Coach Comes Out, Later Loses Job

[GoneA]

Everybody doesn't see everything and cannot empathize and too say someone is "part of the problem" merely because they are ignorant to a fact is doing nothing to improve the situation.

I want to chime in here. Lex is doing something to improve the situation: he's trying to provide you with a sense of issue-awareness. The way he's done this is by letting you know that if you aren't "part of the solution" then you are "part of problem".

He didn't say you are the problem, but that the stance you adopt is a contributing factor. What stance is that, you might ask? I think it might've been reflected in this statement:

Either way you look at it, the event was unfortunate...but it sounds like a Black guy who slacked off at a job and said, "They fired me because I was Black and the boss was racist!"

It lessens the intensity of the blow, but without good cause.

 

[Lex]

...
I don't think that's a fair statement.

Everybody doesn't see everything and cannot empathize and too say someone is "part of the problem" merely because they are ignorant to a fact is doing nothing to improve the situation.

I disagree. Each of us should seek to show empathy for our fellow man.

I do not have to be a woman to empathize with the fact that women are still paid up for 40% less for the same job as a man when they have equal qualifications. I do not have to be gay to empathize with the fact that it is legal to fire someone based on orientation is 60% of the US. I do not have to be black or Jewish or Asian or Hispanic or Muslim to see and know that they are treated differently.

We need everyone to know that:

• People who are different are routinely treated differently and unfairly

and to:

• challenge and decry inequitable treatment when we honestly believe it has occured.

Until we stand together, we will always die alone. Blacks would not have made half the progress we have if not for white and Jewish people deciding to stand WITH us on common ground and speak up with and for us. It will be no different for the LGBT community or women.

Think about it.

 

[dong20]

We need everyone to know that:
People who are different are routinely treated differently and unfairly

I agree, but that's the (relatively) easy part, the real problem at least as I see it is not that they're 'different' - they're not. The problem lies in making everyone accept that they're not and thus behave accordingly.

Until we stand together, we will always die alone. Blacks would not have made half the progress we have if not for white and Jewish people deciding to stand WITH us on common ground and speak up with and for us. It will be no different for the LGBT community or women.

Think about it.

The same applies to any predjudice of course, but in the context of the above a good many people resent the fact that it's necessary at all, and, while I agree with that logic being abrasively reminded of it when trying to do the right thing is something of a disinsentive to doing it again.

Think about it. It's arguably little different to the underlying prejudice that invoked such a need for support.

 

[Lex]

I agree, but that's the (relatively) easy part, the real problem at least as I see it is not that they're 'different' - they're not. The problem lies in making everyone accept that they're not and thus behave accordingly.
...

I disagree here in some respect. I AM different: my hair, skin, orientation are different. I do not want to to act as if I am exactly like you because I am not. I am a unique individual. I like my differerences and yours too. I think that the fact that we are all heterogenious is what makes us a great human race.

What I have issue with is the idea and practice that holds that being different from the (established or personal) norm causes people to treat the "different" person like they are less than human.

I like to fuck men and some like to fuck women. How can you say we are not different?

I mean, I get what you are going for, but I think you stance is not unlike Bush, Sr.'s "ColorBlind Society" which sounded great but really just meant- let's ignore your culture entirely and pretend you are white.

It's a tough line to walk, I admit.

....
Think about it. It's arguably little different to the underlying prejudice that invoked such a need for support.

Except that in America, power is vastly controled by "white men with money." No single minorty: Women, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays -- has enough singular influence to make things different. Our votes simply don't add up. Things only change in America when enough people in power and people close to them decide to relinguish some of it and share. Zora points this out all the time.

It's not about being helpless and needing support in the traditional sense as much as it is about needed collective numbers to leverage change.

 

[Freddie53]

Interesting thread that goes into serious discussion which is good. But the school gave the reason as "negative reputation." Let's take that at face value. What the press release said in essence was this. "We fired this coach because of the negative reputation that has developed because this coach as come out of the closet as being gay."

Maybe I am biased, but.....
Can anyone seriously debate my interpretation of "negative reputation?"

A 6-9 season is not a negative reputation. It is a losing season. Losing season wasn't given as a reason for the firing.

I read about the players and other factors etc. But the school's own press release said "NEGATIVE REPUTATION." I take that to mean what it says. And there is no way for the school to try to redefine what they said. You know what they said, the coach knows what they said. The press knows what they said. The world knows what they said. And EVERYONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEANT.

THE COACH WAS FIRED FOR COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET AND ANNOUNCING TO THD WORLD THAT HE IS GAY.

There can't be any other meaning to "negative reputation" that I can see there.

 

[Shelby]

Probably a perfectly reasonable market driven firing just like Imus.

 

[LeeEJ]

[/I]Shrugging this off as "no big deal" or "not even worth discussion" totally places YOU as PART OF THE PROBLEM. YOU are why I was afraid to come out. YOU are why GoneA's BF got punched in the face by his dad after coming out. YOU are why Matthew Sheppard is dead. YOUR type of thinking and nonchallance in the face of bigotry allows it to grow and perpetuate.

Stop right there, and absolutely do not assume that I'm thinking like the typical homophobic straight male. Don't think that I'm brushing this off. Do NOT blame me for Matthew Sheppard. Don't blame me for the friends that I've known that got kicked out of their own houses because they came out to their parents. Don't hate me for retaining a fellow college music student's friendship after he came out. Don't get upset at me for when my sister came out to me as being bisexual and having a girlfriend and I simply responded with, "Is she cool?" Don't get mad at me for fearing that she would immediately be disliked by a particular aunt who had gone born-again Christian (which did happen; it was uncomfortable later defending my sister against my own aunt, but I had to do it).

Lex, I'm on your side. Everyone needs an ally.

I just don't think that every single issue that has "gay" somewhere is wholly a gay issue -- at least not so much anymore.

The article at espn.com is, as far as I can remember, word-for-word what was spoken on the TV broadcast.

ESPN - Garber: Is gay coach's story a cautionary tale?

Halfway down the page, in the section labeled "Another chance", it reads, "After the 2006 season -- the Tigers followed their championship season in 2004 with a 9-9 record in 2005, then went 12-9 -- the players began to express some disappointment in the team's direction, and went so far as to interview prospective replacements for the coach." Midfield player and team president Andy Mackley also said, in part, " "It's kind of obviously a weird time to come out, after all the times he could have."

(emphasis mine)

Honestly, I don't think the players would have cared about his sexuality. Many young people these days don't give a second thought to it. If so -- here's my optimism again -- then that's a really good thing. The team began to modify their own behavior in the 2006 season, too, as mentioned in the next part of the article under "Words of choice". I think that they were more worried about upsetting their coach than they were about the legal ramifications of their behavior.

The second comment about the story, posted on this page ( ESPN.com - Is gay coach's dismissal a cautionary tale? ) is from "MoLax11", a varsity & collegiate lacrosse player who says, "What [Coach Hawkins] did was very courageous." He says that he decided to not play for Missouri in 2004 not because of the Hawkins's sexuality (which wasn't even yet an issue; his public coming out wasn't for another two years) but because of his negative coaching style and relative lack of knowledge (Hawkins had not even played lacrosse himself before taking the job at a high school's startup lacrosse program in St. Louis).

I still believe that, if Coach Hawkins had come out while they were still a monster team, he would be lauded as a successful gay coach.

I think the worst aspect of this whole situation is timing. What if he came out after winning their 2004 championship; what if he came out well after being fired.

I think he was scared. I think that, if I were in his shoes, I would have been terrified. I don't know what I would have done.

PS -- 2006's record of 12-9 isn't exactly a great record after having gone an amazing 18-1 just two seasons earlier (neither was 2005's 9-9 record).

 

[LeeEJ]

I'm trying to not say that website comments are on a par with researched articles, but if you check out the first bunch of comments again, look for one from a Sans3883 who claims that he actually played under Coach Hawkins.

Comment #23, on the same page as I linked above, ESPN.com - Is gay coach's dismissal a cautionary tale?

 

[playainda336]

Again, however, I thank you for your incipient recognition of both sides.

My attempted objective standpoint in any argument seems to be my gift and especially my curse on LPSG.

I try to look at all situation objectively. Then looking at what Lex posts it's easy to see how many people who read the posts feel that I am against what they're saying. I am not, but I attempt to way all issues and possibilities in any given situation before I make a final judgment. And I learn through argumentation.

I am told that people believe that I feel "I know everything" and I do not. I just make arguments to invoke conversation of one side or the other because often times information is left out and I often cannot make a judgment based off the information stated.

At the moment, Freddie probably has the most conspicuous argument in focusing on the "negative reputation". The burden of proof in this case is actually on the school, but also on the coach. The school fired him and gave reasons, the coach says the reasons aren't substantial. He has to prove why they are not, while they prove that they are and neither side is giving...there is just no hard evidence.

The school needs to outwardly say what his "negative reputation" was. (Also, there were other reasons...what were they again?) And he needs to prove that his reputation, if given, was either not negative or that it was non-existant.

If he was not gay and still fired for the same reasons it would be the same situation...an unfortunate event of a coach being fired with no reasons given.

Stop right there, and absolutely do not assume that I'm thinking like the typical homophobic straight male. Don't think that I'm brushing this off. Do NOT blame me for Matthew Sheppard. Don't blame me for the friends that I've known that got kicked out of their own houses because they came out to their parents. Don't hate me for retaining a fellow college music student's friendship after he came out. Don't get upset at me for when my sister came out to me as being bisexual and having a girlfriend and I simply responded with, "Is she cool?" Don't get mad at me for fearing that she would immediately be disliked by a particular aunt who had gone born-again Christian (which did happen; it was uncomfortable later defending my sister against my own aunt, but I had to do it).

QFT

 

[dong20]

I disagree here in some respect. I AM different: my hair, skin, orientation are different. I do not want to to act as if I am exactly like you because I am not. I am a unique individual. I like my differerences and yours too. I think that the fact that we are all heterogenious is what makes us a great human race.

We're all unique individuals obviously. That wasn't the kind of 'different' I meant, I expected you of all people would understand that without detailed elaboration. I guess not.

What I have issue with is the idea and practice that holds that being different from the (established or personal) norm causes people to treat the "different" person like they are less than human.

There, so you did get it.:smile:

I like to fuck men and some like to fuck women. How can you say we are not different?

Now you see you lost it again.

I mean, I get what you are going for, but I think you stance is not unlike Bush, Sr.'s "ColorBlind Society" which sounded great but really just meant- let's ignore your culture entirely and pretend you are white.

No. As far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as colour blind, only an idiot would believe otherwise and only a bigger idiot would try to make it Government policy.

My eyes work great. I see colour just fine. It's funny, I was having this exact same discussion at dinner just an hour or so ago.

Except that in America, power is vastly controled by "white men with money." No single minorty: Women, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays -- has enough singular influence to make things different. Our votes simply don't add up. Things only change in America when enough people in power and people close to them decide to relinguish some of it and share. Zora points this out all the time.

Yes, she does, as do many others and I'm well aware of it, but then it's hardly rocket science.

Two things; firstly I don't control American Race relations, Americans do, secondly I don't live in America so I can only speak with any authority about my own experiences. Despite what I read here...not everything is about America. Yes, I know this thread is about a US coach but the issue is broader that this one person and sexuality based bias', don't you think?

It's not about being helpless and needing support in the traditional sense as much as it is about needed collective numbers to leverage change.

No, but then I didn't say anything about being 'helpless'. Helplessness is a whole other issue. In a real sense, individually, to some degree or another, we're all helpless. I agree with you, change, usually comes from strength and strenght lies in numbers. Of course strength can be used to effect change for good or for bad.

It's a tough line to walk, I admit.

It certainly can be. That's what I meant by being insulted for stepping in the middle of a racially motivated situation to try and calm things down and being told to keep my pink nose out 'cos it's all your fault anyway'. You understand what I mean by 'your' right? It's not the only time it's happened and it's not always about race.

Put heated emotions running to one side for a moment, when I'm judged in the same way as that person was- on the basis of her race (as it happened) and found guilty based on my skin colour alone - I call that predjudice. And, predjudice is predjudice even if 'unintentional'.

Now, Lex, I'm not going to sit here and say that's even in the same ball park as the systematic and institutional predjudice in our societies aimed at for example, ethinic minorities, that would be absurd, inaccurate and hypocritcal. I can never understand that other than on an intellectual level.

But, neither am I going to pretend that it doesn't sting or allow you or anyone else to negate that on the basis that you should walk a mile in my shoes.

If I could, I would. In reality, I can't and I won't pretend otherwise. All I can realistically do is try to help make sure they don't pinch.

 

[GoneA]

On the coaches reputation:

Previous to the coach’s coming-out event, I highly doubt he had an off-putting image outside of the school. The coach held a nine year tenure at the University of Missouri, and possessed a distinctly captivating record. That distinct record included winning every game season, for the exception of one. Prior to that particular loss, one doesn't have to be too clever to realize to what degree that sort of team-dedication would have on his – or anyone’s – public relations. When a state’s sports team is unremittingly successful, it goes without saying that the members of that state develop an admiration for the team’s coach – and other team-leaders, too. In this coach’s case, this was so.

To that end, it’s very crucial to note that such appreciation is not earned overnight, and in most cases it isn’t taken away overnight, either. To bring this into perspective some more, taking into account that the coach only lost one game, I doubt that single factor held enough weight to cause the (apparently rapid) erosion of the coach’s reputation. In my mind, what does have enough power to cause such erosion is the coach’s annunciation of his homosexuality. While I vehemently disagree with the school’s tactics on firing him based upon outside influence, I can see my notion as being viable.

Moreover, I believe a bias exists within the hearts of those making these official decisions. I submit that they feel homosexuality is somehow immoral, and because the coach is a homosexual, his pubic image has and will continue to suffer irreparable damage. By firing him, the school is only empowering this ostensible “damage”, whether such empowering is calculated or not.

A few have thumbed-their-nose’s at the coach’s self-proclamation of “putting his personal life before his professional one”. I’ll concede to the idea that such an action is almost never a prudent business move; however, I don’t think that entirely applies in this situation. Considering the personal bond this man shares with his team, he most likely thought it was a wise decision to reveal this aspect of his life. I can’t say he’s absolutely wrong in that regard. Perhaps, an overzealous man overestimated the maturation levels of his team-members, and his eagerness got the better of him. Be that as it may, he endeavored to take the road-less-traveled-by and for that I admire him…how’s that for pubic image?

 

[LeeEJ]

Just so we're clear on this, Missouri's lacrosse team is not part of the school's athletic department. They're a club, much like, say, a chess club or something like that. The players themselves pay the team's operating funds, and they -- plus one faculty adviser -- choose how to run the team.

 

[Lex]

Dong20-- I appreciate your thoughtful comments and feedback. I feel like I have a solid understanding of your perspective.

LeeEJ-- I hear you. I am not trying to pick and fight and, like Zora, my YOU was broader than anyone in this thread--it was aimed at the countless who read and don't speak up, who see and stay silent. I am sorry if you or Playa took what I said personally.

....

At the moment, Freddie probably has the most conspicuous argument in focusing on the "negative reputation". The burden of proof in this case is actually on the school, but also on the coach. The school fired him and gave reasons, the coach says the reasons aren't substantial. He has to prove why they are not, while they prove that they are and neither side is giving...there is just no hard evidence.

The school needs to outwardly say what his "negative reputation" was. (Also, there were other reasons...what were they again?) And he needs to prove that his reputation, if given, was either not negative or that it was non-existant.
...

The only thing that I can glean that comes close to a negative reputation, is the fact that he was gay and the societal stigma that entails. If you watch the video clip, his orientation caused the team to not get calls from referees.

In the video, they tell of an instance when the team was not getting calls. When the scorekeeper said to the referee, "We've got two angry coches out there." The referee retorted, "Well, one is a JayHawk and the other if a faggot so who cares?"

Of course the coach complained. So, the only "reputation" he had other than his coaching record was the fact that everyone now knew that he was gay. Sounds very suspect to me.

Just so we're clear on this, Missouri's lacrosse team is not part of the school's athletic department. They're a club, much like, say, a chess club or something like that. The players themselves pay the team's operating funds, and they -- plus one faculty adviser -- choose how to run the team.

This is a good point. As a private club, they are not overseen and regulated by EEOC or other federal regulations. Private organizations and clubs are able to make choices that organizations that are overseen by federal regulations can not.

 

[playainda336]

The only thing that I can glean that comes close to a negative reputation, is the fact that he was gay and the societal stigma that entails. If you watch the video clip, his orientation caused the team to not get calls from referees.

In the video, they tell of an instance when the team was not getting calls. When the scorekeeper said to the referee, "We've got two angry coches out there." The referee retorted, "Well, one is a JayHawk and the other if a faggot so who cares?"

Of course the coach complained. So, the only "reputation" he had other than his coaching record was the fact that everyone now knew that he was gay. Sounds very suspect to me.

I read on another site that he had a notorious reputation as a coach...not that he was gay. Saying that he would win games, but kill team morale and that players that played under him just hated him and they didn't even know he was gay. =\

In fact, I found the link in this thread.

I played lacrosse under Kyle Hawkins and for a while when he coached at Mizzou he also coached the high school team in Columbia and I believe he got fired form that job before he came out. He got fired from coaching and the school district fired him from his teaching job I believe for the same reason as the firing from Mizzou, and this was before he came out of the closet so his coaching style and attitude had been under the spotlight for a while. The announcement that Kyle Hawkins was gay was a little surprising but for the most part it did not change the way people feel about him. Most people just thought he was a man obsessed with lacrosse who quite frankly was a bit of an a** hole. When I played at Mizzou I quit the team because he had a problem with me being involved in other activities on campus. If lacrosse was not your life then there was no need for you to be on the team, and thats fine expect that it is a club sport. Most of the people I know played lacrosse for fun and to meet other people no one was going to go pro or anything it was just another activity and Kyle Hawkins just could not come to grips with this. I almost just feel like this is a story that people really dont know much about and they want to think "oh my how could this happen those players fired him because he was gay". They fired him because he was a bad coach plan and simple if you want to make more out of it then it is then I think that that would hurt the gay coaching community more than just saying he was a bad coach. I think that he is a pioneer and it is great what he is doing but gay or straight if you are a bad coach you are going to get fired. I wish the best for him but he truly was a negative coach and did not have a good coaching style for a club team. Maybe thats because of everything that was going on in his personal life, and now that he came out he may not be as negative of a person. I just do not want Mizzou, The University of Missouri, or Columbia to get a bad reputation or stereotyped as a homophobic city. If he was the same coach that I played under then the firing was long over due.

 

[LeeEJ]

LeeEJ-- I hear you. I am not trying to pick and fight and, like Zora, my YOU was broader than anyone in this thread--it was aimed at the countless who read and don't speak up, who see and stay silent. I am sorry if you or Playa took what I said personally.

At first read, I did take it personally, but then I figured that you meant "you" in the broader sense. I was even sitting here going, "Wait -- since when did I become a Christian again?" :wink:

The only thing that I can glean that comes close to a negative reputation, is the fact that he was gay and the societal stigma that entails. If you watch the video clip, his orientation caused the team to not get calls from referees.

That's in the present, but in the years prior to his coming out, he also had a negative reputation as a coach, win/lose record aside. Apparently, lacrosse players looking to join a program sometimes decided to not play on his team because of his reputation as a coach (and, as far as they knew, he wasn't gay). You know what those situations are like -- you'd think of joining an organization or team of some kind, but you'd hear things like the boss/coach/leader is pretty much an asshole.

This is a good point. As a private club, they are not overseen and regulated by EEOC or other federal regulations. Private organizations and clubs are able to make choices that organizations that are overseen by federal regulations can not.

I'm not sure that they're entirely exempt from those regulations, though. It's stated in the article that, "The University of Missouri has a policy that does not permit discrimination on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation." Since the team has a faculty adviser (who doesn't look straight herself, but my "gaydar" ain't exactly 100%, either), I'd expect them to also abide by University policy.

The school didn't fire him, but I'll bet that the team has to stick with school policy in order to be associated with the university. They wanted to dismiss him, but they also knew that it could affect the existence of the program.

Here's my hypothesis:

From the perspective of the players, the team's fantastic 2004 season was followed up by a relatively dismal .500 season, and players didn't like the negative atmosphere that was brewing. As a player, not only do you want to win, but you also want to have a good time doing it -- a mildly competitive team that has a blast on the field, both in-game and during practice, is always preferable to a dominating team that you hate to play for. After shooting a wad in 2004, then doing much worse only a year later, along with simply not enjoying being on the team, the players wanted a coaching change. Like any group, they were talking about their boss before formally approaching him. Coach Hawkins hadn't yet come out to them, so his sexuality wasn't even a factor.

Hawkins was having a terrible time away from the field during the same time period. I can't imagine that having to come from suicide watch straight to practice was good for his mental state. Not only was his personal life a shambles, but he couldn't keep his team rolling in 2005 like they did the season before. Off-color remarks and comments from his own team and from plenty of others in the athletic community (who were all still unaware of his homosexuality) drove him even further into depression. He was a lacrosse coach; that's what he did. When his time as a coach was in jeopardy, he cracked (much like having been under torture, I'll guess), and came out to his players as part of a wider explanation that his disastrous personal life was affecting his coaching ability.

...

Anyway, that's what I think happened. It's quite a mess.

When ignorant people say bullshit like, "Gays/blacks/etc just want 'special rights', not 'equal rights'," they bring up situations just like this one. They say that it would be impossible to fire a gay coach -- no matter how badly he coaches -- because everyone would assume right away that it would be because of his sexuality instead.

If Hawkins were straight, OR if he had not come out to his team, he would have been fired; if he came out in 2004, he probably would have been the first openly gay championship-winning lacrosse coach. But it's the timing that makes it look like he was fired because he was gay (which still could be true, too) and not because of his ability to coach.

We need to fight for civil rights on all fronts at all times. Some battles, though, just plain suck. One side or the other has to "win", but when nobody's in the clear, people on both sides can easily discredit the whole thing. It's a shame that this story is one of those unwinnable battles.

Hawkins may have been the first openly gay coach, sure. We all know that he won't be the last, either. There's more to come.

 

[LeeEJ]

In my previous post, I started thinking about the whole civil rights movement, and my thoughts turned to Rosa Parks, who's regarded as the "Mother of the Modern-Day Civil Rights Movement."

What I didn't know was that her case wasn't the first, and that it was not the catalyst for the Montgomery bus boycott. Nine months earlier, 15-year-old Claudette Colvin was arrested for not giving up her seat on a bus.

More here:
Rosa Parks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Claudette Colvin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think there's a similarity here. In the same way that Coach Hawkins may not have been a great coach, Claudette was not a model citizen like Rosa was.

Jackie Robinson (who also refused to give up a bus seat in the Army in 1944) was an excellent ballplayer; Rosa Parks was described by Dr. King as "one of the finest citizens of Montgomery." Ms. Colvin, unwed and pregnant, would not have drawn the same levels of support from people on all sides of the movement.

In this sense, Coach Hawkins is in the role of Claudette Colvin. We're still waiting for the equivalent of a Rosa Parks, though.

 

[Shelby]

Probably it was a perfectly reasonable market driven firing just like Imus.
​

 

[LeeEJ]

Market-driven firing? Nah. Who knew? Imus's episode was so well-known, it might have even been mentioned on an episode of This Old House. His firing was inevitable because so many people wanted him gone.

Nobody -- at least nobody outside of outsports.com -- really knew about Hawkins until afterwards.

 

[playainda336]

Probably it was a perfectly reasonable market driven firing just like Imus.
​

You posted this twice, for...?

But in all seriousness...I didn't know anything about this case until coming to LPSG. Imus was EVERYWHERE...I couldn't get around that. This is no Imus case.

 

[Lex]

Since we are talking about Coming out, I thought we should bump this thread.