In the past few years, certain songs have spurred Internet dance sensations that have had thousands of people joining the movement. One of the firsts was Carly Rae Jepsen’s “Call Me Maybe” videos followed by PSY’s “Gangnam Style” and they quickly became the new craze as farmers and students from the University of Oregon uploaded their own music videos to YouTube. The newest video fad is Baauer’s “Harlem Shake.” For the past few weeks, thousands have created their own version of the 30-second video. The football team at Susquehanna University followed the trend and filmed their own video in the school’s weight room.
While Susquehanna’s video may be white noise to some people, for the 11 players dancing to the song, their video meant removal from their team. According to the official statement released by the university, the 11 student-athletes were removed from their respective teams for simulating several sexual acts in the video. However, the school did outline a plan for the players to follow to become reinstated on their teams. The statement said, “Participation in intercollegiate athletics is a great privilege. The student-athlete handbook calls upon student-athletes to be exemplary role models by demonstrating respect for others and acting in a first-class manner.”
Clearly Susquehanna was upset with the behavior from their student-athletes, but not everyone feels as if this incident merited such consequences. Yahoo! Sports writer Graham Watson thought kicking the students off the team was an extreme punishment for their vulgar behavior. “They aren’t harming anyone, there’s no nudity,” Watson wrote. “Even the vulgar acts aren’t as vulgar as they could be. For the most part, it looks like a prank. A poorly thought-out prank, but a prank nonetheless.”
Senior Susquehanna tight end Logan Skillman agreed, posting on Twitter Feb. 15, “@footballscoop bunch of my teammates thrown off for a dance… There are much worse things that go unpunished at school every day.” The tweet has since been deleted. People who have commented on the story urge the rest of the team to quit or berate the university more for taking the stupidity of young adults so seriously.
As a fellow Division III student-athlete, I naturally have a tendency to agree with Watson and Skillman for thinking the punishment of these players was unnecessary. These students are not under the strict rules and procedures of a DI or DII program, where athletes are bound by their contracts to follow the rules set forth by their team. I also agree with Watson in that the video was not hurtful or derogatory to any individual in particular — it was just a bunch of college boys goofing off like college boys tend to do.
However, when thinking about the incident again, I tend to side more with Susquehanna’s decision to remove the players from the team. Although DIII athletes are not bound by a contract like DI or DII athletes, DIII students still need to adhere to a set of standards and team rules to continue playing on their team. While they will not lose any scholarship money, DIII student-athletes lose the opportunity to play a sport they love. As Susquehanna released in its official statement, playing an intercollegiate sport is a privilege, a privilege that can be taken away quite easily.
Also, no matter what level of play, student-athletes are direct representatives of the school they attend. They are more of a public figure than the average student; therefore, their actions make a larger impact on their respective school. Susquehanna is making a bold statement to their other student-athletes and to the nation that they take the behavior of their athletes seriously. Viewers across the world could clearly make the connection of this video to Susquehanna University, and that image is not something the university wants defining it.
These players are not kicked off their team indefinitely. The official statement said that each player was given a plan of action for reinstating his membership on the team. While I have no clue as to the degree of that action plan, I would imagine it is a reasonable plan that allows serious student-athletes to earn back their right to play. College students make mistakes, and I think this compromise is a good way for the school to show its seriousness at the offense while allowing the athletes an opportunity to remedy the situation.
Finally, society is always complaining about how professional athletes think of themselves as above the law and behaving inappropriately when the public eye is upon them. When pictures of Michael Phelps smoking pot from a bong surfaced, he lost sponsorships because organizations did not want that type of behavior associated with their product. Granted, Susquehanna football players do not face nearly as much public scrutiny as Phelps, nor were they participating in illegal activity. It is also highly unlikely that these football players will become professional athletes. Still, is there anything wrong with the principle Susquehanna is trying to get across to its young students?
As a small institution, Susquehanna does not want to be linked to a video in which students mimed sexual acts. It wants to be known for its quality education and for the co-curricular experiences offered to students. The removal of almost a dozen students from a varsity sports team shows that Susquehanna places a responsibility on students who are ambassadors of the school, like athletes, to represent the college in a positive light. I do not think there is anything wrong with the university taking away privileges if a student does not act accordingly.