Rollins Football History: Sport and Culture in the Southern Mind

Rollins Football Team, 1907

Rollins Football Team, 1908

Rollins Football Team, 1921










Do you remember the Rollins Football team? Probably not, the Football program at Rollins was dropped in 1949. The problems associated with college football are well known, especially for smaller colleges that try to support those programs. In the long run, the lack of football saved the college money and time.

Today, the football team is punchline for a college T-shirt and nice trivia question. Yet, the football program at Rollins also gives historians and those interested in sport history a chance to examine race relations in Florida. In 1947, the Homecoming game between Rollins College and Ohio Wesleyan was canceled because the Ohio Wesleyan team wanted to bring an African-American player. When Hamilton Holt, the college president, announced that the Rollins v. Wesleyan football game was canceled, he stressed that the college made this decision to preserve the racial balance in the community. The issue at hand was simple. Should Ohio’s Kenneth Woodward, a Black running back, be allow to play in the game.

The crisis was created in part because the Ohio Wesleyan team, which has promised not to bring Woodward, reversed their decision and press to bring their teammate. Face with allowing the African-American player to attend or suspending the homecoming game, the Board of Trustees and the President chose to stop the game. In deciding to cancel the game, Holt was force to articulate his position on race in United States. A founding member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Holt was known for his public stands against racial and social intolerance.

Holt argued that while his own family history and personal sentiment opposed racial discrimination, the decision to stop the football game was driven by a desire to preserve the racial climate in Winter Park. The decision to call off the game of course drew attention from people on both side of the issue. Some condemned the decision, while others were mindful of the problems that would have been created by allowing an African-American player to freely compete in the Jim Crow South. Indeed, the racial climate in 1947 offered ample proof that Jim Crow restriction on African-American would be enforced through violence and intimidation. Nonetheless, there was clear evidence that African-Americans were unwilling to take such abuse.

In 1944, a statewide NAACP chapter, under the leadership of Harry T. Moore, began a campaign against lynching and in 1944 the group won a major victory when the state's white only democratic primary was ruled unconstitutional. Moreover, Moore was instrumental in raising African-American voter registration in Florida from five percent in 1934 to thirty percent in 1950, the highest in the South. Moore's story emphasize African-American desire overcome segregation's restriction, but his death in 1951 in a bombing highlights the fears that drove Holt's decision.

The recent story about the creation of a football club on campus has refocused attention on Rollins' Football history. While football's appeal in southern culture has only increased since the end of Rollin's program, the reality of funding a football program have not gotten easier. Indeed, the controversy over the cost of collegiate sport has grown more heated as rising tuition costs lead observers to question the future of access to higher education. Strangely, while professor's salaries are an open question for many critics of higher education, costs associate with sport are seemly accepted. Indeed, while professor salaries have grown little, major salaries for coaches, especially football coaches at major programs have been and continue to be formidable. Whether or not the current effort will result in a return to Rollins' glory days as a football power is yet to be determined. Still, the issues tied to football's re-emergence on campus go beyond play and touch on vital questions linked to rising costs in higher education.

A Hundred Years Later: Our Link to the NAACP

The U.S. Senate's passage of a resolution apologizing for slavery and of course the 100th anniversary of the founding of the NAACP give me reason to focus on African-American history. The fact we have an African-American president in 2009 and the Senate passed a resolution saying, "Sorry about that slavery thing...." can't be unconnected. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was created in 1909 and driven by the desire for the immediate achievement of African-American political, economic, and social rights. Of course, as the best known, and in some circles, most respected civil rights organization in the United States, this anniversary should and is important. Perhaps it is more important in 2009 because some observers are asking themselves, "Is the NAACP still needed?" The question is misguided, but worth thinking about. The case for the end of the NAACP is obvious. There is a African-American president, one elected by the majority of U.S. citizens. If this is possible, we must have "solved" our race problems. These comments have some merit. Indeed, if we could talk to the group that founded the NAACP in 1909, I think some of them would feel the NAACP had accomplished much of what it wanted to achieve. I know, bold words, but given that one founding member of the NAACP was Hamilton Holt, we can judge from his writing and comments what his hopes were in terms of race relations. Holt's work as editor of the Independent, a liberal weekly prior to becoming college president made it clear he believed that race should not be used as barrier to opportunity. His support for racial equality in the pages of the Independent continued as college president. His decision to give Mary McLeod Bethune an honorary degree in 1949 challenged southern racism. Yet, Holt's thinking about race did not and could not take into account structural barriers left behind from Jim Crow segregation. While we no longer have "separate but equal" as a standard, we have a legacy of race base thinking that diminishes all Americans.

The hope that race no longer plays a role in defining the lives of American citizens is worthwhile goal. Reaching a moment in time where race is neutral factor in people's live will mean that we have let go prejudices and beliefs that marginalize people of color. The problem is that race continues to define lives of many Americans in ways that have been documented by cold hard statics on hiring, wealth creation, and access to basic service and my random event like the arrest of well known black Harvard professor like Henry Louis Gates. The belief that African-American spend too much time speaking about race, a comment that emerged several time over the last few weeks. It is an easy comment for white commentators. The reality, often ignored by conservative critics, is that African-American must think about race because they face the negative effects from racism, while White people never need to think about the positive effect that come from whiteness.

The goal of a post-racial society, where racial identity doesn't effect perception or opportunity is far from a reality. If that is the case, a civil right organization like the NAACP still has some role in society. Whether or not the NAACP current agenda is the right one is a better question to ask. Fighting the battles that you fought a hundred years ago is not going to win the war. Indeed, if we consider the problem facing African-Americans: access to education, chronic unemployment, the effect of drugs(crime related to drugs)and chronic health concerns. We see that a more complex and nuisance approach to understanding how race affects African-American life is needed. Case in point, the Henry Louis Gate incident. Some people will say the policeman was racist. Indeed, the police in Cambridge have a history of defending themselves against charges of racial profiling. Gates' reaction will also be put on trial. Did he overreact to the police answering a call about a possible crime? For my part, I want someone to interview the "neighbor" who forgot she lived next door to one of the most famous African-American intellectuals alive today!?!?!


There is no question race played a part in the incident, but not in ways that are cut and dry. No doubt the officer, face with a possible crime, needed to be sure of Gates' identity. As an expert on racial profiling he will never admit color might has effected his actions. Nor will observers agree that Gates had a right to demand the officer badge number and name (something he did have the right to ask) For Gates, the implication that his civil rights were being violated by a police officer and his determination to assert his rights (something African-American have not been able to do for much of the country's history) added to a tense situation. Would a white guy have gotten angry about this incident? The answer is probably yes. Would the white guy have been arrested? The answer to that is probably no. This incident only matters because it was a white officer and black man. Two white guys or two black guys would not have been a media moment. Indeed, the media moment represents the reality of race. White observers feel frustrated that they have elected an African-American president and yet, they are still being called racist. African-Americans are frustrated that the real problems associated with race has never been acknowledged or dealt with in a systematic way. The NAACP will point to the problem of racial profiling and talk about the problem of minorities facing undue attention from the police. Yet, the dialogue about race, power, and opportunity in the United States remains just over the horizon. The reality of an African-American president make this dialogue more likely, but other pressing national problems stand in the way. In the meantime, I think we can expect a low-level simmer on the race question as the United States struggles to find a balance between silence and truth about the importance of race in the American experience.