Last week the Colorado Mesa University Men’s Lacrosse team had a dominating performance against Johnson and Wales, defeating them 52-0. After an angry letter to The Criterion and some public negative attention, CMU issued a statement apologizing for the overwhelming victory. The apology was both right and wrong.
The administration and the athletic department were smart to issue the statement because it’s important in modern society to avoid being labelled as heartless. In the day of participation trophies and safe spaces, it has become unacceptable to be great.
That is the environment that CMU must survive in. Some individuals have criticized the university for apologizing, but they ought to realize the need to apologize was a foregone conclusion. Anybody in the same kind of public spotlight would have made the same choice.
The problem isn’t the apology. It’s the obnoxious need to apologize for everything that is the problem. That is why it was also wrong. It wasn’t wrong of CMU to say “sorry we were better,” but the need to do so is a terrible statement about the world we live in.
We can no longer celebrate greatness or success. Shame is now a required feature of accomplishment. We have to appeal to the loudest tantrums and coddle everyone for fear that somebody may have their delicate little feelings hurt.
There is an old saying “the inmates are running the asylum,” which makes a statement of lunacy in authority. This, however, goes further than that. It’s not about insanity; it’s about infantile behavior dictating everything.
Demanding a team and university feel bad and apologize for having a vastly better team than their opponent is worse than inmates running the asylum; it’s toddlers running the nursery.
The real world doesn’t have participation trophies; it has winners and losers. Sometimes the winning and losing is close and sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes life straight up knocks us down and kicks us hard while we’re there. And it doesn’t apologize for doing it.
That is why we ought to celebrate our wins and find the resiliency to get through our losses. It should happen in sports and it should happen in life.
If we go crying “unsportsmanlike!” just because we lose dramatically, we’re not championing right and wrong; we’re just stamping our feet because we didn’t get our way.
When we support that kind of behavior through apology, we validate and reinforce the behavior. That is precisely what modern society has done long before CMU had to say “sorry we’re better than Johnson and Wales.”
What we all should be doing is celebrating the win rather than arguing about the results. CMU had a record performance. That seems to have been lost in the commotion.
Greatness and success is something we should aspire to, not apologize for. Let’s get back to that. Doing so is bigger than one game and bigger than CMU. It takes all of society to stop whining about losing and return to celebrating winning.
So true! This is a great group of young men! Way to hold your head high!
A very strong editorial that I fully believe in.
I think it’s obvious that the author didn’t speak to anyone that was actually at the game prior to writing this. The issue wasn’t that the final score was so intense, it was the choices made by those playing and coaching.
The problems discussed in the article are tangentially related to the issue at best. We don’t issue apologies for every win, however this one was substantial and had additional circumstances that demanded a response. Talk to the coaches involved. Talk to the players. They knew something was in the air.
To be clear, I appreciate the Crite since it is an outlet for student voices and helps other students learn about the community on campus. I also enjoy reading many articles out of the paper when I can. However, this article lectures (like many other this year) the reader in a rather harsh manner. If you are trying to get individuals in the community upset with the Crite, then go ahead. Keep printing like you have been. If you want to bring a community together, be more constructive with your criticism.
These articles criticizing the university have no sources.
Significant questions this article fails to address: Who was involved? Who can students talk to learn more from? What is this all about? What was the previous record? What other articles can I read to learn more? Where along chain of command were these decisions made? Why does the author have credibility on this? How did the oposing university react? Are there specific community members who feel strongly about this topic to quote?
What the article does: “Ah jeez, people are upset because CMU won! To hell with them, they obviously are pieces of trash who don’t understand that I’m far superior.”
After having spoken to the editor, I will say that most of my accusations last night were in error. I’m sorry for that and I shouldn’t have assumed so little of the editor.
However, I still have concerns with how the article comes off, but this is not the place for that discussion.