Players (including Denard) were asked at the combine whether they're straight
I'm not sure how many people read the conversation we had last week (this week?) about sexual orientation and employment with the NFL, but a report from this week sheds light on that:
Prospects Nick Kasa, TE from Colorado, Le'Veon Bell (yes, that one), and our own Denard Robinson stated in interviews that they were asked, essentially, whether they were gay or straight during the combine. The NFL is going to investigate at least one team, and it stated that league policy is that sexual orientation should not be considered in the hiring process. The NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement also prohibits such discrimination, and the NFLPA may conduct its own investigation into what happened at the combine.
The NFL also said, “Like all employers, our teams are expected to follow applicable federal, state and local employment laws,” though I'm not sure how much we can apply a generic statement like that to this situation.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2013/story/_/id/8995947/nfl-looks-combine-sex-orientation-question
Anyway, this furthers what I thought was an interesting discussion and has nothing to do with the basketball team. I also realize the flammability of this topic, but we did okay last time.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:14 PM ^
haven't heard about Manti, then we know the real reason.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:40 PM ^
I heard Manti Te'o's answer to the question of whether or not he was straight was, (laughs) "Yes, very near to it."
February 28th, 2013 at 6:14 PM ^
Whether or not they were fishing for sexual orientation, it is also illegal to ask someone's marital status in a job interview situation.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:08 PM ^
They asked a Nick Kasa (Tight end from Colorado) if he liked girls. I know what you mean, but there's definitely no getting around it. They're wrong on every way imagineable to ask these questions.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:51 PM ^
it's just stupid. Don't they have better questions to ask? It's a waste of the short time they have to interview players.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:15 PM ^
I personally think the teams shouldn't be allowed to ask. Also what does it really matter. If you can play football you can play whether you're gay or straight.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:21 PM ^
Well, actually, I think they should be able to ask those questions of Tight Ends and Wide Receivers....
February 28th, 2013 at 6:25 PM ^
Offensive line
February 28th, 2013 at 7:26 PM ^
Hm, what you personally think jives very well with what the law dictates.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:51 PM ^
While I agree that teams should not be able to ask a question like that, they are likely looking for something other than their sexual orientation. They are looking for their reaction to the question. If a player says "Fuck you, man! Hell naw!" in a situation that requires tact (as open interviews in the combine do), then they will know that they may have a PR problem in the future.
This line of questioning is common, no matter the field. It's not the actual answer that is analyzed, but the response to the question. That being said, I'm sure they could get the same result by asking something else that throws off or offends the players.
EDIT: To further reinforce my point, players that have not come out yet are unlikely to do so with a split second decision at the combine. So if a player has been saying "I am straight" his entire career, it is very unlikely that he will change his tune in an interview. I don't think the intent is to get an answer to the question, only to see how the player reacts. In a way, they could actually use that question to decide not to draft someone who will get the team in trouble by going all John Rocker at some point. If a player responds "I ain't no INSERT HOMOPHOBIC SLUR" they may be turned away from that play.
February 28th, 2013 at 10:34 PM ^
Doesn't change the fact that you cannot inquire about someone's sexual orientation in a job interview without opening yourself to legal recourse.
Let's all step back from ledge. This isn't a job interview. Oh sure, maybe de facto it is but by the letter of the law it most definitely is NOT.
I think they could accomplish the same thing by asking something like "how do you feel about playing with [or rooming with] a teammate who has revealed himself to be gay?" That is enough to find out which kids have a low sense of diplomacy about sensitive questions. Your John Rockers will reveal themselves.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:17 PM ^
I wish we were at a place in society where these questions were just coaches being interested in a player's life or, better yet, that they were just asking these questions to measure the commitment of a player in general.
It's important to correct you a bit. Denard at least (not sure about the others) never said he was asked whether he was gay. He was asked if he was married, engaged, or had a girlfriend. Now, yeah there's a lot of reason to assume the worst when it comes to that like they were fishing to see if he was gay while not directly asking.
HOWEVA! Isn't it slightly possible to ask those questions as a measure of maturity? I think it's legitimately fair to argue that people in committed relationships are more mature or taking life seriously whatever you want to call it. Not that I agree but I think a lot of people would argue that.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:24 PM ^
You might well have a better claim for employment discrimination if that discrimination was based on marital status (as RakeFight noted) than if it was based on sexual orientation...though this is not legal advice.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:19 PM ^
February 28th, 2013 at 6:25 PM ^
February 28th, 2013 at 9:45 PM ^
Since 50% of marriages end in divorce, I can easily argue that single people are in a more stable environment than married people (especially when you throw money in there).
February 28th, 2013 at 6:28 PM ^
Say a coach had a number of good experiences drafting guys out of BYU (many of whom happen to be married when drafted) because they had a good work ethic.
Maybe they ask a guy if he goes to Church regularly because they have found in the past players who are dedicated to going to Church weekly are better leaders.
I would assume the worst but coaches can be weird. I mean this is still a process that has people drafted higher for running 0.05 second faster in a 40 yard dash and "measures" people on the Wonderlic test.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:16 PM ^
You continue to pull things out of your ass and hope to find something that doesn't smell like shit.
February 28th, 2013 at 8:44 PM ^
Your examples aren't instances of mutual exlcusiveness. Teams would need to prove that those players who went to church and were hard workers were hard workers because they all went to church. Assumptions don't hold up.
but I think you are gving NFL coaches and GMs too much credit. I should state that I'm not lumping all into this group, but there are many NFL gm's that would pick a guy for far c=razier reasons than the above poster offers. I mean come on...Matt Millen anyone?
Again, I think what you say is absolutely true, but I don't believe all GM's are as smart as you are and believe many of them make assumptions when choosing whether to draft players.
I have known many people who were not mature enough or secure enough as an individual to manage their life as a single person. In essence, they required a partner due to their own insecurity, so no, I don;t see single/married status as representative of maturity. Some guys may be mature enough to know they aren't ready to settle down... still have some wild oats to sew, and all that. The contrast is settling down too young, then cheating, etc. Now, having multiple kids out of wedlock may be a sign of immaturity, imo. Paying your bills on time and staying out of legal trouble provide much better indications of maturity in my mind. This makes for entertaining discussion, however.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:17 PM ^
This is where I probably differ from most of the board, and this certainly borders on politics, but this is a situation where teams should be allowed to ask these guys whatever they want. They will be investing millions of dollars and risking very limited draft picks on these guys, and if they think their aunt's religion might have an impact on their ability to prodice, they should be able to ask.
I don't think most employers should be able to ask, but in the cases where extremely large amount of money is involved, the rules should change. A movie studio should have the right to be more inquisitive of an actor or director, same with a large company and their top executives.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:21 PM ^
This argument makes no sense. It would be one thing if the investment were somehow dependent on the person's response, but whether an actor or an athlete, sexual orientation, marital status or other personal details are completely inconsequential when it comes to their performance on the job. This is why it is illegal to ask those questions.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:28 PM ^
But they aren't inconsequential. Don't say the argument makes no sense just because you disagree (and I conceded that most here probably would). What if a guy was an over racist? Or a gambling addict? I'm not comparing these to homosexuality, just that many things about who a person is can affect them as an employee.
What if you knew that you star players were homophobic and would have a major problem with a gay player on your team? I agree that the homophobic players would be in the wrong, but they are already on the team, under contract, and are the stars. Wouldn't you, as a coach/GM/owner want to try your best not to draft someone who, for whatever reason, would cause a problem in your locker room, whether or not it was really their fault?
February 28th, 2013 at 6:31 PM ^
I'm sure that's what many would argue, and I do understand the logic in it. What I ultimately think of, though, is the baseball players who wouldn't have been comfortable with Jackie Robinson on their team. Someone needed to put Robinson's right to play above their comfort.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:56 PM ^
comparison is not apples to apples. Not because one is a trait and the other is a choice, that question is well above my pay grade, but because there are aspects of an athletes profession that homosexuality could interfere with to a certain degree with regard to the functioning of a team. Some people did not want Jackie Robinson to play because he was black, and they had an inherest and completely irrational dislike of black people. They felt black people "did not deserve" to play. With an openly gay athlete, there are practical reason why it could have a very real impact on team chemistry and the functionality of team roles. "Don't ask don't tell" was a very unpopular policy but there was rationale behind it. It is a difficult issue, but athletes are a big investment and pro sports are a huge business. If it could be a non-issue it would be all the better, and perhaps this is a reason for teams to steer away from the question completely.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:56 PM ^
Please explain how homosexuality could be relevant to the profession.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:02 PM ^
not saying that it is relevant to an athlete's performance, I am saying that you cannot say that it would not impact a player's relationship with his team and possibly his role on the team. In a perfect world should it be a relevant consideration, no. Is this a perfect world, no. Are organizations agreeing to pay players tens of millions of dollars to make their team better. Yes. Is homosexuality a red flag that a particular player may not fit into the mold of a certain team or certain locker room. Yes. I am not talking what should be. I am talking what is. I am not commenting on whether teams should be able to ask, only that it is perfectly reasonable they would have an interest.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:06 PM ^
February 28th, 2013 at 7:14 PM ^
For the record, I agree with you 100%, but to make the case... you can hide being gay a lot easier than you can hide being black. You don't have to ask Jackie Robinson is he's black. In that sense it's not apples to apples. If all of a sudden a player comes out, it creates controversy, and it could disrupt the locker room a couple of different ways. And on the ideal team where your entire team could be okay with it, the media circus that would ensue could be an unwanted distraction.
Just some thoughts.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:08 PM ^
The problem with this argument is that the only way it would impact the team is if people on the team have problems with homosexuality. To cater to that kind of prejudice is not reasonable.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:57 PM ^
It could certainly be a problem if an NFL player hit on one of his teammates, but that's no different than a situation in which a straight man hits on a female co-worker. The problem is the act, not the orientation.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:59 PM ^
February 28th, 2013 at 7:08 PM ^
February 28th, 2013 at 7:14 PM ^
February 28th, 2013 at 11:28 PM ^
BiSB, your points are absolutely correct but I think you are misinterpreting ijohnb's point.
I think the statement is "I am not conding bigotry, I am merely acknowledging its existence and the reality that it would impact the dynamic of the team. It would likely cause a rift amongst the homophobics and the non-homophobics (which is exactly what happened with racist whites and non-racist whites during integration in baseball and the movie Remember the Titans starring Denzel Washington). This statement should not be interpreted as my opinion on whether gays should be in the NFL or out while in the NFL or anything of the like."
ijohnb even mentions that he is talking about reality, not necessarily the way things are:
"I am not talking what should be. I am talking what is."
Just to put it out there, no, I have no dog in this fight (zing, but that's because niether one of you are making negative statements, unless I totally invented my own interpretation of ijohnb).
It's a tacit acceptance/codoning of bigotry when you're basically saying let's not rock the boat.
BTW, have you guys heard of this goddamn rabblerouser down in Alabama named Rosa Parks? Apparently she had the nerve to tell a hard working, WHITE, bus driver that she would not move to the back of the bus. Couldn't she have done what she was politely and kindly asked to do instead of causing such a fuss? Geeze.
GoBlue,
I agree that saying "don't rock the boat" is condoning bigotry but that was not the point of my post at all and if your Rosa Parks joke is at my expense then you missed my entire point.
There is a difference between making commentary on the current state of affairs and endorsing the status quo. My post makes no reference to reinforcing the current culture of bigotry in the NFL.
What my post is saying, is that because there is a culture of bigotry it would make sense that when gay players do start coming out, team chemistry may take a hit as the lockerrom could be split.
Personally, I welcome the day where people don't have to put up a front because a portion of our population can't identify or understand their experience and has to resort to fear and hatred.
"I'm not condoning bigotry, I'm just recognizing and attempting to cater to it in the largest extent possible" is not a reasonable response.
I recognize that ijohnb isn't trying to enable bigotry, but the fact is that he is. Walls aren't broken down without shaking things up a bit, and that's going to upset some people, but that's their problem.
"Not because one is a trait and the other is a choice"
I didn't think the people stupid enough to believe this discovered the internet yet.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:52 PM ^
Wrt your second paragraph:
The same argument could be made for any workplace, though. Think about a restaurant, where everybody needs to be able to work well together to provide the best service. Or even an office complex, where if someone is disruptive and people dont get along as well productivity drops. If I run an Office Max and some of my workers are homophobic, is that a good enough reason to discriminate against hiring a gay worker? Because that argument could apply to any workplace with more than 1 worker. Fact is, the law is the law for a reason.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:54 PM ^
workers do not shower together on a daily basis (unless this is a very bizarre Office Max that I am not aware of. I agree it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but you have to admit that your comparisons are flawed in this regard.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:34 PM ^
February 28th, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^
Really? Showers? Just drive home and take a shower at your house if it matters to you.
Protip: not every gay dude wants to bang every guy they see. You're not going to suddenly look over and see the starting MLB with a boner in the shower.
That's an especially silly concern when you consider that any player that's going to be drafted has been in locker rooms and showering with other dudes for at least the last 4-8 years. Whatever an individual player's feelings are, there is no way he hasn't learned to deal with them by now. It's not like he's going to turn pro and discover some new creepy urges.
TL;DR: homophobes really haven't thought this one through.
February 28th, 2013 at 6:25 PM ^