BA vs. ENSWORTH

[footballfan1111]

To whom it may concern: One of the "thugs" with long hair for EHS is #2, Natambu Fentress. He is one of the most looked-up-to people in the entire school. He is the most well-spoken man I have talked to. He has a great sense of humor and a heart of gold. He has spent his last few summers working at an Ensworth program called Kids Academy. In this program they bus in kids from rural areas (almost all of which are below the poverty line) and teach them skills like math and reading until lunch. After lunch, they play games or go on field trips. He is also a leader in Project TALK. How dare you criticize a young man like him because he has "long hair." You ought to be ashamed of how narrow-minded you are.

I agree with you in the fact that most of the players I assume are great kids, and you can not tell anything about someone by their hair style. But as a high school, especially a private, expensive, college preparatory school, it is in best interest for their students to look classy. And as much as you can argue about the "times changing", long hair and earing's will never look good. The students at all school functions should have well cropped hair and nothing in their ears. If Ensworth ever wants the respect of the MBA's, MUS's, then they will change their views on this matter.

[PowerSweep]

To whom it may concern: One of the "thugs" with long hair for EHS is #2, Natambu Fentress. He is one of the most looked-up-to people in the entire school. He is the most well-spoken man I have talked to. He has a great sense of humor and a heart of gold. He has spent his last few summers working at an Ensworth program called Kids Academy. In this program they bus in kids from rural areas (almost all of which are below the poverty line) and teach them skills like math and reading until lunch. After lunch, they play games or go on field trips. He is also a leader in Project TALK. How dare you criticize a young man like him because he has "long hair." You ought to be ashamed of how narrow-minded you are.

Excellent first post ensworthdad! I don't even know the kid but I agree 100% long hair most assuredly doesn't make a young man a thug and based on what you said about him, he sounds like a kid that is doing the right thing and going above and beyond what most kids in HS do with the precious little spare time they have... especially an athlete.

[big red big blue]

To whom it may concern: One of the "thugs" with long hair for EHS is #2, Natambu Fentress. He is one of the most looked-up-to people in the entire school. He is the most well-spoken man I have talked to. He has a great sense of humor and a heart of gold. He has spent his last few summers working at an Ensworth program called Kids Academy. In this program they bus in kids from rural areas (almost all of which are below the poverty line) and teach them skills like math and reading until lunch. After lunch, they play games or go on field trips. He is also a leader in Project TALK. How dare you criticize a young man like him because he has "long hair." You ought to be ashamed of how narrow-minded you are.

Just curious. Can you point out where some one was called a "thug?". You crushed that straw man. Well done.

 

This hypersensitivity and desire to connect a lot of dots in your own heads says a lot about you people. How about just "we don't consider a hair code useful?"

 

Say whatever you want. It's your school. Doesn't affect the rest of us one way or the other.

Edited October 2, 2010 by big red big blue

[big red big blue]

Of course the high comedy factor from you people is that at least part of the reason for ehs founding (and a huge hunk of the money that was behind it) came from MBA people who were so unhappy with brad gioia. And why were they so upset at him? Because he had the gall to say things like "our history is our greatest strength and our greatest weakness.". Recall the banner flown over MBA commencement referring to mike drake? All those people were so unhappy with gioia for having the gall to seek greater diversity at MBA and trying to overcome some of our unfortunate past. So they went to ehs and built their own school. And now I guess they've gone the other direction and love throwing around racist accusations at us.

 

Post away, by all means. Thousand of out of work comedians couldn't do this stuff.

[ojsimpson]

I have my own thoughts about hair and earrings (and proper attire) on students representing a school, and they're irrelevant to pretty much anything. But your uninformed characterization of the writers in this thread, and the schools they represent, is offensive. Let's consider some dates of founding here:

 

MBA-1867

Baylor-1893

McCallie-1905

Father Ryan-1929

MUS-1893

CBHS-1871

BGA-1889

 

BA, Briarcrest, and JP II are all under 40 yrs old, though if one were fleeing school integration, a look at their studnet bodies would suggest that these schools are very poor choices. As for the others, with the exception of Ryan, they all predate Brown v Topeka Board of Education by at least half a century. Ryan maintained a separate athletic program for its black students; their nickname was the "Black Panthers," to contrast them from Ryan's other teams, whose nickname at the time was "the Panthers."

 

Desegregation in Nashville was completed by the 1969 school year, finishing the "grade at a time" scheme begun in 1957. So...before you in a not so subtle way imply that the founding of these fine institutions have their grounding in racist motives, have some evidence on which to back it.

 

I apologize if i have offended you and the "fine" schools you represent. There is an entire section of Eyes on The Prize, (an award winning documentary on America from 1954-1968) devoted to Nashville's role in resisting desegregation. There is also David Habelstram's book The children, in which he depicts Nashville as one of the most challenging centers of resistance to progress. More specifically, there was a recent documentary that chronicled the violence, white flight, and proliferation of private schools that came into being in the wake of the busing plan for Nashville. If you are suggesting that the Nashville citizenry was free of the South's shameful racial past then perhaps I should send you a reading list. Moreover, if you are argue that white flight did not occur in Nashville and that Brown and busing did not lead to the creation of new private schools in Nashville, that would also concern me. I have read your posts in the past Mr. Woodroof, you have always struck me a s a reasonable man. If you read my previous post carefully, i was responding to the statement that the" BA players did not have earrings." I will reiterate my basic point. The world has changed. The harsh judgement of an earring and length of hair, reflects by comparison to todays fashion standards, something from the past. I hope we can move on from this discussion as it overshadows a great high school football game Thursday night.

[KWoodroof]

I apologize if i have offended you and the "fine" schools you represent. There is an entire section of Eyes on The Prize, (an award winning documentary on America from 1954-1968) devoted to Nashville's role in resisting desegregation. There is also David Habelstram's book The children, in which he depicts Nashville as one of the most challenging centers of resistance to progress. More specifically, there was a recent documentary that chronicled the violence, white flight, and proliferation of private schools that came into being in the wake of the busing plan for Nashville. If you are suggesting that the Nashville citizenry was free of the South's shameful racial past then perhaps I should send you a reading list. Moreover, if you are argue that white flight did not occur in Nashville and that Brown and busing did not lead to the creation of new private schools in Nashville, that would also concern me. I have read your posts in the past Mr. Woodroof, you have always struck me a s a reasonable man. If you read my previous post carefully, i was responding to the statement that the" BA players did not have earrings." I will reiterate my basic point. The world has changed. The harsh judgement of an earring and length of hair, reflects by comparison to todays fashion standards, something from the past. I hope we can move on from this discussion as it overshadows a great high school football game Thursday night.

My sole objection and and reason for chiming in was your characterization of some very old private schools as white flight academies. Your use of quotation marks around "fine" suggests you use the term ironically, i.e., with continuing contempt. You see a "cause and effect" relationship: desegregation happened, then a number of private schools opened. From a scholarly point of view, chronological succession of events is not proof of a relationship, though the uninformed will frequently interpret it as such. In the case of the schools I mentioned (and MBA is the only one I represent), you don't even have the presence of the necessary chronological order to argue white flight.

 

And regarding desegregation as a whole, I think you'll find the historians agree that the bombing of Hattie Cotton Elementary was a watershed, and extinguished most of the extreme opposition to integration in Nashville (The Burden of Busing, Pride, p 55).

 

And I'll be happy to leave this issue, but your accusation of racism (and the term "white flight" is an undisguised way of saying the same thing) is so toxic that it simply can't be left lying there. As I'm sure you know, the accusation leaves a nasty stain, even if there is no evidence to support the charge. As in yours.

[ojsimpson]

My sole objection and and reason for chiming in was your characterization of some very old private schools as white flight academies. Your use of quotation marks around "fine" suggests you use the term ironically, i.e., with continuing contempt. You see a "cause and effect" relationship: desegregation happened, then a number of private schools opened. From a scholarly point of view, chronological succession of events is not proof of a relationship, though the uninformed will frequently interpret it as such. In the case of the schools I mentioned (and MBA is the only one I represent), you don't even have the presence of the necessary chronological order to argue white flight.

 

And regarding desegregation as a whole, I think you'll find the historians agree that the bombing of Hattie Cotton Elementary was a watershed, and extinguished most of the extreme opposition to integration in Nashville (The Burden of Busing, Pride, p 55).

 

And I'll be happy to leave this issue, but your accusation of racism (and the term "white flight" is an undisguised way of saying the same thing) is so toxic that it simply can't be left lying there. As I'm sure you know, the accusation leaves a nasty stain, even if there is no evidence to support the charge. As in yours.

 

I appreciate your response, but for the record I never indicted any school. i referenced the reality of white flight as one manifestation of the Nashville climate of race that helped to spur the creation of many suburban and private schools in the area. In your previous text you listed the dates when a few of Nashville's older schools were founded. However, it is undeniable that when the older academies were founded there wasn't much racial diversity on their boards, or in their initial student bodies, or on their faculties. This is important because attitudes and expectations of social norms were not reflective of the broader Nashville demographic. Finally, I'm sure you are not prepared to argue that these older academies have been exemplary in their efforts to break down the barrier of race. Please do not use Brentwood Academy as an example. They do not represent one of the older academies.

[Gov]

I am still trying to understand why length of hair and earings were mentioned and what does it have to do with the educational process. There have been lots of accusations mentioned yet I am not sure what motivation the person had in mentioning this observation. If it wasn't racially or socially motivated then why mention it? If you look at it objectively your only conclusion would be Teams that allow earings and long hair are better than those who don't. But I am sure that is not the case

[owlbooster]

I appreciate your response, but for the record I never indicted any school. i referenced the reality of white flight as one manifestation of the Nashville climate of race that helped to spur the creation of many suburban and private schools in the area. In your previous text you listed the dates when a few of Nashville's older schools were founded. However, it is undeniable that when the older academies were founded there wasn't much racial diversity on their boards, or in their initial student bodies, or on their faculties. This is important because attitudes and expectations of social norms were not reflective of the broader Nashville demographic. Finally, I'm sure you are not prepared to argue that these older academies have been exemplary in their efforts to break down the barrier of race. Please do not use Brentwood Academy as an example. They do not represent one of the older academies.

"For the record," it SOUNDED like you indicted ALL DII schools. This is a sports thread. You sound like a lecturing Black Studies professor. With an agenda. The issue originally was the appropriateness of prep school football players with long hair and jewelry. Then "race" was injected by the hypersensitive, "can't judge a book by its cover," politically correct posters. One implied falsely that these players were called "thugs." Fact is that there are still a lot of "old-fashioned" fans who think that appearance DOES matter and that long hair and jewelry are NOT a positive IMAGE. Everybody is entitled to have and express their opinion on this, and it does not imply anything negative about any individual's character. The times may be a-changing, but we still haven't reached the time when nobody will bat an eye at a sea of long hair and gold earrings at an all-gay Army-Navy game. (please don't try to twist that into an anti-gay comment)

 

Almost none of these kids will end up in the NFL where largely anything goes. They inevitably will be at job interviews. With long hair and earrings, maybe a nose ring or tongue tack, or a conspicuous tattoo. That may or may not matter, depending on what job they are pursuing, blue collar vs. white collar. But our legal system still hasn't been able to force employers to hire any person who is "qualified" regardless of their appearance. But they're working on it.

[KWoodroof]

"For the record," it SOUNDED like you indicted ALL DII schools. This is a sports thread. You sound like a lecturing Black Studies professor. With an agenda. The issue originally was the appropriateness of prep school football players with long hair and jewelry. Then "race" was injected by the hypersensitive, "can't judge a book by its cover," politically correct posters. One implied falsely that these players were called "thugs." Fact is that there are still a lot of "old-fashioned" fans who think that appearance DOES matter and that long hair and jewelry are NOT a positive IMAGE. Everybody is entitled to have and express their opinion on this, and it does not imply anything negative about any individual's character. The times may be a-changing, but we still haven't reached the time when nobody will bat an eye at a sea of long hair and gold earrings at an all-gay Army-Navy game. (please don't try to twist that into an anti-gay comment)

 

Almost none of these kids will end up in the NFL where largely anything goes. They inevitably will be at job interviews. With long hair and earrings, maybe a nose ring or tongue tack, or a conspicuous tattoo. That may or may not matter, depending on what job they are pursuing, blue collar vs. white collar. But our legal system still hasn't been able to force employers to hire any person who is "qualified" regardless of their appearance. But they're working on it.

 

My last trip to this painful thread...well said.

[owlbooster]

I am still trying to understand why length of hair and earings were mentioned and what does it have to do with the educational process. There have been lots of accusations mentioned yet I am not sure what motivation the person had in mentioning this observation. If it wasn't racially or socially motivated then why mention it? If you look at it objectively your only conclusion would be Teams that allow earrings and long hair are better than those who don't. But I am sure that is not the case

Let me sum it up for you. On page 2, JohnJacob stated that he was taking his potential $1000 donation to EHS and splitting it into $500 each for the more traditional-value Middle School AND for a local jewelry company to subsidize the purchase of jewelry by less financially blessed members of the football team. Apparently, he had just discovered that some but not all the EHS players wore jewelry, and I guess he wanted to level the playing field. The additional concern with long hair and overall appearance logically worked its way into the discussion. Then the politically correct played the race card. And here we are.

Edited October 3, 2010 by owlbooster

[ojsimpson]

Let me sum it up for you. On page 2, JohnJacob stated that he was taking his potential $1000 donation to EHS and splitting it into $500 each for the more tradition-value Middle School AND for a local jewelry company to subsidize the purchase of jewelry by less financially blessed members of the football team. Apparently, he had just discovered that some but not all the EHS players wore jewelry, and I guess he wanted to level the playing field. The additional concern with long hair and overall appearance logically worked its way into the discussion. Then the politically correct played the race card. And here we are.

 

 

OK OwlBooster that is the second jab you have thrown at me. I attempted to ignore your first comment. First, JohnJacob is free to spend his hard earned money where he chooses. Its great to live in a land of freedom. However, my experience has been that those who accuse others of playing the "race card" are usually uncomfortable discussing some of the more subtle legacies of our unfortunate racial history. The "race card" has a negative connotation, and typically implies that race has been introduced as a variable inappropriately. I honestly don't think that designation applies here. I and a few others resented the fact that the young men who worked very hard to achieve victory Thursday night would have their brilliant effort on the field overshadowed by subtle and coded hints of wrongdoing because they chose to wear longer hair or wear an earring. And now we are here. Again, i don't blame Johnjacob for reallocating his modest gift to a place more near and dear to his heart. I would also advise him not to venture to far from home. Human experience is rich and varied. It could get intimidating.