Our Readers....

Just wanted to share an email exchange we had with one of our readers.

It was in reference to the recent decision to deny LSU's Ryan Perrilioux the opportunity to continue his education at LSU.

We had successfully previously argued the point that Perrilioux's suspension was arbitrary and unfair. We say 'successfully' argued the point, because not long after our post, RP was reinstated as a student-athlete.

To wit, we received this email:

Sir
"Unspecified" usually means "Not for Public Consumption". So, to be suspended for unspecified reasons is often better for the individual than telling everyone he was suspended for failing a drug test three times, getting arrested twice, being under FBI investigation, and generally being a screw-up. Who cares if he is black, white, or purple? Justice should be colorblind, and when it is, I tire quickly of comments like "a few minor incidents of non-compliance". When does non-compliance become criminal?
I feel that the LSU program has been more than fair with Ryan. Certainly talented - but talent does not necessarily mean privlege, and that is what is implied that he deserves. I disagree. The worst thing that can happen is he doesn't get to play pro football - guess what? - stand inline with the 95% of other college athletes who want to go pro. The university pays all of his costs and asks that he, in return, PLAY football, attend classes, make decent grades and avoid embarrassing the university. I think he managed to go one for four. THAT's why he's gone,not some vast whitey conspiracy to keep the brother down.

Name withheld by NOIS to protect the challenged

Hard to argue. But, we tried in our response to him.

Sir, thank you for your obtuse and overly loquacious response. While we agree that at times it is better to allow the individual some privacy; we feel it is more important to allow the individual to understand exactly what the rules are before worrying about guarding his privacy.

If the rules are unspecified, how can the young man know if he is breaking them or not?

"Justice should be colorblind, and when it is, I tire quickly of comments like "a few minor incidents of non-compliance". When does non-compliance become criminal?"

If the young man has committed a crime, why has he not been convicted? Your ability to quickly tire of calling him non-compliant with the program rules...and opt to call him criminal without going to trial or being convicted tips your hand.

You say justice should be colorblind. Implying it isn't. And we agree. Yet, you pretend here that it has been. Your deranged tirade with references to 'keeping the brother down' intensifies the suspect nature of your commentary.

Clearly, the young man was brought to LSU under the auspices of being the recipient of privileged treatment. Who (athlete or otherwise) goes to a school like LSU with the notion they will receive a reasonable education? Let's be forthright. No one aspires to the educational offerings of a third rate university located in one of the academically poorest performing states in the nation. The idea that an athlete 'owes' LSU some sort of feigned interest in academia is laughable. LSU's national rankings in academics show the university itself isn't even interested in academics. The notion that RP should be held to a standard of not embarrassing the university, when LSU's liberal use of the term 'university' is an embarrassment in and of itself is humorous at best - and horrifically delusional at worst.

We thank you for submitting your thoughts on the matter. And we choose to dismiss them as either racially motivated hysteria or a poor opinion formed out of the insufficient thought process developed at LSU.

Good day.

NOIS