By wading into the highly contentious issue of Native American nicknames and mascots for college sports teams on Friday, National Collegiate Athletic Association leaders achieved their stated aim of sending a clear message that they object to such imagery. But the NCAA also created a cacophony of confusion and put the association in the potentially uncomfortable position of judging when Native American references are “hostile” and “abusive” and when they’re not – questions that could take months, and possibly help from the courts, to resolve.
Four years after the NCAA began looking into the subject, its executive committee announced that beginning in February, it would limit participation in its own postseason championships for 18 colleges and universities with Native American mascots, nicknames or other imagery that the association deemed "hostile and abusive."
The NCAA said that (1) it would no longer let such institutions play host to its national tournaments; (2) colleges already scheduled to sponsor such events would have to eliminate any references to the Indian imagery from the arenas or stadiums; (3) such colleges could not bring mascots, cheerleaders or any other people or paraphernalia that feature Native American imagery to NCAA championships, beginning in 2008; and (4) athletes may not wear uniforms or other gear with "hostile and abusive" references at NCAA tournament events. (The NCAA’s actions don’t directly affect bowl games, which the association does not control, or anything that happens in the regular season.)
Answer: The story begins with a beat cop walking down a New York City street on a rainy, windy night. The cop projects a sense of strength and rectitude, and takes his rounds very seriously, trying all the doors of the shops as he passes them to ensure that they are locked and secured for the evening. When he sees a man standing near one of the closed stores, he approaches, and the man begins to explain his presence, telling him that he is waiting for an old friend. Twenty years before, he and his friend made a pact to meet at that site. He acknowledges that it’s a pretty odd place to meet, explaining that twenty years before it was a restaurant owned by a man named Big Joe Brady. The cop tells him that the restaurant closed down about five years before.
The man, who is wearing a very large jewel as a tie pin, goes on to tell the cop that twenty years before he met his friend Jimmy Wells there. They were best friends and had grown up in New York City. He describes them as almost like brothers. The day after their dinner the man was scheduled to begin a trip out West to seek his fortune, but Jimmy believed the best place for him to be was New York, and opted to stay behind. They then made their agreement to meet on the same spot in twenty years, because they were each confident of having achieved great things in that time. The cop finds himself interested in the story, and asks if they stayed in touch during that time. The man admits that they tried to and wrote each other for a little while, but stopped after a few years. He moved around too much to keep up a correspondence. Despite this gap in their communication, the man is confident that Jimmy will meet him as promised, because Jimmy was an extremely reliable person. He tells the cop that he traveled a very long way to be there, but will consider it worth it if he gets to see his friend again. He checks the time on an expensive watch and notes that it is three minutes to ten, and ten o’clock was when they said goodbye twenty years before.
The cop, noting the jewel and the watch, suggests that the man was very successful out West, and the man enthusiastically confirms this. He expresses hope that Jimmy has done just as well for himself, but he notes that Jimmy was a ‛slow mover’ and is worried he may not have made his way very far in New York City.
The cop makes to leave, and offers his hope that Jimmy shows up. He asks if the man will leave if Jimmy doesn’t make it by ten o’clock. The man says he’ll wait at least an additional half hour, because he has total faith that if Jimmy is alive he will make the appointment. The cop accepts this and leaves.The rain gets heavier, and the man waits. After about twenty minutes, a tall man appears wearing a long coat and hurries over. He asks if the man’s name if Bob, but sounds doubtful. The man says it is, and asks if it’s Jimmy Wells. He is, and they shake. Jimmy expresses a wish that the old restaurant was still there so they could have one more dinner in it, and then asks if Bob’s time out West was good to him. Bob assures him that it has been.
Bob then notes that Jimmy seems to be taller than he used to be, and Jimmy assures him that he grew a little after he left. Bob asks if Jimmy’s doing well, and Jimmy says he is, and that he works for the city. Jimmy suggests they go to a place he knows so they can talk.
Bob and Jimmy begin to walk, arm in arm. Bob tells Jimmy the story of his life, and Jimmy listens, obviously interested. When they reach a corner and stand under a streetlight, however, Bob pulls away and declares that the other man is not Jimmy Wells.
Explanation:
Answer:
This should be foreshadowing. Hope this helps!
Explanation:
Answer:
It means that someone is making change for the better. Advocating for something, trying to change the way we do things.
Explanation: