I've seen many people who do and their answer boils down to, because he's brought so much negative attention. Why has he brought so much negative attention? Because he's a great football player. Out of the 50000 students at OSU, there are tons who have done things far, far worse then Maurice Clarett, far more "embarassing" or whatever to the university then Clarett. You don't know about them, because they're not great football players.
When one starts for OSU, by definition, his life and actions are under a microscope. However, I do remember seeing in the news about 2 months ago where a student was charged with sexual assault and the female victim was suing the university over it. The male in question obviously did something far worse than MoC. He is not an athlete, just one of the 50,000 students.
My question about playing organized football pertained to the discussion revolving around Reynolds. At this time it is moot.
I do understand having pride, as I do. But not to the point where I let one person damage it. If you let one football player damage your pride, it seems to me as if your pride wasn't so secure to begin with.
I must not have made myself clear, so I'll try again. I have pride in OSU period. My pride is not based ONLY on the success of the athletic teams, as it may be for many people. When I read a scientific article on say, Antarctica, and several OSU researchers are used as sources, yes that makes me proud of my alma mater. When someone does something that casts the university in a bad light, it doesn't damage my pride. It may disappoint me that the university has been cast in a negative light, but that is much different than saying my pride has been damaged.
As for the preferential treatment on tests, I think we are both saying the same thing. It was a non-issue.
Yes, I am, although it's none of your damn buisness. I do not work for you, and neither does Maurice. When you donate to the university, you are DONATING. You are not making a contract with Maurice Clarett that he lives up to your standards. That's why its a donation, a gift.
A donation is a gift. Most people that I give gifts to are somewhat appreciative of the gift. I haven't given someone a gift and not received a thank you in return. I think that is called being appreciative.
The problem is with alumni who donate only to athletics (I guess they only have pride in OSU based upon the success of the athletic teams), never donate to the college they were in, and then think they have a say in the running of the athletic department. And the larger the gift to the athletic department, the more they feel they have a voice.
I suppose that since I said I am an alumnus, you think my comments about MoC are "bashing" him. I do not think I have bashed him. I listed facts and also said that I can understand why some bash him. Understanding a position does not mean I take that position as well.