OK, as I was saying...

[RollTide]

Do you ever recall a situation where other coaches (peers) were calling for another coach to be fired?

[Adam]

Rolltide makes a good point. That his peers are standing by him is meaningless. That's like saying the MLB players association is standing behind Jeremy Giambi.

I think Chaney's career has earned him a choice. He can choose whether he gets to retire or get fired. Either way, he should be done coaching, and he gets to go out like Woody Hayes.

As for whether he intended for his player to hurt anyone. He's the one who used the term "goon," and that was before the game.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by drothamel
PS2 Quote: "I am sorry massa, I will ask for your permission the next time."

That type of response is uncalled for and highly inappropriate in my opinion. It is a blatant attempt to create a racial connotation in a conversation that previously had no such connotation. It is also an attemtpt to discredit the opinions of one person by destroying his credibility through painting him as something he is not (in this case a racist). Accepting one's opinion does not necessitate agreeing with that opinion. No one in this thread or the other has discounted your opinion, some may not agree with it, but everyone has been willing to listen to it. I find it intellecutually dishonest, and appalingly so, for you to disparage the intellectual acuity of everyone else and then come out with a response as ridiculous as the one quoted above. There is no reason to turn a spirited debate ugly. No one on this thread has attacked you personally, which is what you have just done.

I disagree. If you are condescending in your opinion of someone of a person that does hold your heritage or race when they hold an opinion, that kind of comment is totally acceptable. It is clear he wanted to get a rise out of you and others and that is exactly what was accomplished. Any person has a right to show their distain for a word, opinion or attitude regardless of what any feels about it. It is no different if you call someone a name and they turn around and punch you in the mouth. Not everyone is going to react the same way to words, nor should they. I might personally not know everything that offends someone, but I sure am not going to tell them they are wrong for being offended if I was not personally aware of the overall connotation of my actions or words. What I find very interesting when it comes to many issues of race and even gender on this board is that the white males want to tell everyone how they should think when it does not go along with their point of view. I was the person that took exception to the original comments and I had that right. I did not expect then folks would agree and definitely do not take that attitude now. But I do feel that anyone has the right to voice their opinions here regardless of what side of the fence you are on. I can assume that Ps2man used the term in order to make a point. Too many people of that background say that when there are folks being condescending and tell them how they should feel. This is not the 1950s anymore. We are in 2005 now. People have the right to say what they feel and you do not have to like it. I realize that alone makes many uncomfortable, but that is the world we live in. If you are offended by the word "massa" then we have the right to be offended by the word "thug" when that word is used out of the context that it has meaning. You cannot have it both ways.

Back to the original topic.

I could give a damn what race Coach Chaney is. None of the parties involved were even white (except for the officials). The Temple player was Black. The St. Joseph player was Black. The only people involved that were white were the officials that called nothing but a common foul on the play in question. I think what Chaney did could get him fired and just might get him fired. I do not care that the man was in the Hall of Fame, he used very bad judgment. I think he also should not have admitted or talked openly about the situation either. Because I know this kind of thing happens all the time, it just is not talked about. If the kid did not get hurt, this probably would not have been as much of a story either. In other words there would be no suspensions or massive media coverage over the event. He has even opened himself up to a lawsuit which could easily be won in the favor of the hurt kid. So for those that want to make my opinion on the incident as a race issue, that is just plain say. I only took issue with a use of words that continues a stereotype when this is not a legal issue. It is a civil issue, but not a legal one. I also think the player could have used better judgment as well and not fouled the kid very hard on the shot. I also think he is not totally at fault because he was following instructions. The entire situation is complicated and there is a lot of blame to go around. The Temple administration when the original comments were made could have done something. The officials could have called this flagrant. But I do understand why they did not call it flagrant. You do not see many flagrant fouls so it could have been a complete surprise to the calling officials and he did not do anything as a result. It is easy to second guess while watching the video tape. The conference could have done something and still could do something. I guess we will see what is going to happen in the coming days and weeks.


Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by drothamel
PS2 Quote: "I am sorry massa, I will ask for your permission the next time."

That type of response is uncalled for and highly inappropriate in my opinion. It is a blatant attempt to create a racial connotation in a conversation that previously had no such connotation. It is also an attemtpt to discredit the opinions of one person by destroying his credibility through painting him as something he is not (in this case a racist). Accepting one's opinion does not necessitate agreeing with that opinion. No one in this thread or the other has discounted your opinion, some may not agree with it, but everyone has been willing to listen to it. I find it intellecutually dishonest, and appalingly so, for you to disparage the intellectual acuity of everyone else and then come out with a response as ridiculous as the one quoted above. There is no reason to turn a spirited debate ugly. No one on this thread has attacked you personally, which is what you have just done.

I agree completely. Calling people racists just because they don't agree with you is despicable.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I agree completely. Calling people racists just because they don't agree with you is despicable.

Calling someone "massa" is not calling them racist. Then again if that is calling someone "massa" means you are calling someone racist, so is calling someone a thug for an unrelated issue. See how that all workout?

Peace

[M&M Guy]

For whatever it's worth, here are my 2 cents. The feeling I've had is that "racism" has evolved over the years from intent to perception. It used to be, (and unfortunately in some cases still today), that racism involved one race feeling they were superior to another and putting and keeping that second race down, intellectually or physically. There was obvious intent. However, it now appears that racism is perception; one race feeling that they are inferior to another due to actions and words, no matter the intent. A particular word uttered by one person could have a different meaning to the person on the receiving end due to their own experiences. But who is at fault if the word is taken the wrong way? If I use the word "thug" to describe John Chaney, and my intent was to use it as a "code word" that means "a black, gang-banger, low-class indiviual", then I think most people would agree I was in the wrong and should be considered a racist. But what if that's not what I meant? What if my only intent was to imply a large, muscular individual with a bad complexion, wearing sunglasses, and who knows the Godfather's cell phone number by heart? Am I just as much a racist now? Most people I know would say no. But there are some people who would take offense due to their own personal experiences with the use of that word. So, who's at fault - the person who used the term without taking into account how the other person feels about it, or the person who is offended by the use without taking into account the intent?

I have watched with interest a local (and somewhat nationwide) issue of whether or not Chief Illiniwek is racist. One side of the issue is that it most certainly is racist, because the people it portrays are ashamed of the use, and it demeans their race by someone else using that likeness. It is their perception of the symbol. The other side of the issue is that it is most certainly not racist, but in fact just the opposite - the symbol is used to honor that race. It is their intent for that symbol. So, who's right? Perhaps both sides, to some extent - that's why it is such a devisive issue and there is no apparent compromise. But how do you reconcile the difference between "intent" and "perception"?

[drothamel]

M & M-

Excellent point. Intent v. Perception has been the reason for many a fist fight, and probably a few wars even. I can even see how it affects this situation. Coach Cheyney had no intent to see anyone get injured. . .perception on the other hand may be what does him in.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I disagree. If you are condescending in your opinion of someone of a person that does hold your heritage or race when they hold an opinion, that kind of comment is totally acceptable. It is clear he wanted to get a rise out of you and others and that is exactly what was accomplished. Any person has a right to show their distain for a word, opinion or attitude regardless of what any feels about it. It is no different if you call someone a name and they turn around and punch you in the mouth. Not everyone is going to react the same way to words, nor should they. I might personally not know everything that offends someone, but I sure am not going to tell them they are wrong for being offended if I was not personally aware of the overall connotation of my actions or words. What I find very interesting when it comes to many issues of race and even gender on this board is that the white males want to tell everyone how they should think when it does not go along with their point of view. I was the person that took exception to the original comments and I had that right. I did not expect then folks would agree and definitely do not take that attitude now. But I do feel that anyone has the right to voice their opinions here regardless of what side of the fence you are on. I can assume that Ps2man used the term in order to make a point. Too many people of that background say that when there are folks being condescending and tell them how they should feel. This is not the 1950s anymore. We are in 2005 now. People have the right to say what they feel and you do not have to like it. I realize that alone makes many uncomfortable, but that is the world we live in. If you are offended by the word "massa" then we have the right to be offended by the word "thug" when that word is used out of the context that it has meaning. You cannot have it both ways.

Back to the original topic.

I could give a damn what race Coach Chaney is. None of the parties involved were even white (except for the officials). The Temple player was Black. The St. Joseph player was Black. The only people involved that were white were the officials that called nothing but a common foul on the play in question. I think what Chaney did could get him fired and just might get him fired. I do not care that the man was in the Hall of Fame, he used very bad judgment. I think he also should not have admitted or talked openly about the situation either. Because I know this kind of thing happens all the time, it just is not talked about. If the kid did not get hurt, this probably would not have been as much of a story either. In other words there would be no suspensions or massive media coverage over the event. He has even opened himself up to a lawsuit which could easily be won in the favor of the hurt kid. So for those that want to make my opinion on the incident as a race issue, that is just plain say. I only took issue with a use of words that continues a stereotype when this is not a legal issue. It is a civil issue, but not a legal one. I also think the player could have used better judgment as well and not fouled the kid very hard on the shot. I also think he is not totally at fault because he was following instructions. The entire situation is complicated and there is a lot of blame to go around. The Temple administration when the original comments were made could have done something. The officials could have called this flagrant. But I do understand why they did not call it flagrant. You do not see many flagrant fouls so it could have been a complete surprise to the calling officials and he did not do anything as a result. It is easy to second guess while watching the video tape. The conference could have done something and still could do something. I guess we will see what is going to happen in the coming days and weeks.


Peace

Might I suggest...

[PS2Man]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I agree completely. Calling people racists just because they don't agree with you is despicable.

I used the word to make a point. You were offended along with other folks. See how words can offend people. Why are you offended by being accused of something you say you are not, but you cannot understand why someone is offended by a word used in an unrelated to the issue? Being an African-American and having been stopped by the police for God knows what while being asked more about the car I drive than the and where I am going than what I actually did. I am sorry but I take great offense to someone of color being called a thug when they did not do anything to break the law. Do not tell me it is wrong to call you a racist then try to get self-righteous when someone is called a name that in my mind is just as inappropriate. Was Chaney wrong for his actions? He sure was and probably should lose his job over it. But do not tell me I do not have the right to my opinion about this issue. If it makes you uncomfortable that really is more your problem than mine. At least I knew what I was saying and the impact it was going to cause.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by PS2Man

I used the word to make a point. You were offended along with other folks. See how words can offend people. Why are you offended by being accused of something you say you are not, but you cannot understand why someone is offended by a word used in an unrelated to the issue? Being an African-American and having been stopped by the police for God knows what while being asked more about the car I drive than the and where I am going than what I actually did. I am sorry but I take great offense to someone of color being called a thug when they did not do anything to break the law. Do not tell me it is wrong to call you a racist then try to get self-righteous when someone is called a name that in my mind is just as inappropriate. Was Chaney wrong for his actions? He sure was and probably should lose his job over it. But do not tell me I do not have the right to my opinion about this issue. If it makes you uncomfortable that really is more your problem than mine. At least I knew what I was saying and the impact it was going to cause.

Exactly how do you know that I'm not black? Or that the other posters that disagreed with you aren't black either? Ot that the posters that called Chaney a "thug" aren't black either?

I await your answer.

Btw, Nobody ever said that you don't have a right to your opinion. You even have the right to label someone a racist just because they happen to disagree with you. But I have my rights too, which is why I still stand by my previous statements. Labelling anybody who disagrees with them a racist is a despicable act made by a despicable person. I have absolutely no respect for any person that would do something like that, no matter what color they might happen to be.

Your statements don't make me uncomfortable at all.They make me sad.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 3rd, 2005 at 02:45 AM]