John Gruden has been fired (publicly as voluntarily resigned) as head coach by the owner of the NFL's Las Vegas Raiders team for e-mails with racist, sexist and homophobic slurs and comments from about 9 years ago when a commentator for ESPN. They included racist references (big lips) toward the then head of the NFLPA Union, a Black man and of the then and current Commissioner of the NFL. The e-mails were disclosed to and reported by the NY Times late last week. It is not known who or how these alleged e-mails got to the NY Times. With the rise of no tolerance of any racist or other offense comments, even in the relativity distant past, it is not surprising of Gruden 'resigning for the good of the team'.
https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/jon-gr ... fhs0k2zrn2

Gruden was a great coach but this is just very poor judgment - it makes zero sense to talk about people in racial terms that way, especially when so many colleagues are of that race. Mind-bogglingly stupid.

Aaron747 wrote:

Gruden was a great coach but this is just very poor judgment - it makes zero sense to talk about people in racial terms that way, especially when so many colleagues are of that race. Mind-bogglingly stupid.

He took over a team with a fantastic defense built by Tony Dungy, I've never been that impressed with Gruden as a coach, however.

The comments made in the emails are not poor judgment, they are being an A'hole, putting them into an email and sending that makes him a stupid A'hole.

Apparently more e-mails came out with offensive comments (homophobic, sexist, racist slurs), mostly when Gruden was working for ESPN in and around 2011. Apparently they were discovered during the investigation of the Washington Football Team Iwho's former name had to be dropped as a racist slur for generations) of sexual and other harassment and assault, that Gruden sent to certain persons who worked there then.
He might have gotten away with one e-mail, but it was a pattern for about a year, he was a current coach of a team and league with a majority of Black players and undergoing attempts to deal with racism in the NFL and the general public. If he didn't quit, it likely would have meant boycotts and protests by Black players, loss of revenues, negative fan reaction, something the league can ill afford right now.

This is good, Everyone's past life should be put under a microscope and judged. Competence should have absolutely no bearing on someone's position, just the ability to be non-offensive and have right-thought. I will also add, that no absolution should ever be considered, if you've crossed a line, even one that may not have even been there at the time of your actions, you need to pay with your livelihood!!!!

Every drill sergeant in the US Army must be shaking in their boots right now, and rightfully so.

Redd wrote:

This is good, Everyone's past life should be put under a microscope and judged. Competence should have absolutely no bearing on someone's position, just the ability to be non-offensive and have right-thought. I will also add, that no absolution should ever be considered, if you've crossed a line, even one that may not have even been there at the time of your actions, you need to pay with your livelihood!!!!

I detect a wee bit of sarcasm in that post

I would just say as an HR pro that the microscope normally doesn't and shouldn't apply to everyone. People in highly visible positions are different - they are paid a lot not only for their specific competence but also brand ambassadorship. It should be expected that if they foul up or otherwise have skeletons that could bring reputational harm, most organizations are going to choose to part ways rather than deal with media nonsense. And I would add that the vast majority of people who conduct themselves maturely and professionally do not have any such skeletons they need to worry about jumping from the closet someday.

No drill sergeant is quaking in their boots because being hard on people to effect an outcome is part of the job. I ask you with regard to Gruden: what did racial commentary on the union boss's body parts have to do with analysis of his competence in the position? Hint: nothing.

jetwet1 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Gruden was a great coach but this is just very poor judgment - it makes zero sense to talk about people in racial terms that way, especially when so many colleagues are of that race. Mind-bogglingly stupid.

He took over a team with a fantastic defense built by Tony Dungy, I've never been that impressed with Gruden as a coach, however.

The comments made in the emails are not poor judgment, they are being an A'hole, putting them into an email and sending that makes him a stupid A'hole.

I agree - '03 Bucs win was all Dungy. "Chuckie" just happened to be lucky to take over as head coach.

(And on that note, it now makes more sense why he was called "Chuckie")

It never ceases to amaze me just what the hell people will put in their e-mails.

Well, there is yet another lesson on what does not belong in public commentary much less work emails at all. Good luck to the team going forward.

Aaron747 wrote:

Redd wrote:

This is good, Everyone's past life should be put under a microscope and judged. Competence should have absolutely no bearing on someone's position, just the ability to be non-offensive and have right-thought. I will also add, that no absolution should ever be considered, if you've crossed a line, even one that may not have even been there at the time of your actions, you need to pay with your livelihood!!!!

I detect a wee bit of sarcasm in that post

I would just say as an HR pro that the microscope normally doesn't and shouldn't apply to everyone. People in highly visible positions are different - they are paid a lot not only for their specific competence but also brand ambassadorship. It should be expected that if they foul up or otherwise have skeletons that could bring reputational harm, most organizations are going to choose to part ways rather than deal with media nonsense. And I would add that the vast majority of people who conduct themselves maturely and professionally do not have any such skeletons they need to worry about jumping from the closet someday.

No drill sergeant is quaking in their boots because being hard on people to effect an outcome is part of the job. I ask you with regard to Gruden: what did racial commentary on the union boss's body parts have to do with analysis of his competence in the position? Hint: nothing.

Just a little bit... lol

Honestly though, everyone has skeletons, EVERY SINGLE PERSON. People make mistakes, people change and should have the opportunity to do so. Having been in sports all my life, I can tell you that coaches aren't known for their docile PC behavior.. Heck, I was called every damn Polak degradation you could imagine when I messed up by my Hockey coach, and all other nationalities got it equally. Different times, different people, and no one took offense. Most of the time, it was pretty funny.

To add to it, it smells of a witch hunt. Someone rummaged through 10-year-old emails and sent them to the media, now the guy in effect loses his livelihood. For some dumb stuff he said 10 years ago, which wasn't even equally offensive back then. Personally, I think our priorities are backwards.

FGITD wrote:

Sorry, but complaining about his past impacting the present just makes you look foolish.

This was 2011. It’s not like you can use the excuse people use for their old grandpa who sometimes says the wrong thing, “oh he’s from a different time!”

If you were a racist in 2011 you were still a few decades out of date, and just as much of a POS as being a racist now.

I'm sure if I were to put your past under a microscope, there would be a few reasons to call you a POS. And yes, times have changes DRASTICALLY in the past 10 years, people have become way past hypersensitive. Not only that, but people also seem to get some sick enjoyment from seeing other people's lives ruined. To be honest, I think that approach is pathetic.

Redd wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Redd wrote:

This is good, Everyone's past life should be put under a microscope and judged. Competence should have absolutely no bearing on someone's position, just the ability to be non-offensive and have right-thought. I will also add, that no absolution should ever be considered, if you've crossed a line, even one that may not have even been there at the time of your actions, you need to pay with your livelihood!!!!

I detect a wee bit of sarcasm in that post

I would just say as an HR pro that the microscope normally doesn't and shouldn't apply to everyone. People in highly visible positions are different - they are paid a lot not only for their specific competence but also brand ambassadorship. It should be expected that if they foul up or otherwise have skeletons that could bring reputational harm, most organizations are going to choose to part ways rather than deal with media nonsense. And I would add that the vast majority of people who conduct themselves maturely and professionally do not have any such skeletons they need to worry about jumping from the closet someday.

No drill sergeant is quaking in their boots because being hard on people to effect an outcome is part of the job. I ask you with regard to Gruden: what did racial commentary on the union boss's body parts have to do with analysis of his competence in the position? Hint: nothing.

Just a little bit... lol

Honestly though, everyone has skeletons, EVERY SINGLE PERSON. People make mistakes, people change and should have the opportunity to do so. Having been in sports all my life, I can tell you that coaches aren't known for their docile PC behavior.. Heck, I was called every damn Polak degradation you could imagine when I messed up by my Hockey coach, and all other nationalities got it equally. Different times, different people, and no one took offense. Most of the time, it was pretty funny.

To add to it, it smells of a witch hunt. Someone rummaged through 10-year-old emails and sent them to the media, now the guy in effect loses his livelihood. For some dumb stuff he said 10 years ago, which wasn't even equally offensive back then. Personally, I think our priorities are backwards.

It isn’t just dumb stuff - it’s terrible judgment. Racial commentary has zero place in any appraisal of someone’s job performance. This is basic common sense and liability avoidance for any organization. Work is about work is about work, period.

I respectfully disagree - I stand by the assertion that mature and rational people do not have such skeletons in their closets. Perhaps you took my comment to be too wide - I don’t mean *any* skeletons - just items that could be considered racially charged or harassment-oriented.

jetwet1 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Gruden was a great coach but this is just very poor judgment - it makes zero sense to talk about people in racial terms that way, especially when so many colleagues are of that race. Mind-bogglingly stupid.

He took over a team with a fantastic defense built by Tony Dungy, I've never been that impressed with Gruden as a coach, however.

The comments made in the emails are not poor judgment, they are being an A'hole, putting them into an email and sending that makes him a stupid A'hole.

Life long Raider fan here, I always thought Chucky to be an above average coach but certainly not top notch. His SB win was handed to him by the Raiders when their all pro center went missing the night before the game and when he became Raider coach nothing went well, their best defensive player bolted and they have been a .500 team ever since with a QB who can't win big games. As for his emails it show complete stupidity not just the gay and racial slurs but the fact you would go down that road in an official email about NFL business.

stlgph wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me just what the hell people will put in their e-mails.

^^ This right here.
It shows an astounding lack of good judgement to put stuff like that in emails when one is in the public eye (or any work emails, period). If you think that way and keep it to yourself, you're still a jerk, but to put it out there in writing.....well, you aren't thinking are you?

FGITD wrote:

Redd wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Sorry, but complaining about his past impacting the present just makes you look foolish.

This was 2011. It’s not like you can use the excuse people use for their old grandpa who sometimes says the wrong thing, “oh he’s from a different time!”

If you were a racist in 2011 you were still a few decades out of date, and just as much of a POS as being a racist now.

I'm sure if I were to put your past under a microscope, there would be a few reasons to call you a POS. And yes, times have changes DRASTICALLY in the past 10 years, people have become way past hypersensitive. Not only that, but people also seem to get some sick enjoyment from seeing other people's lives ruined. To be honest, I think that approach is pathetic.

Maybe so, people might not like my opinions or thoughts and maybe they’ll think I’m bad for that

But here’s the catch…I’m not a racist, and nor am I trying to defend one. There’s no “pro-racist” argument that doesn’t make you a garbage human. (Not you, the a.net user specifically, to clarify. I don’t have any reason to believe you are a racist, nor would I claim that)

And sure, things have changed since 2011. But it’s not as if public figures could get away with being racist back then and we all just laughed it off. If those emails had been exposed in 2011, people would have reacted the exact same as they are now.

Another point here: a lot of the emails were much more recent. Some were from 2018. This is not surprising: dude's been a big a-hole for a long time, but some of this stuff is just maniacally stupid. Like, who writes that stuff in an email, addresses it to the work email of someone else, and doesn't think about what might happen down the line?

There's more than a whiff here of someone wanting Gruden out and without the Raiders needing to fire him. He wasn't doing well on the field and had a massive contract running through 2028. Now the Raiders don't need to pay him for that.

Redd wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Sorry, but complaining about his past impacting the present just makes you look foolish.

This was 2011. It’s not like you can use the excuse people use for their old grandpa who sometimes says the wrong thing, “oh he’s from a different time!”

If you were a racist in 2011 you were still a few decades out of date, and just as much of a POS as being a racist now.

I'm sure if I were to put your past under a microscope, there would be a few reasons to call you a POS. And yes, times have changes DRASTICALLY in the past 10 years, people have become way past hypersensitive. Not only that, but people also seem to get some sick enjoyment from seeing other people's lives ruined. To be honest, I think that approach is pathetic.

2011 was not that long ago. It's not like John Wayne making racist, homophobic, and misogynist comments in the 1960s when it was accepted. 2011. We knew better. We demanded better. He knew what he was saying was bad. I don't say wrong because people are racist and homophobic and misogynic and have their opinions. But, we all knew saying those things were bad in 2011. I knew back in 1991. There is zero excuse.

Aaron747 wrote:

Redd wrote:

This is good, Everyone's past life should be put under a microscope and judged. Competence should have absolutely no bearing on someone's position, just the ability to be non-offensive and have right-thought. I will also add, that no absolution should ever be considered, if you've crossed a line, even one that may not have even been there at the time of your actions, you need to pay with your livelihood!!!!

I detect a wee bit of sarcasm in that post

I would just say as an HR pro that the microscope normally doesn't and shouldn't apply to everyone. People in highly visible positions are different - they are paid a lot not only for their specific competence but also brand ambassadorship. It should be expected that if they foul up or otherwise have skeletons that could bring reputational harm, most organizations are going to choose to part ways rather than deal with media nonsense. And I would add that the vast majority of people who conduct themselves maturely and professionally do not have any such skeletons they need to worry about jumping from the closet someday.

No drill sergeant is quaking in their boots because being hard on people to effect an outcome is part of the job. I ask you with regard to Gruden: what did racial commentary on the union boss's body parts have to do with analysis of his competence in the position? Hint: nothing.

It seems he is offering little resistance to this so he got burned sending these e-mails and getting caught. I wonder if he will also have to sell his ownership stake in the Raiders that he was given when he came on as coach.

Also if a Drill Sargent were to use slurs like this the result would be the same. Those in the military are definitely not protected from this kind of language and the consequences would be similar if it got out.

ER757 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me just what the hell people will put in their e-mails.

^^ This right here.
It shows an astounding lack of good judgement to put stuff like that in emails when one is in the public eye (or any work emails, period). If you think that way and keep it to yourself, you're still a jerk, but to put it out there in writing.....well, you aren't thinking are you?

That’s the rub - being a racist or a-hole is not illegal or anything. But if one has such thoughts, never put them in writing and definitely don’t talk about them at work. Job is high profile? Doubly never. Just common sense.

Aaron747 wrote:

ER757 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me just what the hell people will put in their e-mails.

^^ This right here.
It shows an astounding lack of good judgement to put stuff like that in emails when one is in the public eye (or any work emails, period). If you think that way and keep it to yourself, you're still a jerk, but to put it out there in writing.....well, you aren't thinking are you?

That’s the rub - being a racist or a-hole is not illegal or anything. But if one has such thoughts, never put them in writing and definitely don’t talk about them at work. Job is high profile? Doubly never. Just common sense.

High profile job requires direct management of a primarily Black workforce? Practically begging to be fired.

FGITD wrote:

Redd wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Sorry, but complaining about his past impacting the present just makes you look foolish.

This was 2011. It’s not like you can use the excuse people use for their old grandpa who sometimes says the wrong thing, “oh he’s from a different time!”

If you were a racist in 2011 you were still a few decades out of date, and just as much of a POS as being a racist now.

I'm sure if I were to put your past under a microscope, there would be a few reasons to call you a POS. And yes, times have changes DRASTICALLY in the past 10 years, people have become way past hypersensitive. Not only that, but people also seem to get some sick enjoyment from seeing other people's lives ruined. To be honest, I think that approach is pathetic.

Maybe so, people might not like my opinions or thoughts and maybe they’ll think I’m bad for that

But here’s the catch…I’m not a racist, and nor am I trying to defend one. There’s no “pro-racist” argument that doesn’t make you a garbage human. (Not you, the a.net user specifically, to clarify. I don’t have any reason to believe you are a racist, nor would I claim that)

And sure, things have changed since 2011. But it’s not as if public figures could get away with being racist back then and we all just laughed it off. If those emails had been exposed in 2011, people would have reacted the exact same as they are now.

I'm inclined to agree with your general sentiment, but I don't think he'd necessarily be forced to resign back in 2011. People still had the opportunity to apologize back then for their stupidity. I may be wrong though.

The issue I have is that it really wasn't that long ago that people were making Polish/Italian/French/Portuguese/fill-in-the-blank jokes, and no one took offense. It didn't necessarily make people racist, that was the 90's and even early 2000's in school. I clearly saw things start to change when I started University back in 2002 or 03, and I gladly changed with the times, just like everyone else.

The issue is, what do we do with these people we cancel? Do you think it's a reasonable expectation to have them never be able to work again or participate in society? Personally, I think that's absurd. What is that person going to do? Let's forget about this rich coach who'll probably manage. But take into consideration that something like this, rightfully or wrongfully, happens to the average Joe? How will they make a living after they've been cancelled? We as a society don't have the courage to even discuss that, and it's essential.

A person still has to live. and if you've made them a pariah then it's societies fault, at least partially if things go wrong, like turning to crime. This whole cancel culture thing can potentially function, but there needs to be a road towards absolution. Otherwise, it's nothing short irresponsible.

FGITD wrote:

Redd wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Sorry, but complaining about his past impacting the present just makes you look foolish.

This was 2011. It’s not like you can use the excuse people use for their old grandpa who sometimes says the wrong thing, “oh he’s from a different time!”

If you were a racist in 2011 you were still a few decades out of date, and just as much of a POS as being a racist now.

I'm sure if I were to put your past under a microscope, there would be a few reasons to call you a POS. And yes, times have changes DRASTICALLY in the past 10 years, people have become way past hypersensitive. Not only that, but people also seem to get some sick enjoyment from seeing other people's lives ruined. To be honest, I think that approach is pathetic.

Maybe so, people might not like my opinions or thoughts and maybe they’ll think I’m bad for that

But here’s the catch…I’m not a racist, and nor am I trying to defend one. There’s no “pro-racist” argument that doesn’t make you a garbage human. (Not you, the a.net user specifically, to clarify. I don’t have any reason to believe you are a racist, nor would I claim that)

And sure, things have changed since 2011. But it’s not as if public figures could get away with being racist back then and we all just laughed it off. If those emails had been exposed in 2011, people would have reacted the exact same as they are now.

I'm inclined to agree with your general sentiment, but I don't think he'd necessarily be forced to resign back in 2011. People still had the opportunity to apologize back then for their stupidity. I may be wrong though.

The issue I have is that it really wasn't that long ago that people were making Polish/Italian/French/Portuguese/fill-in-the-blank jokes, and no one took offense. It didn't necessarily make people racist, that was the 90's and even early 2000's in school. I clearly saw things start to change when I started University back in 2002 or 03, and I gladly changed with the times, just like everyone else.

The issue is, what do we do with these people we cancel? Do you think it's a reasonable expectation to have them never be able to work again or participate in society? Personally, I think that's absurd. What is that person going to do? Let's forget about this rich coach who'll probably manage. But take into consideration that something like this, rightfully or wrongfully, happens to the average Joe? How will they make a living after they've been cancelled? We as a society don't have the courage to even discuss that, and it's essential.

A person still has to live. and if you've made them a pariah then it's societies fault, at least partially if things go wrong, like turning to crime. This whole cancel culture thing can potentially function, but there needs to be a road towards absolution. Otherwise, it's nothing short irresponsible.

Redd wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Redd wrote:

I'm sure if I were to put your past under a microscope, there would be a few reasons to call you a POS. And yes, times have changes DRASTICALLY in the past 10 years, people have become way past hypersensitive. Not only that, but people also seem to get some sick enjoyment from seeing other people's lives ruined. To be honest, I think that approach is pathetic.

Maybe so, people might not like my opinions or thoughts and maybe they’ll think I’m bad for that

But here’s the catch…I’m not a racist, and nor am I trying to defend one. There’s no “pro-racist” argument that doesn’t make you a garbage human. (Not you, the a.net user specifically, to clarify. I don’t have any reason to believe you are a racist, nor would I claim that)

And sure, things have changed since 2011. But it’s not as if public figures could get away with being racist back then and we all just laughed it off. If those emails had been exposed in 2011, people would have reacted the exact same as they are now.

I'm inclined to agree with your general sentiment, but I don't think he'd necessarily be forced to resign back in 2011. People still had the opportunity to apologize back then for their stupidity. I may be wrong though.

The issue I have is that it really wasn't that long ago that people were making Polish/Italian/French/Portuguese/fill-in-the-blank jokes, and no one took offense. It didn't necessarily make people racist, that was the 90's and even early 2000's in school. I clearly saw things start to change when I started University back in 2002 or 03, and I gladly changed with the times, just like everyone else.

The issue is, what do we do with these people we cancel? Do you think it's a reasonable expectation to have them never be able to work again or participate in society? Personally, I think that's absurd. What is that person going to do? Let's forget about this rich coach who'll probably manage. But take into consideration that something like this, rightfully or wrongfully, happens to the average Joe? How will they make a living after they've been cancelled? We as a society don't have the courage to even discuss that, and it's essential.

A person still has to live. and if you've made them a pariah then it's societies fault, at least partially if things go wrong, like turning to crime. This whole cancel culture thing can potentially function, but there needs to be a road towards absolution. Otherwise, it's nothing short irresponsible.

We need to stop calling it "cancel culture" since nothing is actually cancelled but, instead, call it "consequence culture" since actions have consequences.

Yes, Gruden could have made an effort back then to understand why what he said was wrong and be better. He did not. He has had 10 years to fix this. I just wonder, in those 10 years, how often did he go on racist, homophobic, misogynist rants or make those statements?

seb146 wrote:

Redd wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Maybe so, people might not like my opinions or thoughts and maybe they’ll think I’m bad for that

But here’s the catch…I’m not a racist, and nor am I trying to defend one. There’s no “pro-racist” argument that doesn’t make you a garbage human. (Not you, the a.net user specifically, to clarify. I don’t have any reason to believe you are a racist, nor would I claim that)

And sure, things have changed since 2011. But it’s not as if public figures could get away with being racist back then and we all just laughed it off. If those emails had been exposed in 2011, people would have reacted the exact same as they are now.

I'm inclined to agree with your general sentiment, but I don't think he'd necessarily be forced to resign back in 2011. People still had the opportunity to apologize back then for their stupidity. I may be wrong though.

The issue I have is that it really wasn't that long ago that people were making Polish/Italian/French/Portuguese/fill-in-the-blank jokes, and no one took offense. It didn't necessarily make people racist, that was the 90's and even early 2000's in school. I clearly saw things start to change when I started University back in 2002 or 03, and I gladly changed with the times, just like everyone else.

The issue is, what do we do with these people we cancel? Do you think it's a reasonable expectation to have them never be able to work again or participate in society? Personally, I think that's absurd. What is that person going to do? Let's forget about this rich coach who'll probably manage. But take into consideration that something like this, rightfully or wrongfully, happens to the average Joe? How will they make a living after they've been cancelled? We as a society don't have the courage to even discuss that, and it's essential.

A person still has to live. and if you've made them a pariah then it's societies fault, at least partially if things go wrong, like turning to crime. This whole cancel culture thing can potentially function, but there needs to be a road towards absolution. Otherwise, it's nothing short irresponsible.

We need to stop calling it "cancel culture" since nothing is actually cancelled but, instead, call it "consequence culture" since actions have consequences.

Yes, Gruden could have made an effort back then to understand why what he said was wrong and be better. He did not. He has had 10 years to fix this. I just wonder, in those 10 years, how often did he go on racist, homophobic, misogynist rants or make those statements?

Call it whatever you like, the questions still stands. What's the road to absolution and if there isn't any, what do you expect these people to do?

We as a society give absolution to criminals, murderers even. What about the people who said something, racist, misogynist, sexist? Do you think they're worse than murderers and other criminals? And do you really believe that they can't be sorry for what they've done, and don't deserve a second chance to a normal life?

Redd wrote:

We as a society give absolution to criminals, murderers even. What about the people who said something, racist, misogynist, sexist? Do you think they're worse than murderers and other criminals? And do you really believe that they can't be sorry for what they've done, and don't deserve a second chance to a normal life?

When it serves a purpose. And it need not be absolution. Pick anything said by anyone, paint it in a negative light, set the drones on it and watch the fireworks. It can be anything like Gruden wrote, or Trump said about grabbing women by their privates, it winds people up and they demand a scalp. But some pigs are more equal then others when it doesn't fit the narrative.

extender wrote:

But some pigs are more equal then others when it doesn't fit the narrative.

Perhaps in politics but not in the workplace. If we don't follow the law and treat cases equitably that only invites lawsuits and the folks upstairs don't like those much.

extender wrote:

Redd wrote:

We as a society give absolution to criminals, murderers even. What about the people who said something, racist, misogynist, sexist? Do you think they're worse than murderers and other criminals? And do you really believe that they can't be sorry for what they've done, and don't deserve a second chance to a normal life?

When it serves a purpose. And it need not be absolution. Pick anything said by anyone, paint it in a negative light, set the drones on it and watch the fireworks. It can be anything like Gruden wrote, or Trump said about grabbing women by their privates, it winds people up and they demand a scalp. But some pigs are more equal then others when it doesn't fit the narrative.

Yes, we all saw how Trump's remark on grabbing women by the pussy got him punished... by his being elected President.

If one of the black coaches in the NFL made the exact same comments toward non-black people do you think he would be fired too? Let's hope the same standards would apply.

dfwjim1 wrote:

If one of the black coaches in the NFL made the exact same comments toward non-black people do you think he would be fired too? Let's hope the same standards would apply.

Yes. How is that even a question?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

If one of the black coaches in the NFL made the exact same comments toward non-black people do you think he would be fired too? Let's hope the same standards would apply.

Yes. How is that even a question?

Because if white people can be racist to black people, black people can be racist to white people, right? Well, yes and no. I don't think you write things like this in your work e-mail without certain assumptions of impunity, and I'm not sure a black NFL coach is necessarily at that point.

Four things this outing of e-mails of John Gruden others and I bring up that need to be looked at.

One is that a coach on a team and league that had a majority of Black players had these thoughts and expressed them in e-mails and no one seemed to tell him to stop it. Enabling him by not doing anything is nearly as bad as expressing such opinions.

Two, it shows the deeply ingrained racism, sexism, homophobic and other controversial views many still have in the USA including by powerful people who in turn limit opportunity and fairness to everyone. The Raiders team has a long history of being inclusive. They had the first Hispanic QB and coach in the NFL (Tom Flores) and one of the first to win a Super Bowl. They had the first Black coach. They currently have the first openly gay player in the league. Gruden was counter to all that.

Three, for many there seems to be a double standard of dealing with behaviors for players vs. non-players in the league. Of course the players have a union that can protect them while non-players don't but far too often we allow players facing criminal charges or convicted not face permanent penalties while if take a knee in protest during the National Anthem over racism you get penalized harshly. To me a player convicted or takes a plea deal for violently assaulting someone that there was irrefutable evidence of or convicted of killing dogs for sport should be out of the league like Gruden.

Four, is that there was a breach of confidentially by someone close to the investigation of the NFL of the Washington Football Team as to sexual harassment and discrimination for years in the management. I have worked as a litigation paralegal for over 40 years, had to sign non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements as to the contents of my work with civil and possible criminal penalties if I breached them. As I noted in my OP, someone wanted revenge on the WFT for being a target of the investigation or to screw the team for other issue or even on Gruden himself (his brother coached the WFT a few years ago). The Whistleblower should face some at least civil penalty, perhaps John Gruden can sue over it. It may be too late and what was disclosed overrides the breach of NDA's to the general public but it also will make future investigations more difficult.

Redd wrote:

seb146 wrote:

We need to stop calling it "cancel culture" since nothing is actually cancelled but, instead, call it "consequence culture" since actions have consequences.

Yes, Gruden could have made an effort back then to understand why what he said was wrong and be better. He did not. He has had 10 years to fix this. I just wonder, in those 10 years, how often did he go on racist, homophobic, misogynist rants or make those statements?

Call it whatever you like, the questions still stands. What's the road to absolution and if there isn't any, what do you expect these people to do?

We as a society give absolution to criminals, murderers even. What about the people who said something, racist, misogynist, sexist? Do you think they're worse than murderers and other criminals? And do you really believe that they can't be sorry for what they've done, and don't deserve a second chance to a normal life?

They need to prove they understand what they did or said was wrong. A person can say sorry until the sun burns out but that does not show they understand why. We are supposed to live in a country where everyone is created equal. Some people still think that means only a certain group. Why is it such a bad thing that people actually want all Americans to be treated equal? Why is it such a bad thing to call out those who don't? Why are some people given a pass for their bad behavior while others are thrown away?

People can have whatever opinion they want, it does not mean I have to share that opinion.

How did these emails go out and no one in the line stop to think this was bad?

seb146 wrote:

They need to prove they understand what they did or said was wrong.

If there wasn't a double standard, we could have a conversation. But this just shows, we should not give an aggressive mob of people the power to destroy lives. Take Emma Sulkowicz for example, she accused a young man of rape in her university, ruined his life and reputation, and not only didn't face any legal consequences for false rape and defamation, she received the Woman of Courage award for lying about being raped. After it was all known and out in the open. Did she get cancelled? Nope. Those same people who cry and scream about Gruden are willing to give a pass (even awards!) to Emma because she's on their political side, or something else severely twisted in that regard.

So where is this 'Consequence Culture' as you put it for cases like these? There is none. Cancel culture can't work if it's only coming from one political ideology. I think we've learned over the centuries and millennium that mob justice is dangerous, and it's rarely justice.

Redd wrote:

seb146 wrote:

They need to prove they understand what they did or said was wrong.

If there wasn't a double standard, we could have a conversation. But this just shows, we should not give an aggressive mob of people the power to destroy lives. Take Emma Sulkowicz for example, she accused a young man of rape in her university, ruined his life and reputation, and not only didn't face any legal consequences for false rape and defamation, she received the Woman of Courage award for lying about being raped. After it was all known and out in the open. Did she get cancelled? Nope. Those same people who cry and scream about Gruden are willing to give a pass (even awards!) to Emma because she's on their political side, or something else severely twisted in that regard.

So where is this 'Consequence Culture' as you put it for cases like these? There is none. Cancel culture can't work if it's only coming from one political ideology. I think we've learned over the centuries and millennium that mob justice is dangerous, and it's rarely justice.

Mob action is people being doxxed. People being terminated for harm to reputation is an organizational matter - as previously stated, organizations have a right and strong interest to define the types of associations with people they want to have.

He got his up and comings. Regardless how you feel about things, you have to be a special kind of stupid to send emails like that even a decade ago. What I don’t like is how this went down. Leak an email, get his response, see people like Tony Dungy respond that he might legitimately be remorseful, then dump a pile of them all to lead the news cycle for days. That was pretty shitty, not for Chucky, but for people like Dungy. If you have something, lay it all out. Don’t go making bystanders look foolish.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/12/tony-dung ... -comments/

Redd wrote:

seb146 wrote:

They need to prove they understand what they did or said was wrong.

If there wasn't a double standard, we could have a conversation. But this just shows, we should not give an aggressive mob of people the power to destroy lives. Take Emma Sulkowicz for example, she accused a young man of rape in her university, ruined his life and reputation, and not only didn't face any legal consequences for false rape and defamation, she received the Woman of Courage award for lying about being raped. After it was all known and out in the open. Did she get cancelled? Nope. Those same people who cry and scream about Gruden are willing to give a pass (even awards!) to Emma because she's on their political side, or something else severely twisted in that regard.

So where is this 'Consequence Culture' as you put it for cases like these? There is none. Cancel culture can't work if it's only coming from one political ideology. I think we've learned over the centuries and millennium that mob justice is dangerous, and it's rarely justice.

That is really reaching for that example of why we need to let everyone hate. Besides, sending hate filled emails to whoever is completely different than rape. Maybe she did feel it was rape? Maybe she regretted what she and her male friend did? Not even close to the same thing as using racial and misogynist slurs against groups of people.

BTW, her award was given for her art presentation, not because of the rape allegations. I guess that means NFL endorses racist, homophobic, and misogynist language and action because Gruden won a Super Bowl or ESPN endorses the same actions because he was awarded and ESPY?

John Gruden's views simply reflect those of the Raiders fanbase. If you know, you know.

continental004 wrote:

John Gruden's views simply reflect those of the Raiders fanbase. If you know, you know.

Even if that were true (and isn’t) it does not excuse making racial comments in a critique of anyone’s performance or competence.

continental004 wrote:

John Gruden's views simply reflect those of the Raiders fanbase. If you know, you know.

There are racists, homophobes, and misogynists in every corner of the country. Every fan base. From Taylor Swift fans to Blue Jays fans to Ole' Miss fans to you name it. That does not mean the entire fan base is that way.

Raiders fans do seem to be more passionate about their team than fans of other NFL clubs.

continental004 wrote:

John Gruden's views simply reflect those of the Raiders fanbase. If you know, you know.

I'm confused here, are you saying Raider fans are anti African American and anti LGBT?

seb146 wrote:

continental004 wrote:

John Gruden's views simply reflect those of the Raiders fanbase. If you know, you know.

There are racists, homophobes, and misogynists in every corner of the country. Every fan base. From Taylor Swift fans to Blue Jays fans to Ole' Miss fans to you name it. That does not mean the entire fan base is that way.

Raiders fans do seem to be more passionate about their team than fans of other NFL clubs.

WOW!!!

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

continental004 wrote:

John Gruden's views simply reflect those of the Raiders fanbase. If you know, you know.

There are racists, homophobes, and misogynists in every corner of the country. Every fan base. From Taylor Swift fans to Blue Jays fans to Ole' Miss fans to you name it. That does not mean the entire fan base is that way.

Raiders fans do seem to be more passionate about their team than fans of other NFL clubs.

WOW!!!

because......? You're gonna have to expand that.

I notice things about Seahawks fans vs. Raiders fans and 49ers fans vs. Raiders fans. Chiefs fans can get pretty passionate, too, but not like Raiders fans!

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

There are racists, homophobes, and misogynists in every corner of the country. Every fan base. From Taylor Swift fans to Blue Jays fans to Ole' Miss fans to you name it. That does not mean the entire fan base is that way.

Raiders fans do seem to be more passionate about their team than fans of other NFL clubs.

WOW!!!

because......? You're gonna have to expand that.

I notice things about Seahawks fans vs. Raiders fans and 49ers fans vs. Raiders fans. Chiefs fans can get pretty passionate, too, but not like Raiders fans!

I was surprised that you can see that in fan bases of sports and singers but not political parties. It kind of applies to both.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

WOW!!!

because......? You're gonna have to expand that.

I notice things about Seahawks fans vs. Raiders fans and 49ers fans vs. Raiders fans. Chiefs fans can get pretty passionate, too, but not like Raiders fans!

I was surprised that you can see that in fan bases of sports and singers but not political parties. It kind of applies to both.

No. Not it does not. Not even close.

Redd wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Redd wrote:

This is good, Everyone's past life should be put under a microscope and judged. Competence should have absolutely no bearing on someone's position, just the ability to be non-offensive and have right-thought. I will also add, that no absolution should ever be considered, if you've crossed a line, even one that may not have even been there at the time of your actions, you need to pay with your livelihood!!!!

I detect a wee bit of sarcasm in that post

I would just say as an HR pro that the microscope normally doesn't and shouldn't apply to everyone. People in highly visible positions are different - they are paid a lot not only for their specific competence but also brand ambassadorship. It should be expected that if they foul up or otherwise have skeletons that could bring reputational harm, most organizations are going to choose to part ways rather than deal with media nonsense. And I would add that the vast majority of people who conduct themselves maturely and professionally do not have any such skeletons they need to worry about jumping from the closet someday.

No drill sergeant is quaking in their boots because being hard on people to effect an outcome is part of the job. I ask you with regard to Gruden: what did racial commentary on the union boss's body parts have to do with analysis of his competence in the position? Hint: nothing.

Just a little bit... lol

Honestly though, everyone has skeletons, EVERY SINGLE PERSON. People make mistakes, people change and should have the opportunity to do so. Having been in sports all my life, I can tell you that coaches aren't known for their docile PC behavior.. Heck, I was called every damn Polak degradation you could imagine when I messed up by my Hockey coach, and all other nationalities got it equally. Different times, different people, and no one took offense. Most of the time, it was pretty funny.

To add to it, it smells of a witch hunt. Someone rummaged through 10-year-old emails and sent them to the media, now the guy in effect loses his livelihood. For some dumb stuff he said 10 years ago, which wasn't even equally offensive back then. Personally, I think our priorities are backwards.

It was always equally offensive. Elaborate societal constructs and protection mechanisms of the powerful were in place to tolerate and in some cases even promote such behavior. Perhaps when it is your race or your sexual orientation that is turned into a joke by a 'brand ambassador' or 'workplace superior' you could feel differently. I wouldn't know cause I'm not you, just trying to illuminate it.

Redd wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Redd wrote:

I'm inclined to agree with your general sentiment, but I don't think he'd necessarily be forced to resign back in 2011. People still had the opportunity to apologize back then for their stupidity. I may be wrong though.

The issue I have is that it really wasn't that long ago that people were making Polish/Italian/French/Portuguese/fill-in-the-blank jokes, and no one took offense. It didn't necessarily make people racist, that was the 90's and even early 2000's in school. I clearly saw things start to change when I started University back in 2002 or 03, and I gladly changed with the times, just like everyone else.

The issue is, what do we do with these people we cancel? Do you think it's a reasonable expectation to have them never be able to work again or participate in society? Personally, I think that's absurd. What is that person going to do? Let's forget about this rich coach who'll probably manage. But take into consideration that something like this, rightfully or wrongfully, happens to the average Joe? How will they make a living after they've been cancelled? We as a society don't have the courage to even discuss that, and it's essential.

A person still has to live. and if you've made them a pariah then it's societies fault, at least partially if things go wrong, like turning to crime. This whole cancel culture thing can potentially function, but there needs to be a road towards absolution. Otherwise, it's nothing short irresponsible.

We need to stop calling it "cancel culture" since nothing is actually cancelled but, instead, call it "consequence culture" since actions have consequences.

Yes, Gruden could have made an effort back then to understand why what he said was wrong and be better. He did not. He has had 10 years to fix this. I just wonder, in those 10 years, how often did he go on racist, homophobic, misogynist rants or make those statements?

Call it whatever you like, the questions still stands. What's the road to absolution and if there isn't any, what do you expect these people to do?

We as a society give absolution to criminals, murderers even. What about the people who said something, racist, misogynist, sexist? Do you think they're worse than murderers and other criminals? And do you really believe that they can't be sorry for what they've done, and don't deserve a second chance to a normal life?

They may, but this totally discounts the potentially hundreds of people they may have written off due to these "racist, misogynist, sexist" prejudices held by these people in positions of power over the course of their careers.

Do we write off all the people they fired, didn't hire, didn't interview because we want to give someone a shot at absolution, when there are possibly 20 other totally qualified coaches we overlooked waiting in the wings for this hot-shot job so we could get "this one who IS PERFECT! but just has an email problem?" There is an inherent supremacy or some kind of bias to your question that somehow these folks are to be given a chance to say sorry and move on, but the forgotten they left in their wake are somehow just collateral damage. Everyone makes mistakes but when you are a 'brand ambassador' I guess sometimes there are consequences. The person still has inherent dignity and worth just not credibility and it seems like that is what these big companies are looking for nowadays not just talk the talk but literally live the ... talk?

If you want to cancel culture to work, the double standard has to be dropped. (It won't be, so it'll never work) Take Emma Sulkowicz, mattress girl, who falsely accused a fellow college student of rape and caused devastation in his life. While Emma walked around in some sick and twisted performance 'art' project, carrying a mattress around campus to symbolize the weight of rape she carries on her shoulders, her victim had his life ruined.

After it was found out that she fabricated the rape story, she faced no consequences, not only that, she won 'Woman of Courage' award from some women's magazine for bringing attention to rape! She didn't even get her degree revoked! The stories like this are endless.

Where is the woke-mob's outrage about this incident and others like it? There is and was none, they were busy burning J.K Rowling books because she said gender is a fact.

So forgive me for having doubts about a hypocritical mob of book burning lunatics having the ability to judge people and end careers. It's absurd.

Redd wrote:

If you want to cancel culture to work, the double standard has to be dropped. (It won't be, so it'll never work) Take Emma Sulkowicz, mattress girl, who falsely accused a fellow college student of rape and caused devastation in his life. While Emma walked around in some sick and twisted performance 'art' project, carrying a mattress around campus to symbolize the weight of rape she carries on her shoulders, her victim had his life ruined.

After it was found out that she fabricated the rape story, she faced no consequences, not only that, she won 'Woman of Courage' award from some women's magazine for bringing attention to rape! She didn't even get her degree revoked! The stories like this are endless.

Where is the woke-mob's outrage about this incident and others like it? There is and was none, they were busy burning J.K Rowling books because she said gender is a fact.

So forgive me for having doubts about a hypocritical mob of book burning lunatics having the ability to judge people and end careers. It's absurd.

As someone who has implemented employer policies you might consider 'woke', I can say you interpret this 'double standard' with too wide of a brush. Within organizations, there is a lot of pressure from lawyers to get investigations and disciplinary actions right. That pressure has led to many industry-standard best practices over time. The double standard you speak of exists mostly in the realm of media commentary. I have investigated employee claims that were proven false - those employees were disciplined for doing so. I have also been involved in dismissals of individuals who acted inappropriately at work. Nobody has been 'busy burning JK Rowling books' in my circle of colleagues and acquaintances - they are too busy trying to get the facts and take actions impartially.

The Columbia case was clearly mishandled by the university, and that's why they had to pay big $$$ to the German student involved. But as you may recall, that story only gained traction because the NY Post and other tabloid outlets were chomping at the bit to criticize the university and name the poor fellow. To me, there were multiple parties responsible for causing damage to the German kid, not just Ms. Sulkowicz. Her degree was not revoked because of wealth privilege, not because of woke politics - her parents are well-connected Manhattanites. You say 'stories like this are endless' but that's really a drop in the bucket compared to actual impropriety against women - the facts simply bear that out. If you have data suggesting otherwise, I'd be interested to see it.

Aaron747 wrote:

Redd wrote:

If you want to cancel culture to work, the double standard has to be dropped. (It won't be, so it'll never work) Take Emma Sulkowicz, mattress girl, who falsely accused a fellow college student of rape and caused devastation in his life. While Emma walked around in some sick and twisted performance 'art' project, carrying a mattress around campus to symbolize the weight of rape she carries on her shoulders, her victim had his life ruined.

After it was found out that she fabricated the rape story, she faced no consequences, not only that, she won 'Woman of Courage' award from some women's magazine for bringing attention to rape! She didn't even get her degree revoked! The stories like this are endless.

Where is the woke-mob's outrage about this incident and others like it? There is and was none, they were busy burning J.K Rowling books because she said gender is a fact.

So forgive me for having doubts about a hypocritical mob of book burning lunatics having the ability to judge people and end careers. It's absurd.

As someone who has implemented employer policies you might consider 'woke', I can say you interpret this 'double standard' with too wide of a brush. Within organizations, there is a lot of pressure from lawyers to get investigations and disciplinary actions right. That pressure has led to many industry-standard best practices over time. The double standard you speak of exists mostly in the realm of media commentary. I have investigated employee claims that were proven false - those employees were disciplined for doing so. I have also been involved in dismissals of individuals who acted inappropriately at work. Nobody has been 'busy burning JK Rowling books' in my circle of colleagues and acquaintances - they are too busy trying to get the facts and take actions impartially.

The Columbia case was clearly mishandled by the university, and that's why they had to pay big $$$ to the German student involved. But as you may recall, that story only gained traction because the NY Post and other tabloid outlets were chomping at the bit to criticize the university and name the poor fellow. To me, there were multiple parties responsible for causing damage to the German kid, not just Ms. Sulkowicz. Her degree was not revoked because of wealth privilege, not because of woke politics - her parents are well-connected Manhattanites. You say 'stories like this are endless' but that's really a drop in the bucket compared to actual impropriety against women - the facts simply bear that out. If you have data suggesting otherwise, I'd be interested to see it.

The Columbia case wasn't only mishandled by the University, but also by law enforcement and the woke mob. SHE GOT WOMAN OF COURAGE AWARD! by the same people who are busy cancelling others.

This woke mob gave a this 'woman' an award for falsely accusing a guy of rape, destroying the guys' life at the time, and I'm sure far into the future. The same people that are busy cancelling people who send some racist emails are giving awards to women that should be in jail. I'ts disgusting, there is no, NO EXCUSE for that kind of disgusting behavior.

Her degree wasn't revoked exactly due to woke politics, not 'wealth privilege', the same woke politics that awarded her for courage. And don't dismiss this by saying it's a drop in the bucket compared to what happens to women, because that is insane.

So what you're saying is that we should ignore wrongs and crimes against men because history? Would you feel okay with your life ruined by some crazy bItch because women in the past before you were born had less rights than men? You'd be good with that? lol

Redd wrote:

degree wasn't revoked exactly due to woke politics, not 'wealth privilege', the same woke politics that awarded her for courage.

Nope. Guarantee you if she were a middle class kid without connected parents the degree would have been revoked.

Redd wrote:

And don't dismiss this by saying it's a drop in the bucket compared to what happens to women, because that is insane.

Not insane - what's insane is suggesting that men having careers ruined is occurring at anywhere near the same scale as women being assaulted and/or harassed.

https://www.workplacesrespond.org/resou ... -violence/

https://www.inc.com/magazine/201804/min ... metoo.html

I assure you nowhere near 54% of men are experiencing false claims by female colleagues. It is helpful to remain logical, rather than emotional on issues like these.

Redd wrote:

So what you're saying is that we should ignore wrongs and crimes against men because history?

Never made that statement. I literally said in my job we have taken disciplinary action against people who have made claims proven to be false.