<p>The comments on the second article were very enlightening. This one summs it up best:
</p>
<p>I have to admit that after reading this, I still can’t really picture what went on that would have warranted physical threats, spitting, verbal slurs (“long haired faggots”?), etc.</p>
<p>Unless I’m missing something here, it sounds like a bad case of overreaction. Am sure there are two sides to every story, but I have to agree with misralz-- people need to control their tempers.</p>
<p>Hmmm,
Princeton hippies?
My daughter would like to meet them.</p>
<p>You take it, you record it, and then you sue the pants off the school for harassment. And then put your checkbook away as you’ll never have to pay tuition again.</p>
<p>What I take issue with here is the fact that the cadets are more than likely in much better physical condition than the band members. Not to say that the band members are wimps, and marching with an instrument definitely increases stamina, but the cadets do a lot more physical training than that. When you are stronger than someone else, you simply should not attack them unless they are physically threatening you. As far as the whole “protecting their turf” idea–I don’t really agree with that, either. I don’t think military service is about being territorial. I mean, if your commanding officer tells you to protect a certain area, then obviously should carry out those orders, but what military service entails at the present time seems more focused on discipline, diplomacy, and skill, and this incident demonstrated a lack of two of the three.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think the Princeton band will get much sympathy from a jury in Charleston or anywhere else outside of New Jersey.</p>
<p>I agree with the people who say that there is no excuse for the Citadel cadets’ behavior (after reading both articles).</p>
<p>I don’t care what the offense was. You don’t physically attack people, make homophobic remarks, spit on people, and destroy other people’s property, because you’re <em>offended</em>.</p>
<p>If the march route was pre-approved, and the script was pre-approved, then I don’t even agree that it was a case of wrongs on both sides (with one substantially outweighing the other).</p>
<p>I do agree that culture clash probably had a lot to do with what happened. That still doesn’t excuse the violence. Or the homophobic slurring and property destruction, for that matter.</p>
<p>Makes me miss the old days when both student bodies showed respect for both bands played as they played at half time. At the conclusion of the game, both teams showed respect for the opposition, shook hands and stood attentively when both fight songs were played. Culture clash, indeed! …Sometimes I think I’m living on another planet!</p>
<p>Anyone looked at the comments on the Ken Burger article? Most are in defense of the cadets, and the majority of the arguments are absolutely ridiculous. For example:</p>
<p>“If you ever invite someone over to your house for dinner, and, after arriving, they proceed to disrespect you and your house, while under your own roof, making low-brow jokes and snide comments about you, your family, your race, and nationality, and topping it off by urinating in the urn containing your grandmother’s ashes, you’ll understand how these Princeton fools acted. If you can defend their actions, then you’re just as worthless as they are. They got their just desserts and are lucky it wasn’t worse.”</p>
<p>It’s really not the best analogy. If I had told them beforehand that it would be totally okay if they did all that stuff when they came over, what right would I have to get upset?</p>
<p>You haven’t seen a crazy band until you’ve heard the Columbia University band. If I recall correctly, a couple of campuses were so offended in the 1980s that they banned the Columbia band for awhile. I think even the Columbia Lion mascot was tackled on one occassion on an opponent’s home field.</p>
<p>Maybe the band should reflect on the offensiveness of what it does. Its one thing to dump all over Harvard and Yale, and get the same thing in return from those who’ve seen this act before and are used to it. </p>
<p>Its quite another to go to essentially a military college and make fun of their commitment and possibly the region they hail from? There are limits to what people ought to have to tolerate. </p>
<p>They are lucky they didn’t get the living tar kicked out of them. Controlling your temper is a nice trait…so is having some common sense. How about marching through the Grambling campus and making fun of them? Oh right, that’s different.</p>
<p>I don’t defend the cadets actions, I simply take issue with the leap to conclusions without understanding what provoked them in the first place. Maybe it was something, maybe it was nothing. However, to say that provocation doesn’t matter makes no sense. Of course it does. It doesn’t justify inappropriate responses, but it certainly does matter. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fine, I agree, but in behaving like an idot there’s also an inherent assumption of risk.</p>
<p>A bully is a bully is a bully.
An officer and a gentleman would not do this, and they’re held to a higher standard (and they’re the first ones to tell you that).</p>
<p>The anti-gay, anti-intellectual tone in the second article is enough for me to pick sides. There aren’t always two legitimate sides to every story.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All potentially risky behaviors don’t assume all risks. Certainly, if I were one of the Princeton band members, I would not think that my marching on a pre-approved route through campus and putting on a show from an edgy but pre-approved script was assuming the risk of being physically attacked (I would, however, figure that I was assuming the risk of being booed by the opposing team).</p>
<p>I note that the Princeton band claimed to have toned down their usual show out of respect for the Citadel’s conservative atmosphere. If true, that certainly sounds like they realized that they were risking offense and attempted to mitigate it, rather than simply disregarding the possible feelings or reactions of the cadets and proceeding with the level of show that they would do anywhere else.</p>
<p>I don’t think either party was “right” here, but I think that the Princeton group showed a definite lack of everyday smarts regardless if they “had permission” or not. What on earth did they expect I ask? They should have known what the impact of their actions would illicit…I highly doubt they “mitigated” their show much and I think they probably did disregard the possible feelings of their intended “audience”. On the other hand, the cadets should not have fought with their fists if indeed that happened. If they fought with their mouths then what is the difference between the two?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s an oxymoron. Risky behavior by definition assumes risk.</p>
<p>BTW, The two teams play again in Princeton next year.</p>
<p>Please elaborate on your statement “Oh, right, that’s different,” Dadx.</p>
<p>"You haven’t seen a crazy band until you’ve heard the Columbia University band. If I recall correctly, a couple of campuses were so offended in the 1980s that they banned the Columbia band for awhile. "</p>
<p>Yes, we banned Columbia at Lafayette after a couple of our flag girls were physically attacked. During another performance, cadets at West Point took one of the flag girls and literally threw her into the corps, where she was passed up and down the rows. And I won’t even BEGIN to tell you what the Princeton folk did to us, so karma is coming around, 25 years or so too late…</p>
<p>I recall hearing back in the 70s that the Yale band was banned from playing at Yale games after they did a marching formation in the shape of an ejaculating *****.</p>