Iowa Football Investigation Discussion

[AreWeThereYet]

What is dangerous is assuming current players public response is accurate. It's abuse. Think Patty Hearst. Learn human behavior. How many times did you say..... Glad he s gone to transfers. Did you assume the higher black numbers were...blacks not in tune with the system?

You're going "Patty Hearst" Stockholm syndrome on this. I'm fully aware their is quite a bit of institutional racism along with a huge amount of abuse in coaching. Stockholm syndrome, that's a stretch.

 

[4thngoal]

Everyone can just stop with the rhabdo as abuse thing also. It's happened other places as well. Oregon's coach got suspended for a month. So just drop it, because you are making yourself look like you are grasping at straws and have an axe to grind.

 

[proudhawkfan21]

@RobHowe We’re all waiting ...

You probably believe that you actually read what I wrote and understood it. You did not. You did defend yourself quite well, I will give you that. Anyone can defend themselves by repeating what they have already said over and over.

Here are my beliefs and I will organize them for your benefit.

1. Your "reporting" is not why people are on this site. Take a poll. I get a dozens of Hawkeye news stories through a simple Google search. This isnt CNN, it isnt Fox News, it isnt USA Today. My issue with your "reporting" is that you present it like it is your job when my guess is people come to this site to celebrate being a Hawkeye fan. Let people debate, argue, laugh, cry, but to run it like an investigative news service is not why people visit.

2. You can pretend to "care" about people, but you are just trying to make a name for yourself. That's OK, but people see it. You administer a HAWKEYE FAN SITE and you, through your actions, writing, "digging," divide the fan base. I'm not sure being the administrator for a Hawkeye fan site is your true calling. You seem to be more interested in investigative journalism. Let me ask you this? Why don't you spend more time digging deeper into recruiting. More people on here would rather get insider information on who we are looking at, rumors of who we could be looking at or just general buzz on recruiting. Attacking the current staff isnt going to lead you to being a preferred journalist inside the program, and that is your importance to this site and your followers.

3. It can't be all negative. Thank you for a forum to post and interact with fellow Hawkeye fans.

4. Expecting athletes to adhere to policy in regard to dress, appearance or any other societal norm is not racism. Experts might revisit the idea of "standards of norm" and decide they are culturally biased or contain institutional racism as their core. At the moment, the staff having expectations that their athletes dress in a certain way or act in a certain way is just that, an expectation. Maybe they should be transparent. Maybe an athlete should understand that here is an opportunity at a free education and a chance to work hard and become a professional athlete. If "being you" is more important, leave, or choose a different school. Don't tell me they can't easily transfer out. Staying and complaining years later is not a good look. Let's not treat any of these athletes like they are toddlers. There are 18- 22 year old young men and women faced with harder choices in life than getting $100k worth of education for free +++. Wake up to reality. They have a voice. They can leave. They can ask more questions before committing. If it doesn't work out, it happens. People leave jobs all the time because it wasn't what they thought. These "kids" aren't kids. Go to a factory or a military base and offer those "kids" all of your sympathy. Life isn't all rainbows. Athletes are given special privileges in life. They earn them as well. They take the opportunities and they make something out of them, or they don't. You want to treat these young MEN as little children. They have so many opportunities and so much time to do their research. They can't talk to former players? They can't use the internet? Their high school coaches can't help? Please. Please. These are not toddlers or children. Buyer beware. Don't tell me that one can't compare it to a bank or military. Yes, you can. If this was grammar school, you have an argument. These are adults. If they are 17 when they make a choice, shame on the parents. If they feel like Iowa was a bad choice, make an adult decision. I was making grown up decisions when I went to college. My parents couldn't tell you a thing about me. I got my own loans, pd for it myself and to quote Michael Scott, "Somehow I Manage." Don't make the they are just kids argument. They are not kids. They are adult consumers. They have rights. They can and should exercise their rights.

5. This staff/program is a microcosm of America. I applaud the nation's willingness to look at itself and make changes. The U of Iowa is doing that. KF is doing that. Your look is that you want regime change. There is no other way to look at it. Or, you want someone to notice you. The University is currently doing what they should. They made some changes after the 2018 investigation. Was it enough, maybe it wasn't. Maybe they are trying to do more now. As a Hawkeye fan I hope they fix the problems. I don't see you as a Hawkeye fan. You choose to be a journalist first. That's great! But you lead a Hawkeye fan board. I'm sure you can see the issue there. My opinion.

 

[proudhawkfan21]

I would like to reiterate that I do appreciate the forum and the work that you do to run it. I simply disagree with some of your opinions and I guess that I am disappointed in a few items that I've mentioned. But, that being said, I'm appreciative of the site in general and recognize the work that goes into giving the Iowa fan base a site to share Hawkeye experiences.

 

[RobHowe]

I would say the vast majority of of stories I've written about Iowa football through the years have been positive. You are right that I choose to be a journalist first. And I've never pretended to be anything different. That's why Jon Miller hired me from the Iowa City Press-Citizen back in June of '03.

As such, I try to be as objective as possible. And if you're a hardcore fan, it makes sense that you don't like how I have covered this story. There's been a lot more bad stories than good stories here. I don't want to be a part of the story but that's the landscape of this country - fake news, media sucks, stirring the pot, etc. Do those things happen? Sure. But they've become blanket statements and beliefs.

I've said it before - this isn't about me or the other journalists covering this story. Fans/consumers/the public choose to make it about the messenger because that's easier than focusing in the issue, IMO. How do we know there's an issue if it's not reported? How do we receive all sides and the depth of the issue if it's not reported? If you don't want that, I wouldn't assume everyone else agrees with you.

I've tried to secure interviews with a lot of players that spoke out last month. They are not talking. They used social media to tell their stories. UI hasn't said much. That's why the story seems slanted one way. More than 50 players have told stories or spoken out.

Am I an Iowa fan? I've asked myself that question before. I don't think that I am in the way most people would define it. I would say I've gotten to know a lot of coaches and players during the last 23 years covering Iowa sports and I am happy for them when they do well. It's much more fun covering teams that are successful and reporting on good news and seeing hard work pay off.

Again, this isn't about me. I'm not calling for a regime change. No where have I said or written that. That's up to the players, former and current, IMO. If the advisory board of former players and the current players believe this staff can foster the necessary change, I think that's the best possible outcome. I've written multiple columns (my opinion) on Iowa's opportunity for being the face of change for more inclusive environments in college football and athletics. I would love to write about that down the road.

Finally, we all have a different lens for viewing what's happening here. I understand that. A 60 year old white guy from rural Iowa isn't going to view this the same way that Amani Hooker from Minneapolis or Jaleel Johnson, who grew up in NYC before moving to Chicago, or Mike Daniels, who is from New Jersey, are going to view it.

I'm trying to look at it through the lens of the players and the coaches. If you really take the time to read the full diversity task force report we published on Monday, it gives you a view from the lens of players, coaches and administrators.

I've spent hours on the phone with former players during the last month and a half trying to understand the picture as best as I can. Most of those conversations are off the record and private. Former players have been conducting Zoom calls and text chains trying to share experiences and views. There's a lot going on behind the scenes to make the program better.

It really doesn't matter how we view it through our lens. It matters how the players view it and how they feel.

 

[kicker22]

Your statement is as responsible as your sensationalist approach to an IOWA FAN SITE. This isnt the New York Times or Esquire. Back to your question. White, Black, Yellow, Green, Blue...asking for 1) Hair style/length, 2) Dress Code, 3) Uniform, 4) covering Tattoos, 5) several other items are not illegal or racially biased is acceptable for an educational institution or business.. Not getting to wear a wife-beater or hoodie is not a violation of civil rights or a right guaranteed by the constitution. Most people's work places, as Iowa is an AT WILL employer state, can demand any of these or fire non-compliant employees. None of these things are racially biased items.

Using racial slurs, allowing variations to the codes for different races.....both are items where a program can/should be held accountable. Not getting to "be you" is a decision each individual must make as it pertains to being a member of a football program or place of busoness. Its America. Any athlete could choose a program that fits their motivation better. To your point, IF any athlete feels that the program is forcing them to adapt to a uniform code that they don't appreciate, if they MUST wear something outside of the expected uniform, find a new place to play/work. The very same is true for anyone here. Go into your bank job tomorrow wearing shorts...see what happens. D

DO NOT blur the lines. I feel Doyle crossed the line and got what he deserved. KF has and is facing criticism for not knowing exactly how YOU would create culture as is most of American business and industry. Its easy to sit back in the recliner and say i would do this, this and that better.. YOU struggle with it in this limited environment. Do you not at times? It's hypocritical to demand that some can wave a magic wand and solve or have answers for every thing that comes up when you know having all people agree with policy is impossible. They addressed the issues. Doing nothing would have been a problem. Doing what you think they should do is a difference in opinion.

The University of Iowa is unique. WE ARENT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. Come on, our population/talent pool is the size of one city in a blue blood school's state. We arent a southern (warm) school or a coastal school. There are no culturally exciting metropolitan areas here. So the Iowa way is to get kids who are willing to be trained hard for bigger things in life. The staff is known for developing kids so we get kids that want to get to the next level knowing the staff is very good at making pros. Will we be as effective with less discipline? Again, don't mistake discipline to mean racism. Making kids follow tough rules and act in a certain way is an Iowa advantage. Look at any coach talk about Iowa. "You are in for a war." "Their kids are extremely well-coached and disciplined." "You always know when you played Iowa because the next week in practice you hurt."

No, I don't expect a black student athlete to "lower" himself or to conform to white culture. A dress code is not white culture. Hair length is not white culture. Wearing a required uniform (tshirt/shorts) is not white culture. It is called being disciplined. Write a letter to the military asking them to abandon all disciplinary "rule adherance" techniques and let me know what they tell you. You have an agenda. You want to be a hero. You will reply and hide behind doing the right thing. Not up in here. Not at fanning flames to a fire on a very decent gentleman. Let the process work itself out. He who has no sin, cast the first stone.

Sorry but being disciplined has absolutely nothing to do with hair length, dress code, uniform, etc...Discipline is a trait. Cut the hair, dress them up differently, put them in uniform and I'd be willing to bet they are the still the exact same kids that were recruited before they changed their appearance or started dressing like everyone else.

I have no problem with the promoting the Iowa Way mentality you brought up earlier where other teams are "in for a war", "extremely well coached and disciplined", but none of that pertains to changing or molding an individual's appearance or modifying who they are once they get on campus. You mention the example of "going into your bank job tomorrow wearing shorts" fair argument, but the other side of the equation is they're being brought in first and foremost to do a job I wouldn't expect our athletes wearing a dress clothes on the field doing the job they were recruited for.

Our staff does a phenomenal job of assessing talent and recruiting, but we know who these young men are and who they are before they are offered scholarships. That part of who they are is not going to change and obviously had no negative impact when we were recruiting them. So why is it that stuff matters once they get on campus? I would venture to guess that hair length/style, dress code, uniform, covering tatoos, or other "non-compliant" fireable offenses were never brought up when these coaches were out trying to convince these individuals to come make millions of dollars for the university by signing a letter of intent and accepting the offer to be Hawkeyes. I'd also venture to say that if a banker behaved or conducted himself in a manner similar to the way Brian Ferentz, or any other coach, has in the press box or on the sideline or even at practice that would also be a "fireable offense" in the banking world. So IMO, to apply "regular 9-5 corporate jobs or the military to college or professional athletics is like comparing apples and oranges or comparing Hawkeyes to Cyclones.

 

[proudhawkfan21]

I would say the vast majority of of stories I've written about Iowa football through the years have been positive. You are right that I choose to be a journalist first. And I've never pretended to be anything different. That's why Jon Miller hired me from the Iowa City Press-Citizen back in June of '03.

As such, I try to be as objective as possible. And if you're a hardcore fan, it makes sense that you don't like how I have covered this story. There's been a lot more bad stories than good stories here. I don't want to be a part of the story but that's the landscape of this country - fake news, media sucks, stirring the pot, etc. Do those things happen? Sure. But they've become blanket statements and beliefs.

I've said it before - this isn't about me or the other journalists covering this story. Fans/consumers/the public choose to make it about the messenger because that's easier than focusing in the issue, IMO. How do we know there's an issue if it's not reported? How do we receive all sides and the depth of the issue if it's not reported? If you don't want that, I wouldn't assume everyone else agrees with you.

I've tried to secure interviews with a lot of players that spoke out last month. They are not talking. They used social media to tell their stories. UI hasn't said much. That's why the story seems slanted one way. More than 50 players have told stories or spoken out.

Am I an Iowa fan? I've asked myself that question before. I don't think that I am in the way most people would define it. I would say I've gotten to know a lot of coaches and players during the last 23 years covering Iowa sports and I am happy for them when they do well. It's much more fun covering teams that are successful and reporting on good news and seeing hard work pay off.

Again, this isn't about me. I'm not calling for a regime change. No where have I said or written that. That's up to the players, former and current, IMO. If the advisory board of former players and the current players believe this staff can foster the necessary change, I think that's the best possible outcome. I've written multiple columns (my opinion) on Iowa's opportunity for being the face of change for more inclusive environments in college football and athletics. I would love to write about that down the road.

Finally, we all have a different lens for viewing what's happening here. I understand that. A 60 year old white guy from rural Iowa isn't going to view this the same way that Amani Hooker from Minneapolis or Jaleel Johnson, who grew up in NYC before moving to Chicago, or Mike Daniels, who is from New Jersey, are going to view it.

I'm trying to look at it through the lens of the players and the coaches. If you really take the time to read the full diversity task force report we published on Monday, it gives you a view from the lens of players, coaches and administrators.

I've spent hours on the phone with former players during the last month and a half trying to understand the picture as best as I can. Most of those conversations are off the record and private. Former players have been conducting Zoom calls and text chains trying to share experiences and views. There's a lot going on behind the scenes to make the program better.

It really doesn't matter how we view it through our lens. It matters how the players view it and how they feel.

I appreciate the thoughtful response. Discussion on Hawkeye football is an enjoyable part of life, diehard is a stretch, as you can see that I'm active here but at a level that I feel is healthy (my wife is a therapist so failsafes are on standby lol). I agree that media is a powerful tool to check power and a cherished and valuable right for the American public. However, it is discouraging that a site called Hawkeye Nation is administrated by someone who is not a Hawkeye fan. I suppose Ray Kroc could have hated hamburgers and the American public would still eat billions of those tasty bastards! I certainly respect your journalistic abilities, but I recognize your own bias as well (48 y/o white guy from NE Iowa here). My bias is for the Iowa Hawkeyes. For them to run a clean program, and yes certainly, to run a program free of racial, gender, or any other bias. I feel the players have spoken, past and present. Other than transfers and DJK, very few want KF gone. Let's continue to improve the program and America. But there is a time to heal. Let the healing begin. The investigation would reveal any bombshells that you scoope them on already. Let the process play out.

 

[BGOLD]

Sorry but being disciplined has absolutely nothing to do with hair length, dress code, uniform, etc...Discipline is a trait. Cut the hair, dress them up differently, put them in uniform and I'd be willing to bet they are the still the exact same kids that were recruited before they changed their appearance or started dressing like everyone else.

I have no problem with the promoting the Iowa Way mentality you brought up earlier where other teams are "in for a war", "extremely well coached and disciplined", but none of that pertains to changing or molding an individual's appearance or modifying who they are once they get on campus. You mention the example of "going into your bank job tomorrow wearing shorts" fair argument, but the other side of the equation is they're being brought in first and foremost to do a job I wouldn't expect our athletes wearing a dress clothes on the field doing the job they were recruited for.

Our staff does a phenomenal job of assessing talent and recruiting, but we know who these young men are and who they are before they are offered scholarships. That part of who they are is not going to change and obviously had no negative impact when we were recruiting them. So why is it that stuff matters once they get on campus? I would venture to guess that hair length/style, dress code, uniform, covering tatoos, or other "non-compliant" fireable offenses were never brought up when these coaches were out trying to convince these individuals to come make millions of dollars for the university by signing a letter of intent and accepting the offer to be Hawkeyes. I'd also venture to say that if a banker behaved or conducted himself in a manner similar to the way Brian Ferentz, or any other coach, has in the press box or on the sideline or even at practice that would also be a "fireable offense" in the banking world. So IMO, to apply "regular 9-5 corporate jobs or the military to college or professional athletics is like comparing apples and oranges or comparing Hawkeyes to Cyclones.

I’d venture to say some of these comments a coach made was a one off instance. A lot of our best players had braids all through Kirk’s tenure. Bob Sanders, Adrian Clayborn, Abdul Hodge, CJ Jones, Jewell Hampton, Jordan Bernstein, Dace Richardson, Brandon Smith ... and many more. That claim really doesn’t hold up. I’m not saying it may not have been said, but I’m sure there’s a lot more to the story.

 

[proudhawkfan21]

Sorry but being disciplined has absolutely nothing to do with hair length, dress code, uniform, etc...Discipline is a trait. Cut the hair, dress them up differently, put them in uniform and I'd be willing to bet they are the still the exact same kids that were recruited before they changed their appearance or started dressing like everyone else.

I have no problem with the promoting the Iowa Way mentality you brought up earlier where other teams are "in for a war", "extremely well coached and disciplined", but none of that pertains to changing or molding an individual's appearance or modifying who they are once they get on campus. You mention the example of "going into your bank job tomorrow wearing shorts" fair argument, but the other side of the equation is they're being brought in first and foremost to do a job I wouldn't expect our athletes wearing a dress clothes on the field doing the job they were recruited for.

Our staff does a phenomenal job of assessing talent and recruiting, but we know who these young men are and who they are before they are offered scholarships. That part of who they are is not going to change and obviously had no negative impact when we were recruiting them. So why is it that stuff matters once they get on campus? I would venture to guess that hair length/style, dress code, uniform, covering tatoos, or other "non-compliant" fireable offenses were never brought up when these coaches were out trying to convince these individuals to come make millions of dollars for the university by signing a letter of intent and accepting the offer to be Hawkeyes. I'd also venture to say that if a banker behaved or conducted himself in a manner similar to the way Brian Ferentz, or any other coach, has in the press box or on the sideline or even at practice that would also be a "fireable offense" in the banking world. So IMO, to apply "regular 9-5 corporate jobs or the military to college or professional athletics is like comparing apples and oranges or comparing Hawkeyes to Cyclones.

I appreciate your opinion but I disagree. Order requires acceptance of a certain set of standards or laws in every aspect of culture. You can disagree all you want, but short of adherence to rules or standards there is no order. You disagree with the rules or the need for the rules. Thats OK. They are simply a disciplinary tool to YES force compliance and create a certain level of required discipline. Work has policies. The military has policies. Rules are a way to get everyone working in the same way to a common goal. Big Ten football is not unlike the military. We are paying these young men to be here. Follow the rules or leave. Do your research before you commit. The internet. No excuse to not be prepared.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I'd also venture to say that if a banker behaved or conducted himself in a manner similar to the way Brian Ferentz, or any other coach, has in the press box or on the sideline or even at practice that would also be a "fireable offense" in the banking world. So IMO, to apply "regular 9-5 corporate jobs or the military to college or professional athletics is like comparing apples and oranges or comparing Hawkeyes to Cyclones.

Depends on the guy and the bank. Down at the local Farm Bank, yeah, probably. But at a real bank in the heat of the moment with a shitload of money on the line? Absolutely not. I get that most of these guys aren't going to walk into totally stressful high stakes jobs, but for those who do, they'll appreciate having had some exposure to heat that would make a typical snowflake melt.

 

[proudhawkfan21]

I’d venture to say some of these comments a coach made was a one off instance. A lot of our best players had braids all through Kirk’s tenure. Bob Sanders, Adrian Clayborn, Abdul Hodge, CJ Jones, Jewell Hampton, Jordan Bernstein, Dace Richardson, Brandon Smith ... and many more. That claim really doesn’t hold up. I’m not saying it may not have been said, but I’m sure there’s a lot more to the story.

How good are you is how this works. White or black. If you're good...yep..you get away with more. Happens on 100% of teams or businesses.

 

[kicker22]

Sorry but being disciplined has absolutely nothing to do with hair length, dress code, uniform, etc...Discipline is a trait. Cut the hair, dress them up differently, put them in uniform and I'd be willing to bet they are the still the exact same kids that were recruited before they changed their appearance or started dressing like everyone else.

I have no problem with the promoting the Iowa Way mentality you brought up earlier where other teams are "in for a war", "extremely well coached and disciplined", but none of that pertains to changing or molding an individual's appearance or modifying who they are once they get on campus. You mention the example of "going into your bank job tomorrow wearing shorts" fair argument, but the other side of the equation is they're being brought in first and foremost to do a job I wouldn't expect our athletes wearing a dress clothes on the field doing the job they were recruited for.

Our staff does a phenomenal job of assessing talent and recruiting, but we know who these young men are and who they are before they are offered scholarships. That part of who they are is not going to change and obviously had no negative impact when we were recruiting them. So why is it that stuff matters once they get on campus? I would venture to guess that hair length/style, dress code, uniform, covering tatoos, or other "non-compliant" fireable offenses were never brought up when these coaches were out trying to convince these individuals to come make millions of dollars for the university by signing a letter of intent and accepting the offer to be Hawkeyes. I'd also venture to say that if a banker behaved or conducted himself in a manner similar to the way Brian Ferentz, or any other coach, has in the press box or on the sideline or even at practice that would also be a "fireable offense" in the banking world. So IMO, to apply "regular 9-5 corporate jobs or the military to college or professional athletics is like comparing apples and oranges or comparing Hawkeyes to Cyclones.

I should have added that as I've said all along I'm not saying the coaches need to go or that I stand 100% the fans. I think there's a great deal of truth coming from both perspectives and the answers lie somewhere in the middle. I'm also not saying that the Iowa way is "racial" or based on abuse and have always said that I will wait to see what the findings of the investigation are before I make an opinion. So I'm trying to see things from both angles.

I've posted on here a long time and one thing that has and never will change is how I see the role of a coach. Coaching is more about the players then the coach or the institution they play for. I've always felt that a good coach can get more out of their players by being positive as they can by running a program based on fear and punishment. So to me if a program is "abusing" players or players don't fit a "culture" or feel they can't be themselves and have to conform to be something they aren't, while it may not necessarily be based on race I see it as a definite problem.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

I find a lot of this discussion intriguing, and, frankly, this is the kind of discussion that should be occurring in our country as a whole right now, as opposed to this bunker ("digging in") mentality, which gets us nowhere.

The question about program expectations versus racism is a very good one, but also one that has many layers.

As some posters have stated, having certain expectations and behavioral standards in a football program is not, in and of itself, racist, but it does create a major paradox - i.e., does perception of the individual trump the reality of the intent, and, if so, where does it end?

In other words, as several have stated, our younger generation has evolved into a cohort much more sensitive to perceived injustices, and the individual may "perceive" an expectation as an attempt to make them conform to what they interpret as "white" culture, but the intent of the rule may simply derive from another's generational expectation of what it means to be a "good" person regardless of race.

Ascertaining who's right is the crux of the problem. It's a major Pandora's Box. Kirk has every right to require players to wear a tie at a function, for example, but what happens when a player states that ties are a reflection of a white male dominant culture, and refuses to comply? Does that perception make the rule racist?

Is Kirk a racist if he says no? Is that an example of subconscious bias? This is where the cancel culture gets out of hand. Ironically, it has almost become a reverse McCarthyism - it doesn't really matter whether you are racist or not, or if your intent is racist or not, you are guilty by accusation. That's dangerous, and it's like a spreading wildfire across the country.

Racism and abuse are non-negotiable, and it's on us to identify it and make substantive changes to correct it. I think everyone would agree with that, but what has become apparent on this board and in our society is that the definitions have become moving targets, and we are putting a tremendous amount of legitimacy on perception. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as it promotes listening, but intent and facts also matter, and shouldn't be discounted in an attempt to avoid accusations and being canceled.

 

[kicker22]

Depends on the guy and the bank. Down at the local Farm Bank, yeah, probably. But at a real bank in the heat of the moment with a shitload of money on the line? Absolutely not. I get that most of these guys aren't going to walk into totally stressful high stakes jobs, but for those who do, they'll appreciate having had some exposure to heat that would make a typical snowflake melt.

No argument there, but at the same time we all know why the athletes are there and it has nothing to do with parading them around campus trying to fit the mold of honor students. These kids do their banking on the gridiron. Many will be successful off the field when their playing career is over, and I do genuinely believe that KF wants to help them achieve that success, but we all know what matters to the staff and university first and foremost.

 

[proudhawkfan21]

I find a lot of this discussion intriguing, and, frankly, this is the kind of discussion that should be occurring in our country as a whole right now, as opposed to this bunker ("digging in") mentality, which gets us nowhere.

The question about program expectations versus racism is a very good one, but also one that has many layers.

As some posters have stated, having certain expectations and behavioral standards in a football program is not, in and of itself, racist, but it does create a major paradox - i.e., does perception of the individual trump the reality of the intent, and, if so, where does it end?

In other words, as several have stated, our younger generation has evolved into a cohort much more sensitive to perceived injustices, and the individual may "perceive" an expectation as an attempt to make them conform to what they interpret as "white" culture, but the intent of the rule may simply derive from another's generational expectation of what it means to be a "good" person regardless of race.

Ascertaining who's right is the crux of the problem. It's a major Pandora's Box. Kirk has every right to require players to wear a tie at a function, for example, but what happens when a player states that ties are a reflection of a white male dominant culture, and refuses to comply? Does that perception make the rule racist?

Is Kirk a racist if he says no? Is that an example of subconscious bias? This is where the cancel culture gets out of hand. Ironically, it has almost become a reverse McCarthyism - it doesn't really matter whether you are racist or not, or if your intent is racist or not, you are guilty by accusation. That's dangerous, and it's like a spreading wildfire across the country.

Racism and abuse are non-negotiable, and it's on us to identify it and make substantive changes to correct it. I think everyone would agree with that, but what has become apparent on this board and in our society is that the definitions have become moving targets, and we are putting a tremendous amount of legitimacy on perception. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as it promotes listening, but intent and facts also matter, and shouldn't be discounted in an attempt to avoid accusations and being canceled.

Very well stated sir. Can I use "see #1diehardhawk response " as my go to quick reply? Great analysis and I love the insight.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I appreciate your opinion but I disagree. Order requires acceptance of a certain set of standards or laws in every aspect of culture. You can disagree all you want, but short of adherence to rules or standards there is no order. You disagree with the rules or the need for the rules. Thats OK. They are simply a disciplinary tool to YES force compliance and create a certain level of required discipline. Work has policies. The military has policies. Rules are a way to get everyone working in the same way to a common goal. Big Ten football is not unlike the military. We are paying these young men to be here. Follow the rules or leave. Do your research before you commit. The internet. No excuse to not be prepared.

Several forces between education and mass media have combined to create a nation of snowflakes that believe rules either don't or shouldn't apply to them. This isn't a racial point, it is a cultural point. You can see it with videos of so-called "Karens" who have meltdowns in the entry way of CostCo over being asked to wear a mask and you are seeing it with this widespread push of "cultural relativism." Every person and organization right down to the family unit has its own culture. In the past 20-ish years there has been a massive push to make a whole bunch of things "white" culture, which while every culture is allegedly valuable, that one is not. As an example, just last week a Smithsonian museum issued this blueprint of "whiteness" and "white culture" which chastised things ranging from "objective, linear thinking" and "hard work is the key to success" all the way up to "delayed gratification" and "rigid time schedules." Query how successful a football program, as an example, would be, without these principles.

Now if you take a person who has grown up without much structure or who has received "breaks" because they are the best athlete to ever go to their high school and then juxtapose onto them the notion that all the crap on this list is "whiteness" if that person has a problem with adjusting and conforming to the cultural expectations at Iowa, they are going to default into saying the problem isn't with them, it's with the culture. And this is an issue you see all over America, it is not unique to Iowa football. Here is the list I was referring to - The Smithsonian has apologized for it, but this didn't come from nowhere and there is discussion of a lot of these point significantly pre-dating this year.

 

[proudhawkfan21]

Several forces between education and mass media have combined to create a nation of snowflakes that believe rules either don't or shouldn't apply to them. This isn't a racial point, it is a cultural point. You can see it with videos of so-called "Karens" who have meltdowns in the entry way of CostCo over being asked to wear a mask and you are seeing it with this widespread push of "cultural relativism." Every person and organization right down to the family unit has its own culture. In the past 20-ish years there has been a massive push to make a whole bunch of things "white" culture, which while every culture is allegedly valuable, that one is not. As an example, just last week a Smithsonian museum issued this blueprint of "whiteness" and "white culture" which chastised things ranging from "objective, linear thinking" and "hard work is the key to success" all the way up to "delayed gratification" and "rigid time schedules." Query how successful a football program, as an example, would be, without these principles.

Now if you take a person who has grown up without much structure or who has received "breaks" because they are the best athlete to ever go to their high school and then juxtapose onto them the notion that all the crap on this list is "whiteness" if that person has a problem with adjusting and conforming to the cultural expectations at Iowa, they are going to default into saying the problem isn't with them, it's with the culture. And this is an issue you see all over America, it is not unique to Iowa football. Here is the list I was referring to - The Smithsonian has apologized for it, but this didn't come from nowhere and there is discussion of a lot of these point significantly pre-dating this year.

Wow. Interesting find! The lines are purposefully being blurred by many. Perhaps this is the beginning of the great fall of America (Rome). Politics excused for a moment, label me as you will, I'm American first. I don't care who is in the White House if they put America first. Yes, I know, not possible. But, you can CLEARLY see the regression of America in the past 3 + years cuturally, socially and from a worldwide perspective. Leadership is more important now than ever. Good things have come from this regression including but not limited to a great push for equality across race, gender and any other identifying characteristics that have been long persecuted. But, effective leadership is needed immediately! From this great societal reckoning, it will be laws, rules and standard accepted traditions that push America forward. Improve areas that need to be improved, yes, the plight on minorities is greatly important. But now is not the time to abandon centuries old customs or traditions that help keep order in society. Majority rule with minority rights recognized.

 

[kicker22]

I appreciate your opinion but I disagree. Order requires acceptance of a certain set of standards or laws in every aspect of culture. You can disagree all you want, but short of adherence to rules or standards there is no order. You disagree with the rules or the need for the rules. Thats OK. They are simply a disciplinary tool to YES force compliance and create a certain level of required discipline. Work has policies. The military has policies. Rules are a way to get everyone working in the same way to a common goal. Big Ten football is not unlike the military. We are paying these young men to be here. Follow the rules or leave. Do your research before you commit. The internet. No excuse to not be prepared.

I think we're going to be on opposite sides of the fence on this one because I refuse to believe that because a player has long hair by choice they are not disciplined. Again the comparison between military and athletics, but I won't get in to the argument of comparing a profession where you put your life on the line and "kill or be killed" ideology vs. that of a sport.

I'm sure that the coaches are being straight forward saying we'll have "a helmet and haircut ready for you when you get to campus" about these disciplinarian expectations. I'm guessing that when these policies are questioned by the recruit they're pointed out players who had the same expectations placed on them such as Robert Gallery, CJ Bethard, Mitch King, the Paulsen twins, and a ton of others that have come through the program. I guess I just see it as (A) an absolutely ridiculous mentality to even relate discipline and hair preference and (B) an incredible double standard when seeing hair coming out the bottom of a helmet or onto someones shoulders is something that can be picked out on the sidelines on a weekly basis.

And while these athletes are "being paid to be here" lets not forget that those very same athletes are making millions for the University of Iowa.

 

[HuckFinn]

I find a lot of this discussion intriguing, and, frankly, this is the kind of discussion that should be occurring in our country as a whole right now, as opposed to this bunker ("digging in") mentality, which gets us nowhere.

The question about program expectations versus racism is a very good one, but also one that has many layers.

As some posters have stated, having certain expectations and behavioral standards in a football program is not, in and of itself, racist, but it does create a major paradox - i.e., does perception of the individual trump the reality of the intent, and, if so, where does it end?

In other words, as several have stated, our younger generation has evolved into a cohort much more sensitive to perceived injustices, and the individual may "perceive" an expectation as an attempt to make them conform to what they interpret as "white" culture, but the intent of the rule may simply derive from another's generational expectation of what it means to be a "good" person regardless of race.

Ascertaining who's right is the crux of the problem. It's a major Pandora's Box. Kirk has every right to require players to wear a tie at a function, for example, but what happens when a player states that ties are a reflection of a white male dominant culture, and refuses to comply? Does that perception make the rule racist?

Is Kirk a racist if he says no? Is that an example of subconscious bias? This is where the cancel culture gets out of hand. Ironically, it has almost become a reverse McCarthyism - it doesn't really matter whether you are racist or not, or if your intent is racist or not, you are guilty by accusation. That's dangerous, and it's like a spreading wildfire across the country.

Racism and abuse are non-negotiable, and it's on us to identify it and make substantive changes to correct it. I think everyone would agree with that, but what has become apparent on this board and in our society is that the definitions have become moving targets, and we are putting a tremendous amount of legitimacy on perception. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as it promotes listening, but intent and facts also matter, and shouldn't be discounted in an attempt to avoid accusations and being canceled.

This could very well be the best post I have read on this topic. I mean that. It is logical, reasonable and gives fairness and balance to the major issue at hand. Perception and reality are cousins, no more no less. I have said from the beginning that assigning guilt Or innocence by virtue of twitter is dangerous.

One correction if I may? Please do not use “trump” and “reality” in the same sentence. Thanks.

 

[Motigerhawk]

Oh yeah, great post. The staff's impeccable decision making with quarterbacks has left us with no logical conclusion other than they are racist. The guys who started Jake Christensen over Rick Stanzi and Jake Rudock over CJB have demonstrated absolutely perfect judgment in selecting QBs.

I do love the notion that you closet racists have that the black player on the bench must be better than the white player. "Derp, if he's black, he must be a great athlete." You guys probably go around throwing around words like "cerebral" and "gym rat" to describe white players.

I threw out the Banks example of the racial bias. But the examples you have thrown out there are just as pertinent to the discussion. Stanzi and CJB did not fit into the Iowa culture. They were flashy and spoke their minds. IMO they were better than the QBs starting ahead of them.

Not racial bias there but a culture of not letting young men be themselves. Which i believe is a bigger factor in the black culture. Who they are may be all they have. Their identity is very important. That is why disrespect is such a powerful word in their culture.

I never said anything about gym rats or cerebral. I simply stated that there were less talented players starting over more talented players. And you gave 2 prime examples.

So you agree that at Iowa less talented players start over more talented. And I said this may have caused those black players to transfer, like CJB almost did until his Dad stepped in.

I think your post is spot on. with the exception of me calling the staff racist. I have never said that. I said there were racist statements.