Along with the Bo's death post and a few others this is one of the best things I've ever read on this site. 

From what I know Frank Clark deserves to pay a severe price for his actions.  But as someone dismissed from the team this far into his career he will pay a far more severe price than many would in his situation.  I'm not sure how things work with U-M, football alumni but I'm guessing that dismissed players don't automatically get included in team reunions (at least those under official auspices), and his place in U-M football history is set in stone.

Although I basically agree with Brian that Michigan made the right decision and the legal system will and should proceed.  My only thought is -- could he have been suspended for the rest of the season (his career) with the possibiility of some kind of post-graduation reinstatement well into the future if he does everything he needs to and beyond (anger management classes, sincere and consistent contrition, public service etc.) to show this was an isolated inicident.

 

Good post.

I understand having sympathy for Clark.  I too have some, though not very much.  Some people seem to have sympathy in an endless supply.  I think mine is finite.  I've seen friends and clients (I used to work legal aid) who have stories just as sad that don't involve them physicial hurting anyone else.  Theft, drugs, etc were sufficient.  I just can't psychologically drum up much sympathy for abusers when I know so many others are more deserving.  I'm not saying they don't deserve sympathy, just that I can't seem to provide much. 

 

I can understand violent impulses; I've been in brawls at bars and so on.  But domestic abuse is an especially vile act, it's dynamics and effects are very different from punching a kid at a soccer game. Sometimes single actions are bad enough to make someone a "bad person."  That probably isn't the case here, but I can understand why people might think it is.  Brian (and like-minded folk) seem to think that people condemning Clark are just puffing themselves up at his expense.  And maybe some of them are.  But maybe,  as Brian is urging these critics to try and view Clarks actions from another (perhaps broader) perspective, he ought to consider were some of them are coming from too.  They may have personal experience with domestic violence.  Although some who have experienced it are sympathetic, such as the poster earlier in the thread who reconciled with his rehabilitated father, many are not.  For them domestic violence, even just one incidence of it, is a cardinal sin because it's consequences are deeply and profoundly embedded in their memories.  

 

I don't think it's fair to say that people are just being assholes for not being sympathetic toward Clark.  They think violently assualting your partner (in front of her young sisters, from what I can gather) is unforgivable.  That might be false or wrong, but I don't think it can be dismissed quickly as mere self-righteous bluster. 

One question:  What was Frank Clark so close to?  Making it to the NFL? It's not like avoiding things like this becomes trivially easy once you have a job.

I've thought a lot about what I've wanted to say about this, as I wasn't coming up with the right words. In my opinion, Brian nailed it. Where everyone is cheering Michigan for doing the right thing, I think Michigan has failed. What he did is deplorable, there is no doubt about that if it proves to be true. The problem, though, is that Michigan has a moral obligation to help Frank Clark. Particularly if you buy the Hoke line that these are all his own sons. I highly doubt he (or any of you) would disown one of his own children if accused of this same crime, and that's what removing him from the team does. As a parent, you'd be disappointed and pissed, no doubt, but you'd get your kid help; not disown him/her.

Brian's mention of Clark's upbringing only heightens the responsibility Michigan has, and brings to light one of the dark under bellies of major college football. No one wants to talk about it ever, it seems, but the background that many of our football athletes come from does not, in any way, resemble the background that the average student comes from. Yet, here they are, thrust into the same environment, which is a tremendous change from what they know, with the added pressure of fame, without the home support structure and resources to deal with that change and pressure. I don't think many here realize just how insulated the typical big time football player (at any school) is from reality. That insulation is largely the result of the fact that many of them do not come to college remotely equipped to deal with either of those things. It's designed to help keep them out of trouble just like this as they go through that process. I had the opportunity a couple weeks back to spend time talking to an NFL GM about just this topic and he put it like this (the precise topic that this originated from started with the handling of the Ray Rice situation):
Most big time college (let alone NFL) football players come from situations that the average fan can't comprehend. They come from single "parent" households where the "parent" is many times a remote relative, not a mother or father, and grow up in extreme poverty, dealing with gangs. They are immensely disciplined, because they have to be to get out of those situations to realize their potential athletically, but those things that they saw and experienced growing up never leave them, and sometimes, issues still boil to the surface. To address it, they are insulated and their lives are pretty well controlled throughout college. Once they get to to the NFL they have two things they never had: free time and a ton of money. Accordingly, the NFL takes enormous measures to educate, train, and insulate these athletes against personal pitfalls and make them better men.

So, basically, the colleges recognize that they are bringing in a good many athletes who come from very difficult backgrounds and help them adjust (or at least survive/cope). In other words, they act like parents (in the legal sense, parens patriae). While it's really easy to point the finger of blame (and let me be clear, what happened here was absolutely wrong), do not lose sight of the fact that Michigan failed here in its obligation to help Frank Clark become a better man. Many here won't like this, but it's undeniably true.

We are defined both by our greatest and our lowest moments,  that is life.

I don't feel bad for Frank Clark at all. 

Though I fully understand Brian's disdain for the mindless bashing of Clark/defining him by his lowest moment I don't particularily buy it; in my world there are those of us capable of succumbing to our anger and those of use who can control it.  If Clark can't refrain then he shall be defined... that is life.

I also find it hypocritical in the fact that if the guy didn't play football at our University we wouldn't even know who he was in the first place.  Shit, Brian is profitting off of this whole situation.  Odd to think about right?  I mean his importance has been magnified by his being a football player. that we know about his discretions.  Within an hour mind you, Frank's face was posted, passed around, and discussed on this site for a reason after all... 

I don't know. I just find it odd the echo chamber of support for a blog post about how empathetic we should be for a man who put his hands on a girlfriend and caused so much chaos.   Mabye the fault is mine, but I doubt it...

jdon

 

 

I agree Michigan failed him. If you felt compelled to keep him around, he should have been forced to the sidelines for a year ala Stonum on the felony theft.   Theft is a big deal because it goes right to the heart of honesty. You have to calculate theft. Plan it. Carry it out.

When they went soft on that offense, the Michigan staff, Hoke in particular failed to impart the necessary lessons.

Clark deserves all the help Michigan can still give him. I don't believe he should have been allowed to still play Michigan football after offense 1. However like then, he deserves sympathy and help. But remaining as a player on the football team was debatable.

This is more than a besmirchment. Had this victim been severly incapacitated or even died, Michigan football and it's handling of discipline would be under some horrible scrutiny.

The other factor is the nature of domestic violence is that this likely wasn't a first-time deal involving these actors. We all lose our cool and act out and then wish we hadn't.  But this has very likely happened before and went unreported. That's way different than having a bad moment in time.

 

 

 

 

This is not at all like hitting a goalie for being cocky and playing upfield. Not at all. I don't sympathize with Frank Clark at all. Not one iota. Bullshit. It is not too much to expect a man who can bench press a small car to not hit a woman. I hope he does better in life because wasted potential is bad. But my hope is outweighed by my disgust and anger. No apologies.

ugh, this isnt stealing a laptop again or taking a nerds lunch money. this is punching a woman in the face and grabbing her by the neck and throwing her to the ground. this is not a fancy pants indoor soccer game where you get mad because someone didn't give you a trophy. this is a matter of what is right and what is wrong. Brian you are way off base here.

I had not noticed prior - but Frank is crying in that pic. Shit man. Tragic is right.

Brian, I normally love what you post. But I think about half of this post is utter gibberish. Let me start by saying that I see your perspective and upon intellectualizing the situation a bit, I too feel some sadness and sympathy (not one iota of empathy, but that's really the point here, isn't it?) for the young man and hope he can turn things around for himself and his family. And he is still a person, a human being deserving of some kind of consideration.

But when you go on to harshly criticize people who have knee-jerk reactions of either a) Frank Clark is a bad dude or b) I hope the victim is OK, well, that's where you lose me. You can't defend Frank Clark for getting heated in the moment, and having a knee-jerk reaction based (potentially, although frankly you have no evidence that there is a connection) on his difficult upbringing on the one hand, and then condemn a bunch of people who (again, you assume here) see evidence of a brutal physical assault on a woman and have a knee-jerk reaction based on their own, presumably more normal upbringings. Feelings are feelings, reactions are reactions. You somehow find space for Frank Clark's actions/reactions and allow him some humanity while writing off the people who are naturally disgusted (and perhaps overreacting, to some extent) as complete assholes.

I didn't post about it, but my natural reaction was 'Frank Clark is a waste of humanity.' I realize that reaction was wrong now, but that doesn't make me an asshole to have thought that. It's just how I was raised.

Brian, my main question for you is would you feel this way for a player who beat his girlfriend/wife/whatever that didn't play for Michigan? I feel no sympathy for anyone who chooses to assault another human being out of anger. It is never the least bit excusable. And while you aren't excusing the action, you are excusing the person who chose the action and I cannot agree. I won't say Clark is a terrible human, but it takes a certain kind of man to beat a (potentially) pregnant woman. Bad upbringing? Whatever, he still has a choice. My Dad grew up in an abusive children's home and didn't believe he'd live to see 15. He had plenty of violent urges, but never acted on them. He doesn't deserve a medal, but I can say he's a better man than Frank Clark. Also, you'll call someone an asshole for calling a woman-beater a waste, but not the actual woman-beater? Noted.

Maybe I'm one of the few, but its hard to not feel bad for Clark. Yes I know he's got the theft charge from a few years back on top of this situation, but I don't think he's inherently a bad kid. He's just made some poor choices, and this latest one is really going to cost him.

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve what's coming to him from the legal system. Laying your hands on a woman is unacceptable under any circumstance, but I don't believe that Clark is a waste of human flesh. He likely let his emotions get the better of him. Although I'm sure most of us here haven't resorted to physical violence in that situation, I don't think many of us can say that we haven't let our anger get the best of us at times.

I'm late to game on this but wanted to just remind people that no matter what you think of Brian's post and what Frank did, he is so young. I'm almost 30 and feel like the choices I make now are 1000x more intelligent and wise than the decisions I made just 5 years ago. I was so misguided in my emotions, decisions and outlook on life it makes me wonder how I made it through. And I had a very comfortable and happy upbringing with great parents. I know it's easy to be an adult and condemn this because it was so wrong but normal young people make awful decisions like this and knowing that we're still dealing with a kid and not a grown adult is important. No one on here is wrong for how they feel but I just think it's key to remember that he's still a kid in terms of mental development. we all were at one point and this may not be the man he becomes just like most of us aren't the kids we were in our early 20's.

That picture is of a man who clearly knows right from wrong and even more clearly knows he is on the wrong side of the line. He'll pay his dues to society through the legal system, then I wish him the best of luck in getting his life on track.

No one wakes up in the morning thinking about violence unless they fear it themselves. There has been a lot of work on free will in the last 20 years that calls much of our ideas about it in question, from a neurological point of view. I understand that's about as controversial as religion, but you only act out the decisions you mind is capable of presenting at any given moment. I haven't read what the dispute was about and I don't need to. The problem is Clark didn't have a choice and this is what violence does to us. Could he have decided to throw everything away, shame himself, his friends, his school? None of it is rational and yet its what he did. Be kind to your kids folks, and to your loved ones.

The blog's reaction to the Frank Clark incident has been downright embarassing, and this piece from Brian is one of the worst things I've ever read on this site.

There's a MAJOR difference between picking a fight out of anger and abuse. The former is a dumb loss of self-control; the latter stems from a sociopathic impetus to control. People don't beat the shit out of (or otherwise abuse) their significant other simply in response to an uncontrollable bout of anger. It's part of collection of activities to establish a sense of fear and isolate the victim. It's a mental illness for which, unfortunately, there isn't a treatment or a cure. What Frank Clark is is certainly the result of awful things he didn't deserve happening in his childhood, and it's sad and tragic for him, but at this point, it is what it is, and he's a dangerous and scary man. The kind of danger you must disassociate from and can't afford to forgive, or it will only continue to take the opportunity to hurt you or others. The best thing about this story is that it exposed Clark as what he truly is before something much more serious (or fatal) happened to his girlfriend. She's a fortunate woman; a lot of others in her situation aren't. Domestic violence is serious because people die. Don't humanize psychopathy. And absolutely don't tell others they should humanize it. If you do, you clearly don't understand. Clark getting arrested may mean he won't "make it," but it also means his GF and many others over time won't be harmed now that his true nature has been exposed.