It could simply be things like the email referenced in this article.
It's a good article, but I guess I don't get why he should be given the chance to prove he's not a racist. I mean, I get that there are greys and degrees. A racist image like this doesn't make him a KKK member. Nor do I doubt that he's not racist in the sense that he not a white supremacist who believes blacks are dumb etc etc. But, on the other hand it is a very racist statement that isn't just an individual insult but one that uses a gross caricature of black lips and equates that to stupidity. That's not light. Gruden could prove that he's happy to work with blacks w/ out discrimination; that he's hired x number; and that he obviously believes in the intelligence/integrity of those hires, etc. He can do lots of things to "prove" he's not racist. But just as that e mail doesn't show he's the very worst type of racist. So too is it impossible for any other action of his to prove he's not a racist since he quite recently demonstrated racist reflexes. That doesn't go away. His "apology" reinforced it, in fact by virtue of being so tone deaf.
As one of a couple other Raider lifers on here….couple thoughts.
"Blade of Racism" sounds like something Schilling would have displayed on his gaming room wall.
Doesnt the fact that this was a private email change the equation as to "intent doesnt matter"? It was never supposed to reach Dees ears (duh), so I'm not sure what Dee hears is what really matters. No?
Out of curiosity, where do you personally draw the line on this kind of thing? If it’s unfair to “parse” an email from ten years ago for referring to a Black man as having lips the size of Michelin tires, what kind of written statement *would* it be acceptable to hold someone accountable for a decade later?
You are obviously correct that Gruden never intended for his indefensible racism to be exposed. I don't see that as being exculpatory in any way.
Again, I'm not sure the points of emphasis in the training apply here, but no, that would make no difference - it doesn't matter if a person is addressed directly if the effect is (for that person, or for a class of people) a toxic environment.
The harm is what matters, and I agree that parsing intent centers the discussion wrongly. It’s a shitty statement and Gruden should own that and apologize without reservation.
I mean...I never said it was?
Yeah kind of feels like if Gruden hadn't insulted the NFL/Goodell this never comes to light. (Not that it excuses it now of course.)
Interestingly the article points out that no one in the league will say WHAT vulgar comments Gruden used. I have a strong feeling he made liberal use of words for a bundle of sticks and negative oral pressure on a male chicken in reference to his perception of their masculinity or sexual orientation. I think he’s gone.
Maybe there wasn't enough time since it broke on Friday, but I feel like if he was going to get fired it would have happened already.
At a minimum, it portends that this season will end up like the last 2.
And those are two different things. (not suggesting you are saying otherwise.). An apology here should not include an explanation because there is no explanation, other than "I never said it.") It's not that difficult.
I don't think it's a good idea for society to not recognize the difference between the people who accidentally set a house on fire by leaving the stove on and the people who purposely set a house on fire for the expressed purpose of causing pain and suffering. It's an important difference because the former can learn and adjust behavior while the latter will continue to want to cause pain and suffering. This is a foundational piece of our legal system. Should we do away with the distinction between manslaughter and third degree murder as well?
The only thing accidental here is the racist emails leaking out to the press.
No. You're doing it wrong.
Nobody is suggesting that, or at least certainly not me. But hurtful comments are hurtful whether they are intended to be or not, that is the point.
That may be correct in this case (Gruden's intent) but I disagree with your second statement. The implication there is that marginalized groups simply have to deal with comments made without malicious intent so long as the person making the comments apologizes or is contrite or whatever. I reject that premise.
"I didn't mean to burn your house down" is pretty thin gruel to someone that keeps having their house burnt down.
Why do you reject that premise? If someone says something hurtful without realizing its malicious, and then sincerely apologizes and reforms when informed, is that not exactly how we would want a multi-cultural society to work? Is that not how we make incremental progress to expanding societal awareness? Or are we at the point when it's better to simply mute conversation or punish people who have no ill-will?
Nobody here disagrees.
Especially when the accidental arsonist is standing next to the burned down house with a can full of gas and a hand full of matches.
You suggested that when you said "intent doesn't matter." Clearly there is an important difference between Richard Spencer saying something racist and a grandma offending someone by accident because she doesn't know the latest microaggressions.
Yeah, the “intent doesn’t matter” is a contortion of most companies policies on the matter. If I go into the office on a Monday and say “I hate Monday’s”, or flash an OK symbol acknowledging to someone that “it’s OK”, I’ve done nothing wrong or malicious.
This. I can't believe this is even debatable. Although I suspect Mark Davis has around 80M more reasons than any of us to keep him on...
I made the comment in the context of Randy Moss being clearly upset over the situation. Let's say for a minute Gruden really didn't mean any harm by what he said, if Moss is honestly upset about the comments, isn't that something that he gets to feel? Does Gruden's intent matter in that instance?
You made the comment in that context and then broadened it out to a general scope, just as you do in your second sentence of this post. I take it to mean that you believe intent doesn't matter in all situations like this - is that a misunderstanding on my part? Or do you believe there is really no difference in the way we should respond to Richard Spencer and the ignorant grandmother I mentioned?
Why does this matter? There’s always something worse. Gruden’s comment was horrific. Your modern Godwin references to Richard Spencer are irrelevant. If he’d said what he said in person, he’d have been gone ten years ago.
Sorry if I am not being clear, I am not saying intent doesn't matter in terms of the consequences. I'm saying that if someone is offended by a hurtful comment, then they are offended by it, whether the person who said it said it with malicious intent or not.
I've specifically noted this is unrelated to Gruden. RW dropped as a matter-of-fact in the middle of his post that "intent doesn't matter," which is something I see being repeated everywhere that doesn't make any sense in a society of 330 million people. It matters because obviously intent is important when it comes to how we treat statements and "penalize" people socially, in the workplace, etc.
