Friday Night Lights: An Analysis of the Role of Sports in Education

Friday Night Lights written by H. G. Bissinger is about a relatively small town and its great fascination with high school football. The book raises questions about the role of sports within education. Bissinger uses several examples within the book to show negative and positive role sports have had within the academic community. The positive impact sports have had will be seen in Brian Chavez example. The negative impact of sports will focus on the financing for education versus athletics, and actions involving apathetic athletes and the administration.

The prologue of the book introduces you to several of the people that Bissinger will focus on during his examination of a town and its big sport. One of the players is Brian Chavez. Brian Chavez was one example of how football was a positive impact within the community. It is interesting to note that Brian Chavez is immersed with football, but he never takes his focus off of schoolwork. The reason he played the sport was not to be part of the identity, but to play “for those hits, for those acts of physical violence that made him tingle and feel wonderful”. [1] Brian Chavez felt that Permian football was “just a game to me, a high school game.”[2]   One could make a simple argument that the game of football to him was a means to get an emotional thrill. His focus on the game was the same determination he had in his schoolwork, for he was number one in his class. High school football cultivated his determination. He had high aspirations to go to Harvard, and football developed his determination to reach his goal.

The way football had negatively impacted education is the way districts budget their money. The budgets for athletics versus education in Odessa were staggeringly in favor of the football teams. LaRue Moore, an English teacher, pointed out that just the medical budget for Permian football was slightly larger than the entire budget for the English Department: “The cost for teaching materials for the English department was $5,040” as opposed to the cost for the boys’ medical supplies which were $6750.[3] Another $6040 was used to print the film of the game. In 1988 season alone, about $70,000 was spent for chartered jets.[4] Such a budgeting difference would negatively impact education.

Obviously Permian football was its focus, but at what cost? During the 1988 – 1989 school year at Permian, the senior class scored an average 878, while only twenty years earlier, the senior class scored an average 963.[5] “In the seventies it had been normal for Permian to have seven seniors to qualify as Nation Merit semi-finalists”, but in the 1988 – 1989 school year, only one had qualified.[6] There was an obvious downward trend among the educational focus in the city, which lead to the less quality of education.

Many football players could do anything he wanted. If you were a star athlete on the football team, you could walk around the school and break any rule with the administration and teachers watching without getting into any trouble. Grades were the same way. For football players, you did not have to do the work, and you could participate in football. This was the extreme low point in high school education for some of these football towns that the winning of football games were so important that the academic success of those football players were shelved. Academic achievement was the only element pushing certain athletes in their schooling, while others were apathetic, and sat back and failed.

To combat the lowering of the standards for athletes, many of the school boards across the state elected to pass a regulation stating that an athlete had to pass their classes within a 6 week period. If they did not pass with a 70, they could not play.[7] Even with the regulation, administrations found a way around in order to play their star athletes. At this point athlete’s class participation grade would count enough toward the 70 grade average for each class. Therefore even when the school boards tried to curb the blatant failing of its student athletes, the administration continued to look other way in order to keep their star athletes in the game.

For the relatively small town of Odessa, Texas, the negative impact of sports outweighed the good it did for the community. High school is for academic instruction. Sports should be an elective or extracurricular activity. Odessa and other similar counties within Texas took sports too far. Sports, in this case did not have any checks, therefore it negatively impacted the community by hindering academic instruction and achievement.

---

[1] Bissinger, H. G. Friday Night LIghts: A Town, a Team, and a Dream. 5th ed. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Company, Inc, 1990.) 13

[2] Ibid. 13

[3] Bissinger, H. G. Friday Night LIghts: A Town, a Team, and a Dream. 5th ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Company, Inc, 1990.) 146

[4] Ibid. 146

[5] Ibid. 131

[6] Ibid. 131

[7]  Bissinger, H. G. Friday Night LIghts: A Town, a Team, and a Dream. 5th ed. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Company, Inc, 1990.) 292

Six-Player Girls basketball’s Negative Development in Iowa

Six-Player basketball is a game that was played almost exclusively in the state of Iowa.  Six-player basketball developed in an era that considered women weaker.  The era also maintained that women should be well mannered in both dress and actions.  The sport-rivaled boy’s basketball both in popularity with fans and revenues it created.  Until its complete demise in 1993, Six-Player basketball was part of Iowa’s State identity.  Though the courts concluded that Six-player basketball stereotyped and discriminated against women, its demise was not a positive development because of the loss of the Iowan State identity, the players and revenues of the sport.

The six-player girl’s basketball became part of the Iowan State Identity.  The game reinforced Iowans beliefs and kept the culture together in an increasingly less populated rural life in America.[1] The De Moines Register gave as much publication and coverage to the six-player girls basketball as with men’s basketball.  The coverage the Register gave to the sport strengthened the support, as well as built a “complex ideology”.[2]  Some girls described the game and championship as the most exciting event, other than bearing children, in their life.[3]  Girls all over the state would read these publications and use the girls as their heroes.

 According to citizens, the hub of any community was the school.  If the “hub” had a prominent powerhouse team, the rural town was more than likely able to survive, if they did not it would drop.  For example, the town of Farragut won the National Championship in 1971. Twenty-Five years later, without a repeat National Championship, the school’s enrollment was down 30%.

The demise of six-player girl’s basketball is directly related to the passing of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  The legislation reads, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”[4] This legislation was used in judicial decisions to conclude the six-player basketball discriminated against women because the sport was not equally comparable to men’s basketball.

Instead of viewing the sport as not comparable to men’s basketball, it should have been viewed as a separate sport altogether.     The game itself had developed traditions so early and so firmly that even though game administrators felt compelled to defend the game, the competitors were did not feel they were intruding on a “masculine” game.[5] Variations in sports that contain as much differences as Six-player basketball and Five-player basketball should have been considered two separate sports.  The court was separated into two halves.  Each team had six players on the court.  Three purely were defensive and three were purely offensive.  Guards could not shoot, only forwards could shoot.  The ball could only be dribbled 2 times before a pass or shot.  After a FG, the ball would be taken to half court to be thrown in by the opposing team.  This game was a variation of the men’s basketball game, it was not meant to be comparable to men’s basketball.

The amount of players participating in six-player basketball was considerably higher before Title IX.  50% of high school athletes were female, which is progressively higher than the rest of the nation.  Of those athletes, 70% participated in six-player basketball.  This was the highest level of participation in the entire nation.  After Title IX in 1972 and the demise of six-player basketball in 1993, 42% of all participants in Iowan high school sports were female. After the switch to five-player basketball, the amount of female athletes went down considerably, as the athlete gets older.  For every 10 seventh graders, 2.2 were continuing to play basketball as seniors.[6] This could be attributed to several reasons.  Five-player basketball is more strenuous and takes considerable more skill.  Another reason is that five-player basketball is full court, which means the sport is more exhausting.  The level of skill needed to play five-player basketball severely limits the amount of female athletes who can play.

At its peak in 1978, six-player girl’s basketball had generated 11,000 fans per game, which brought in $748,000 in revenues.  This was virtually equal with the boy’s basketball.  If finances are indicative of health, six-player was very successful.[7] As the switch to five-player basketball commenced, these figures went down considerably, because the game had lost its roots in rural places in Iowa.

               After Title IX, the development in Iowa was not positive because it diminished the amount of female athletes playing basketball, and removed the traditions from an institution.  It was not positive because the State lost a cultural icon, while losing fans and revenue at the same time.  The State overall did not improve from the demise of six-player basketball; it was a step backwards for the Iowans.

---

[1] McElwain, Max. The Only Dance in Iowa: A History of Six-Player Girls’ Basketball. (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, KY London) 187

[2] Ibid. 49

[3] Ibid. 53

[4] McElwain, Max. The Only Dance in Iowa: A History of Six-Player Girls’ Basketball. (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, KY London) 133

[5] Ibid. 192

[6] McElwain, Max. The Only Dance in Iowa: A History of Six-Player Girls’ Basketball. (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, KY London) Appendix C

[7]Ibid.  178

The War in New York

The Revolution, many years in the making, had finally culminated in violent attacks.  The Revolution movement along with forced alienation by the British Government had pushed the Gentry of the colonies to declare their independence.  The War had only been active a few months before the British Empire focused their campaign in the middle states of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania because the Empire believed they would be able to find more Loyalists in these colonies.  The War of Independence affected different aspects of New York in different ways; one can see its affects in economy and in social groups.

New York was a place of commerce, and was a main port that traded with the British because of one simple principle, supply and demand.  The Americans had what the British wanted, and the British had what the Americans wanted.[1] Trade commenced, and some did not feel as if it was trading to the enemy.  Both opposing sides wanted to put a stop to this action as time progressed in the mid-1770’s.  They viewed that trading with the enemy was trading wealth away.  The Non-importation Association was the Colonies attempt at curbing trade, but this did not go far enough. On September 10, 1775, the First Continental Congress prohibited all trade with Britain or the Caribbean.[2]  Britain responded with the Prohibitory Act, which effectively cut the colonies off from the rest of the world.  The Prohibitory Act would continue even through the Occupation of New York City until 1778 when an exception would be made for this port, and the trade would be exclusive to England.[3]

New York’s Tory population was a sizeable portion, and even a greater portion of the population was not invested in either side.  This is because of the general exodus from the City because of the rumors the British would attack New York City next.  The colonists believed this because British had abandoned Boston.  As one New York City newspaper claimed “We are in daily expectation of having our city knocked down and burned by the Men of Warr”.[4] In response to the impending assault on New York, Continental soldiers came from surrounding states like New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

The City’s influx of soldiers created an increasingly military controlled city.  Soldiers awaiting the assault were instructed to build up barricades and to fortify the island.  The City was being transformed into a large fortress.  This affected the local population because it conflicted with local life. As the soldiers continued to pour into the city, the economy of the City was tremendously hit.  Businessmen lost much of their customer base as people left the New York area, which meant the wealth left as well.  These men hurriedly tried to collect the debts due them, and printed tickets representing money as opposed to using the Continental Congress Notes because they did not have faith in the Philadelphia printed money.[5]

Tory’s lives were affected by the Continental Army occupation.  Initially the Tories had to lie low and stay quiet during the Continental Occupation because of fear of incarceration or Mob Attacks.  Some Tories were not as prudent as others were, and were attacked by Whig mobs.  Mobs at times would specifically attack the more obnoxious and outspoken Tories.[6] These mobs would literally drag Tories out of their homes in order to harass and attack them.  The leadership in the Continental Army tried to quell these attacks, but only to limited effect.  After the British had landed 32,000 troops and pushed the Continental Army out of New York City, the remaining Tories celebrated, hoisting up His Majesty’s Flag, and were able to speak freely without persecution.[7]  The British would occupy New York City for the next 7 years.

The early years of the occupation were not very joyful.  The troops who had landed were strangers to those who stayed in the city.  Some were truly foreign not even speaking English.  Even other soldiers thought themselves superior and cared little for the Loyalist.[8] The carelessness for the so-called Loyalist allowed justification for home intrusions. The soldiers plundered these homes for materials and resources they needed or wanted. This did not last long as the British Occupying Force passed proclamations limiting the soldier’s movement, thus preventing more damage.[9]

There was a continuous stream of Loyalists coming into New York City. Most were fleeing persecution from surrounding regions, and coming to the British Protection. These Tory refugees strove to duplicate their life in New York, and to go on with their daily life.[10] These Tories opened shop pushing economic growth.  Eventually it was hard to bring new jobs into the City, which left open the last option for the men: the military.  Even if there were opportunities for businesses to open, the restrictions placed on legal trade were devastating.  “the enterprising business man therefore, who assumed all the risk and danger of such trade, could only realize so much profit if he elected to obey the law”.[11] The only advantage according to Judith Van Buskirk of the occupation of British Troops in New York City was it was able to flush out the Whigs.  It allowed inter-trade to commence without outside influence getting into the deal.[12]

During the occupation, the City of New York was a hub for African American slaves to flee their masters.  During the Revolution Era, both Whigs and Loyalists were vying for the labor of African American slaves.  The British were trying to undermine the Colonist economy, while the Colonists were trying to sustain it under the current Acts that Parliament had put the Colonies under.  The British continued with Lord Dunmore’s decree that if a slave runs from his master to the British occupied territory, the slave would be free.  This posed an issue with the Revolutionary authorities.  As such, these authorities “regularly scooped up slaves whom they suspected of planning to defect to the other side, subjecting them to incarceration and interrogation”.[13] This action had two effects.  One, it would provide economic hardship through the loss of labor during the incarceration.  Two, it would cost money because the Revolutionaries required a bond to be posted regardless of the guilt of the suspected slave.

Both British Loyalist and Colonist had defections to the opposing side.  The prospect of freedom for Slaves drew American Slaves to New York to be free and under the protection of the British occupying force, while British Loyalist slaves fled their own masters to become the property of American Slave-owners.[14]  Therefore, the British occupation not only affected the economics of the colonist in the surrounding colonies, but even within the Loyalist New York City.

Earlier it was discussed that those who stayed behind initially endured hardships by the soldiers.  The occupation was also demanding on Freed Slaves.  These men, though once slaves were now considered New Yorker’s.  Thus, their hardships were brought out through the British occupation.  The British Army confiscated houses, materials and resources all in the King’s name.  If a house was confiscated from a black man, he had fewer options than a white man did.[15]  This in turn caused black freed men to turn to the last option: joining the military.

Judith L. Van Buskirk describes the experience in New York as unique to the local populace because as opposed to the descriptions given too many other regions, few had such a steady stream of loyalist flowing into it.  Few had as many black slaves risking their life to gain their freedom.  The economics of the region are not like any other region filled with Loyalists who restore trade to their port after petitioning.  The War of independence for New York had seen great strong economic affects and social affects.  The affects were not limited to individual actions, but it widespread across the City and into the surrounding areas.

---

[1] Judith Van Buskirk.  Generous Enemies (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press 2004), 107

[2] Ibid. 70, 111

[3] Judith Van Buskirk.  Generous Enemies (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press 2004), 114

[4] Ibid. 14

[5] Ibid18

[6] Judith Van Buskirk.  Generous Enemies (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press 2004),  17

[7] Cynthia A. Kierner, ed., Revolutionary America, 1750-1815: Sources and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2003), 143

[8] Judith Van Busirk.  Generous Enemies (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press 2004), 23

[9] Ibid. 23

[10] Judith Van Buskirk.  Generous Enemies (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press 2004), 26

[11] Ibid.115

[12] Ibid 115

[13] Ibid 137

[14] Judith Van Buskirk.  Generous Enemies (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press 2004), 140

[15] Ibid. 141

Elite and Non-Elite relations examined 1763 - 1776

Today citizens of the United States associate themselves with the great country in which they dwell.  In the colonial times, specifically 1763 – 1776, a colonial would most often associate himself with British Empire, and secondly as a Virginian, New Yorker, etc.[1]  In a macro view of the colonies, the persons abiding in the colony were viewed alike, but in a micro view, there are distinct differences between classes.  As the tensions between England and the American Colonies increased in the 20 years leading up to the Declaration of Independence, the relations between Elite and Non-Elite evolved among social and political change.

The foreboding political questions and grievances started rising faster after the 1760’s.  Political tensions rose with the debates over Parliament Supremacy or local colonial legislatures.  “There cannot be two rights existing in government at the same time.”[2] Though these tensions did exist, the overwhelming majority of the colonist still enjoyed what they had with the British constitution.  John Adams writes,

“Were I to define the British Constitution, therefore, I should say, it is a limited monarchy, or a mixture of the three forms of government commonly known in the schools, reserving as much of the monarchical splendor the aristocratic independency, and the democratic freedom, as are necessary that each of these powers may have control, both in legislation and execution, over the other two, for the preservation of the subject’s liberty…” [3]

When Adams referred to the British constitution he was not referring to one specific document, but he was referring to multiple documents, laws, and customs.[4] All the English had were precedents: their constitutional law operated exactly like their common law, organically.[5] John Adams is clear about two things in his essay John Adams on the British Constitution (1766): Colonist knew it and understood it; the British Constitution, if used properly, was the best form of government.[6] 

            Using this outstanding form of government, the colonial legislatures were modeled after Parliament.  Each legislature would have an Upper House and Lower House.  The majority of the Legislatures had an Upper House whose seats were filled by appointees of the Governor.  The Lower House had elected officials from the surrounding populace. 

There are a few crucial differences between the colonial assemblies and Parliament.  The colonial assemblies had written constitutions.[7] Power of the purse means that any bills relating to money, whether it is taxation or the use of money collected through taxes, must originate in the Lower House.  Initially, the Governor and the Upper House directed the legislature politically, but by the 1770’s the Lower House of all colonial assemblies ceased control of the entire legislative body.  This control is speaking of a group of men who controlled the direction of the body, and did not cater to outside Empire influences.  They ordered their own business, held elections, directed their London agents, and controlled the release of the news to the press.[8] The men who filled both houses were of the elite of society.

What categorized a man as the elite of society?  As Satirist James Reid said, “Money, Negroes, and Land enough” made man part of the gentry.  The amount of land owned was not the only factor in one’s status, but the type of the land as well.  In essence each man of property competed with other men of property to gain capital, labor and land.[9] The gentry were considered by many to be a “proud and optimistic ruling class”.[10] The men elected to the Assemblies in the South and those “who took a leading legislative and executive part”, were vaguely gentry. [11] Paul Johnson writes, They were fluent orators, by virtue of their education, and spoke the language of political discourse ... Lesser men proud to call themselves ‘free-born Americans, ‘ looked up to them.  The importance of this relation to the “lesser men” is vital because it gave the gentry a sense of connection to the people.  The connection declared those immortal words “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” even before they were spoken.  The political elite had a self-confidence that they spoke for the people.[12] The gentry needed to have this connect because they felt they had an obligation to be benevolent to those less fortunate.  The less fortunate on the other hand was expected to respect and honor the more wealthy gentry.  They are also expected to vote for them to put them in a seat of the House of Burgesses (or whatever the colonial legislature was called).  This mutual understanding is common throughout the colonies.

Many would have us believe that the “proud and optimistic ruling class” that gave us George Washington and Thomas Jefferson made the step toward independence of their own fruition.  When, in fact, as Woody Holton writes that it was the poor farmers or less fortunate peoples who were the catalyst for the independence movement. 

Holton points out two main issues that pushed the gentry toward independence.  These two main issues deal with the relations between the elite of society and with smallholders.  First is a commerce issue and secondly, the control of the population.  The non importation and non exportation virtually stopped all commerce which led to shortages and riots.[13] These riots were, at times, hard to manage.  The suggestion at the Virginia Convention to “make such an establishment, as will put a stop to the rising disorders” shows the desperation of the gentry.[14] A new government establishment, in this case, would allow the gentry to control the population while allowing commerce to continue by establishing trade connections with other sovereign countries, but in order to accomplish this, the elites would have to declare independence from Britain.

The problems in Virginia and elsewhere in the colonies emerged from a growing class awareness.[15]  For example, the gentry in Virginia tried to resolve the issues with the Independent Companies with the concept of minutemen battalions.  In the gentry’s mind, minutemen battalions was a good resolution, but in keeping such a force demanded a lot from its recruits.  “New recruits had to leave their homes for twenty days of training; after that, minutemen had to train for another twenty-four days each year.”[16] This type of service hindered a man’s ability to be productive in his own business. Neglecting one’s trade for such periods would be detrimental.

Tensions grew out of the shortages. The first commodity to cease supply was salt. Colonial leaders attempted to appease the masses by instructing them that it was healthier to eat food without salt.  [17]This did not appease the masses, and there were riots.  Though these shortages brought about civil unrest and riots, the less fortunate pushed forward the ideals of the most radical.  Both letters from the Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1767-1768) are clear in their tone.  The farmer in a lower class sees that his rights as an Englishman could be taken away with one Act.  He, like many other farmers are like-minded in the end goal, though for a different reason.

The relations between the ruling gentry and the less fortunate were tense, but the two classes were of the same mind.  The actions of the gentry were in the right mind set.  They were doing what is best for the country, and at the point in history, what was good for the country was profitable for the gentry.  The catalyst for independence was the fear of civil disorder and the continuance of capital (money, land and slaves).

---

[1] Cynthia Kierner, ed, Revolutionary America, 1750-1815: Sources and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2003), 10, 11

[2] “The Supremacy of Parliament,”1766, in Cynthia Kierner, ed, Revolutionary America, 1750-1815: Sources and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2003), 26

[3] “John Adams on the British Constitution” 1766, in Cynthia Kierner, ed, Revolutionary America, 1750-1815: Sources and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2003), 25

[4] Cynthia Kierner, ed, Revolutionary America, 1750-1815: Sources and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2003),  4

[5] Paul Johnson A History of the American People 105

[6] Cynthia Kierner, ed, Revolutionary America, 1750-1815: Sources and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2003), 24, 25

[7] Paul Johnson A History of the American People 105

[8] Ibid 106

[9] Woody Holton, Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), xviii - xix

[10] Ibid., i

[11] Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (HarperPrerennial Publishers, New York, 1997), 107

[12] Ibid 107

[13] Woody Holton, Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 165

[14] Ibid., 164

[15] Ibid., 168

[16]  Woody Holton, Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 169

[17]  Ibid., 173