People across the nation are expressing their concern for the health and career of Robert Griffin III, one of the finest young men to represent Washington on the national stage. So imagine my shock to read, while Griffin was still on an operating table, that Courtland Milloy had chosen such a moment to grind his ax regarding the Redskins’ name and logo [“What’s in a name? For the Redskins, bad karma,” Metro, Jan. 9].
Milloy wrote that the reason Griffin “limp[ed] into battle on that injured knee” was because of the “bad karma” he has brought down upon himself by playing for Washington. Milloy then informed me that if I, as a diehard football fan, don’t agree with his assessment, he suspects that I have “only two ways of dealing with these kinds of disagreements: racist Internet comments — and fistfights in the stands.” I don’t indulge in either activity, even when a bombastic columnist tries to pick a fight, exhibits such incredible insensitivity to the feelings of others and maligns sports fans, our team and its quarterback all in one article.
Dennis Foster, Charlottesville
I found Courtland Milloy’s Jan. 9 Metro column to be offensive, as well as commentary unworthy of The Post. To suggest that Robert Griffin III’s knee injury was payback for his team’s continued use of the name Redskins demeaned Griffin, the organization and their community of fans. I respect Milloy’s right to argue that the name should be changed, but RGIII’s injury should not be a platform for that change. I am appalled by his lack of sensitivity to what this young man and, by extension, his fans are experiencing.
Sally Wright, Paris, Va.
The Jan. 8 editorial “The problem at Penn State” took the governor of Pennsylvania to task for initiating litigation against the NCAA over its excessive sanctions against Penn State in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal.
The Post asserted that the NCAA’s punishment (including a $60 million fine, a four-year ban on bowl appearances and a significant reduction in future football scholarships) was justified, given the finding of the Louis Freeh investigation that “the prominence of the football program” has resulted in a tail-wagging-the-dog mentality at Penn State. In other words, the entire culture of venerating college football set the stage, and thus the imprisonment of Sandusky, the humiliating firing of coaching legend Joe Paterno and the summary dismissals of the athletic director and university president (both of whom now face criminal charges) are somehow insufficient deterrents to coverups.
This line of reasoning maintains that the legions of Penn State alumni, fans, students and their families were, by their very adoration, complicit in the egregious misconduct of the principals and deserved an extended stay in the NCAA’s woodshed to send the right message. This reproof seems strange, coming from a newspaper that regularly places Redskins developments on its front page and, on the morning after the Redskins’ recent playoff defeat, chronicled the event with no less than 10 articles and columns. That outpouring was followed, on the very day of the Penn State editorial, with eight Redskin articles or columns on the aftermath of that defeat and the controversial handling of the quarterback’s injury (not counting Eugene Robinson’s op-ed on the topic or the three Redskins-related letters adorned by a glistening photo of the iconic RGIII).
Ken Barry, Vienna