rundown of Michigan's riser
Players (including Denard) were asked at the combine whether they're straight
February 28th, 2013 at 7:30 PM | 
I don't think that it does,
I don't think that it does,
February 28th, 2013 at 7:48 PM |
No, he shouldn't.
No, he shouldn't.
No, he shouldn't.
February 28th, 2013 at 10:03 PM |
Based on what? Your argumnt
Based on what? Your argumnt
Based on what? Your argument that the investment owners make makes it appropriate is completely flawed. Owners of every company, big and small, take a certain amount of risk on the hiring of employees, yet they still comply to the rules. The level of investment made on a single employee is irrelevant, as it is ultimately the owners choice to make the investment. Subjecting prospects to such questioning undermines their inalienable right to act as a free agent until they sign with a team, not to mention the civil right to not be judged on their sexuality. It is even more inappropriate for a team to ask such questions BEFORE a player signs with them than after. And it's illegal for good reason in both instances.
March 1st, 2013 at 2:11 PM |
Well, if she's a follower of
Well, if she's a follower of
Well, if she's a follower of the People's Temple, that might raise some questions.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:30 PM |
Two things
Two things
1) They should only be allowed to questions that have a bearing on the position for which they are being hired. Being gay has nothing to do with one's ability to play football. The law of large numbers suggests that there have been literally hundreds of gay professional athletes.
2) Some of these questions violate federal law. Large investment or no, they are simply out of bounds.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:44 PM |
But who decides what really
But who decides what really
But who decides what really has a bearing on on the position? These guys are are being drafted for more than just their ability to play football, otherwise their off the field behavior wouldn't be taken into account, but it certainly is.
But also - what if a team wants to draft an openly gay player? Can they ask then? Sometimes minorities are hired on purpose, and I'm OK with that as well. I think Jerry Montgomery should be replaced by a young-ish black coach. That is both ageist and racist (and I suppose sexist as well) but I think a younger black man is important on a college football coaching staff. I purposely picked a Jewish primary care physician and accountant. They're typically good at those professions.
I was having a conversation with a gay friend of mine after the Te'o thing came out - if he was drafted as the first openly gay NFL player, his jersey sales and endorsements would be on par with Tebow, even bigger if he turns out to be any good. This might be a draw, especially for teams in cities like SF, NY or Miami.
My only point is, it could be a factor, both positively and negatively, and therefore should be fair game to ask.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:48 PM |
The problem with that...
The problem with that...
The problem with that is that most Brooklyn Dodger fans (presumably) would have said that they didn't want a black player if the Dodgers had asked before they brought on Jackie Robinson. We can imagine a world in which another city wouldn't/didn't want white players, so it would all balance out, but that of course just is not and was not the way things are.
I appreciate you making these arguments, though. This would be boring and pointless if everyone agreed.
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra
February 28th, 2013 at 8:13 PM |
We Need A Branch Rickey In The NFL
We Need A Branch Rickey In The NFL
I guess it's fair to point out here that UM alum (LLB ) Branch Rickey "got it" when it came to the importance of overcoming "locker room discomfort" derived from players' xenophobia or outright racism. I entirely get that locker room / chemistry may be issues at some level, but it seems like the right answer here is you've got to do the right thing in the bigger picture. Even if it's difficult.
I'd love to see an NFL owner come out and say their players "had better get used to having some openly gay players on the team - we don't discrimi-hate". Better yet Roger Goodell could man-up and give a strong statement of intolerance of gay-screening by teams, even if it's not prohibited by federal law.
But mostly this is an excuse to underscore that Branch Rickey was a Michigan grad and a pretty great one at that.
- "Of course I care about that stuff. To the point of irrationality. It will always be Michigan first, cancer second." Jim Mandich (RIP)
February 28th, 2013 at 7:56 PM |
Fair points
Fair points
But the NFL is nowhere near even the "somewhat accepting of gays" point. Once it becomes more commonplace (like, for example, when there has been at least ONE openly gay player), I think it might seem less nefarious. For now, Occam's Razor suggests that these questions are being asked to weed out gays.
March 1st, 2013 at 4:03 AM |
This was touched on in a West Wing episode ...
This was touched on in a West Wing episode ...
(From memory)
"And it would disrupt the unit."
"Yes sir."
"I agree. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change. Funny thing, though - fifty years ago, that's what they said about me. 'Blacks can't serve - it would disrupt the unit.' It did disrupt the unit. You know what? The unit adapted. The unit changed, got stronger. I'm a black man and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Beat that with a stick."
One of my favorite episodes - "Let Bartlett be Bartlett" I think, from the first season.
At any rate, the NFL has to know it is already employing gay players, and that in this day and age the last thing they want is a federal lawsuit that they will look horrible while losing. This has to be someone being dumb and I hope the NFL cuts this off at the pass.
March 1st, 2013 at 12:30 PM |
RIP Fitz. :(
Wife and I are
RIP Fitz. :(
Wife and I are
RIP Fitz. :(
Wife and I are going through all the seasons of that show, right now; nearly done. So excellent, and it's fun to see things that Sorkin railed on in TWW coming back up in The Newsroom.
February 28th, 2013 at 8:03 PM |
You didn't really
You didn't really
Pick a doctor and accountant because they were Jewish?
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
February 28th, 2013 at 8:36 PM |
I did. Is that bad?
He was
I did. Is that bad?
He was
I did. Is that bad?
He was actually my second doctor after I moved out here. My first doctor spoke very poor English, which wouldn't bother me if he was a specialist and I'm sure didn't affect his ability to practice medicine, but it made it hard for me to communicate with him and I like to be able to talk to my doctor, in person as well as over the phone, when I have any issues.
So I chose a doctor with a Jewish last name. My pediatrician growing up was Jewish, so maybe that had some impact, I'm not sure.
February 28th, 2013 at 9:56 PM |
Wow
Wow
Just wow. You and me both come from well grounded Michigan roots... Salt of the earth. And we both sell in the medical field, so I ask this in all seriousness, knowing that 75% of doctors are horrible and should not be allowed to practice medicine on human beings, you didn't really choose your doctor based on being Jewish, did you?
February 28th, 2013 at 10:05 PM |
I did. It's my PCP, so it's
I did. It's my PCP, so it's
I did. It's my PCP, so it's not like I have a lot to go on. If I was picking a heart surgeon I would do a little more research, but for my primary doc I just want someone with a medical degree who I feel comfortable talking to.
EDIT: The funny thing is, I don't see that guy anymore because I moved. My current PCP is Asian, and I picked him because he's my neighbor's doctor and he likes him. I think this got blown out a little bit, it was meant to be an example. I'm sure I'm not the first person to choose a _____ because he was Jewish.
February 28th, 2013 at 10:23 PM |
You mean you didn't pick him because he's good at math?
You mean you didn't pick him because he's good at math?
I'm being a little silly, but I don't see THAT big a difference between saying "I picked my accountant because he's Jewish" and saying "I didn't want him as a lawyer because he's black" (because, you know, most black guys are like rappers or hoods and stuff). I mean, it's not quite as bad to stereotype on positives, but it has a lot of the same problems.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
February 28th, 2013 at 10:53 PM |
Just to be fair, my
Just to be fair, my
Just to be fair, my accountant is Jewish, and he's tremendous. I didn't pick him out for that reason, but hey, mazel tov!
And when we play as a team, when the old season is over, you and I know it’s going to be Michigan again. Michigan!
February 28th, 2013 at 11:04 PM |
jiminy christmas
jiminy christmas
Oh, don't worry. It's good racism.
/s
Sounds like, from this and your other comments, that you chose him because he wasn't Asian...
RIP my avatar, June 14, 1998 - October 26, 2012.
February 28th, 2013 at 8:18 PM |
Your argument seems to be
Your argument seems to be
Your argument seems to be that the NfL should not be subject to the same laws as other companies because the NfL has more money on the line... That is a very slippery slope.
Tenim un nom el sap tothom. Barca, Barca, BAAARCA!
February 28th, 2013 at 8:31 PM |
Yes, I agree it is, and I'm
Yes, I agree it is, and I'm
Yes, I agree it is, and I'm not saying I know where the line should be drawn. But I think an hourly worker making little money should have fewer rights on this stuff than a pro athlete. I will certainly concede that this may be the minority opinion.
I also don't think an hourly worker should lose their job if they get an injury that keeps them from doing their job for some period of time, but obviously that happens in pro sports and I'm OK with that too.
February 28th, 2013 at 9:37 PM |
Compromise
Compromise
If there were exceptions, I'd make them the other way. Sure, there are millions of dollars on the line, but I won't feel sorry for Jerry Jones if he loses millions of dollars because the next superstar turned out to be a bust. If someone has enough money to afford an NFL team, they have enough money to lose millions of dollars.
If anyone was going to have an exception, it should be a little mom-and-pop business that could actually go out of business if they put an investment into training a new employee and have that person disappear.
Fortunately, there's an easy compromise: let's just not let anyone discriminate.
February 28th, 2013 at 11:06 PM |
Can you at least be consistent?
Can you at least be consistent?
You think NFL teams should be allowed to ask more questions, but that wage slaves should have fewer rights than pro athletes. What exactly do you think hiring managers at retail stores should be allowed to ask?!
RIP my avatar, June 14, 1998 - October 26, 2012.
March 1st, 2013 at 12:52 AM |
I must have typed something
I must have typed something
I must have typed something wrong because people keep saying that.
I think normal workers should not be allowed to be asked these questions. More rights for them.
I think athletes should have fewer rights, they get the questions.
Sorry if I wasn't clear before.
March 1st, 2013 at 8:18 AM |
I abhor slippery slope arguments
I abhor slippery slope arguments
But putting a sliding scale on the right to not be discriminated against is a terrible idea. They're called "rights" for a reason. I got a raise last year,, so do I deserve a little less privacy?
March 1st, 2013 at 4:42 PM |
Yes.
Yes.
Come clean BiSB. Is your dog gay?
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
March 1st, 2013 at 12:05 AM |
I respect your opinion
I respect your opinion
Sir, I commend you for voicing your opinion and we should all welcome dissenting opinions that are expressed in an intelligent way, such as yours.
However, I totally disagree with you in the notion that pro athletes (and movie stars, etc) are more "important" due to strictly monitary reasons.
February 28th, 2013 at 9:00 PM |
Their off field behavior is
Their off field behavior is
Their off field behavior is taken into account since when? How many ex-cons and murder suspects play in the NFL now? Te'o might have gained a following, but it's just not the same when someone is outted or caught by deadspin in a stupefying series of lies. I only hope that when it does happen, it's cause the athlete decides to be a role model for gay youth or something.
The cynical side suspects that GMs are asking so they can kick off the team anyone who comes out after the draft because "he lied." This is the problem with asking a question like that, aside from it's unspeakably rude, none of their business, and totally irrelevant to playing football.
February 28th, 2013 at 9:10 PM |
Maybe not
Maybe not
I'm not sure the law of large numbers applies here. The law of large numbers needs the players to be chosen randomly. The players are not really random. They are genetically bigger, faster, stronger, competitive, and probably testosterone driven than most of the rest of us. If sexual orientation is based on genetics as many argue, we are looking at a portion of the population that shares quite a few genetic traits and probably doesn't represent the full spectrum of genetic possibilities.
Likely there have more than a few though.
March 1st, 2013 at 12:33 PM |
In order to argue that the
In order to argue that the
In order to argue that the atheletes in question weren't chosen essentially at random, you'd have to show a correlation between high physical performance and homosexuality (either negative or positive). Unless you have access to research that I'm not aware of, no such correlation has ever even been suggested, so in this instance it's probably safe to assume that the incidence of homosexuality among atheletes is similar to that in the population at large.
February 28th, 2013 at 7:53 PM |
It's hard to believe people
It's hard to believe people
It's hard to believe people actually upvote crap like this (Wolvin Comment).
February 28th, 2013 at 7:58 PM |
Hey, you're free to you
Hey, you're free to you
Hey, you're free to you opinion as I am to mine. I shouldn't be hard to believe that there are people who stand on both sides of a devisive issue. If everyone thought the same way, it wouldn't really be an issue, would it?
February 28th, 2013 at 8:05 PM |
Your argument is essentially
Your argument is essentially
Your argument is essentially that NFL coaches should be allowed to screen players for homosexuality in order to protect the homophobia that exists within the locker room. It's absolutely no different than excluding a black player because people in the locker room might not like that race. Sure, you're entitled to the opinion, but it's stupid, offensive, and in violation of the CBA.
March 1st, 2013 at 12:07 AM |
You're right
You're right
You're right, but he has a different opinion. So shoot him, geez.
March 1st, 2013 at 2:16 AM |
Well I'm not going to shoot
Well I'm not going to shoot
Well I'm not going to shoot him. I like Wolvin, despite how wrong I think he is here.
March 1st, 2013 at 4:44 PM |
Of course not.
Of course not.
Everyone knows we're shooting Seth because Michigan lost to Penn State.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
February 28th, 2013 at 8:00 PM |
While I disagree with him...
While I disagree with him...
I don't think he's coming from a mean-spirited place. This thread is better because he's voiced his opinion in a thought-out way.
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra
February 28th, 2013 at 8:04 PM |
Maybe not, but either way,
Maybe not, but either way,
Maybe not, but either way, he's clearly condoning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
February 28th, 2013 at 8:25 PM |
Let the record show that I'm
Let the record show that I'm
Let the record show that I'm not anti-gay, at all. I'm not saying that I don't think gays should be allowed in the NFL or that I think an NFL owner should base his decision on sexual orientation. What I am saying, is that if an owner feels that, with his particular team, he'd like to know before he drafts a player whether or not he's gay, then he should be able to ask the question.
Is that discrimination? You bet. As bad as it sounds, I'm in favor of discrimination in many areas. As I said above, I'd prefer that Michigan hire a young, black man to replace Jerry Montgomery. In fact, those characteristics ( I feel) are more important to our staff than what position the guy coaches. That is absolutely discrimination. There are jobs I think a woman does a better job than a man, and vice versa. My wife had a male OB, and she was comfortable with that, but many women aren't and I can understand that.
The reality is people are different, and those differences can make us more or less appealing for certain jobs (or can have almost no effect, depending on the job).
February 28th, 2013 at 8:39 PM |
But the only reason these
But the only reason these
But the only reason these kinds of differences are "less appealing" in the first place is because of the prejudice that exists in society. Your conclusion is inevitable because you've already accepted the premise of discrimination. You may not be anti-gay, but you're ok with an employer giving a gay less money or not hiring him at all because he's gay. Not cool man.
February 28th, 2013 at 9:27 PM |
But prejudice exists in
But prejudice exists in
But prejudice exists in society, like it or not. I work in sales, and I would be received differently with a mohawk, tattoos and piercings. Is that right? I'd still be just as knowledgeable and just as hard-working. It's also common for pharmaceutical reps to be good looking, young women, because most doctors are older men who will listen to a pitch from a cute girl before they would from someone like me.
My wife is a woman who speaks Spanish. Some of her firms' clients are women (who prefer working with a woman attorney) and some are Spanish speakers (and some are both, obviously). She is more of an asset to her firm because of her gender and her race, and although I believe she would have the job based on merit alone, I'm sure those two factors helped. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. A white male with her same qualifications wouldn't have gotten the job since the firm already has a lot of those.
This is not necessarily right, but it's the way the world works.
February 28th, 2013 at 9:35 PM |
I'm arguing about its
I'm arguing about its
I'm arguing about its acceptability, not its existence.
February 28th, 2013 at 9:42 PM |
And that's a fair argument,
And that's a fair argument,
And that's a fair argument, just one I don't agree with.
Many people on here would agree not to hire a person with neck tattoo and holes in their ears for a job that works with clients. That's discrimination. Or not to hire a woman football coach. Alabama is probably not going to hire a Muslim as their recruiting coordinator. Everyone draws their line in a different spot, and that's OK.
That said, I'm gonna be done here, since I've gotten into neg-on-sight territory, and though I care little able the negs themselves, it tells me my viewpoint is no longer welcome so I'll leave this one alone from here.
March 1st, 2013 at 4:10 AM |
Speaking for myself ...
Speaking for myself ...
... You've said plenty I disagree with, but made no personal attacks or nonsensical arguments, so no negs from me.
You made an argument in a way that shows you've thought things through, participated in the discussion and didn't disrespect the other side. We could use more of that even if the argument/opinion is unpopular.
March 1st, 2013 at 11:18 AM |
I appreciate that.
I appreciate that.
I appreciate that.
February 28th, 2013 at 10:34 PM |
Hiiring someone who speaks spanish seems to be actually related
Hiiring someone who speaks spanish seems to be actually related
To the job. If she was hired in part because she speaks spanish because part of her job function is to speak Spanish that is a personally reasonable requirement. Since being straight is not in fact a prerequisite for being a football player, I don't see how your comparison is remotely relevant.
You can be blue and still be green
March 1st, 2013 at 1:01 AM |
It's not the language part,
It's not the language part,
It's not the language part, it's the ethnicity part. A white person who can speak perfect Spanish still isn't going to make a Latin client comfortable. It's because she's Latin, which happens to include speaking Spanish well.
March 1st, 2013 at 12:39 PM |
" A white person who can
" A white person who can
" A white person who can speak perfect Spanish still isn't going to make a Latin client comfortable."
Um, what? Granted, it's been a while since I spoke Spanish on the regular, but I was semi-fluent back when I was working in retail, and I had a number of devoted clients who spoke exclusively spanish. They kept coming back to me because I was able to communicate with them on their terms, and provide them a level of service that they couldn't get anywhere else in town.
Now, granted, I could've totally misunderstood them, and they were simply less uncomfortable with me than they were with everyone else, but by the third or fourth time they came back and waited an hour or more to work directly with me (and to be clear, it wasn't just spanish speaking clients who did this), it seemed like they were pretty comfortable.
Your argument seems to assume an awful lot about Latinos that likely isn't true.
March 1st, 2013 at 2:41 PM |
This has become an entirely
This has become an entirely
This has become an entirely different argument, but I'm not assuming anything. That post was written by my first-generation Guatemalan wife, and I think she's pretty dialed in to how Latin people think and feel.
I'm sure your Latin clients loved you, but that's a little anecdotal, right? They may have preferred you because you were the best option available, or because of your positive qualities in addition to speaking semi-fluent Spanish. But all things held equal, most Latin people, especially in important matters, would like to work with another Latin person when available, all other things held equal.
March 1st, 2013 at 4:48 PM |
How is the way your wife feels
How is the way your wife feels
One Guatemalan woman, any less anecdotal than his experiences?
And I don't think you can say definitively that most Latin people would like to work with another Latin person (ATBE). I think there might be a case for recent immigrants of any group being more comfortable with their own because they haven't had a chance to fully assimulate, but that's a far cry from MOST.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
March 1st, 2013 at 4:59 PM |
Hers is less anecdotal
Hers is less anecdotal
Hers is less anecdotal because she grew up in the community and has interacted closely with them for her entire life. It's like the difference between my knowledge of Michigan versus someone who has visited there once. Both of us are just one person, but one of us lived there for 20+ years, so their experiences will be much more broad, and their knowledge far greater. I cannot speak for everyone in Michigan on any topic, but having lived there for most of my life I can speak well on the general sentiment of a lot of things.
Are you really arguing that a guy who took Spanish in college and helped some hispanic clients has as good of a knowledge on the habits and desires of Latin people as a whole as a person who grew up in an immigrant family is a hispanic neighborhood? Obviously not everyone in the community is the same, but there are some common thoughts and beliefs that I think she has a pretty good handle on.
Now I think people are disagreeing with me just for the sake of disagreement.
I don't think that it does, but if an NFL owner does, he should be able to ask it.