Rembert Browne writes in Grantland:
“His status as a Cardinal has been juxtaposed with repugnant comments about his character. In this narrative, he can’t be a ‘thug’ because he went to Stanford. But his Stanford-ness isn’t what magically makes him not a thug. …
“And then what? Had he gone to the University of Miami, would he be just another link in the chain of thug athletes from the U? Probably. What if he went to a Historically Black College, like Morehouse or Howard? Or what about a junior college? Or what about Harvard?
“All of these things would unfairly impact the thug narrative of Richard Sherman. And that’s unfortunate, because the ‘He went to Stanford’ card was long used as a way to get people off his back. And while the intentions were good, and helped shift some of the conversation about him back in his favor, it shouldn’t be a primary argument when given the all-too-common task of proving someone isn’t a thug. If anything, it’s harmful logic. Because the next Richard Sherman may not have attended Stanford. So what then?”