Jim Harbaugh Is Not A Food Critic Comment Count

Ace


[Eric Upchurch/MGoBlog]

Jim Harbaugh is the first person to admit he's obsessed with football. Everything else is secondary. This is a man who traveled to Paris with his wife, went to a Mexican restaurant that appears to be decent but by no means world-renowned, and declared it the best restaurant while also boiling down his personality into a damn near perfect tweet.

Harbaugh is a blunt instrument. He doesn't get sick. He doesn't take holidays. He's a jackhammer. We know this.

Harbaugh also has strong ties to the military. One of his oldest, closest friends is retired Marine colonel Jim Minick, who now serves at Michigan's director of football operations. He has a well-documented history of bringing in military officers to speak to his teams. He stops by Omaha Beach while on vacation. He welcomes servicemen into his office and genuinely looks more excited to take a photo with them than vice versa.

Which brings us to yesterday. Harbaugh emerged from the fall camp submarine—his term; he's also referred to it as a "bunker"—to address the media for the first game-week press conference of the season. Harbaugh is well-known for his unpredictable, off-the-cuff answers in pressers (not to mention on Twitter). We have a "jim harbaugh says things he probably shouldn't" tag, and the proprietor of this site has described him as "being himself at maximum volume at all times" on multiple occasions.

The odds that Harbaugh had the time or inclination to seriously ponder Colin Kaepernick's protest of the national anthem before the press conference are exceedingly low. This is a football coach known for being way more football-obsessed than even the average football-obsessed football coach. He's briefly emerging from three weeks of fall camp and its four-hour practices and endless film study to talk about the Hawaii game. He's probably aware of the basic details of Kaepernick's protest, but that's not anywhere close to his primary focus. He's thinking about his team, preparing for Hawaii, and not letting on anything about the ongoing quarterback competition.

[Hit THE JUMP.]

Fifteen minutes into a twenty-minute presser, Harbaugh is asked about Kaepernick. This is how our press conference correspondent, Adam Schnepp, transcribed the exchange:

As someone who knows Colin Kaepernick, what do you think about his stance to sit during the Anthem, and do you think it will cost him his job with the 49ers?

“I acknowledge his right to do that, but…I don’t respect the…the motivation or the…or the action.”

He pauses three times in that one sentence, which stands in stark contrast to the rest of the presser. The video shows a man who is searching for the right words and isn't quite sure he found them:

Harbaugh went off-the-cuff, which is his nature. He didn't choose his words carefully.

Colin Kaepernick, on the other hand, has spent a great deal of time thinking about his motivation and his action. After the media picked up on his protest, he spent 18 minutes discussing in detail why he won't stand for the national anthem. Before that, he addressed the 49ers in a players-only meeting, one that teammates described as both "productive and informative." At least one player whose initial reaction mirrored Harbaugh's emerged from the meeting with a different mindset:

“To be honest with you, I took offense to it,” 49ers center Daniel Kilgore said upon learning Kaepernick opted not to stand for the Star-Spangled Banner out of protest for what he sees as injustice for minorities in the United States.

“But after Kap stating his case today, and seeing where he was coming from, I do stand with Kap when he says, ‘Enough is enough against crime and the violence, discrimination and racism.’

“I believe enough is enough. I can see where people would think it’s bad with the national anthem and the military. For me, I’m going to stand there every time. I’m going to think about and honor those who are fighting and those who have fought, my family members, my friends. If Kap decides not to, that’s his decision.”

While Kilgore may not be joining Kaepernick in protest, he acknowledges and understands the impetus behind it, and that is a critical distinction.

Harbaugh, unlike Kilgore, didn't talk to Kaepernick this week. My assumption, based on Harbaugh's reaction and that of many others, as well as his background, is that he viewed Kaepernick's protest as a disrespectful act to the military, to which the flag and the anthem are inextricably linked; just look at Michigan's upcoming military appreciation festivities for the UCF game, which will feature "two large American field flags [that] will be held by over 150 veterans and service members" during the anthem among several other military tributes. I doubt he'd considered Kaepernick's pointed views on police violence, not to mention his direct experience with it:

-Q: Have you ever been pulled over unjustly or had a bad experience in that regard?

-KAEPERNICK: Yes. Multiple times.

I mean, I’ve had times where one of my roommates was moving out of a house in college and because we were the only black people in that neighborhood, the cops got called and all of us had guns drawn on us. I mean, came in the house without knocking, guns drawn, on one of my teammates and roommates.

So I have experienced this. People close to me have experienced this. This isn’t something that’s a one-off case here, a one-off case there.

When Harbaugh initially said he didn't respect Kaepernick's "motivation," he unwittingly invalidated the very real issues that Kaepernick is addressing with his act of protest. It was one of the worst possible word choices.  Immediately after the press conference ended, he corrected that error:

If Harbaugh had said that initially, he wouldn't be in the midst of a media firestorm, or at least not one that's nearly this heated. While he still takes exception to Kaepernick's action, that's a position that doesn't invalidate years, decades, centuries of America's history, as well as the present state of relations between police and minorities in many parts of this country.

You may still disagree with Harbaugh. Kaepernick's protest is nonviolent, even nonintrusive—he sat for the anthem in the first preseason game, too, and nobody noticed—and when the media picked up on it, it sparked a nation-wide conversation that's led to some remarkable revelations. I majored in history; without Kaepernick's protest, I wouldn't be aware of the third verse of the Star Spangled Banner. That appears to be the case with one of Harbaugh's star players, Jourdan Lewis, as well. If the goal of protest—a deeply American act dating back to the very genesis of this country—is to raise awareness of issues and drive change, Kaepernick hit the mark; again, look at the reaction from his teammates after the players-only meeting.

You may still disagree with Kaepernick, too. The national anthem and the flag are symbols that, for many of us, stand for freedom, equality, and the sacrifices so many have made to uphold those values. Kaepernick's freedom of expression extends to his critics, and they have a valid point, too: many, many people have died fighting for the country and values that flag symbolizes, and Kaepernick's actions can be interpreted as disrespect of that country and those values in that context. I can't know for sure, but it's quite possible Harbaugh feels that way.

This is all well and good as long as there's an acknowledgment that this discussion has valid opinions on both sides. Harbaugh's initial statement didn't leave room for that. His clarification did.

In an ideal world, Harbaugh would've been prepared to address the issue—the question wasn't hard to see coming—and better express his true feelings on the matter, or acknowledge that he wasn't ready to address it and put forth a no comment. His brother, Baltimore Ravens coach John Harbaugh, had thought through his answer enough to quote Voltaire when asked about Kaepernick:

"Voltaire so eloquently stated, 'I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend it until death your right to say it,'" John Harbaugh said. "That's a principle that our country is founded on. I don't think you cannot deny someone the right to speak out or mock or make fun or belittle anybody else's opinion."

Jim Harbaugh, however, is a blunt instrument. He answered the question. By his own admission, he missed the mark.

I hate when people tell sports figures to stick to sports. These are people with experiences and opinions that are often quite valuable, and they have a larger platform than most. Context matters, though. Jim Harbaugh is not a food critic. He is not a politician. He is not a social commentator. He is a football coach. We shouldn't be surprised that he sounded like one when asked to address a complicated, nuanced, and controversial social issue in between questions about the depth chart and this season's schedule.

Comments

CompleteLunacy

August 30th, 2016 at 7:08 PM ^

Statistics can be shown to back up anything you want. I see systemic problems where you see nothing "significant". I see whole DOJ  reports from certain cities like Ferguson, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. etc. etc. that statistically show, very clearly, that African Americans are disproportionately targeted. I'm not just making this up. Generally if a whole group of people is feeling discriminated against in a certain way, the answer isn't to stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is fine and THEYRE the ones who are wrong.  And quite frankly it's upsetting when people say it doesn't exist and just quote nebulous "statistics" as if it is plain fact, and it's not.

The reality is murky...it always is when dealing with human beings on a social level like this. But you can't even recognize any issue? Come on. People don't just protest for nothing.

WindyCityBlue

August 30th, 2016 at 11:29 PM ^

Did I say it didn't exist?  No.  So let me be clear, it certainly does exist out there, no doubt.  Perhaps we disagree on extent.

As someone who is fiercely apolitical with a degree in biochemistry from Michigan, I tend to analyze social issues with facts and figures, as oppose to political agendas.  I like to think I'm objective about these types of issues.  The biggest tenent in this regard is that correlation does NOT equal causation.  You mentioned that African Americans are disproportionally "targeted" per some DOJ reports.  But what does the word "targeted" mean?  Perhaps I can agree there is data that shows a correlation between African Americans and arrests, but says nothing about causation.    What if I was to tell you that 95% of people who are arrested and/or killed by police are right-handed?  Do you feel that the police are "targeting" right-handed people? No, of course not.  What if I was to tell you that the vast majority of our prison population is male?  Would you think our justice system is sexist against males?  No, of course not.  Because correlation does NOT equal causation.

The fact of the matter is the situations that lead up to someone being arrested and/or killed by police (i.e. "targeted") is a confluence of a lot of different complex factors.  And these factors, more often than not, have nothing to do with race (I'll reiterate: it doesn't mean at certain times race doesn't plays a factor).  Check out the youtube link below from Steven Crowder (I have no real opinion of the guy other than he does a decent job researching things). 

Some other nuggets, just to name a few:

1.  A recent Harvard study show that there may be bias in America's police force with regards using force, but not in police shootings. (note: professor who wrote the piece is African American, not like that should make a difference)

2. Recent article in Time magazine states that while police kill too many people, its hard to discern if bigotry plays a role in any of these cases.

3. Also, when looking at FBI data, a white person is more likely to be killed by police when being arrested than an African American person.

What does this tell me?  To your point, it tells me that reality is murky...and complex.  But it doesn't mean I don't recognize that there is an issue.  I just look at the data and objective evidence to define the problem differently than you.  In most cases, I don't see African Americans being "targeted" BECAUSE they are African Americans per se - being African American is happenstance.  So thinking my head is the sand is a ridiculous statement. 

Lastly, so say that "people don't protest for nothing" is Complete Lunacy (sorry, I had to say it:).  People do it all the time.  And the magnitude of your outcry says nothing about how right you are.

pescadero

August 31st, 2016 at 11:49 AM ^

In most cases, I don't see African Americans being "targeted" BECAUSE they are African Americans per se - being African American is happenstance.

 

That is because it is largely a matter of implicit bias, not explicit bias.

 

 

CompleteLunacy

August 31st, 2016 at 12:35 PM ^

First, I was responding to you saying that facts don't back up my last paragraph...and my last paragraph's main point was that there is a problem with police right now, particularly with how they handle encounters with black people,  and some people don't even recognize it. So forgive me if I misread your intent...but I don't know how else to have interpreted your response.

Second, yes I get that correlation doesn't imply causation. I'm not an idiot. These studies don't just say these things in a vacuum...they try to account for things like "rate of crime by race". You couldn't just say "more white people are shot by police than black people" without accounting for the fact that their population proportions are very different from 50-50.

And third, I see we agree on many things except extent. Reality is murky. There are studies that contradict others...some in surprising ways (I was aware of that Harvard study about there not being bias in police shootings...honestly I don't know how to put it into context, other than the point I make in the next paragraph). But still, I look at your second point (police kill too many people and are abusing their force) and I combine it with certain studies showing that use of forceis more likely for black encounters  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/study-supports-suspicion-that-police-use-of-force-is-more-likely-for-blacks.html and I conclude that we have a police problem and black people are justified in thinking they are targeted. I never said it was an exclusively racial/black problem though. 

As for your point 3...do we even have a reliable estimate of police shootings in America? Are cops required to report them? I'm going off the top of my head here, but I recall reading numerous times that it's hard to really dig into this issue because the reporting on shootings isn't reliable. And actually, I just googled it, first link I found here https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fbi-director-calls-lack-of-data-on-police-shootings-ridiculous-embarrassing/2015/10/07/c0ebaf7a-6d16-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html You can't make reliable conclusions on unreliable data.

So again, the full picture is complex, but even so I still see a significant pattern. 

YoungFan

August 30th, 2016 at 10:40 PM ^

@WindyCityBlue, the reason that CK sat down during our beloved anthem was bascially to force you and I to have this conversation. A respected friend, professor, and preacher told me that after getting his drivers license he was stopped by police 15 times in the span of 3 years and never ticketed once. That basically means #1- that he was absolutely unequivocally innocent every time and #2- that he was stopped "on a hunch" or because of the way that he or his car looked. This was in St. Paul, Minnesota, where Philando Castile (RIP), who's was that one of his two taillights was broken, was shot and killed during a police stop.

I can tell you with certainty that the police in Ann Arbor don't do this and maybe that police in your local town don't either, but there are certainly many districts where police stop people for "looking suspicious" all the time and then presume them to be criminals by default. See this show from John Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A

WindyCityBlue

August 31st, 2016 at 12:00 AM ^

No one needs to force us to have this conversation, I'm willing to do so anytime really.  To be honest, I have no real opinion on what CK did, other than I repect is his right to do what he did.  His actions certainly didn't move me one way or the other or spurred me to reply and take action.

Also, I think you are making some wild assumptions regarding the situation with the preacher.

1. "that he was absolutely unequivocally innocent every time".  Probably not true since people of all races all the time get out of tickets even after speeding.  This is largely irrelevant anyway.  Item #2 is more relevant...

2. "that he was stopped "on a hunch" or because of the way that he or his car looked".  It is true that cops can make judgements of how a car looks, but more often than not cops have no idea who they are pulling over until they run the plates.  There have been plenty of studies on this.  And it makes sense because often times cops can't really see into the car when they pull people over.

Also, with regards to Phildando Castile (yes, RIP).  Last I read, he matched the discription of a robbery in the area and the police were on high alert.  Not condoning the actions of the cop, but it certainly seems like there was more to this than the typical "racist cop shooting a minority" agenda that out there.

An adverse interaction to an African American at the hands of white person does not necassarily mean race has anything to do with it.  Doing so would mean you would have to implement a very vile and hurtful stereotype: that white people (and cops to a certain extent) are a raging pack of bigots who belong to the KKK.  I don't like stereotypes (for any race for that matter) since it means you are likely making a wrong assumption about people.

pescadero

August 31st, 2016 at 12:51 PM ^

An adverse interaction to an African American at the hands of white person does not necassarily mean race has anything to do with it.  Doing so would mean you would have to implement a very vile and hurtful stereotype: that white people (and cops to a certain extent) are a raging pack of bigots who belong to the KKK.

 

Only if you fail to understand the difference between implicit bias and explicit bias.

 

Implicit bias effects even black cops interacting with black suspects.

 

See the research from National Longitudinal Survey of Youth in which people changed their self reported race over time in response to stereotypical situations.

 

"SAPERSTEIN: If someone went from being employed to being unemployed, or being out of prison to being in prison, or being off welfare to being on welfare, the interviewer was more likely to see the person as black - after they experienced that sort of downward mobility - than before.

....

In another study, Saperstein looked at differences in how funeral directors listed the race of people who had died. And she found that when people had died as a result of homicide, funeral directors were more likely to list the person as being black, even when family members listed the person as belonging to another race.

There was another study where she found that if the dead person had died of cirrhosis, which is a disorder commonly caused by alcohol abuse, the funeral director was more likely to list the person as being Native American, even when family members listed the person as belonging to another race.

.......

One fascinating thing that Saperstein has found is that it isn't just other people's perceptions of you that change. The survey that she followed also asked people to report their own race. And she found that when people went to prison, they became more likely to think of themselves as black. And that's because their minds were also subject to this very same stereotypes."

 

 

 

 

2manylincs

August 31st, 2016 at 3:19 AM ^

If kaepernick had donated every cent he had to victims of police violence it would be a back page story. Who even knows about the kalamazoo promise or the more recent kzoo govt bailout for lack of a better term on here? Who remembers that Mark zuckerberg donated 600m to newark schools after the social network just to prove he wasnt a dbag? Not many ill bet. He has brought an issue out to be discussed in a way that it never would have been without the symbolism that is attached. As far as lost fb friendships? In the words of kanye. Lololol. White america!

rc15

August 30th, 2016 at 3:40 PM ^

Hoping that Harbaugh takes the "no comment" approach in the future, or just outright states that he isn't going to take/answer questions not related to the football team. With the amount of media attention he gets, answering questions like these is a lose-lose situation and his answers will get blown out of proportion by the media.

M-Dog

August 30th, 2016 at 4:55 PM ^

Exactly.  

People criticize coachspeak, but then go ballistic when a coach actually says something . . . or in this case says something impromptu that we all know he did not mean to say.

So we'll get no more candid coach comments.

We get the Fort Schembechler we deserve.

emozilla

August 30th, 2016 at 3:41 PM ^

My problem with Kaepernick's action is that it's symptomatic of the symbolic activism of our generation; that which does nothing to fix a problem, but makes a huge show of letting everyone know just how mad you are. 

Kaepernick has millions of dollars, he's in a better position than most to get out into the community and do something to fix it, but intstead he's done the equivalent of changing his Facebook profile picture. All about me, but little about the problem.

MileHighWolverine

August 30th, 2016 at 4:36 PM ^

Not sure that would work. To change the problems he's talking about requires "in your face" protesting. Things you can't avoid or dismiss. People need to look at back at the race issues of the 60's and realize that we've made strides to close racial divides since then but have miles to go before we hit any semblence of equilibrium between the races. Miles and miles and miles to go.

gbdub

August 30th, 2016 at 5:58 PM ^

The people who know about EATING are basically the people directly involved, and this blog. And yet if actually helps people.

Kap is focusing a portion of the attention already being placed on the issue onto himself. This was a supersaturated issue. The value of a marginal minute of airtime about it is nearly null.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

FreddieMercuryHayes

August 30th, 2016 at 4:02 PM ^

Agree in general, like when it comes to facebook posts and such, but drawing awareness is the first step to fixing any problem.  How can we as a society address our problems if we don't know a problem exists?  I think that's Kap's point.  He used his platform to draw attention to an issue in society he perceives.  And it worked I think.  People are still talking about it.  People talking is good.  As long, as you say, people then start doing stuff to actually fix it.

gbdub

August 30th, 2016 at 4:40 PM ^

The cynic would say that sitting for the anthem draws attention to Kap while costing him nothing. Sitting for a game, actually not participating in the system he finds so oppressive, would draw more attention, but would actually cost him something.

Everybody who cares to know about Black Lives Matter and the rest of it already does. It's been omnipresent in the media for months/years. Kap's minor act of protest will make not a whit of difference in how the whole issue finally shakes itself out. Any news you hear about this will be heavily filtered through whatever lens you already get your news.

If you haven't already "picked a side", I highly doubt the sitting or standing of a mediocre NFC quarterback is going to sway you to delve into the issue. This is basically equivalent to pretending pink gloves are a strong message for breast cancer awareness.

None of this means he shouldn't do it if that's how he feels. He has that right, both to the protest itself and his own opinion. But let's not martyr the guy - this is a very rich dude taking a minor stand that at the end of the day won't hurt him except for some Twitter flak.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

WestQuad

August 31st, 2016 at 8:27 AM ^

Not everyone can be mother Teresa.  Just becaue you care about a problem and do something within your power to try to affect it doesn't mean you have to dedicate your life to it, or that there is even a clear way to attack this problem.

He's also 28 and playing professional football.  Most 28 year olds haven't done anything.  But you look at guys like Jim Brown and Kareem Abdul-Jabar and after protests as athletes have  supposedly lived lives where they've fought against racism and violence.  Give Kaepernick some time.

Unfortunately the attention is now on Kaepernick and how patriotic people are instead of the valid issue of systemic racism in law enforcement and society.  Anything involving a flag protest is stupid because it brings out the loons and the issue is lost. 

 

Motivation = good.   Method = poor choice.

 

 

 

Hardware Sushi

August 30th, 2016 at 3:47 PM ^

"he wouldn't be in the midst of a media firestorm"

Is he in the midst of a media firestorm? I can't tell nor do I care because I'm in the midst of a front page contentstorm.

Hardware Sushi

August 30th, 2016 at 4:46 PM ^

I'm Not Sure.

I don't care what sports figures or movie stars or anyone else in the entertainment business thinks about politics just because they are in front of a camera frequently.

This seems like a mid-July post, not a Tuesday of week 1 post.

GotBlueOnMyMind

August 30th, 2016 at 4:02 PM ^

Not saying that Bomani's article is wrong, however, that article and this one are completely different, and Ace was correct in not linking to it. That article is taking a side and making a political argument, whereas this is an article that is attempting to simply lay out the issues without taking a stance

Sam1863

August 30th, 2016 at 4:58 PM ^

True, but as a Jehovah's Witness, Whitaker's (and Chet Lemon's) motivations were different. According to The Watchtower Online:

"Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that bowing down to a flag or saluting it, often in conjunction with an anthem, is a religious act that ascribes salvation, not to God, but to the State or to its leaders ... While not joining in ceremonies that they view as unscriptural, Jehovah’s people certainly respect the right of others to do so. They also respect national flags as emblems and recognize duly constituted governments as 'superior authorities' serving as 'God’s minister.'"

In essence, when JW's don't stand for the anthem, they are following the practice of their religious beliefs. They're not making a political protest, which is what Kaepernick is doing - and which is the basis of the controversy.

But I'm with you - live and let live.

Sam1863

August 31st, 2016 at 7:52 AM ^

For the reason I just stated: different motivations, or intent, if you prefer. Although their actions were the same, they meant different things.

I once worked with a woman who is a Jehovah's Witness, and we would discuss her religion, which I never knew anything about. (We broke the long-standing rule about "Never discuss religion or politics with co-workers" because both of us were respectful, and neither of us is an idiot. Besides, I like learning about different things.) While I didn't understand everything JW's follow, and certainly don't agree with everything, there was one point that she stressed, and that I got completely:

There is absolutely NO disrespect intended whatsoever when they don't stand for the anthem. Their actions are not criticizing the country, the government, or its people - period. They are simply following the tenets of their faith. And in a country where you are free to worship however you like - or not, if you like - that just strikes me as fair.

On the other hand, Kaepernick's action was purposeful criticism. It was a protest, a political statement, and also one which is free to make. Of course, when you make such a statement, you open yourself up to criticism, and he's gotten that in spades.

In short, Kaepernick's actions are criticism of the country. Jehovah's Witnesses' actions aren't. While the action is the same, the intent is completely different.

pescadero

August 31st, 2016 at 3:34 PM ^

"For the reason I just stated: different motivations, or intent, if you prefer. Although their actions were the same, they meant different things."

 

I'd argue the motivations are identical - expressing ones beliefs.

 

I'd argue the intent is very similar - to avoid violating ones beliefs.