Morehouse Story On Unconscious Bias

[RobHowe]

You didn't specify country. Has a living black person ever been fired from their job for saying something about white people?

Ever. Yes. I’d be pretty surprised if they haven’t. Ignorance is not determined by race.

Have black people in this country been demeaned throughout history by being compared to monkeys and apes? Have you ever seen Birth of a Nation?

 

[PCHawk]

then what are my biases? you said "There is clearly an issue with all races having unconscious biases."

i happen to believe that "races" are alike. they are human and they have the same human wants/needs/desires. racism as a bias is learned. it is not a natural human trait. humans tend to live in communities of like minded/likenesses. but by grouping together like that, they are learning to stick with people who are more same than not same. then, when someone from outside the group tries to enter, they could be attacked. that is all learned and not unconscious.

I don't know what yours are. That's why in my mind it's a lot easier to try to teach people when someone is intending to be offensive and when they aren't. That's pretty darn easy to do in most situations, including this one. Why should I have to guess on whether you said it because of an uncontrolled bias or not when it's easier and healthier to see there was no bad intent? It's Dolph's job to investigate why he chose that word? It's the job of the people who got offended to figure out why and to learn how to have less hate in their heart.

 

[Xerxes]

Here is the ideal way this should have gone:

1. Dolph compares Brune to King Kong based upon his physical dominance.
2. A black person who is sensitive to that metaphor (wouldn't you be if you had EVER been referred to as a monkey at any point?) hears it and thinks, "He doesn't know the impact (stole Rob's word) of what he just said."
3. Said black person contacts the U of Iowa Athletic Dept, thoughtfully explaining why that word doesn't only imply physical dominance, and how other connotations are attached for some based upon a long history of hurtful language. Said person would like to communicate these thoughts to Dolph.
4. Dolph and the person sit down together, or exchange correspondence. Dolph says, "The obviously was not my intent, I have used similar metaphors repeatedly." The other person says, "I understand that, and I don't think you are a bad person, but this is why I don't like that metaphor." They both come away with a better understanding.
5. Dolph and the U of I thank the person for providing their perspective. Dolph then brings it up during the next broadcast: "At the end of the MD game, I intended to compliment Bruno's play by comparing him to King Kong. Recently, somebody reached out to me to explain how that metaphor can be interpreted differently by different people. I sincerely thank that individual for a thoughtful discussion, and I will work to avoid that metaphor going forward." The world moves on.

We don't know how things actually went (thanks U of I Athletics administration), and I won't presume to guess. But we know how these things to often go:

1. Somebody says something without intent but which could have a negative impact on some.
2. Somebody screen shots their comment, plasters it across the net far and wide, and cries, "THIS is the scum of the earth! Come, point your fingers, shame with me! We are the enlightened ones that must elevate humanity from its doldrums!"
3. A huge crowd rushes to shame the shamers: "PC culture run amok!" "Playing the race-card/sex-card/whatever-card!" "Snowflakes!". Some of these are concerned about free speech. Some just hate anything that smacks of liberal. Some are bigots. But they are all lumped together as awkward bedfellows shouting down the original shaming.
4. Some thoughtful people who think the reaction is over the top are afraid to comment because they would then become scum.
   
5. Everyone yells back and forth, no one listens, and eventually something new comes along to be outraged about. Nothing was accomplished, nothing changes.

United States of America 2019

 

[hawkeyebob62]

For sure. I've seen support for Dolph's comments not being offensive from former Iowa players like Glen Worley, Tevaun Smith, Carl Davis and others.

Hopefully the topic has opened the minds of some people who otherwise hadn't. It won't penetrate others, as we've witnessed since Friday. And I'm guessing people commenting on this article in this thread aren't even reading it, instead just regurgitating comments they've made the last several days.

I don't feel I'm in a position to tell black people what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Others are comfortable with it, couching it behind politics, in particular the negative connotations of PC culture run amok or saying King Kong is a fictional character.

It's intent versus impact.

As I wrote the other day, I've known Dolph for 22 years. I don't believe he's racist and do believe that his comment was meant as a compliment (INTENT). But that doesn't mean his comment can't be received by some black people as being offensive (IMPACT).

"Geez, we can't say anything anymore without it hurting someone's feelings" rings hollow with me when compared to the history of how black people have been treated and demeaned, including being compared to animals.

How do you think us whites feel being compared to vanilla. Vanilla, for God's sake! As in, the most boring flavor of ice cream there is on this planet.

I need a safe space.

 

[HuckFinn]

Here is the ideal way this should have gone:

1. Dolph compares Brune to King Kong based upon his physical dominance.
2. A black person who is sensitive to that metaphor (wouldn't you be if you had EVER been referred to as a monkey at any point?) hears it and thinks, "He doesn't know the impact (stole Rob's word) of what he just said."
3. Said black person contacts the U of Iowa Athletic Dept, thoughtfully explaining why that word doesn't only imply physical dominance, and how other connotations are attached for some based upon a long history of hurtful language. Said person would like to communicate these thoughts to Dolph.
4. Dolph and the person sit down together, or exchange correspondence. Dolph says, "The obviously was not my intent, I have used similar metaphors repeatedly." The other person says, "I understand that, and I don't think you are a bad person, but this is why I don't like that metaphor." They both come away with a better understanding.
5. Dolph and the U of I thank the person for providing their perspective. Dolph then brings it up during the next broadcast: "At the end of the MD game, I intended to compliment Bruno's play by comparing him to King Kong. Recently, somebody reached out to me to explain how that metaphor can be interpreted differently by different people. I sincerely thank that individual for a thoughtful discussion, and I will work to avoid that metaphor going forward." The world moves on.

We don't know how things actually went (thanks U of I Athletics administration), and I won't presume to guess. But we know how these things to often go:

1. Somebody says something without intent but which could have a negative impact on some.
2. Somebody screen shots their comment, plasters it across the net far and wide, and cries, "THIS is the scum of the earth! Come, point your fingers, shame with me! We are the enlightened ones that must elevate humanity from its doldrums!"
3. A huge crowd rushes to shame the shamers: "PC culture run amok!" "Playing the race-card/sex-card/whatever-card!" "Snowflakes!". Some of these are concerned about free speech. Some just hate anything that smacks of liberal. Some are bigots. But they are all lumped together as awkward bedfellows shouting down the original shaming.
4. Some thoughtful people who think the reaction is over the top are afraid to comment because they would then become scum.
   
5. Everyone yells back and forth, no one listens, and eventually something new comes along to be outraged about. Nothing was accomplished, nothing changes.

This is pretty darn good, CP. Hope lots of people here read it carefully. Thank you.

 

[PCHawk]

Here is the ideal way this should have gone:

1. Dolph compares Brune to King Kong based upon his physical dominance.
2. A black person who is sensitive to that metaphor (wouldn't you be if you had EVER been referred to as a monkey at any point?) hears it and thinks, "He doesn't know the impact (stole Rob's word) of what he just said."
3. Said black person contacts the U of Iowa Athletic Dept, thoughtfully explaining why that word doesn't only imply physical dominance, and how other connotations are attached for some based upon a long history of hurtful language. Said person would like to communicate these thoughts to Dolph.
4. Dolph and the person sit down together, or exchange correspondence. Dolph says, "The obviously was not my intent, I have used similar metaphors repeatedly." The other person says, "I understand that, and I don't think you are a bad person, but this is why I don't like that metaphor." They both come away with a better understanding.
5. Dolph and the U of I thank the person for providing their perspective. Dolph then brings it up during the next broadcast: "At the end of the MD game, I intended to compliment Bruno's play by comparing him to King Kong. Recently, somebody reached out to me to explain how that metaphor can be interpreted differently by different people. I sincerely thank that individual for a thoughtful discussion, and I will work to avoid that metaphor going forward." The world moves on.

We don't know how things actually went (thanks U of I Athletics administration), and I won't presume to guess. But we know how these things to often go:

1. Somebody says something without intent but which could have a negative impact on some.
2. Somebody screen shots their comment, plasters it across the net far and wide, and cries, "THIS is the scum of the earth! Come, point your fingers, shame with me! We are the enlightened ones that must elevate humanity from its doldrums!"
3. A huge crowd rushes to shame the shamers: "PC culture run amok!" "Playing the race-card/sex-card/whatever-card!" "Snowflakes!". Some of these are concerned about free speech. Some just hate anything that smacks of liberal. Some are bigots. But they are all lumped together as awkward bedfellows shouting down the original shaming.
4. Some thoughtful people who think the reaction is over the top are afraid to comment because they would then become scum.
   
5. Everyone yells back and forth, no one listens, and eventually something new comes along to be outraged about. Nothing was accomplished, nothing changes.

Best post on this matter so far. Which is par for the course for you.

 

[PCHawk]

No offense to people who suck at golf.

 

[BVHawk95]

So where does all of this end? Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these points, however, I believe we need to look at these instances from a broader view:

1. All races in world history have been enslaved by others. Black people have been enslaved by white people, black people have been enslaved by black people, white people have been enslaved by white people and white people have been enslaved by black people, and so on and so on and so on. So black people being enslaved by white people in the United States from the late 1700's to the late 1800's is unfortunate and wholly inhuman, but not unique.
2. The definition of racism is culturally understood to be bias from the white person to the black person. Our culture, media and politics are centered around the notion that racism only goes one way, when, in reality, racism exists among all races toward all races by some people. You cannot label an entire race as racist or not racist when it is an individual thing.
3. Educators have now changed the reason why our Civil War was fought to that over slavery. That the pure northerners of the union were so disgusted by the injustices of the racist confederate south, and nothing else. That the confederate flag means slavery and the stars and bars represents freedom. When, in reality, the war was fought over money, that the confederates did not feel being part of the United States was fiscally fair due to taxation and trade, and they wanted to LEAVE the union. And dont forget, many of the pure northerners had slaves as well.
4. Racism in today's culture is politically motivated. As I told my children before the great 2016 election, that after the election no matter who wins you will not see "Black Lives Matter" anymore. Was it because black lives dont matter anymore? Of course not. It was because the movement was started and funded by the liberals in an effort to get people to vote and make decisions based on emotion. It is much easier to control people through emotion than by logic. Look it up and see where the founders of the black lives matter groups are. Yeah, they made a bunch of money and lived on George Soros's houses.
5. Everyone that is alive today, of any race, did not grow up in a world of slavery, were enslaved, lived with their parents or grandparents that were slaves, thus have no first hand knowledge of slavery. No more than my bavarian ancestors that were enslaved by the Vikings that I know absolutely nothing about, the current black race lives the same way and lives under the same flag with the same laws and rules as the rest of us. One could argue there are more opportunities for minorities with respect to many services, but they are atleast equal.

I could go on, but my point is that racism is contrived in todays culture. Did it happen historically? Absolutely. Was it right with respect to humanity? Of course not. Was it necessary for the development of this country as well as others as well? Absolutely. So if we want to truly end racism, and this coming from a white male, is to stop talking about it. Stop making it more than it is. Not getting sucked in emotionally to every injustice and trying to label an entire race of people.

Dolph describing the play of Fernando as that of King Kong is not racist, was not meant to be racist, and anyone who thinks it is racist is probably a racist, because those who are not racist, like me, thought nothing about it when he described him.

Whoa there. You had me until 3. I'm what most people would consider conservative, but I'm also a historian. 3 is blatantly false.

The Civil War was absolutely fought over slavery. The protection of slavery was a key focus of every single Declaration of Secession drawn up by the Confederate states when they left the Union. The "states' rights" argument is over the rights of the states to allow slavery.

You are correct that the North was not some paragon of human virtue or equality, but the Civil War was ABSOLUTELY about slavery.

 

[PCHawk]

It's very unfortunate that anyone has been hurt enough that they can be offended by something that was clearly meant as a compliment, just because dots can be connected to a racial slur. It would be nice if those people could get counseling to help them with their issues. Being professional or a loved one. Its gotta be really hard to feel that way all the time.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

I think there is a historical basis for there being impact regarding Dolph’s statement. As I’ve stated here and elsewhere I don’t believe there was racist intent.

It’s not my job to say what the punishment should be or if there should be one. Personally, I think it’s too heavy handed. I’d have been fine with an apology. As you can read on these boards, that punishment would be too much.

I’ve apologized plenty of times for doing something that hurt or bothered someone else when I didn’t intend to. We all have.

i have also.

I don't know what yours are. That's why in my mind it's a lot easier to try to teach people when someone is intending to be offensive and when they aren't. That's pretty darn easy to do in most situations, including this one. Why should I have to guess on whether you said it because of an uncontrolled bias or not when it's easier and healthier to see there was no bad intent? It's Dolph's job to investigate why he chose that word? It's the job of the people who got offended to figure out why and to learn how to have less hate in their heart.

pc, i think you're saying that the decision on who is offended and who offended should be between the parties involved. if that is what you're saying, then i agree.

but you defined unconscious biases by race. if you believe that to be true, then you should be able to at least provide a minimum or "short list" of my biases based on my race.

 

[PCHawk]

Ever. Yes. I’d be pretty surprised if they haven’t. Ignorance is not determined by race.

Have black people in this country been demeaned throughout history by being compared to monkeys and apes? Have you ever seen Birth of a Nation?

I have not seen it. I would like to just to get a feel for why it's being brought up, but I hate old movies. I cant even get myself to watch the godfather. Is it a true story? Or based on a true story? I feel like I don't need a movie to teach me how bad whites were to blacks. Especially in the context of calling the monkeys. But maybe it would. Or maybe it's extreme for drama like all other movies and it would warp my vision too far the other way. I really dont know because I know nothing about the movie.

 

[PCHawk]

i have also.


pc, i think you're saying that the decision on who is offended and who offended should be between the parties involved. if that is what you're saying, then i agree.

but you defined unconscious biases by race. if you believe that to be true, then you should be able to at least provide a minimum or "short list" of my biases based on my race.

We definitely are in agreement. You just didnt understand my post. I say everyone has bias, race or otherwise. Its impossible to live without developing them, like you said. I don't have bias based on my personal experiences with black people. But I probably have them based on things I've heard about in life. For instance, I've heard of black people referred to as apes so it's possible if I want to compare them to a beast in a good way, I would think of King Kong before the incredible Hulk. Or it's possible I just saw a commercial to that movie more recently. There is no way for me or anyone else to know.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Looking at the tweet from a recruit's father, at least we know why Fran might be silent on this. Selling Dolph out for a possible recruit is probably not unique to Fran in the coaching world.

 

[revkev73]

We all have unconscious bias, this is true.

But the bigger problem here, not to beat a dead horse, is society's inability and unwillingness to take into account context and society's compulsion to impute the worst motives on to people we think disagree with us and our world view. If you disagree with me, you're a rotten person and you hate me or whatever group you believe should be offended.

Gary Dolphin should have known better to use that term but mostly because of society's propensity to be offended and it's inability or unwillingness to understand why he might have said what he did, as well as most people's unwillingness to forgive.

Every human being has overt or unconscious bias and racism embedded or learned. Now, most often, it is only an issue when it is found in white, heterosexual, "traditional' males. If it is "sensed" by a victim group or individual it is unforgivable. The "sensed racism" is a death knell if the mob wants it to be. Exceptions are made for those who can still "serve our purpose."

White males are "deconstructed" to expose their racism, misogyny, etc. Jefferson, Washington, Trump, etc. etc. However the "deconstruction" is selective, MLK and others are not deconstructed. They are off limits.

This "system" which infects so many of our taxpayer funded institutions is a fraud and is unfair. Those who are cast aside and destroyed "deserve it." Few challenge the injustices because doing so leads to accusation of racism, etc. etc.

The state of affairs creates resentment, and deep division in our country. Much of it is latent, but it boils hot.

Dolphin is perhaps out of touch a bit with the "new landscape" of felt offense. But he is going against tribes of haters, and the "offended industry." Plus, Fran wants him gone as the AD rides the wave and refuses to b a leader. Pretty sad state of affairs which has no simple solutions.

BTW, can you say, "Wow, once he gets the ball in his hands he runs like a gazelle?

Funny how the "Greek Freak" is so popular in the NBA, while the King Kongers thrive in Iowa City.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Looking at the tweet from a recruit's father, at least we know why Fran might be silent on this. Selling Dolph out for a possible recruit is probably not unique to Fran in the coaching world.

i really hope that fran would know how much he has to lose to be involved. this is a good example.

 

[Robowe]

I have not seen it. I would like to just to get a feel for why it's being brought up, but I hate old movies. I cant even get myself to watch the godfather. Is it a true story? Or based on a true story? I feel like I don't need a movie to teach me how bad whites were to blacks. Especially in the context of calling the monkeys. But maybe it would. Or maybe it's extreme for drama like all other movies and it would warp my vision too far the other way. I really dont know because I know nothing about the movie.

Watch The Godfather ... seriously.

 

[RobHowe]

How do you think us whites feel being compared to vanilla. Vanilla, for God's sake! As in, the most boring flavor of ice cream there is on this planet.

I need a safe space.

Most of the rest of us are having intelligent and respectful conversation, and exchanging ideas, viewpoints and thoughts. It's a good thing.

 

[Gibsonian]

What Dolph said is a teaching point for him to learn from to survive in our new and developing PC world. It is not what U of I and Learfield turned it into.

Utterly and completely counter productive to anything I can think of.

 

[PCHawk]

Watch The Godfather ... seriously.

I've been told that repeatedly by lots of people. I just cant dobit because I dont enjoy old movies. Wish I could.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Most of the rest of us are having intelligent and respectful conversation, and exchanging ideas, viewpoints and thoughts. It's a good thing.

Is it a "good thing"? IMO, it's only "good" when it's honest, forthright, factual, objective, and UNbiased. When we start inventing terms and code like "unconscious bias", we've pretty much lost honesty and objectivity, to say nothing of factual or forthright.

My guess is Doloh is done at U of I. As Jon and Deace's podcast title implied, the "wrong" Gary is gone.