Commentary: Don’t blame Dabo; Twitter ban self-imposed by players

Scroll through your Twitter timeline. Check your Facebook wall. Refresh your Instagram feed.

You won’t find a post from a Clemson University football player. Instead, you may find a steady stream of posts about their absence.

At the start of preseason camp, Clemson players initiated a season-long ban on social media. They’re still permitted to monitor Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or Snapchat, but are discouraged from using those services to share pleasantries with supporters or exchange fire with foes.

News of the ban has stirred varying reactions on social media. A collection of complimentary posts suggests the policy should be adopted in every program. A series of disparaging tweets would make one believe coach Dabo Swinney has commanded players to switch to flip phones and ordered football dorms to be constructed under a rock.

Critics continuously miss a critical point of the ban. It’s self-imposed by the players.

Seniors voted to implement the ban each season since 2012. No sane person votes for something if they deem it oppressive. Yet, that distinction hasn’t knocked detractors off their cyber soapboxes.

Critics contend Clemson is limiting players’ growth as adults by shielding them from outside interaction. If Twitter and Instagram are serving life lessons on maturity, then several adults apparently skipped that class. There are episodes of the “Jerry Springer Show” with more dignity and decorum than some Facebook comment threads.

Certainly, social media can teach users to synthesize information, resolve conflict, manage their personal brand and, most importantly, exercise restraint. However, those lessons aren’t exclusive to social media.

They’re also learned on a campus courtyard, in a classroom, in a supermarket, in a media interview, in a meeting room, on a practice field — where people are actually required to talk to one another.

Social media doesn’t accurately reflect interpersonal interaction in society, unless there’s some society where folks scream at each other in a series of 140-character tirades.

Last year, Ryan Norton received death threats via social media after an errant snap late in the loss to Florida State. I doubt any of those tough guys would have voiced their concerns if they were within arm’s length of Norton.

Social media emboldens cowards to throw flaming stones and then hide their hands — and their faces. Pointing the finger is much easier when it’s pointing only at the send button. Conversely, floods of praise also can deluge players in delusion. Flattery can be just as disruptive as unnecessary debates.

Evidently, Clemson players measured the opportunity cost of social media. They weighed the benefits of engaging fans and promoting themselves against the risks of unproductive conversations and wasted time. They determined that during the season, tweets and pics aren’t worth the effort. They determined that the hours they usually spend on their timelines could be utilized more efficiently.

That’s the kind of reasoned assessment mature, motivated young men make. Critics can disagree with the policy, but their personal aversion to the ban doesn’t substantiate claims of injustice. Additionally, the widespread devotion to social media should not inflate its importance.

Social media is an excellent tool for communication. It also can become a compulsion. Everyone needs to unplug occasionally.

This story was originally published August 19, 2015 at 2:51 PM.