If I remember right, that player was known to talk about how he never wanted to have to go back to that neighborhood. If that's correct (and who knows if it is) then the implication is pretty obvious. Using the players own fears of having to go back home as a motivational tactic to work harder. Again tho, who knows if that part of the story was true.
Keith Murphy's interview with Chris Doyle
- Thread starter MikeyLikesIowa
- Start date
It seems like there was definitely some old white out of touch dude going in. The rumor is some white players had issues with that too. Pretty much every white kid with long hair.
I remember years ago I used to say I swear Kirk is racist. If there was ever a position competition between the talented black player and the hard working white player that couldn't keep up, it was always the white player that won the starting spot. Obviously that's not true, but it sure seemed that way. But truthfully tho, there are plenty of schools in the country where "black culture" is the perfect fit. There's also plenty of black kids around who fit in perfectly well with "white culture". So if one school wants to have the white culture way, it probably shouldn't be a big deal. Especially when the whole premise of white culture and black culture is kinda bs anyway.
Not disagreeing with anything, just adding some other info. The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Iowa had an external review fairly recently, and one of the glaring findings was that many minority students found the campus/community to be unwelcoming. Not insinuating that this in any way exonerates Doyle or anyone else on the FB staff, just pointing out that the rest of the campus has some work to do, as well.
I feel tension between 2 different ideas:
1) There is bias built into our various institutions that make it more difficult for some people to get ahead, and we all have our own personal biases that can make it difficult to understand others on a personal-level. Things like DEI programs were developed to address these issues.
2) Overemphasis on an "oppressor-oppressed" framework creates a victim-mentality that might not really be solving any problem.
Broad over-generalization coming: It seems like much of the DEI push is coming from white liberals who are well-meaning, but ultimately get hung up on semantics and academic theory, and don't necessarily do much to dismantle the systemic barriers which are the main problem. For example, I'm pretty sure it was white people that decided that Latino should instead be "Latinx" to avoid being sexist, while less than 5% of US residents of Hispanic-descent actually use the term Latinx. I think it is pushback to some of this forced, but ultimately not useful, DEI stuff that is driving some Hispanic and Black men toward the less politically correct political party (to be fair, both of those demographics still overwhelming support Democrats, but there has been movement since 2020).
I think everyone should work to become more culturally sensitive, and I think as a society we should work to identify and dismantle systemic barriers. But I also think we sometimes go too far in centering victimhood, and that we focus on relatively meaningless things like words, instead of more important things like policies.
No solutions to be offered here, just explaining some of the challenges I have when trying to think about topics like this.
edit: @Fryowa , this post got pretty far afield, doesn't have anything to do with the Doyle situation...feel free to delete it if you think it best
1) There is bias built into our various institutions that make it more difficult for some people to get ahead, and we all have our own personal biases that can make it difficult to understand others on a personal-level. Things like DEI programs were developed to address these issues.
2) Overemphasis on an "oppressor-oppressed" framework creates a victim-mentality that might not really be solving any problem.
Broad over-generalization coming: It seems like much of the DEI push is coming from white liberals who are well-meaning, but ultimately get hung up on semantics and academic theory, and don't necessarily do much to dismantle the systemic barriers which are the main problem. For example, I'm pretty sure it was white people that decided that Latino should instead be "Latinx" to avoid being sexist, while less than 5% of US residents of Hispanic-descent actually use the term Latinx. I think it is pushback to some of this forced, but ultimately not useful, DEI stuff that is driving some Hispanic and Black men toward the less politically correct political party (to be fair, both of those demographics still overwhelming support Democrats, but there has been movement since 2020).
I think everyone should work to become more culturally sensitive, and I think as a society we should work to identify and dismantle systemic barriers. But I also think we sometimes go too far in centering victimhood, and that we focus on relatively meaningless things like words, instead of more important things like policies.
No solutions to be offered here, just explaining some of the challenges I have when trying to think about topics like this.
edit: @Fryowa , this post got pretty far afield, doesn't have anything to do with the Doyle situation...feel free to delete it if you think it best
Last edited:
Good post.
guffus
Well-Known Member
Interesting that almost nobody has brought up the old Rhabdo controversy that also involved coach Doyle. Maybe it's so old news that it's all considered water under the bridge now. But that was a case where somebody could have gotten fired and Kirk and the administration decided to support Doyle.
But you got to wonder if that old Rhabdo controversy was a factor in the back of Kirk's mind when the racial thing came uo. Doyle already had a history of pushing players too hard at times. Maybe deep down Kirk knew this, which is why he did not back him when the racial thing came up. Again I guess this supports the theory that Doyle got fired more for being an A-hole than bring a racist.
But you got to wonder if that old Rhabdo controversy was a factor in the back of Kirk's mind when the racial thing came uo. Doyle already had a history of pushing players too hard at times. Maybe deep down Kirk knew this, which is why he did not back him when the racial thing came up. Again I guess this supports the theory that Doyle got fired more for being an A-hole than bring a racist.
To be fair, you could do a random review of students who aren't minorities and many would find the campus unwelcoming too. That goes for any campus. Feeling unwelcomed is a natural feeling a lot of people live with. Especially young people who aren't comfortable in their own skin yet.
That rhabdo deal was weird. To push people that hard in workouts your whole career and not have a single documented case, and then one workout gets that many. Pretty sure they did that workout every 4 years so every student had to do it at least once. There's gotta be a missing variable there. I'm curious what it was.
SwirlinLingerie
Well-Known Member
That's fine, but that wasn't the finding in the Husch Blackwell report. The black student athletes reported generally positive experiences in the community and on campus. In contrast to the experiences in the football building.
RobHowe
Administrator
https://www.hawkeyenation.com/news/...cle_35488733-7ff4-55eb-a2b3-6dae2746783e.html
www.espn.com
Questioning The Iowa Way: Black players speak out on program's racial inequities
Last month, dozens of current and former Iowa football players spoke up about culture problems in the program, primarily centered on the treatment of Black athletes.
In the case-report over this issue, it was noted that previous times this workout had been used, it was either immediately post-season (2007), or during week 15 of a 21 week training block (2004). In 2011 with the rhabdo incident, it was immediately after a 3-week break (first workout of the spring block), meaning athletes were relatively deconditioned.
I have also heard that instead of prescribing as 50% of current max (1RM goes down during the season), load was prescribed as 50% of pre-season max (this is not reported in the case-report). Indeed, there was an association between load as % of body weight and likelihood of the athlete experiencing rhabdo (heavier load = more likely) in this case study.
In short, it seems like the workout was structured to punish more so than to achieve any particular useful adaptation. There was also an association between athletes who were clearly struggling (required more total sets to reach 100 reps, required more time, reported that they did not think they could complete the task) and risk of rhabdo. It is fair to expect that a reasonable and prudent coach would be able to recognize those signs of extreme fatigue and modify the workout for these individuals, unless of course the purpose was not physiological, but rather psychological.
I think there can be a place of "mental toughness" training in S&C, but this seems to have been taken to the extreme, as the results indicate.
Good info, thanks.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
Both very good posts.
At the risk of being accused of pushing a radical right-wing radical agenda (cause you know, intelligent discourse is no longer allowed in the age of hyper-reactive polarization...), I will push back on a couple of things here.
1. The conclusions of survey studies always require context. For example, if a survey was conducted on the satisfaction rate of the living conditions in Florida one week after Milton, you can bet that rate would be significantly more negative than if that survey was conducted a few months prior. The climate of "victimization" and hyper-focus on oppression has no doubt altered how many people view their worlds, so applying statistical significance to feeling "unwelcomed" would be, at best, very difficult to interpret.
2. I'm not sure it's totally fair and accurate to characterize the Republican party as "less politically correct." [Full disclosure - I have both conservative and liberal views depending upon the topic, and have voted for both parties at times.] In my experience, most conservatives and/or republicans believe in political correctness. Where they often differ is in the definition and the degree of application. As you pointed out with the fervor around implementing DEI initiatives, the intent can get lost in zealous over-application.
Furthermore, regarding African-American men and Latinos, interviews and focus groups have consistently shown that illegal immigration and the economy have been the driving forces behind switching party affiliation, not lack of political correctness.
I appreciate your thoughts.
Not directly related to your post, but I found this recent article interesting, you might as well (if you haven't already seen it...it's a long piece):
The University of Michigan Doubled Down on D.E.I. What Went Wrong?
A decade and a quarter of a billion dollars later, students and faculty are more frustrated than ever.
An exerpt:
On campus, I met students with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. Not one expressed any particular enthusiasm for Michigan’s D.E.I. initiative. Where some found it shallow, others found it stifling. They rolled their eyes at the profusion of course offerings that revolve around identity and oppression, the D.E.I.-themed emails they frequently received but rarely read.
Michigan’s own data suggests that in striving to become more diverse and equitable, the school has also become less inclusive: In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics — the exact kind of engagement D.E.I. programs, in theory, are meant to foster.
To your point on surveys, I don't know if the DEI initiatives themselves made the campus less inclusive, I would think the pandemic and summer 2020 riots influenced the opinions of participants. But, interesting information, none the less.
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
Therein lies the rub, doesn't it?I appreciate your thoughts.
Not directly related to your post, but I found this recent article interesting, you might as well (if you haven't already seen it...it's a long piece):
The University of Michigan Doubled Down on D.E.I. What Went Wrong?
A decade and a quarter of a billion dollars later, students and faculty are more frustrated than ever.www.nytimes.com
An exerpt:
On campus, I met students with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. Not one expressed any particular enthusiasm for Michigan’s D.E.I. initiative. Where some found it shallow, others found it stifling. They rolled their eyes at the profusion of course offerings that revolve around identity and oppression, the D.E.I.-themed emails they frequently received but rarely read.
Michigan’s own data suggests that in striving to become more diverse and equitable, the school has also become less inclusive: In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics — the exact kind of engagement D.E.I. programs, in theory, are meant to foster.
To your point on surveys, I don't know if the DEI initiatives themselves made the campus less inclusive, I would think the pandemic and summer 2020 riots influenced the opinions of participants. But, interesting information, none the less.
Historically, policies with intent to combat inequities (such as DEI initiatives) ironically end up hurting what should be a morally altruistic goal. There are multiple reasons this seems to happen over and over, so it's a complex issue for sure.
A large part of it is the consequence of what basically is a herd mentality, where liberal elitists (the herd) embrace the ideas with an almost religious fervor. As a result, the white Anglo-Saxon populace begins to feel "lectured to" by a typically wealthy minority with no true life experience, whose intent is to drive the bus with guilt and shame as the fuel - "Lets punish those privileged racist evil colonizers by shaming them and usurping their money and power, and then rejoice in our forced virtues.... ".
A backlash is inevitable, and the frustrating part is that the people that ultimately end up hurting the very cause they are trying to fix never get it - they double-down on the belief that the push-back is because everyone else is ignorant, at best, or blatantly racist/misogynist/phobic at worst. They are blinded to their own culpability.
The other factor is the "quick fix" approach. The reality is that no matter how hard you try, you can't legislate fairness, you just can't. The only way to genuinely achieve a degree of true equity is to start at the family level. Programs to assist parents early on with improved access to quality daycare, subsidised tutoring beginning at the kindergarten level, financial assistance with parental adult education and/or transportation costs to places of employment, etc., would build a foundation that pays dividends in the future. Simply throwing taxpayor money at those in need to make it easier to buy food or pay rent (albeit with good intent) simply creates a government dependency state which ultimately makes things worse. The goal should be to promote sustained progress, not compensate for inequality.
Lastly, trying to achieve equity by dumbing-down academic standards or lowering expectations, or by bringing the top down instead of focusing on bringing the bottom up, is doomed to fail on numerous levels - it creates resentment and disincentivizes hard work and motivation.
Okay, I'm officially off my high horse....
[Sorry Fry, the conversation has steered from Doyle. Feel free to move things over to the Open Discussion forum if you think it's necessary]
I'm a huge proponent of Diversity. Having diverse backgrounds, ideologies, socioeconomic backgrounds and ethnicities is what's made America, companies & teams great !! But most DEI programs are based on equality of results, not equality of opportunity and increased development with that opportunity, and it's hindered any real effectiveness.
On a side note, much of Political Correctedness has just shifted the talking power from the majority to the minority without any sort of leveling of equality of voice in the conversation.
Fryowa
Administrator
DEI is like this...Therein lies the rub, doesn't it?
Historically, policies with intent to combat inequities (such as DEI initiatives) ironically end up hurting what should be a morally altruistic goal. There are multiple reasons this seems to happen over and over, so it's a complex issue for sure.
A large part of it is the consequence of what basically is a herd mentality, where liberal elitists (the herd) embrace the ideas with an almost religious fervor. As a result, the white Anglo-Saxon populace begins to feel "lectured to" by a typically wealthy minority with no true life experience, whose intent is to drive the bus with guilt and shame as the fuel - "Lets punish those privileged racist evil colonizers by shaming them and usurping their money and power, and then rejoice in our forced virtues.... ".
A backlash is inevitable, and the frustrating part is that the people that ultimately end up hurting the very cause they are trying to fix never get it - they double-down on the belief that the push-back is because everyone else is ignorant, at best, or blatantly racist/misogynist/phobic at worst. They are blinded to their own culpability.
The other factor is the "quick fix" approach. The reality is that no matter how hard you try, you can't legislate fairness, you just can't. The only way to genuinely achieve a degree of true equity is to start at the family level. Programs to assist parents early on with improved access to quality daycare, subsidised tutoring beginning at the kindergarten level, financial assistance with parental adult education and/or transportation costs to places of employment, etc., would build a foundation that pays dividends in the future. Simply throwing taxpayor money at those in need to make it easier to buy food or pay rent (albeit with good intent) simply creates a government dependency state which ultimately makes things worse. The goal should be to promote sustained progress, not compensate for inequality.
Lastly, trying to achieve equity by dumbing-down academic standards or lowering expectations, or by bringing the top down instead of focusing on bringing the bottom up, is doomed to fail on numerous levels - it creates resentment and disincentivizes hard work and motivation.
Okay, I'm officially off my high horse....
[Sorry Fry, the conversation has steered from Doyle. Feel free to move things over to the Open Discussion forum if you think it's necessary]
Say my car isn't running well and I've let it get to the point where it won't even start.
I try and try to get it running because I want it to work for me and last another 100,000 miles. But everything I do for days and days I can get it to pop off once in a while but it won't stay running. I get to the point where instead of keeping in mind that I want my car to run well again and last me another 100,000 miles that I've completely lost sight of that and I've just become absolutely hyper focused on getting the thing to start and at least run for a few minutes because I'm driving myself mad.
So I finally hit my boiling point of madness and I decide that goddammit, I'm getting this thing to start and run if it kills me. So I drain the gas tank and fill it with 100% ethanol, and I absolutely douse the intake with a huge shot of ether because no matter what shape my engine is overall, ethanol and ether are going to fire off for sure. So I hit the ignition and sure as shit the engine fires off. When it starts to chug I hit with ether until if takes off again. And low and behold once that pure alcohol hits the carb that thing is running like a bat outta hell, harder, hotter and louder than it ever has before. I WIN, right? Yep. Right up until the thing explodes into shrapnel because I've thrown the ends out and only been focused on the means.
DEI was done with good intent but with zero concern for the end result because the proponents of it couldn't figure out a way to make diversity, equity, and inclusion happen in reality so they decided to mandate it through quota numbers (which literally never works). As long as we get the numbers it'll be ok and work out. The results be damned, we got our numbers and now everyone likes everyone else, and everyone gets a fair chance, and the results of such don't mean a thing. We hit our numbers and that's all we needed to do to fix the problem...
Nope. All you did was try to brute force something that couldn't be brute forced. You pressed the Easy Button because you couldn't figure out a real solution and got so hyper focused on a tiny percentage of the real problem (hiring demographics) with no consideration of the long term bigger picture.
Do I have the solution myself? Nope. But DEI ain't the answer. I know that will piss people off but there's nothing I can do about that. Quota requirements to force something to happen are the last-ditch temper tantrum sledgehammers people use to fix delicate Swiss watches they can't get to work correctly.
Yeah it sure was weird. I thought about that even before the Doyle interview again cause like a month ago a case of it happened amongst a Lacrosse team I think. It's a pretty gnarly thing cause it isn't like these athletes it's happening to are couch potatoes. These are guys that are all pretty well in shape and everything already. It's one thing if you go from not working out much to over exerting yourself. These guys all kinda know what they can and can't do and how to push themselves. I sure feel for the guys that have gotten it cause it's no joke.