Oso planning to go pro
Exactly. His career is a testament to the courage of others to stand up to the status quo and to change the system. It is very likely that Dungy would not have been an NFL coach had he been born a generation earlier.But when it comes to integrating open homosexuals into professional sports? That's someone else's problem I guess.
Not only that, but "distractions" are what prevented some people from integrating sports in the first place.Good thing Branch Rickey had the balls to deal with the "distractions." Too bad Dungy doesn't seem to have that courage.
Integrating black men into baseball in 1947 was a MUCH bigger deal than integrating homosexual men into football in 2014.In 1947 you had media, coaches, owners, players and fans all against Jackie Robinson.In 2014 you have a small minority of coaches and players against Michael Sam. You have fans about 50/50, and the 50% for is growing. Media is 90/10 for Sam, but agitating to get a story.If he has a good camp, he will be on the team. What more do you want?
I don't want coaches (or former coaches) admitting that they wouldn't take a player because of his sexual orientation. I agree with you that Sam is light years ahead of Robinson, but there is still a ways to go.
You guys are acting as if Tony Dungy kept him from being drafted.Michael Sam DID get drafted. He WILL have a chance to for a spot on an NFL roster. It is up to his ability now. I hope he makes it and has a successful career so we can stop all this metal masturbation.In the end, Tony Dungy is expressing an opinion. This is America. We all have a right to an opinion.
Let's give Tony Dungy the benefit of the doubt - let's assume he's not a bigot. Given that, the BEST we can say about him is that he's a bit of a coward. He knows what's right but wants someone else to be Branch Rickey. He wants someone else's kids to go to integrated schools, someone else to live in the integrated community. His career is testimony to his own ability AND to people with courage who were willing to deal with the "distractions" that come with employment based on merit without regard to color, sexual orientation, etc. You want to applaud his hypocrisy as honesty and lack of PC? Fine, but it just makes you as hypocritical and wrongheaded as Dungy.
Nobody said Tony can't have that opinion. He's just wrong, that's the problem. "I wouldn't put a woman on my staff because it would distract the men. She can go back and be a housewife." "I wouldn't hire a (insert specific group here) because it would distract my staff. They can go work someplace else."It's unacceptable.
C'mon man. You're better than that. It was an opinion. He expressed it. This is why we can't solve these problems. We can't even express opinions about them.
He's not a bigot in my opinion. I've had the pleasure of working with him on many occasions and find him to be an upstanding individual. I don't find him hypocritical at all, in fact I think you missed the entire point. I find the hypocrisy in those that decide who gets wrist slapped, who gets fired, who should be outraged. Put another way, someone other than Tony Dungy says that, and hell breaks lose. Put another way, some on the right says a certain someone is light skinned without a dialect and he is destroyed while the person that did use those words is given a butterfly kiss wrist slap.
Actually, CERTAIN people can express opinions. Others cannot, without fear of retribution. That's how our society works today. You'll be labled a bigot, racist, misogynist, homophobe, etc, usually depending on what ideological stripes you wear. If, however, you wear different stripes, well you might get a gentle finger wagging and that's it.Reminds me of a time when someone said Macaca vs someone else saying Hymie. Crazy different outcomes.....of course different people said them and thus, different outcomes. That's how our society works.
People can SAY whatever they want, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
What if someone had a choice to hire a candidate among a man and a woman, one was incredibly flirtatious and had a bad reputation for hooking up with the men in her office, causing all kinds of issues. The male candidate was not quite as accomplished, but didn't carry any baggage. As a hiring manager you decided on the latter, not the former and told HR why due to those concerns. Some in this society would say you are discriminating, in fact this situation was one shared with me by a colleague.
The issuance of apologies in these situations is also pretty awesome.Some people are allowed to give the apology and all is forgiven. Others, it doesn't matter. Again, often correlated to the ideological stripes one has.
For the record, I'm not saying Tony or any coach can't express his/her opinion. I AM saying that I wish they didn't have that belief because I think it's wrong. People shouldn't be prevented from working someplace because they are (male/female/black/yellow/green/blue/gay/bi/straight/etc).