Lancaster Tigers Football

My high school alma matter is in the news this week. And it should come as no surprise that it is negative news. In fact, the only positive news comes in the spring when the boys and girls track team is winning state for the hundredth time in a row or when the boys basketball team is making another run at the elusive state tournament (even less likely now that the greatness of Joe Rushing is gone).

Instead, this news is about that Constitutional Right to play football. While I haven’t heard anyone frame it this way, in a roundabout way that is the case being made.

In order to understand the issues here lets agree on some facts: (1) Mr. Jackson had admitted to police in writing that he was involved in the armed robbery, and that he fired a shot at the fleeing defender (fortunately his aim is not as good as his receiving ability). (2) He has already contacted the family of the victim and said he was sorry. So all those claiming that the police are twisting his original statement around (you know, the statement where he confessed), Mr. Jackson is out there further proving his guilt by apologizing – I’m sure his attorney wasn’t too thrilled about that.

So, with those two pieces being known, it is beyond me how any school board would allow this type of individual to remain in school (as opposed to an alternative school), much less participate in football. His supporters say that he has a "right" to play until he has been found guilty. Uh, no. You have a right to keep and bear arms, or a right to not be locked away without a conviction. But you dont have a right to participate in extracurricular sports when you rob someone at gunpoint, and then shoot at them while they flee.

As bad as Kenny Rogers acted, at least he didnt go around saying he has a "right" to play baseball because he was not "convicted of assault" - yet. If Mr. Jackson had a "right" to play football, why didnt they bring suit against his former high school when they told him to get lost? I'll tell you why - they found a school district who was willing to put their reputation on the line (what little positive reputation is left) for the chance to win a few more ball games this year.

Chew on this, Lancaster was also in the news last week for suspending hundreds of students who didn’t complete their reading assignment over the summer (I'm not completely against this idea - but then they bowed to pressure and are giving the students more time to complete). Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in suspending students for not completing a summer reading assignment, but letting an admitted armed robber play football?

Note to Lancaster administration: The old saying that all publicity is good publicity doesnt really apply. Do something positive for a change, and maybe we will forget about your "lack of judgment" in this case.