Tony Dungy Next?

[Teallaura]

The Eagles received much media coverage, and the fact that their players (many of whom probably owned dogs at some point) would have to play with someone who'd been in jail for taking part in killing dogs raised some hackles.

Also, the mentorship detail misses the point. Dungy also wanted Vick to have a chance to play in the NFL again. He was the biggest Vick advocate out there. Clearly, he thought teams should ignore the possibility of distraction and accept the player simply because of athletic merit. Yet he doesn't think the same way about Sam.

He has no such obligation - he doesn't have to feel the same way about a different situation and an apparently different occupation (head coach instead of mentor). There is no hypocrisy here.

You refuse to deal with cancer because the treatment procedure is significantly different from HIV treatment. But Dungy's excuse for not dealing with Sam--that the player's presence might cause distractions--equally applied to Vick.

Dungy said he didn't want to deal with those distractions and the implication is that he believes they are qualitatively different (possibly from the occupational view). Even if that weren't the case - where, exactly, did he ever promise to be the mentor/advocate for every problem child in the NFL? If he never said or indicated that he would, his discretion remains his own and there is no hypocrisy in refusing a case even if it were substantively the same (which these aren't).

The cases are qualitatively and substantively different. No hypocrisy exists.

[One Bad Pig]

Good thing Sam was just blazing a trail by acknowledging and standing by a part of his natural identity instead of hiding it, and not flaunting any sexual deviance.

I am aware that you (and, increasingly, society in general) are re-defining homosexuality as normal. Should a rapist "stand by a part of his natural identity"? Should we affirm the natural identity of alcoholics and give them all the booze they desire?

But even if you want to interpret it in such an ungracious manner, it doesn't change the point. Refusing to take a minority player because you "don't want to deal with distractions" is terrible and deeply ironic, not to mention retardant of progress.

I am more than happy to retard the "progress" of moral standards down the commode.

[fm93]

Sorry, but the circumstances are not comparable. Being a mentor to one individual is not the same as managing a whole team (plus the support personnel). So, no, it's not hypocritical. Apples and oranges. Also, can you show where Vick became a distraction when he joined a team?

The Eagles received much media coverage, and the fact that their players (many of whom probably owned dogs at some point) would have to play with someone who'd been in jail for taking part in killing dogs raised some hackles.

Also, the mentorship detail misses the point. Dungy also wanted Vick to have a chance to play in the NFL again. He was the biggest Vick advocate out there. Clearly, he thought teams should ignore the possibility of distraction and accept the player simply because of athletic merit. Yet he doesn't think the same way about Sam.

[fm93]

No, it isn't hypocritical - just because you are willing to deal with Problem A doesn't mean you necessarily have to be willing to deal with Problem B. I am perfectly willing to counsel someone who has HIV - I'm also qualified and have a good idea of what to do. I am not willing to counsel someone with cancer. I'm not as qualified, have less of an idea of what needs to be done and frankly, don't have the time to learn. I'd much rather find that person a counselor that CAN do the work rather than mess around trying to do it myself. Not only is it a hassle, I'm not serving that person well at all.

With only one short sentence, we have no idea why exactly Dungy didn't 'want to deal with it'. But he isn't obligated to deal with every possible problem child and there is no hypocrisy in refusing to deal with a particular case. It would only be hypocritical if Dungy had said he'd deal with all comers - and no one has provided any information of that sort.

You refuse to deal with cancer because the treatment procedure is significantly different from HIV treatment. But Dungy's excuse for not dealing with Sam--that the player's presence might cause distractions--equally applied to Vick.

[Littlejoe]

I don't think he was asked, but I do think he's commented on issues that he wasn't asked about in the past. And Vick indeed made retribution, but it is a fact that his issues were still considered a distraction, and yet Dungy was willing to deal with it all. That's hypocritical.

Sorry, but the circumstances are not comparable. Being a mentor to one individual is not the same as managing a whole team (plus the support personnel). So, no, it's not hypocritical. Apples and oranges. Also, can you show where Vick became a distraction when he joined a team?

[Teallaura]

I don't think he was asked, but I do think he's commented on issues that he wasn't asked about in the past. And Vick indeed made retribution, but it is a fact that his issues were still considered a distraction, and yet Dungy was willing to deal with it all. That's hypocritical.

No, it isn't hypocritical - just because you are willing to deal with Problem A doesn't mean you necessarily have to be willing to deal with Problem B. I am perfectly willing to counsel someone who has HIV - I'm also qualified and have a good idea of what to do. I am not willing to counsel someone with cancer. I'm not as qualified, have less of an idea of what needs to be done and frankly, don't have the time to learn. I'd much rather find that person a counselor that CAN do the work rather than mess around trying to do it myself. Not only is it a hassle, I'm not serving that person well at all.

With only one short sentence, we have no idea why exactly Dungy didn't 'want to deal with it'. But he isn't obligated to deal with every possible problem child and there is no hypocrisy in refusing to deal with a particular case. It would only be hypocritical if Dungy had said he'd deal with all comers - and no one has provided any information of that sort.

[fm93]

False equivocation. Being [x] skin color is not equivalent to flaunting sexual deviance. One is morally neutral; the other is not.

Good thing Sam was just blazing a trail by acknowledging and standing by a part of his natural identity instead of hiding it, and not flaunting any sexual deviance.

But even if you want to interpret it in such an ungracious manner, it doesn't change the point. Refusing to take a minority player because you "don't want to deal with distractions" is terrible and deeply ironic, not to mention retardant of progress.

[fm93]

I wonder how many of them even heard about it? I didn't know about until now...and I follow football fairly closely. I think those of us who know about it, do care about it. I will make it a point to not buy anything he endorses. Also, was Tony Dungy specifically asked about Ray Rice? If not, then that's the same as an argument from silence. Michael Vick, served time and suspension for his actions, he apologized, made retribution, and spent time advocating for reform to clean up the illegal industry. What more can he do after the fact? He deserves to have the benefit of the doubt for now IMHO. Square Peg's argument falls short IMO in that Michael Sam, though not doing anything illegal WILL cause distractions in the locker room and the field just by being openly gay. It's just going to happen. He may earn the respect of his teammates, but that remains to be seen. Tony Dungy wasn't commenting on the fact that he was wrong or committing a crime, just that the obvious issues that are going to arise would be more than he would want to have to deal with...

I don't think he was asked, but I do think he's commented on issues that he wasn't asked about in the past. And Vick indeed made retribution, but it is a fact that his issues were still considered a distraction, and yet Dungy was willing to deal with it all. That's hypocritical.

[One Bad Pig]

When you're willing to support and advocate acceptance for a player who was involved in brutally killing dogs (which is a crime that in Vick's case generated plenty of distraction), and you don't publicly criticize someone like Ray Rice who committed domestic abuse (also a crime that will most likely generate plenty of distraction), yet you frown upon a player who happens to be gay (which is not a crime) because it might generate distractions...well, that seems more than a bit hypocritical and disingenuous.

Not to mention...Dungy is black, and I can't imagine that he would've been okay with a general manager refusing to draft [whoever the first black pro football player was] on the basis of "not wanting to deal with it."

False equivocation. Being [x] skin color is not equivalent to flaunting sexual deviance. One is morally neutral; the other is not.

[Littlejoe]

square_peg does raise a point that's been bothering me: NFL fans as a whole simply don't seem to care about what Ray Rice did. (He is a star player who was seen on video dragging his unconscious girlfriend out of an elevator following a fight.) And I know it's not that nobody cares about off field issues in the first place because people were upset about Michael Vick.

I wonder how many of them even heard about it? I didn't know about until now...and I follow football fairly closely. I think those of us who know about it, do care about it. I will make it a point to not buy anything he endorses. Also, was Tony Dungy specifically asked about Ray Rice? If not, then that's the same as an argument from silence. Michael Vick, served time and suspension for his actions, he apologized, made retribution, and spent time advocating for reform to clean up the illegal industry. What more can he do after the fact? He deserves to have the benefit of the doubt for now IMHO. Square Peg's argument falls short IMO in that Michael Sam, though not doing anything illegal WILL cause distractions in the locker room and the field just by being openly gay. It's just going to happen. He may earn the respect of his teammates, but that remains to be seen. Tony Dungy wasn't commenting on the fact that he was wrong or committing a crime, just that the obvious issues that are going to arise would be more than he would want to have to deal with...

[KingsGambit]

square_peg does raise a point that's been bothering me: NFL fans as a whole simply don't seem to care about what Ray Rice did. (He is a star player who was seen on video dragging his unconscious girlfriend out of an elevator following a fight.) And I know it's not that nobody cares about off field issues in the first place because people were upset about Michael Vick.

[Teallaura]

Eh, it's unclear if Dungy meant in a mentoring capacity, or more likely, as a player on his team. A head coach's responsibilities differ from those of a mentor so that might be his rationale - dunno. I can't tell from the article linked or the article it is linked to { here } what context Dungy is speaking in.

Anyone have a transcript of the full discussion?

[fm93]

When you're willing to support and advocate acceptance for a player who was involved in brutally killing dogs (which is a crime that in Vick's case generated plenty of distraction), and you don't publicly criticize someone like Ray Rice who committed domestic abuse (also a crime that will most likely generate plenty of distraction), yet you frown upon a player who happens to be gay (which is not a crime) because it might generate distractions...well, that seems more than a bit hypocritical and disingenuous.

Not to mention...Dungy is black, and I can't imagine that he would've been okay with a general manager refusing to draft [whoever the first black pro football player was] on the basis of "not wanting to deal with it."

(If anyone was unclear, this was a response to the OP, not to KingsGambit's post)

[KingsGambit]

I think it's okay because he is black. Though I wouldn't it passed some (msnbc, TYT, media matters) to still label him a racist.

Why would he get labeled a racist?

[seer]

I think it's okay because he is black. Though I wouldn't it passed some (msnbc, TYT, media matters) to still label him a racist.

Or a homophob...