Bad to worse for Georgetown

[warriorchick]

Agreed, no one should be excluded. But fair or not, the race of the candidate does have an impact on if Georgetown will be an institutional fit for them. The comparison made earlier to an HBCU is accurate. Georgetown has a long and proud history of supporting black basketball players and coaches, dating back to times when that was not a popular thing to do. That's a point of pride that I am sure is hard to give up Not saying it's right. Just saying it is.

If anything, I think Georgetown should feel less pressure than most institutions to hire a minority coach, because they have already done more than enough to prove that they are colorblind in that regard.

[wadesworld]

So if several 4 star white basketball players wanted to go to Georgetown they would not sign them because they are not an "institutional" fit? If there were a school with the same academic standing as Georgetown that had a history of supporting  poor white basketball players would it be tolerated: Not saying it is right, just saying it is; but we know there is no school out there because we know it is not right. It is discrimination but everyone wants to skirt around the issue, not to mention that Georgetown takes pride in it. It's 2017, we should evaluate people based on their talents, not on the color of their skin.

No, it's not discrimination.  They don't refuse Caucasians from being associated with their basketball program, they simply take pride in the fact that before anybody else was accepting African Americans they were actively doing so.  There is nothing discriminating about that, and if you think African Americans are no longer discriminated against in 2017 you need to open your eyes.

[Babybluejeans]

So if several 4 star white basketball players wanted to go to Georgetown they would not sign them because they are not an "institutional" fit? If there were a school with the same academic standing as Georgetown that had a history of supporting  poor white basketball players would it be tolerated: Not saying it is right, just saying it is; but we know there is no school out there because we know it is not right. It is discrimination but everyone wants to skirt around the issue, not to mention that Georgetown takes pride in it. It's 2017, we should evaluate people based on their talents, not on the color of their skin.

Huh? Georgetown has a history of supporting black players and coaches when other programs wouldn't. That's actually called anti-discrimination. It's 2017 but learn your history, bruh.

Edit: I'm mostly just repeating what wades said.

[brewcity77]

No, it's not discrimination.  They don't refuse Caucasians from being associated with their basketball program, they simply take pride in the fact that before anybody else was accepting African Americans they were actively doing so.  There is nothing discriminating about that, and if you think African Americans are no longer discriminated against in 2017 you need to open your eyes.

Maybe I just wasn't as aware then, but I honestly think we're going the wrong way as far as that goes. For all the strides we made in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, I feel like we are discriminating more against African Americans than we were a decade ago. Not saying it's ever been easy to be anything other than a white male in America, but in recent days it seems to be getting worse for women and minorities rather than better, and that's been a trend for a few years now.

And by we, I mean we as a country.

[muwarrior69]

No, it's not discrimination.  They don't refuse Caucasians from being associated with their basketball program, they simply take pride in the fact that before anybody else was accepting African Americans they were actively doing so.  There is nothing discriminating about that, and if you think African Americans are no longer discriminated against in 2017 you need to open your eyes.

So how many caucasian players have they signed over the last 20 years?

[GGGG]

So how many caucasian players have they signed over the last 20 years?

I have no clue.  A few.  Do you have any evidence that their recruitment strategy specifically excludes them from recruiting caucasian players?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So if several 4 star white basketball players wanted to go to Georgetown they would not sign them because they are not an "institutional" fit? If there were a school with the same academic standing as Georgetown that had a history of supporting  poor white basketball players would it be tolerated: Not saying it is right, just saying it is; but we know there is no school out there because we know it is not right. It is discrimination but everyone wants to skirt around the issue, not to mention that Georgetown takes pride in it. It's 2017, we should evaluate people based on their talents, not on the color of their skin.

So I saw this post and thought about going down the rabbit hole. But I decided against it.....

But then...Chick said this:

because they have already done more than enough to prove that they are colorblind in that regard.

And now I feel like I have to go down the rabbit hole. So here we go.

What you are demonstrating and Chick aptly mentioned is a subtle form of bias known as "colorblindness." Colorblindness is almost always well intentioned but ultimately harmful. Common phrases associated with it are "I don't see color." " The only race that matters is the human race." etc. While these statements are wonderful and beautiful in theory, they unintentionally silence and discredit people from minority groups. The statements imply that everyone is treated fairly and equally....which they should be....but let's face it, they are not. Not even close. I can cite any number of studies that show that the racism still exists in this day and age. The reality is, if a white candidate and a black candidate for a job had the exact same qualifications and the exact same identity groups besides race, the black candidate would be more impressive because s/he managed to earn the same qualifications despite having to overcome barriers put in front of him/her due to race. Colorblindness discredits the black candidate by not acknowledging that they had to work harder to get to the same place (again assuming exact same credentials and identity groups besides race).

Colorblindness also has a silencing effect on the race conversation. It shows an unwillingness and discomfort with talking about and acknowledging race. It is very understandable why white people like myself are uncomfortable talking about it, because we have a long history of using our race to gain more power and control over others. It is very uncomfortable and we won't be able to move forward until we are able to acknowledge and talk about our past and how it is still affecting us today.

My examples to this point have all been about race. The term colorblindness lends itself to race real well. But you can substitute race for any other identity, religion, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.

I could go on for pages more. If you are interested I'd be happy to send you some reading material.

As for the specifics brought up in your comment. No, Georgetown has and will continue to recruit white players. That doesn't mean that they don't take pride in all of the work they have done to support black basketball players. I'll bring up the HBCU example again...HBCUs emphasize recruiting black students, but most are at least 10% white. For your example about programs supporting white students. Those did exist....for decades. And while there aren't any that overtly take pride in it you only need to look about 90 miles to the west to find one that is close. You don't remember all the "White basketball success" hashtags at Wisconsin a few years back? It is also different because white players are the privileged group and don't need the same support as players of color. You could also look to women's basketball for some overt examples. The Geno vs. Pat Summit matchups used to be biggest moment of the women's basketball season. Do you know why the series stopped? Pat Summit broke it off because she was sick of Geno recruiting against her by labeling UConn a "family values" program and Tennessee a lesbian program.

[warriorchick]

Wow.  All I meant was that they have proven that they embrace diversity.

I guess it was a poor word choice.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Wow.  All I meant was that they have proven that they embrace diversity.

I guess it was a poor word choice.

I was talking to 69. The fact that you used the word colorblind is just what inspired me to go down the rabbit hole. I took it as a sign haha.

[muwarrior69]

So I saw this post and thought about going down the rabbit hole. But I decided against it.....

But then...Chick said this:

And now I feel like I have to go down the rabbit hole. So here we go.

What you are demonstrating and Chick aptly mentioned is a subtle form of bias known as "colorblindness." Colorblindness is almost always well intentioned but ultimately harmful. Common phrases associated with it are "I don't see color." " The only race that matters is the human race." etc. While these statements are wonderful and beautiful in theory, they unintentionally silence and discredit people from minority groups. The statements imply that everyone is treated fairly and equally....which they should be....but let's face it, they are not. Not even close. I can cite any number of studies that show that the racism still exists in this day and age. The reality is, if a white candidate and a black candidate for a job had the exact same qualifications and the exact same identity groups besides race, the black candidate would be more impressive because s/he managed to earn the same qualifications despite having to overcome barriers put in front of him/her due to race. Colorblindness discredits the black candidate by not acknowledging that they had to work harder to get to the same place (again assuming exact same credentials and identity groups besides race).

Colorblindness also has a silencing effect on the race conversation. It shows an unwillingness and discomfort with talking about and acknowledging race. It is very understandable why white people like myself are uncomfortable talking about it, because we have a long history of using our race to gain more power and control over others. It is very uncomfortable and we won't be able to move forward until we are able to acknowledge and talk about our past and how it is still affecting us today.

My examples to this point have all been about race. The term colorblindness lends itself to race real well. But you can substitute race for any other identity, religion, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.

I could go on for pages more. If you are interested I'd be happy to send you some reading material.

As for the specifics brought up in your comment. No, Georgetown has and will continue to recruit white players. That doesn't mean that they don't take pride in all of the work they have done to support black basketball players. I'll bring up the HBCU example again...HBCUs emphasize recruiting black students, but most are at least 10% white. For your example about programs supporting white students. Those did exist....for decades. And while there aren't any that overtly take pride in it you only need to look about 90 miles to the west to find one that is close. You don't remember all the "White basketball success" hashtags at Wisconsin a few years back? It is also different because white players are the privileged group and don't need the same support as players of color. You could also look to women's basketball for some overt examples. The Geno vs. Pat Summit matchups used to be biggest moment of the women's basketball season. Do you know why the series stopped? Pat Summit broke it off because she was sick of Geno recruiting against her by labeling UConn a "family values" program and Tennessee a lesbian program.

I am not uncomfortable talking race and I never tried to use my race to gain power over anyone.  All those studies I am sure like to lump people into this bucket or that group and fail to see people as individuals. Is there individual racism, sure. Do I have individual biases; I do. I looked it up. John Thompson Jr. in his 28 seasons as head coach at Georgetown signed 14 caucasian players, just under 4% of his players. If a white coach signed only 4% black players over 28 seasons, well lets say, we wouldn't call him a coach who strove to be diverse, but then again what do I know since I am the only one who is colorblind according to all the "experts". Can black people be colorblind? I am just asking. I really want to know? Welcome to the rabbit hole. I just may learn something.

[MUBurrow]

This is where the vocabulary gets in the way of the spirit (and utility) of good race discussions and things come undone. Its kind of like the race discussion version of Godwin's law. I have a high degree of sympathy for good intentions relying on points relating to colorblindness and viewing the judgment of merit vs race as mutually exclusive. That is the vocabulary often used by early civil rights leaders and its about the extent of how we all learned to fight prejudice growing up (regardless of when we were growing up). 

The problem is that while the platonic ideal of equality, that understanding of race relations sacrifices the good in pursuit of the great, while failing to recognize the incrementalism that is necessary to even approach the great. It leads us to say we aren't discriminatory while opposing affirmative action - despite the fact that if we can look at the overwhelming evidence of communities of color universally performing worse on standardized test scores and still think there isn't something going on there that needs social correction, we are undeniably discriminating against those communities. It lends us to characterize all use of the N-word as wrong and criticize its use in black communities while ignoring how that word was used to dehumanize for centuries, and tsk-tsking the same community for taking ownership over it and deriving empowerment from it adds insult to that injury. It lends us to decry and focus on what we perceive to be discrete cases of reverse racism in the face of ongoing and overwhelming institutional racism.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I am not uncomfortable talking race and I never tried to use my race to gain power over anyone.  All those studies I am sure like to lump people into this bucket or that group and fail to see people as individuals. Is there individual racism, sure. Do I have individual biases; I do. I looked it up. John Thompson Jr. in his 28 seasons as head coach at Georgetown signed 14 caucasian players, just under 4% of his players. If a white coach signed only 4% black players over 28 seasons, well lets say, we wouldn't call him a coach who strove to be diverse, but then again what do I know since I am the only one who is colorblind according to all the "experts". Can black people be colorblind? I am just asking. I really want to know? Welcome to the rabbit hole. I just may learn something.

I guarantee you that you have used your race to gain power or advantage in a situation. Most of the time unintentionally. I know I have benefited greatly from being a white, straight, christian male. It's nothing to feel bad about. It just is. Its an unfortunate part of the human experience in today's age.

The problem isn't individual racism. Depending on your definition of racism, everyone is racist at some level. But that word has gotten so negatively charged that I don't like to use it. I prefer the term biased because it is more generalizable to all people regardless of their identities. The problem is that there is systematic bias that gives advantages and disadvantages to different groups of people based on identities that you can't control. The most hot button of which right now is the bathroom law in North Carolina. It is legal to discriminate against somebody because of their gender identity. In many states it is legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. African Americans are incarcerated for longer sentences than white criminals who commit the same crimes with the same history. Women make less money for doing the same job with the same qualifications as their male coworkers. These are just a few of the main examples.

How many white players JT3 has recruited is irrelevant. White players are not a minority group that is systematically discriminated against. Georgetown emphasizing black players is a form of support against discrimination. A white coach only recruiting black players would be in support of discrimination.

You are not colorblind. You are a person who said something colorblind. Everyone does at some point. I still remember a moment in college where I proudly declared before 300 fellow students that we shouldn't care if Obama was black, we should just judge him on his politics. I didn't realize the impact that statement could have until years later. I still make colorblind statements to this day. We all have bias, its part of being human.

Can black people be colorblind? That is a great question. It depends on who you ask. Some say yes. Some say no. It depends on how you define racism. Personally, I say no. You need to have some sort of power or privilege that comes from your identity in order to be colorblind. Though a black man could be colorblind against a white woman because of the privilege his gender brings him. Other scholars disagree. That's why I prefer the term bias, its universally applicable.

I hope you don't take this as an attack. This is something I'm passionate about and I feel like things like HBCUs and Georgetown get taken out of context a lot. I'm trying to explain my position and thought process. But I love conversations like this so I would be happy to continue.

[rocket surgeon]

So if several 4 star white basketball players wanted to go to Georgetown they would not sign them because they are not an "institutional" fit? If there were a school with the same academic standing as Georgetown that had a history of supporting  poor white basketball players would it be tolerated: Not saying it is right, just saying it is; but we know there is no school out there because we know it is not right. It is discrimination but everyone wants to skirt around the issue, not to mention that Georgetown takes pride in it. It's 2017, we should evaluate people based on their talents, not on the color of their skin.

BANGO!!

[rocket surgeon]

Wow.  All I meant was that they have proven that they embrace diversity.

I guess it was a poor word choice.

\
here's the thing chick and i'm saying this with all due respect as you've earned it over the years here on scoop-i think your point was well meaning but easily misunderstood.  sometimes people will try to go out of their way(s) to attend to minorities or make the appearance as such to try to get ahead of a racist label.

   for example, and i think tamu hit on this in his post as well-some of my best friends are...or georgetown can't be racist because they have hired or signed...

this is a very sticky wicket and many times i believe it becomes a damned if you do and damned if you don't and that's why sometimes the "rabbit hole" is a safe place(no pun intended)

also, it's a constant, don't tell me... show me

[EaglesNest]

Rodney Pryor won the dunk contest

[Tugg Speedman]

The natives are getting restless

What’s Taking So Long, Georgetown?
http://www.casualhoya.com/2017/4/1/15151074/whats-taking-so-long-georgetown

[jsglow]

Wow TAMU.  I'm a simple man from the south side of Milwaukee.  Where I come from a guy who only considers the 'content of one's character' is not a racist just like the guy who's girlfriend has had a second beer isn't a rapist. 

Now back to the GTown meltdown.

[StillAWarrior]

SI has an article that is really killing Georgetown for how it's handling this search.  One line that people here will love:  "Former Indiana coach Tom Crean has been told he’s not a candidate."  So, at least in the middle of a very critical article, SI is willing to give credit where it's due.

[StillAWarrior]

If Georgetown is striking out with the "usual suspects" -- and all indications suggest that they are -- one name I've heard mentioned is Jamion Christian at Mount Saint Mary's.  If they're going to make a "relative unknown with upside" hire, he's intriguing. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Wow TAMU.  I'm a simple man from the south side of Milwaukee.  Where I come from a guy who only considers the 'content of one's character' is not a racist just like the guy who's girlfriend has had a second beer isn't a rapist. 

Now back to the GTown meltdown.

Careful, I might go down a different rabbit hole about how grossly misinterpreted the "I Have a Dream" speech is. We ignore 95% of the speech and focus on the 5% that sounds happy. And we don't even get the meaning of the 5% right.

Glow, I too am I simple man from the west side of Milwaukee. And where I come from, no one judges solely on the content of a person's character. They should, but that's not the world we live in. Pretending otherwise, we ignore how many advantages people in the majority are given and how many disadvantages people in the minority are given. It unintentionally keeps the scales unbalanced.  Unfortunately, the color of a person's skin (or their religion, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, etc) has a huge impact on the content of their character. I used to not believe this, but those pesky Jesuits at Marquette helped me see the world differently.

No one said anyone was a racist or would be a racist. I have met maybe 5 or 6 bona fide racists in my lifetime. I don't think any one on here comes close to matching that profile. But I also have yet to meet a person who doesn't do something or say something biased every now and again. Doesn't make us all racists, it just makes us human.

If you'd like to continue the consent and alcohol conversation I'd be happy to but not here. I think this thread has wandered off enough.

[StillAWarrior]

No one said anyone was a racist or would be a racist. I have met maybe 5 or 6 bona fide racists in my lifetime. I don't think any one on here comes close to matching that profile. But I also have yet to meet a person who doesn't do something or say something biased every now and again. Doesn't make us all racists, it just makes us human.

I would tend to agree with this.  On this issue, I believe strongly that race relations in this country are worsened by people who know this to be true (like yourself) calling others "racist" for every instance of real or perceived "bias" (unlike what you're doing).  Accusing someone of being a racist -- a vile accusation -- does nothing to advance the dialogue that needs to occur.  In fact, I believe it is absolutely counter productive.

[Galway Eagle]

I would tend to agree with this.  On this issue, I believe strongly that race relations in this country are worsened by people who know this to be true (like yourself) calling others "racist" for every instance of real or perceived "bias" (unlike what you're doing).  Accusing someone of being a racist -- a vile accusation -- does nothing to advance the dialogue that needs to occur.  In fact, I believe it is absolutely counter productive.

But sometimes utilizing the dialogue that TAMU is using gets you called the "pc police" and makes those slightly biased individuals shut the door on them being remotely at fault.

[brewcity77]

But sometimes utilizing the dialogue that TAMU is using gets you called the "pc police" and makes those slightly biased individuals shut the door on them being remotely at fault.

Personally, I'm sick of the "PC police" excuse. It's basically a way for people to say "why are you calling me out for being a inconsiderate asshole?"

Being a jerk isn't something that should be celebrated, but sadly, that's where we're at, maybe because we as a society have been jerks for so long that we don't want to change. Frankly, it's a bit pathetic. Is it really that hard to sack up and be a decent human being?

[StillAWarrior]

But sometimes utilizing the dialogue that TAMU is using gets you called the "pc police" and makes those slightly biased individuals shut the door on them being remotely at fault.

I don't disagree with that.  However, I think TAMU's approach in this area is far more likely to lead to a productive discussion.  Telling people, "Look, even a well-intentioned person may have a bias that they should be aware of" is a much more productive approach than calling someone a racist.  Calling someone a racist typically ends the conversation.  I am open to discussing my biases (and society's biases) and learning about situations.  But as soon as someone calls me a racist -- which I consider to be an awful and untrue allegation -- I'm done.

[GGGG]

I just went through an implicit bias training exercise the other day.  It really was well done and eye-opening in a way I didn't figure it would be.  Very non-accusatory.