Post by bcurrier on Feb 18, 2009 15:35:26 GMT -6
1) Get the administration involved YESTERDAY! The legal, social, and moral issues involved extend well beyond the purview of football and the position of head football coach.
2) No harassment of any kind, on any basis (e.g. sexual orientation, religious affiliation, race, etc.) should be tolerated – PERIOD!
3) The young man should not be removed from the team simply because he is gay. However, just like any other player, if his behavior and actions are detrimental to the team, then the appropriate steps (up to and including dismissal) should be taken. The best thing coachden, his staff, and his team can do for this young man is provide him with the experience of healthy, appropriate male bonding and love.
4) Likewise, the young men who are expressing objections and concerns based on their religious faith should not be removed from the team, nor should they be encouraged to leave the team, simply because of their religious faith. Remember, religious affiliation is every bit as much a protected class as is sexual orientation, and has been recognized as such for much longer. Coachden is the coach of these young men every bit as much as he is of the gay young man. I do agree that these players and their parents need to be challenged to examine their actions and attitudes in the light of the principles of love, grace, and forgiveness in their respective faith traditions. (Yes, for Christians, the question “WWJD?” applies here.) And yes, just like any other player, if their behavior and actions (the players’, not their parents’) are detrimental to the team, then the appropriate steps (up to and including dismissal) should be taken.
5) It is unfortunate that parallels have been drawn between the issue of sexual orientation and issues of race, social class, and religion. Sexual orientation is distinctly different from each of those others. Attempting to draw parallels only muddies the water.
6) The term “homophobia,” and all of its variations, should be recognized as a slur and removed from our vocabulary like any other slur. The term attempts to invoke a pseudo-scientific basis (“phobia”) for expressing disapproval for a particular point of view, often because the perspective has a religious origin. The term uses the same broad brush to tar a wide-range of beliefs and activities, from hate-filled gay-bashers who commit despicably cowardly acts of violence to thoughtful people of faith who have moral objections to homosexual activity, from the thoughtless playground insults of schoolchildren to the sincere, caring efforts of parents to secure emotional, psychological, and/or spiritual help for their gay child. Speaking personally by way of example, I do not hate homosexuals, nor do I have an irrational fear of gays. I have a moral objection to homosexual behavior grounded in my faith, and I have legitimate, well-reasoned, and supported objections to legal, political, and social approval of homosexual behavior.
7) The player in question should not be treated as a girl in any respect. He is a young man who has identified himself as gay, and any measure taken should be taken on that basis. IMO, one of those measures that must be taken is the implementation of some kind of separate dressing arrangement. Sexuality is a powerful and sacred aspect of the human experience, and there are all kinds of negative implications and consequences when it is not confined to a committed relationship. That is the core principle underlying separate locker rooms for the genders, who are sexually-attracted to one another for the vast majority of people. The logical extension of that principle points to the creation of individualized dressing arrangements for those with same-sex attractions. I share dal9000’s concern about the appearance of ostracism of the player (though I find the rest of his post wrong-headed), but the truth is, actions and choices have consequences, and providing alternate dressing arrangements is a natural consequence and accommodation of this young man’s choice to play a sport AND make his sexual preference public.
If the kid is being respectful of his fellow teammates and is doing what's asked of him, he should be treated as one of the guys just as all the secretly gay players who've passed through the locker rooms before him were
8) I strongly disagree! When others are impacted, there are things you can’t simply ignore or pretend is not the case, whether or not you’ve had others go thru the program undetected. When a player is revealed as a locker room thief, you have to discipline him; you can’t let him go on stealing just because other thieves have gone thru undiscovered. When a player or coach is a bigot spouting racial epithets, you have to end their outbursts, regardless of whether other bigots have gone thru undetected. If a player or coach is openly proselytizing for their religious faith in the locker room of a public school, you would advise them that is not the appropriate forum for doing so, whether or not you’ve had others do so undetected in the past. When a player or coach is revealed as a sexual offender or predator, you don’t continue to expose your players to their influence, regardless of whether other sexual offenders have passed thru the program undetected earlier. Turning a blind eye is no longer an option in this situation – the stakes are too high for everyone involved.
2) No harassment of any kind, on any basis (e.g. sexual orientation, religious affiliation, race, etc.) should be tolerated – PERIOD!
3) The young man should not be removed from the team simply because he is gay. However, just like any other player, if his behavior and actions are detrimental to the team, then the appropriate steps (up to and including dismissal) should be taken. The best thing coachden, his staff, and his team can do for this young man is provide him with the experience of healthy, appropriate male bonding and love.
4) Likewise, the young men who are expressing objections and concerns based on their religious faith should not be removed from the team, nor should they be encouraged to leave the team, simply because of their religious faith. Remember, religious affiliation is every bit as much a protected class as is sexual orientation, and has been recognized as such for much longer. Coachden is the coach of these young men every bit as much as he is of the gay young man. I do agree that these players and their parents need to be challenged to examine their actions and attitudes in the light of the principles of love, grace, and forgiveness in their respective faith traditions. (Yes, for Christians, the question “WWJD?” applies here.) And yes, just like any other player, if their behavior and actions (the players’, not their parents’) are detrimental to the team, then the appropriate steps (up to and including dismissal) should be taken.
5) It is unfortunate that parallels have been drawn between the issue of sexual orientation and issues of race, social class, and religion. Sexual orientation is distinctly different from each of those others. Attempting to draw parallels only muddies the water.
6) The term “homophobia,” and all of its variations, should be recognized as a slur and removed from our vocabulary like any other slur. The term attempts to invoke a pseudo-scientific basis (“phobia”) for expressing disapproval for a particular point of view, often because the perspective has a religious origin. The term uses the same broad brush to tar a wide-range of beliefs and activities, from hate-filled gay-bashers who commit despicably cowardly acts of violence to thoughtful people of faith who have moral objections to homosexual activity, from the thoughtless playground insults of schoolchildren to the sincere, caring efforts of parents to secure emotional, psychological, and/or spiritual help for their gay child. Speaking personally by way of example, I do not hate homosexuals, nor do I have an irrational fear of gays. I have a moral objection to homosexual behavior grounded in my faith, and I have legitimate, well-reasoned, and supported objections to legal, political, and social approval of homosexual behavior.
7) The player in question should not be treated as a girl in any respect. He is a young man who has identified himself as gay, and any measure taken should be taken on that basis. IMO, one of those measures that must be taken is the implementation of some kind of separate dressing arrangement. Sexuality is a powerful and sacred aspect of the human experience, and there are all kinds of negative implications and consequences when it is not confined to a committed relationship. That is the core principle underlying separate locker rooms for the genders, who are sexually-attracted to one another for the vast majority of people. The logical extension of that principle points to the creation of individualized dressing arrangements for those with same-sex attractions. I share dal9000’s concern about the appearance of ostracism of the player (though I find the rest of his post wrong-headed), but the truth is, actions and choices have consequences, and providing alternate dressing arrangements is a natural consequence and accommodation of this young man’s choice to play a sport AND make his sexual preference public.
...most HS teams will probably have at least one closeted gay player on their team at any given time. Most coaches here have probably already coached several gay players without even knowing it. You probably have a few in your program right now. The odds are pretty good that at least one other player on this guy's team is also secretly gay...
If the kid is being respectful of his fellow teammates and is doing what's asked of him, he should be treated as one of the guys just as all the secretly gay players who've passed through the locker rooms before him were
8) I strongly disagree! When others are impacted, there are things you can’t simply ignore or pretend is not the case, whether or not you’ve had others go thru the program undetected. When a player is revealed as a locker room thief, you have to discipline him; you can’t let him go on stealing just because other thieves have gone thru undiscovered. When a player or coach is a bigot spouting racial epithets, you have to end their outbursts, regardless of whether other bigots have gone thru undetected. If a player or coach is openly proselytizing for their religious faith in the locker room of a public school, you would advise them that is not the appropriate forum for doing so, whether or not you’ve had others do so undetected in the past. When a player or coach is revealed as a sexual offender or predator, you don’t continue to expose your players to their influence, regardless of whether other sexual offenders have passed thru the program undetected earlier. Turning a blind eye is no longer an option in this situation – the stakes are too high for everyone involved.