Interesting e-mail this morning from Allen, who writes:
"The UK Quarterback situation is unfortunate. Each of your articles in this morning's paper treated it most appropriately. However, here is a thought that merits some consideration. Why are college athletes referred to by coaches and sports writers as 'kids'?
"Use of the word has a connotation of someone who is somehow not of an age to be responsible for their individual actions. Upon entering college or shortly thereafter, most college athletes are 18 years of age. These are young people old enough to vote for President, old enough to repair the brakes on your car and old enough to serve in the military with the responsibility that carrying a weapon and using it entails. Yet, through 1-5 years of college and even after reaching age 21 or older they are still 'kids' to coaches and writers.
"I guess that is because they are still playing games, the maturation process has been slowed and
they should not be held fully accountable for their actions without multiple chances.
"Would you be giving the mechanic who is 19 or 20 a second chance to fix your brakes properly? Young men and women are not 'kids'. To continue to use 'kids' is a disservice to young college
athletes."
Your thoughts?
Maturation is a gradual process that doesn’t happen at the same ages for all people. Some of those 18 and 19 year olds have the maturity to make good decisions and behave responsibly. Some don’t. College athletes should face consequences for their mistakes, but should also have the chance to make amends. How harsh the consequences and how many second chances are best left up to the coaches who know best those players’ maturity level. For sportswriters to use the word “kid” outside of a direct quotation is presumptuous of that individual player’s maturity and should only be used with the utmost care.
People should lighten up.