This is a quote by San Jose State's Head Coach, Pat Hill, from 2003...
"There's a pattern for how whites and blacks are hired," says San Jose State's Hill. "Black prospects often have the same credentials, or more, as white prospects. But black coaches are left out of the loop when hiring takes place. So, the perception has been that white coaches are qualified and black coaches are not, which is wrong."
For more about this, check out an article titled, "Black men can't coach? While the NCAA considers changing its game plan, many black football head-coaching candidates remain on the bench - Special Report"
Consider Turner Gill, a black man who applied for the head coaching position for Auborn. Gill had more credentials than Gene Chizik, who also ran for the position. Yet, Chizik was picked over Gill. Many thought it was because Gill is African American and has a white wife...
ESPN.com football writer Mark Schlabach told "Outside The Lines" today that two other SEC coaches told him, straight up, that Gill would never get the Auburn job, because he's married to a white woman. Charming.
Here's the video:
This argument has been around for some time, and it is a tricky one, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteRacism may exist in certain instances, as illustrated by what Schlabach said, and I know the argument isn't to what extent does it exist, but does it exist at all.
My view is this: Racism exists. It exists not only in sports, but in all aspects of life. People have differing views, and sometimes these views spill over into how they interact with each other, whether in the professional arena, or in private relations.
That being said, making the claim that there should be a certain number of head coaches in sports to represent the percentage of players is an unfair method by which to hire or fire coaches, or anyone for that matter.
When race becomes the important factor in the hiring process, then there is a problem. Dr. Martin Luther King stated in his “I Have A Dream” speech, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
To say that, if there are 30% black, 30% white, 30% “other” ethnicities as players in sports, that there has to be the same dispersal of coaches hired to meet this “quota” undermines hiring people based on their skills and talents and experience. If there are only 10% of “other” coaches who are qualified, 30% should not be hired.
Racism accusations should not be taken lightly, and sometimes in this society it seems like it is what people use when they feel they have not gotten what they want. Sometimes, not in all instances but in some, people want to say it is their race that has them where they are, instead of their own personal actions.
If it is thought that race played a part in the hiring or firing of a certain individual (or in the not hiring or not firing) then this should be investigated thoroughly and accurately on a case by case basis.
To make a claim that a certain group needs to be represented based on the amount of participants in that organization, and not based on ability to coach, is something that I whole-heartedly disagree with.
I would hate to think that good coaches, who had to build up their programs from smaller schools (such as non-BCS qualifying schools in NCAAF) were passed over because of race, whether that race is white, black, or “other.”
Is there racism in sports? Absolutely! But there is racism--to some degree at least--in everything else that we come in contact with on a day-to-day basis. If we want to truly examine racism in sports, and especially in coaching, then we have to go deeper than the numbers. MUCH deeper.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Auburn head coaching situation, it is easy for us to say that Gene Chizik and Turner Gill have similar resumes and therefor should be equal coaches. But that is not the case! While Coach Gill does have impressive numbers, most of his career has been spent playing very poor competition, racking up a lot of wins against opposition that was decent at best. We must also look at coaching styles, the systems that each coach runs and their ability to recruit. Maybe Gene Chizik has a coaching style closer to what Auburn's AD was looking for. Maybe his system is very conducive to breeding a champion. And Gene Chizik is clearly very good at recruiting. The sad thing here is that Turner Gill was spoken poorly of because of the color of his skin AND the color of his wife's skin. That just isn't right. Yes, Turner Gill was wronged. However, we cannot say it is because he is black! Two other idiot coaches said the man couldn't get a job, but that doesn't mean that is how everything went down in the Auburn situation. Besides, Auburn looks pretty good with Chizik at the helm, don't they?
Personally, I have FELT racism in sports. It hurts. It affects you in ways that are hard to overcome. Sadly, the only way for me personally to overcome it is to just laugh about it and move on.
I'm curious... How many of you saw me the first day of class and assumed I was an athlete?
Hey Noah,
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not I didn't...but perhaps that's only because I made that mistake before. I was in another sociology class that had several black students in it, and most of them were athletes. As we discussed race one of them mentioned that he wasn't an athlete, but everyone on campus thought he was. I felt bad about my assumptions and determined to not assume anymore.
As for the post, I think Turner Gill has a lot of class. He's not saying that he wasn't wronged, neither is he suggesting he was. I respect his dignity during the whole thing. I kind of wanted to smack the interviewer and say, "Leave him alone, go dig up your drama elsewhere."
I don't know what I'm trying to say, except I respect his quiet dignity. I think he put himself above everyone else in that interview. I was super bugged though about the fact that him being married to a white lady was an issue.
One last thought, it's interesting that we make assumptions that all black people are athletes, and yet we assume they can't coach sports. How does that make sense? That seems illogical to me. Dude, if we're gonna assume they're better at sports wouldn't it make sense to also assume that they are better at coaching sports too.
I think it goes back to the readings we had about people assuming their slaves we good for hard labor but were gentle and stupid. We hold the same stereotypes today, good for hard labor (running, passing, kicking, tackling...ect) but bad for things that require intelligence (creating plays, leading a group to victory, being aware of the strengths and weaknesses of players...ect).