Michigan. Brian Griese would have been kicked off the team. Anyone who had been charged of anything would get kicked off the team. And so on. Its a flattly shortsighted and dim notion.
As to the second point, all players are offered scholarships based on the head coaches' desire to accumulate wins for Michigan. I suppose Troy Woolfolk and Braylon Edwards had nothing to offer the team other than being legacies huh?
This whole "story" is absolutely and ridiculously absurd.
All I said was that it's a slippery slope. I agree that a line should be drawn somewhere but it's the head coach's, athletic director, and president of the University's responsibility to draw that line. They drew it at dropped charges and clean subsequent record. I've got no problem with that. He should be on a tight leash...just like all of our other players. Also jumping to rape and murder is just whacky. That said, everybody murders...didn't you know?
I also remember doing some really uncool things when I was that age. Why? To this day, I have no idea. I knew better, wasn't raised that way, all that other stuff yet I did them anyway. Once I realized what I was risking, like, you know, my future, my decisions got markedly better. People grow up and I think they should be given that chance. It seems like it took Dorsey a little longer than I might have liked but based on his statements I think he gets it now and has gotten past that period in his life.
As for my personal line it really depends on a lot of things as I'm sure it does for Coach Rodriguez. I'm not go pretend that I can sit here and dream up some scenarios that are boarder line enough to be able to detect "the line."
Rich Rod had the opportunity to talk to the guy, and his parents, and his mentors and he believes that Demar is done being an idiot. Again, I've got no problem with that. Now, if Demar starts being a knucklehead again, that's a different story. But, based upon how Rich Rod handled the Feagin and Cissoko situation, I don't doubt his ability to discipline or judge the character of his guys.
*All* of Drew Sharp's signing day comments were reprehensible, as he had absolutely no basis in fact when making his comments. That one of them may have been proven true ex post does not in any way justify the slanderous comments he made out of pure ignorance at the time.
... is that he knew exactly what he was talking about. He was just trying to bait Rich Rod and work up everybody into a frenzy before the release of this article.
@ Brian - if you want to make arguments about double standards or that kids deserve a second chance, etc., that's all well and good. But it's unfair to start by arguing that there was only a "20%" chance or less that Dorsey did it. He confessed to committing two crimes. Even if he didn't have a weapon himself, he was an accomplice. I don't think you need to make those kinds of reaching arguments to make your point.
I'm not a local, so I don't know what the general reception is of "Doug and the Gator," but they were stressing this afternoon that Dorsey's past, regardless of the accuracy or legality of the stories that revealed it to the public, should not concern anyone to the degree that it has, and I agree.
A free press (generic term) is one of the checks and balances of a democratic system. The vigorous pursuit of information that some people might want covered up is often the centerpiece of journalism's most prized investigations. However, that pursuit does not, for any reason, include the behavior of a 16-year-old boy with a technically spotless criminal record.
In the eyes of the law, Demar Dorsey is an innocent high school senior. Is that enough to put every Starbucks Lexus-driving Michigan fan at ease? Probably not. But there are some pretty vague and appalling assertions being tossed around, and they make me uncomfortable.
Ted Spencer is the director of admissions at Michigan. He decides who gets to come here and who doesn't. Ted Spencer is an intimidating man. If he says Dorsey is welcome here, that's more than good enough for me.
Although for me, this ensuing investigative piece alleviates any worries I may have had. Imaginations run wild. The piece doesnt portray anyone who was really even a menace two years ago, let alone now.
Michigan Football, the school and the community have turned plenty of kdis around over the last 130 years, many who had more "baggage" than Demar carries.
If Will Hunting can get a 2nd chance because of his special ability why can't DEMAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not some new trend. Michigan - along with every other school - takes bad apples every now and then. This isn't new, and it certainly isn't exclusive to our current coach. The list of players who had some pretty deviant run-ins with the law before (and during) their time at Michigan under previous coaches isn't exactly short.
The point is, many of them got the chance to redeem themselves, and they got that chance without having a seven-page background check run on them by a vindictive newspaper that glosses over similar incidents at a school up the road.
None of us know Demar Dorsey the person. We know what's put in front of us. He's been clean for two years, and he's coming to Michigan because he wants to stay that way.
On second thought, maybe brianshall is testing a hypothesis: if I endlessly repeat the same asinine yet brief remarks, while carefully avoiding an extended profanity-laced rant, can I continue my gradual slide toward negative infinity without incurring the ultimate banhammer judgment? In the name of MGoBlog science, carry on, sir.
for my theory.
I am a smart, well-raised, obedient Asian kid from the suburbs who shoplifted a couple CDs back in the day; drank underage in high school; was in a car with a kid who drove drunk; and got into a skirmish with a classmate at school. What makes Demar Dorsey different from someone like me? That he got caught making a bad choice?
He got caught, recognized the error of his ways, and has been striving to separate himself from his prior indiscretions. If anything, Michigan should recruit MORE kids with that sort of character.
don't know that. Maybe he got an academic schollie?
Ahhhhhh rrrrriiigggghhhhhhht. This has all the stench of someone who thinks a "Michigan Man" = a well bred upper middle class white guy with solid family credentials.
I don't like the Freep, but I think that the problem with expecting them to treat Michigan and MSU the same is that they're not. Ironically it's somewhat a sign of respect. No one cares about MSU outside of Michigan.
People care about Michigan.
I wish that the Freep would stop this vendetta against RR, but like or not the focus is more closely on Michigan because people respect UM and care about UM. If there's a riot in EL, ha ha, those old Sparties at it again. At UM, everything is a much bigger deal. Now, I think that the reporting is very biased and clearly reeks of an agenda, but there's no way I expect the media to treat MSU and Michigan as equals.
By no means am I trying to give the Free Press a pass, but there is a reason for this double standard: everyone agrees that UM is a "better" school that takes "better" students and produces "better" professionals. This in-state hierarchy is validated by Spartans and supported by Wolverines. We (Wolverines) hold ourselves to a higher standard and let Spartans know it. This "arrogance" is well known and is the root of antagonism that we see many places, including the DFP.
So, you have a university held, universally, to higher standards. Whats at issue here is not that Dorsey deserves a chance to attend college, its if he deserves a chance to attend the University of Michigan, one of the finest schools in all the land, as we're happy to tell you - where we strive to be more than just another state school with athletes who are students in name only. We produce warrior-poet-CEOs and that includes our athletes.
The truth is secondary to the image. We participate in the hierarchy and we have to bear the responsibility of higher standards and expectations as well as benefiting from them.
Everyone believes in 2nd chances as well as accountability. Many people want Dorsey to go to college, but they also don't want him to get off without some punishment. It seem that to many, attending an inferior school (like say MSU) would be punishment enough, but if he's at UofM he's benefiting from a broken system of inverted priorities. This is unfair, obviously, as its unfair for me to look down on the barbarians at OSU and the bros at MSU.
I have no problem with Dorsey at Michigan. But the heightened scrutiny is a major risk, not only for the young man, but for the University and the program. We know there is a double standard and we are partially to blame for it. To spit into the face of that is risky.
I hope RR knows what he is doing. And generally, I suspect he does. But part of me wonders if he knows the risks he's taking or if he just stubbornly assumes that the SE Michigan media will "stay positive" regardless of the circumstances and culture of the region.
This is not necessarily to say we "deserve" to be held to a higher standard, but that if we don't anticipate being treated differently we're ignoring reality.
that it's well argued. And i think there is something to the idea that we participate in the perception of our school as better, with different standards than other schools. Which will invite more and different scrutiny than another school will get. But of course that higher scrutiny should come without violating basic standards of objectivity and fairness, which is where the Freep failed.
Boyd Anderson was in my district in high school so I'm very familiar with it. It's an awful school and definitely looked upon as one of the least desirable schools to be at in the county. There's no doubt Dorsey grew up dealing with that environment and always having friends that would make sure he was always around trouble.
That said, the statement that he can get away from that atmosphere at Michigan is very real, not just a cliche. Chances are if he tried to get away from that lifestyle in high school, he'd be seen as a sell out. Being at UM now, hopefully he'll find a new crowd where being a "thug" isn't the norm.
I look forward to see how he grows and adapts to UM and really hope he gets his life straightened out proves all the doubters wrong.
i think the responses / fisking of the freep / etc. make more of this than is actually there. i'm not saying we stick our head in the sand, by any means, but the more we talk about it, the more it gets talked about.
let's let it rest on our part unless something happens.
97.1 is also pretty one sided. Right now Valenti is calling Rich Rod a liar. You would think Michigan is being coached by Osama Bin Laden.
Rodgriguez did characterize the incidents as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That implies it was beyond his control and he got unlucky. After reading the article from last night / this morning, that clearly wasn't true. Add on to that the whole team GPA issue, and it's hard to argue that Rodriguez hasn't ever told untruths in his press conferences. It may be a stretch to say that he willfully and maliciously lied, but there's some history of untruths.
Yes, and head coaches lie when naming starting QBs in press conferences or discussing game strategy. Not that the two are the same but remember RR was basically backed into a corner when Sharp decided to press the issue on signing day. And the GPA thing was pretty laughable b/c he was told something but not really given the whole story (at least that's how I remember it). It's not surprising that he painted the story as "he's been in trouble in the past but we believe he is not a bad kid" given the context.
RR said Dorsey was in the wrong place at the wrong time. This was in no way inaccurate. Dorsey was in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, RR never said it wasnt dorsey's own decision to be there.
The fact is that Dorsey comes from a world that is far different than any of us grew up in. He comes from very poor area where crime rates are much higher. While this does not excuse his behavior it does point to a change of scenery being more beneficial for him.
So if I am riding in a car with a few other guys and we stop to let one of them out and he then commits a crime, am I (1) taking part in a premeditated criminal act, or (2)in the wrong place at the wrong time?
There were two incidents, not just the one you reference where he was acquitted. He admitted to being involved in the other, which included burglary. I will reference this to the comment above yours too. If you truly believe that Rodriguez was only referring to the incident in which Dorsey was acquitted and not both, then you are right, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think that's a stretch.
I'm on dial-up and the search command is taking over 15 minutes already, so I'll let someone else dig up the original threads on how the paper we all love to hate spun a phenomenal effort by RR and staff to set historical new marks in scolastic achievement by the football team into another story about RR's lack of Michigan-man-ness. I don't think RR is the real villain of that piece, but like I said, let someone with higher-speed internet than I dig up the threads for reference.
What interests me is how you seize on that example in order to create the two data points you need in order to insinuate that RR is a liar.
It may be a stretch to say that he willfully and maliciously lied, but there's some history of untruths.
With all due respect, I don't get the idea that it would be a stretch for you at all. Is it unfair of me to ask, Sparty troll or RR-hating troll?
Dual degree holder, 20+ year season ticket holder with an opinion that clearly doesn't match yours.
RR's integrity and concern for the kids are an embellishment to the program, and that when wins start coming in, his hire will be considered a no-brainer.
Not so sure about RAWK, but you can't win them all.
if Rodriguez is taken at face value of 'wrong place, wrong time' I can see how this can be interpreted as misleading
Even if Dorsey commits another criminal act and gets kicked out of M, it doesn't mean he did not deserve the opportunity. Some people learn from their mistakes some don't. Time will tell with Dorsey.
Young Dorsey went thru the process, Florida offered him as did Michigan. If Dorsey is admitted let us hope he makes the most of his fantastic opportunity. Blue in Yarmouth always alludes to his checkered past and how grateful he is for chances to redeem himself.
RR believes in the kid, I'm cool with that, let us hope Young
Dorsey believes in himself and can make the tough transition from HS to college. I will be rooting for the kid.
That's a great point I think. The outcome doesn't necessarily dictate whether the decision was right or not. There are way too many variables that will go on in the next 3-5 years that will determine whether or not Dorsey works out on and off the field. The question is whether or not, given the circumstances of the past and the character evaluation of the present, Rodriguez thinks he has a good chance of having success. That is Rodriguez's job, and I trust him to do it. If he determines that there's a 75% chance that everything will work out, he should take the risk on him. There's still a one in four chance that it doesn't, but to help the team, help Rodriguez's career, and to give a young man a shot at a future, it's a risk worth taking. And if Mark Dantonio honestly thought the same thing when Winston was allowed back on the team, that was his decision to make and the fact that Winston screwed it up doesn't necessarily mean it was the wrong decision.
Jenrettes "youthful indescretions" were about 300 times closer and two years further into the development of a full adult orbitalfrontal cortex than those of Dorsey. Winston's occurred after he was already on the team, and then, after being detained in prison from team activities for breaking someone's head and putting them in the hospital, he was allowed to walk directly from his jail cell onto the practice field. I think there is about zero comparison here.
I think you completely missed the point of my comment. We've disagreed in the past about if you can compare Dantonio's handling of the State situation to Rodriguez's handling of the Dorsey situation. I think it's comparable, you think it isn't. I don't think we're getting anywhere there.
My point was that you can't judge these decisions about how to handle a player's indescretions by what they end up doing after the decision is made. Rodriguez (or Dantonio for that matter) don't get a crystal ball to see what is ultimately going to happen. They have to use their experience and judgement to make the best decision they can, given the information they have. You can fault their criteria and their process, but I don't think you can say that Dantonio was definitely wrong because Winston had another transgression or he would have been definitely right if he hadn't. It's just not that simple.
As for the OFC stuff, I would like to be pointed to a reference that shows the stages of development between the 15th and 20th year of life, independent of outside life and outcome data. I looked myself and couldn't find it. You seem to be educated in the area, so I'd like to gain some knowledge.
to imply that I am an expert.
I was referencing what I took to be layman's common knowledge; my contact with it is as it relates to the military recruitment of children. The most commonly-cited resource in this connection actually comes from the auto-insurance industry, as here:
WORDING OF ALL STATE AD:
"EVEN BRIGHT, MATURE, TEENAGERS SOMETIMES DO THINGS THAT ARE "STUPID."
"But when that happens, it's not really their fault. It's because their brain hasn't finished developing. The underdeveloped area is called the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex. It plays a critical role in decision making, problem solving and understanding future consequences of today's actions. Problem is, it won't be fully mature until they're into their 20s."
I think you are missing the point of Brian's post. The ire at a certain paper you see at this site is a product of a confluence of two things:
1.) The "risks" Dantonio has been taking are incomparable to Dorsey. This is BEFORE you take their subsequent implosion into account.
2.) What makes the comparison between Dorsey and Dantonio's annointed ones interesting in the first place is the entirely disproportionate, and in the former case, prejudicial, treatment of them, and RR, by the paper we all love to hate.
The anger here is not particularly about Dantanio. It is about the double standard at that paper.
If you will notice, I don't even mention the subsequent outcome of Winston's and Jenrette's second chance in my post. I was saying those two were incomparable to Dorsey to start with.
If you are arguing that we shouldn't use a bad outcome, which I don't at all expect, in Dorsey's case as a club to beat RR with, I am all with you. But for some reason, this isn't what leaped out at me when I read your post.
your first post, and I need to back off some. I had the context of that paper in the back of my mind when I read your comment, and in fact, your mention of Dantonio doesn't at all try to exculpate that paper for its shoddy and bigoted reporting. On the other hand, putting it in the context of an originating post where that paper is a major topic could lead to wrong interpretations. It isn't too clear at first that you aren't trying to justify the unequal treatment of these cases at that paper.
Your attempt elsewhere to bring in the GPA thing as an example of RR "untruth" still strikes me as opportunistic and unfair. It sounds to me, forgive me for speculating, like you read that cursed paper too much and too credulously. That said, I agree to disagree and I apologize for any offense caused.
I think we have a better understanding of my first point. To be honest, the gpa thing probably wasn't totally fair on my part. I just think we're kidding ourselves if we think Rodriguez was totally forthcoming on Wednesday. He probably made this worse by the way he handled the question. Pardon the tone, but he's the head of a multi-million dollar organization and he needs to get his shit together and handle these things better. For the record, I was thrilled when they hired him, am still optimistic it will work out, and given my limited knowledge on the Dorsey thing, I think he made the right decision. I just get sick of the tone of persecution and close minded homerism (not you specifically)in our fan base. Rodriguez needs to get it together and get things done.
Is there any sign that RR meant to characterize anything other than Dorsey's jury aquittal with those remarks?
How much about the juvenile record do we expect him, or Bedford, to know prior to that paper's FOIA search? I'm sure that we can agree that the amount of attention is unusual, although I don't know how true this still is if you allow for UM exceptionalism. I'll generalize and say that I vaguely suspect the unprovable notion that SOME news sources' raison d'être is to dig up the next Watergate exposé in all that they do, whether it be sports or reporting the weather, and that until RR pulls wins he will get a double-dose of this kind of scrutiny. I think this kind of pressure drives the win-at-all-costs paradigm.
I still think that RR is an exception to the win-at-all-costs norm, no matter how this turns out, and I think the GPA story bears this out.
I'm wanting to say that RR was forthcoming enough, but I haven't listened to the presser and so I would be out of my depth.
"Soon we'll be able to put a ski lift on it."
Hell, if they put a ski lift on "Mt." Brighton we could easily put a ski lift on this. Probably charge $45 a lift ticket too.
For me, Sharp's article, and those that have followed are not troubling because of a double standard between UM and MSU, or because of an agenda against RR, or the fact that the Free Press has decided the best way to stay afloat is to occupy the niche of antagonizing UM fans, it is their disregard for Dorsey himself. Other posters have talked about what a special day signing day should have been for him, so I won’t get into that, but as a caller on WTKA this morning said, the Free Press has forever tinted this 18-year-olds future just so that they could have a story. As he put it, these stories have removed any chance that Dorsey could have taken advantage of programs often in place that allow juveniles to have their records expunged after a certain period of time. This is no longer an option for him. Even if he were allowed to have his arrests, acquittal, and dropped charged removed from him record, a simple google search, not even a background check, would turn up the Free Press’s story. So, were they correct in reporting this? Sure. Was it considerate to this young man or his family, not even close. They turned a non-story into something that will now forever follow him, just so they could up their page views for a day or two. That is what troubles me.
Anyway, can we all move on?
Lets congratulate Demar for his achievements so far and what must be the accomplishment of a dream to play major college football at great school. He will have the chance to truly make a life for himself. But beyond that, can we not talk about this again. Please.
is that after his "break," this kid has a track record of changing for the better and of staying out of trouble for the last two years.
This is not something that just happened. In life of a teen ager who can't stay out of trouble, two years is an eternity.
That Demar hasn't been a recidivist in that time, along with the statements from his coach of how he changed over that time, lead me to believe that he will stay out of trouble.
While not a justification for Sharp's and the Free Press' witch hunt which, make no mistake is aimed at UM, and Rodriguez and not Dorsey himself, through unintended consequences, it may serve as extra motivation for Demar Dorsey to stay out of trouble in Ann Arbor.
I expect a follow-up column from Rochelle Riley any day now.
Does anybody know any history on Gene Myers? He is the Sports editor at the Freep, and has been at the paper for about 17 years. I'm curious as to his ties to the MIchigan program, college degree, and any other potential reasons that he would hate on the current iteration of Michigan football.
That, and I love a good conspiracy theory.
A good friend of mine is an attorney in Philadelphia who represents juveniles. She wrote this letter to Sharp yesterday, which I think provides a knowledgeable and interesting perspective on the juvenile justice system.
For many reasons, I was disappointed to see your commentary about University of Michigan's recruitment of Demar Dorsey.
For the past five years, I have worked as a lawyer representing the interests of youth. I believe that your commentary indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the juvenile justice system. Since its creation, the juvenile justice system sought to rehabilitate youth who made impulsive, reckless, and often foolish decisions. Acknowledging the diminished culpability of youth, the law in every state seeks to approach youth crime very differently from adult crime. Youth have the opportunity to be diverted out of the juvenile justice system - as Demar Dorsey was in his first case. This means that a district attorney makes a decision to keep the youth out of the system pursuant to certain conditions and involvement in programming. It avoids the stigma of a juvenile record and ensures the juvenile opportunities that otherwise could have been foreclosed. Secondly, juveniles in almost every state have the opportunity to clear or expunge their records because it is universally accepted that kids deserve second chances.
I find it hard to believe that you are the same person, with the same level of understanding and thoughtfulness about decision-making that you were at age 16. The law recognizes this and affords opportunities to youth who make foolish, and sometimes criminal decisions. Involvement in the juvenile justice system is not a small thing -- a record can impede the juvenile's ability to get into college, get a job and enlist and enlist in the military. By diverting Demar Dorsey's case out of the system, the district attorney sought to ensure that these issues wouldn't arise for him and that he could become a productive member of the adult society. This is what Demar Dorsey has chosen to do.
His "record" would still make him eligible to enlist in the military and defend our country. Why shouldn't he be eligible to play football with the Wolverines? As an graduate of University of Michigan, I am proud to see that my alma mater accepts individuals who are seeking to turn their lives around and acknowledges that all kids deserve the opportunity to show that their youthful indiscretions do not define who they can be as adults.
"I find it hard to believe that you are the same person, with the same level of understanding and thoughtfulness about decision-making that you were at age 16."
Didn't she read his article?