Don't hate the player
College game behavior gets out of mouth and out of hand

March 5, 2004
by Mike Moore
Staff Reporter

Their names vary. In certain stadiums they are referred to as the “sixth man.” At Albion College, they’re the Kresge Krazies. Boisterous fans across the country face the same question when it comes to collegiate athletic events: Just how free is free speech?

This issue boiled over on Jan. 21, when the University of Maryland played host to rival Duke. Fans shouted obscenities such as “F--- J.J.” every time Duke guard J.J. Redick stepped on the floor. The game, which was aired on national television, prompted Maryland coach Gary Williams to address the crowd before the next home game, asking the students to avoid the obscene language they had used.

A similar issue arose at Albion last year during the Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association (MIAA) men’s basketball tournament. A group of Albion students chanted “F---Hope, F--- Calvin,” as fans from the two schools left Kresge Gymnasium after their semifinal game. Just like Williams, President Peter Mitchell addressed the crowd before the championship game against Hope a few days later, apologizing to the Hope crowd. Mitchell also sent an email to the entire student body, stating: “I expect the highest standard of conduct from our fans.”

Do fans have an unlimited right of speech, or is it an administration’s responsibility to limit what can and cannot be said?

Bruce Weaver, professor of speech communication, has taught a free speech class for the past 12 years and feels that free speech in general, let alone at sporting events, is never absolute.

“To assume that we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, is ridiculous,” Weaver said. “Keep in mind that free speech is speech in the public domain. If you are attending a public event, part of attending is to keep in mind that you will be held within some sort of behavioral norm.”

Weaver referred to the 1971 Supreme Court case Cohen vs. California. A young man involved with the anti-war movement entered a Los Angeles courthouse with a shirt that read “F--- the draft.” Although he was arrested, the Supreme Court later ruled that the man’s actions were protected by free speech.

But a courthouse and a sporting venue are two different atmospheres, and according to Weaver, this is often a problem in deciding when speech should be restricted.

“When dealing with free speech, one has to keep in mind location and what is considered appropriate communication in certain locations,” Weaver said.

In 1972, the Supreme Court case Gooding vs. Wilson dealt with what was considered abusive language.

The decision on the case defined “abusive speech.” To be abusive, speech must be face-to-face and likely to incite an immediate breach of peace. The court ruled that free speech is allowed in situations involving cursing, offending the sensibility of people, or the use of four-letter words.

However, President Mitchell feels that individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions, especially at Albion athletic events.

“I think they [students] have a responsibility to be civil and respectful, and I think they have a responsibility not to be offensive,” Mitchell said. “Children or older people, who are allowed to attend games here at Albion, have the right to expect that it’s going to be an athletic contest, that there will be energetic cheering, not abusive comments to other players, or profanity.

“Don’t get me wrong. I want the students to cheer, and cheer loud, but do it in a way that is supportive of our team, not demeaning to the other.”

As the debate rolls on, the driving question seems to be, just where is that magic line that students can’t cross?

“I don’t like when people’s emphasis is on heckling an individual player,” said Troy VanAken, assistant to the president for athletics. “Young men and women come to play college athletics, not to have themselves personally attacked because of a physical feature or their choice of number, for example.”

VanAken said that when it comes to removing a student, he or other staff members will issue a number of warnings first.

“You would have to go pretty far over the line to be removed,” VanAken said. “I want our students there, and things will be tolerated, but there comes a point after the second or third warning that you have to say ‘that’s enough.’”

Men’s basketball player Travis DePree, Holland junior, agreed that there should be a limit to free speech.

“There has to be some sort of restrictions,” DePree said. “As funny as heckling can be, some players take it differently than others and it is hard not to feel sorry for someone who is constantly being ragged on by the crowd.”

DePree’s teammate Marcus Gill, Detroit senior, felt differently.

“There should be no line,” Gill said. “Being an athlete you should be able to handle criticism from fans. The freedom for fans to do what they want makes the game more fun. A lot of times we get our momentum from the crowd.

“I love it when we played on the road and fans ragged on me or our team. It made us play much harder.”

There is another factor Gill alluded to that has been the focus of many free speech arguments involving athletics.

“It’s called ‘home court advantage,’ and within reason you should be able to do whatever you want,” said Dustin Beurer, Deerfield junior.

Beurer, often found in the middle of the Kresge Krazies at home basketball games, believes that fans and players alike understand that it‘s all just part of the game.

“I really don’t find anything wrong with attacking an individual player,” Beurer said. “They know you aren’t serious, and usually opposing players will laugh at what we do.

“If you are seriously degrading, or you use racial or sexual slurs, then something needs to be done. Other than that, fans should be able to go as far as they want during the game, but afterwards respect the player. They understand your job as a fan, and you understand theirs as a player.”

Beurer was adamant about the importance of home court advantage, and felt President Mitchell’s speech before last season’s MIAA championship game was uncalled for.

“I think I speak for a lot of students when I say President Mitchell’s speech before the Hope game last year took the spirit right out of the gym,” Beurer said. “You do cheer for your own team, but as a fan you want to get into an opposing player’s head.”

The NCAA and MIAA have attempted to curb abusive fans. Before each MIAA game, a statement is read that warns fans that Albion holds the right to remove them from the gym. The statement lists a number of reasons for removal: “Profanity, racial or sexist comments, or other intimidating actions directed at officials, student-athletes, coaches or team representatives.”

Yet as Weaver said, “The problem with free speech is that it is always vague, and usually what we are dealing with is a conflict of conflicting ideas. The same idea or action will always be interpreted differently by different people.”

And so, with several conflicting opinions, the debate continues.