The Triangle Fire and Title IX Book Reviews

First published September 27, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/09/27/u-s-womens-history-part-3-the-triangle-fire-and-title-ix/

This is Part 3 of our exploration of texts used by the University of Maine, Farmington course, U.S. Women’s History. We examine two of the Bedford Series in History and Culture: THE TRIANGLE FIRE by Jo Ann Argersinger and TITLE IX by Susan Ware.

THE TRIANGLE FIRE

When we think of unions, we likely think of men in the trades. The construction, electric and plumbing trades particularly sit at the forefront of our thinking. We think of these organizations as protecting male workers and their interests. We also see them as male bastions, where the few women who do join their ranks are hassled and goaded for years before being even grudgingly accepted by just a few fellow members. However, women strikers and union members actually galvanized the men, and, much of what we know as workplace protections today stem from the public outcry as the result of what is known as the “Triangle Fire,” in which 146 workers were killed, the majority of whom were women.

In the factories, which were in the upper floors of New York buildings, girls as young as twelve worked days the hours of which equaled their age in years. Conditions were cramped, sometimes unsanitary, and included spaces that were sweltering in summer and cruelly cold in winter. To meet space regulations that were in place, the cubic space of a room was considered, not the floor space alone. This meant that with higher ceilings, more equipment and workers were crammed into floors not meant to accommodate such crowding. Wages were paltry, and companies regularly dismissed workers who complained, attempted to change conditions or who were even thought to be considering union membership. In 1909, twenty thousand women factory workers went on strike for recognition for the ILGWU (International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union), better wages and improved working conditions. This was the first strike by women for women and through the strike efforts, barriers such as ethnic differences between workers were put aside. The strike of 1909 influenced male cloakmakers, who went on strike the following year. One of the protest songs, states “and we gave courage to the men, who carried on in nineteen-ten.”

On Saturday, March 25, 1911 at closing time, a fire started. The Triangle Fire was the deadliest work-related tragedy in NYC from its occurrence until the 9/11/01 tragedy. Public outrage continued for years after the Triangle Fire. The media continued coverage in newspapers and magazines. When no responsibility was actually taken by anyone involved in factory ownership or within the City itself, writers posted headlines such as, “147 Dead, Nobody Guilty.”

Even if the owners of the company could not be prosecuted successfully, the public outrage was such that committees and groups formed in response. Women such as Pauline Newman, Clara Lemlich and Rose Schneiderman served on the newly minted Factory Investigating Commission (FIC). These women forced others on the committee to tour factory buildings and see firsthand the lack of safety procedures and cramped conditions. Frances Perkins witnessed the fire. She later served as the first female industrial commissioner and then as the first female secretary of labor under Franklin Roosevelt first as Governor of New York and the latter when he was President.

Elizabeth Dutcher, who worked with the WTUL (Women’s Trade Union League), the Red Cross and the ILGWU, investigated the lives of the shirtwaist makers who were victims of the Triangle fire. It was thought that women who worked in the factories often did so for frivolous reasons, such as spending money for desires versus needs, or that they worked for something to do before getting married and being supported by men. The reality was that wages for most workers went to supporting families, whether in the U.S. or with funds sent to families in their country of origin. In Dutcher’s account, she asked about women factory workers: “…why is she becoming more and more in some parts of our community…the dependable family bread winner?” In answer to her question, Dutcher claimed the reason is that women “will submit to worse conditions, longer hours, and shorter wages than men.” She then asks, rhetorically, whether it is the employer who forces these conditions, knowing that women are part of “a group without political rights, who may be oppressed with impunity, and forced to underbid her own men-folks?”

In The Triangle Fire, we learn not only about a tragedy, but also about the courageous women who, even without voting rights at the time, sought to improve working conditions. We see that throughout history women have worked to support their families financially. We learn about women’s contribution to the labor movement, and see the pivotal role women have played in yet another part of history.

TITLE IX

Title IX seems almost synonymous with women’s athletics programs. However, this “sleeper” piece of legislation was enacted originally with the intent to benefit women in education, not just sports affiliated with high schools and colleges. Patsy Mink, a representative from Hawaii who had been denied medical school admission on account of her gender, saw the measure as finally bringing the Civil Rights Act to its logical conclusion to include educational institutions and to expand protections to include gender as another aspect against which entities could not discriminate. The law has been fraught from the start and has met with resistance especially from American football programs. Each step of the way, those against Title IX have claimed its enforcement pushes men from programs as it helps women secure funding and/or places at the table, in the lecture hall or on playing fields.

With funding issues across every area of our society today, enforcement of Title IX continues to pit women against men, rather than deal with the issue of funding itself. Continually, American football programs claim they bring in the most revenue, and thus should be exempt from Title IX. Countless research into the actual cost versus the revenue brought in by such programs has shown these claims to be false. Instead, colleges cut minor men’s athletic programs in order to establish or fund programs for women. Thus, they contribute to the misguided idea that Title IX gives to women what it requires be taken from men. This is just business as usual to feminists who are used to this kind of rhetoric from male-dominated sports programs, such as football. The courts continue to support this “reverse” discrimination by not hearing or deciding against men’s programs that sue for equal funding. Time and again, court cases have claimed women’s programs can sue and that Title IX is for the protection of women, rather than to assure equality for both men and women.

There have been many books written about the differences Title IX has made for women. Princeton’s first female athletic director, Merrily Dean, described these changes stating that she “was called a tomboy” and that her “daughters are called athletes.” Her description is succinct and poignant. It shows how far we’ve come in just a few short decades with a piece of legislation that extended civil rights protections enacted just a decade earlier. The improvements of Title IX extend to the classroom and professors’ offices, not just the locker room. Women have found a place in the halls of academia as students and also as professors as a result of the legislation. Women were categorically denied desks in classrooms and were never considered for tenure or for department chair positions. With Title IX, they were able to demonstrate evidence of discrimination, and won hard-earned positions both as students and as teachers. Today, women often out-number men in colleges and universities, including graduate and professional programs. Title IX contributed to this state of affairs.

In both of these books, we are reminded it is not that women have been “kept home” or otherwise been relegated to the sidelines, per se. We must realize that scholarship has largely excluded the contributions of women. Not only have we ignored the stories of women, the stories we have ignored in history departments and publishing houses have been largely stories that stem from conditions of poverty, or other minority status, as well. As we move forward, and find more women in academia producing histories such as these two books in the Bedford Series, I hope we will see more of an inclusive, holistic history. We must go back to our universities and textbook publishers and demand the full story, the full HIS and HER story, from all socio-economic tiers and all experiences.

Girls Like Us and Coming of Age in Mississippi Book Reviews

First published September 20, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/09/20/u-s-womens-history-part-2-coming-of-age-in-mississippi-and-girls-like-us/

Last week, I began this four-part series exploring the books my daughter will read in her U.S. Womens History course at the University of Maine, Farmington. Today, inContext focuses on two texts: COMING OF AGE IN MISSISSIPPI by Anne Moody and GIRLS LIKE US by Sheila Weller. I’ll deal with the latter first.

IN GIRLS LIKE US: CAROLE KING, JONI MITCHELL, CARLY SIMON—AND THE JOURNEY OF A GENERATION, the author, Sheila Weller, promises to show us how each of these performing artists and song writers broke barriers for women and represent the coming-of-age of women in the 1960s. Frankly, the writing did not captivate me, seemed sporadic and disconnected and I felt as though Weller never got to the point. It was frustrating to read about songs and not have them quoted when the lyrics were tantamount to what was being discussed. Either the author assumed every reader would already know each woman’s catalog by heart, or she didn’t get permission to use the songs themselves. If the latter is the case, Weller might have mentioned this to ease the frustration of the reader. Additionally, there’s not much in the way of information directly from King, Mitchell or Simon.

All of the above said, I am familiar with some of the songs of each woman discussed inGIRLS LIKE US, and I see how each made her own contribution to paving the way for women in music, especially for the time in history in which each woman came of age and found her greatest success. I appreciate that Carole King had her children in tow as she went about writing lasting songs that spoke from and to her generation as well as those subsequent to her time. Joni Mitchell’s child born and given for adoption is surely a sign of the times. Finally, Carly Simon’s spurring of convention as an autonomous sexual person and also caretaking of her addicted husband, James Taylor, speak volumes. Unfortunately, I did not glean from Weller her ideas about the significance of each woman about whom she wrote. I did not get a sense of what Weller felt were their contributions. And, if the music industry today is any indication of the path paved by King, Mitchell and Simon, we see it is one strewn with carcasses lined by bushes more full of thorns than roses. (Of course I don’t fault any of the artists in the book with the condition of the music world for women. It’s just interesting to consider Weller’s view of them and their influence.)

COMING OF AGE IN MISSISSIPPI by Anne Moody depicts a wholly different experience and journey of a woman who lived in the 1960s. Rather than worry about whether someone would still love her tomorrow (paraphrasing the Carole King lyric), Anne Moody had to worry about whether she’d eat or even be alive to feel hunger the next morning. We see a black woman who shares her lived experience of the violence that took place over civil rights issues in the south. Moody’s history makes something like the treatment of blacks in a book like THE HELP seem not only mild, but also downright optimistic.

Some online reviewers doubt Moody’s story, such as her being left to care for an infant sibling before she herself was even school age, or her walking to school alone at age five. These detractors have obviously never read slave narratives. Children as young as five were put in charge of their white owners’ babies, and children as young as five were also ironing and cooking. It seems absurd to our notions today of what a five-year-old should have access to—a hot stove or iron—yet we’d be amazed not only at slave narratives, but also the life of any child before mandated education in our country, for example.

Moody writes about her mother working right through her pregnancies and immediately after delivering babies. When people comment on a CEO today taking just three weeks off for maternity leave, they are often judgmental because one would think a woman of means would have the option of taking more time. Poverty has always forced women to work, regardless of their health or that of their children. When white writers today complain about the dearth of eligible men for marriage, consider the plight of black men throughout history up to and including today and the availability of men to be breadwinners, husbands and fathers in the 1960s. That there existed a great divide between the north and south from the late 1850s through to today’s political divisions is a point driven home by the experiences of blacks living in Chicago versus any town or city in Mississippi.

While I’ve had occasion to be concerned for my bodily safety due to an attempted kidnapping in my early teens, I have never felt the same concern for my well-being as many blacks faced during the civil rights movement, or still face today in some areas of the U.S. It is humbling to consider that people feared being shot just for registering to vote, for example, or for even being seen with activists attempting to help them register to vote. Even within the violence suffered by those who initiated the suffrage movement, I do not believe that anyone has felt or feels the same mortal fear as that of blacks in Mississippi or Alabama, as examples, during the civil rights era. For an unforgettable rendering of such an eventful time, COMING OF AGE IN MISSISSIPPI provides a first-person account that will leave you thinking long and hard about racism and the effects of poverty.

Next week, in Part 3 of U.S. Women’s History, we’ll look at THE TRIANGLE FIRE and TITLE IX.

Department of Defense: It's O.K. to be Gay (or Lesbian) But Put Those Breasts Away

First published September 15, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/09/15/department-of-defense-its-o-k-to-be-gay-or-lesbian-but-put-those-breasts-away/

WHILE WEARING THEIR UNIFORMS, AIR FORCE SERVICEWOMEN, TERRAN ECHEGOYEN-MCCABE AND CHRISTINA LUNA, BREASTFEED THEIR CHILDREN. PHOTO BY BRYNJA SIGURDARDOTTIR. MSNBC

It will likely come as no surprise to most feminists that the Defense Department remains sexist, specifically against women (mothers), even as it embraces gay and lesbian enlisted and officer personnel. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled that the Department of Defense “gave in” and allowed members of the military to wear their uniforms in the Gay Pride Parade in San Diego July 21, 2012. It’s a sign that the military is recognizing the humanity of its members. I celebrate with all people who work for equality of all peoples, of all races, religions, ethnicities, and sexual orientation. Gender, well, that is one on which the Department of Defense still needs to work. One may be gay or lesbian and serve, yet nursing mothers are asked to stay in the closet, or bathroom.

Just a few months ago this spring, female Air Force members were chastised for allowing themselves to be photographed while breastfeeding their babies in a public relations campaign aimed at supporting breastfeeding among active duty moms. While the mothers in question are reported to have not suffered sanctions or punishment, that has been publicized, at least, there was uproar from within and outside the military. On websites and radio talk shows, men and women bristled at the thought of women in uniform nursing babies in public. The National Guard made a public statement claiming that regulations do not allow our military members to use their uniforms to promote any kind of cause.

PHOTO: OLIVIER HODAC

State legislatures have passed protective legislation around breastfeeding. These laws are aimed at protecting a woman’s right to breastfeed in public, and to view any disapproval by any party as discrimination and harassment. It seems bizarre that legislation had to be enacted so that women were not asked to leave malls, museums and other public places. Especially considering that women’s breasts are used in every manner possible to promote everything from cars to alcoholic beverages, women doing what is natural and healthy for their children being seen as vulgar seems incongruent. This is a testament to the sexism that exists in our society, and the attitude that women’s bodies are not their own, but rather for men. Breasts, when used for their natural and biologically intended purpose, are viewed as somehow undesirable, which, I suppose, is the point. Breasts that are feeding babies are viewed as unavailable sexually, and thus not for the public eye.

This is taken a step further in the military, which still seems not to know what to do with the presence of women in its midst. The issue is not just the photograph which has made the rounds of the Internet over the past several months. Women in the military who go to well-baby visits while on duty, when they are required to remain in uniform, are told they cannot breastfeed their children in the doctor’s waiting room. Those against women breastfeeding in uniform claim that breastfeeding undermines the authority of the uniform itself and cannot be done in a manner that maintains the decorum expected of active duty military members. Others who won’t condone breastfeeding in uniform claim that the act of breastfeeding feminizes and thus compromises or diminishes the authority conveyed by the uniform. That an act that is considered “feminine” detracts from authority speaks volumes about the pervasive sexism in the military.

A blog that deals with breastfeeding issues for women in the military brings up an interesting argument in this debate. First, there is no policy about women breastfeeding in uniform, and thus, individual commanders invoking their own policy based on their personal feelings is not adequate. Additionally, the argument is made that if a woman cannot breastfeed in public in uniform, then she should also be prohibited from bottle feeding. When viewed from that standpoint, it is interesting that we consider nurturing and feeding babies as an act that denigrates the uniform. What does that say about our military and our culture at large? Taken a step further (into absurdity, I admit), I suppose fathers returning from war zones should not embrace children or be pictured rolling in the grass with long-missed dogs upon homecomings. The act of embracing and lifting a child out of doors might disturb the cap worn by military members as required by uniform standards. Additionally, how can one take seriously a man who drops to his knees to tearily embrace his toddler? Isn’t his authority diminished? We see his human side, his nurturing side, and how can we then later take orders from him?

With the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” we have actually proven that even if someone is not heterosexual, he or she is still to be taken seriously and remains authoritative. We have seen military members embrace, both metaphorically and sometimes even physically, their comrades in arms who are gay or lesbian. The structure of the military and its authority have not been undermined by something less than our constructed definitions of masculinity. It is femininity that remains unable to be embraced.

This summer, public sentiment about the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the climate for acceptance of gay and lesbian members of the military were enough to topple the Defense Department. (Don’t tell the Taliban!) Typically, members of the military are prohibited from marching in parades in full uniform, according to the Department of Defense. In this case, when the parade is in support of sexual orientation, it would seem doubly egregious for uniformed military personnel to march, since not only does it go against policies about parades, but also supports a cause.

PHOTO: IAN S.

While San Diego is known as a military community with the Marines and Navy both based out of the area, it is also known as a city that embraces all lifestyles. (San Diego is even known as a “dog city” for those who want to live in a place that accepts pets as readily as people.) I think it is absolutely wonderful—a cause for celebration—that our men and women of the armed forces were allowed to wear their uniforms and march in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Parade, and a huge step forward for our country and society, in fact. What bothers me is that if any of our enlisted or officer moms marched or sat on the sidelines in uniform, that they would have been ridiculed and possibly disciplined for nursing their babies. It seems a total miscarriage of justice that mothers who serve our country are treated still as second-class citizens, and are asked to remain behind closed doors, in metaphorical closets, even as I celebrate the acceptance and equality of gay and lesbian soldiers.

Women's America: Refocusing the Past Book Review

First published September 13, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/09/13/september-6-2012/

Last weekend, my husband and I dropped our daughter off at the University of Maine, Farmington for her first semester of college. Of course, such a transition is fraught with conflicting emotions. Part of me as a mother fears every possible and unlikely fate that might befall a young woman in her first year of college. Another part of me is happy to have her out of the house, and many parents of teenagers might understand that part all too well themselves. What I’m excited about is that my daughter, who wrote her college essay about how she does not identify as a feminist, but rather a humanist (which she equates with egalitarian thought), will take HTY 246S U.S. Women’s History this fall. The course description states that the class will cover the political, social, economic and cultural aspects of history related to women. It will explore movements for women’s rights, women and work, differences between women of varied class, race and ethnicity along with women’s roles within family and community and the evolving nature of gender. It is my great hope that my daughter embraces feminism and comes to see it as the impetus for her egalitarian humanism.

My reason for sharing this information is to explore the six books required for my daughter’s course as subjects for inContext for a four-part series. The books we’ll look at include the following: COMING OF AGE IN MISSISSIPPI by Anne Moody, GIRLS LIKE US: CAROLE KING, JONI MITCHELL, CARLY SIMON—AND THE JOURNEY OF A GENERATION by Sheila Weller, ODD GIRL OUT by Ann Bannon, WOMEN’S AMERICA: REFOCUSING THE PAST by Linda K. Kerber, Jane Sherron De Hart and Cornelia Hughes Dayton, and two Bedford Series in History and Culture books, THE TRIANGLE FIRE by Jo Ann E. Argersinger and TITLE IX by Susan Ware.

The most comprehensive book, WOMEN’S AMERICA: REFOCUSING THE PAST includes excerpts from women’s history articles and texts along with documents that support each. Each period of United States history, from early settlements in the 1600s through industrialization and the frontier, to modern times is covered in this way. One excerpt fascinated me due to my recently acquired knowledge that Thomas Jefferson’s wife and his slave and lover Sally Hemmings shared the same father. The excerpt is from THE HEMMINGSES OF MONTICELLO: AN AMERICAN FAMILY by Annette Gordon-Reed. I have known for some time that Sally Hemmings, a slave in the Jefferson household, and Thomas Jefferson had a relationship. What I was not aware of was that Ms. Hemmings and Martha (Wayles) Jefferson shared the same father.

In reading the excerpt from Gordon-Reed’s book, I also learned about a relationship between Sally’s older sister, Mary Hemmings, and a merchant Thomas Bell. At one point, Jefferson hired Mary out to Bell on lease. When Jefferson returned from Paris, Mary Hemmings requested that she be sold to Bell, as she wished to live with him and their children. Jefferson complied with the request. It seems evident that in both the relationship between Thomas Bell and Mary and Thomas Jefferson and Sally, affection was mutual, and the relationship was not merely the keeping of a concubine by a slave owner. Of course, Gordon-Reed points out that we cannot know what the thoughts of any of these persons were since no record exists of their private thoughts.

Lest you think all of the articles are serious and scholarly, there’s an essay by Patricia Mainardi (taken from an anthology, SISTERHOOD IS POWERFUL: AN ANTHOLOGY OF WRITINGS FROM THE WOMEN’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT, edited by Robin Morgan) about housework that is fabulous. It made me laugh and cringe at the same time. Even in my egalitarian marriage, there are a few little things about the division of labor that irk my husband and me. For example, because he doesn’t wish to perform some tasks, like letter writing, that is my job. And, while I’m capable of taking care of insects that find their way into our house now and again, I don’t hesitate, on principle, to make him get out of bed to handle a spider before I get in the shower.

Next week, we’ll look at the experience of another generation of women of color through Anne Moody’s COMING OF AGE IN MISSISSIPPI. We’ll also see how women fared in the 1970s in the world of music through GIRLS LIKE US by Sheila Weller.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

First published September 6, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/09/06/no-more-mr-nice-guy/

PHOTO CREDIT: LEWISHA JONES

I’ve been thinking about the recent sentencing of Tony Farmer, and his ex-girlfriend’s reaction. Mr. Farmer was a basketball hero at his high school, with serious recruitment potential and a shot at the dream life so many young people in sports stoke as motivation for practicing, excelling in school along with their sport and taking on all manner of challenges to reach their goals. When Mr. Farmer was sentenced, Andrea Lane, his ex-girlfriend and the victim of the crimes for which he was sentenced, broke down in court. She is quoted as telling a newspaper in Cleveland that she thinks Mr. Farmer was a good person, and that she hoped he still was. Rather than write about violence against women, privilege in sports or anything else like that, I write herein an open letter to Andrea Lane. However, the letter is also to any person who is the victim of assault by an intimate partner especially. Often, if the perpetrator (male or female) is an otherwise upstanding citizen, the victim is blamed for “taking down” the perpetrator, in a cruel twist of fate that delegitimizes victims and helps perpetuate partner violence. This kind of thought could be applied to the controversy over Joe Paterno, (or anyone else connected to the horrific, long-term abuse that took place at Penn State) and anyplace or time when victims are blamed for disparaging someone who is otherwise highly lauded and respected in other realms of life.

Here is my open letter to Andrea Lane, the victim of assault, kidnapping and robbery perpetrated by Tony Farmer, a young man with sports potential.

Dear Andrea:

When a man assaults you, kidnaps you, drags you by the hair, steals from you and then threatens to cause you more harm if you testify against him for the crimes he’s committed, he is no longer a good person as you told the CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER. A good person does not hit or otherwise harm his girlfriend. He does not steal from her and he does not threaten her. Sure, your former boyfriend may have a lot of people on his side. As we have seen in our society, from the likes of O.J. Simpson to Michael Vick, men who have money and social standing from careers in sports are often forgiven for heinous acts and even crimes. (And, no, I am NOT going there about Mr. Simpson’s guilt or innocence with the murder charges. The truth is that Mr. Simpson was not a “good person” merely due to his assault of the former Mrs. Simpson, which is on tape and undeniable.)

Yes, “good people” can do bad things, and feel remorse and even attempt retribution or other repair to the lives they have damaged with their actions. And, as much as the world loves a “come back kid” story, I always think of the kids who do not behave in such a way, and ask why they are never lauded. The best people don’t “mess up” in such major (or violent) ways.

Ms. Lane, you did not end the potential success or basketball career of Tony Farmer. He did that himself when he assaulted, kidnapped, stole from and intimidated you. He was shocked at his sentencing because he was shocked to be sentenced at all. He figured that with everyone else rooting for him, he’d be free to return to his golden life while you dealt with being his unfortunate ex-girlfriend. Who would sentence a young man with such potential? I mean, basketball is more important than some silly girl, right? Wrong, and the judge in this case determined that justice be served rather than hoops.

In fact, you might consider that Tony’s actions were even more inexcusable given his opportunities in life. If he was truly concerned with his basketball potential, his focus might have been there versus arguing with you. Even in an argument, he might have considered all he might lose if he behaved in a way that was not only cruel, but also illegal. If Mr. Farmer was such a good person, he may not have collapsed in court, either, but rather held his resolve, realizing that he alone was responsible for his actions, and therefore responsible for answering to those actions. Rather, he saw his name in the lights disappear. He saw the name on the back of the jersey disappear, like too much bleach added to the wash. He did not see your cowering, fearful self, or himself as the cause of your terror.

While Mr. Farmer may not have serial killer potential, there are women who interacted with the infamous Ted Bundy, and found him to be a wonderful man. Anne Rule (the author of THE STRANGER BESIDE ME) worked with Mr. Bundy at a suicide hotline. In him, at the time, she saw a volunteer who helped people—one side of a man who brutally murdered women. Elizabeth Kendall (author of THE PHANTOM PRINCE) was Mr. Bundy’s girlfriend. He acted as a father to her child from a previous relationship. While both of these women offered information to police that finally helped them catch Mr. Bundy, for the longest time, neither wanted to believe that their “prince” or that the nice guy who volunteered with them, was the mysterious, elusive killer he turned out to be. I don’t think that Tony Farmer is a potential serial killer. However, without just punishment for the crimes he committed, he might have turned out to be at least a serial abuser of women. Just because someone does good things, does not necessarily make him a good person if he also does awful things.

I wrote a while back about my own connection to domestic violence. I do not condemn Tony Farmer as a life-long abuser. There is potential that he might just be a “good person” again, one who does not perpetuate violence in his future relationships. Hopefully, his jail time will include correctional aspects so that he realizes the error of violence as a reaction to conflict.

Andrea, Tony may have been a great basketball player. He might have had a future of which so many young people dream. It was not you who toppled the tall basketball player. He alone is responsible for cutting short his own potential. Remember that.