Natural Order of Things

by Kirkendall on Mar 22, 2007 11:06 AM EDT in Around the SB Nation

Stampede Blue reacted to a story in which Tony Dungy made comments that embrace a ban on same-sex marriage. Big Cat Country reacted while asking, "what's the role of the head coach?"

Let me quickly make a disclaimer:

I don't believe in Dungy's remarks. But my beliefs are... exactly that; my beliefs. Dungy's opinion and right to speak freely, even about ideology, is a virtue he has every right to express. To take that away, even if you're a public figure, is not fair to ask of anyone. It's his right to make whatever beliefs he wants to make public. It's also his responsibility to withstand the barrage of incoming missiles of consequence.

Let's quickly examine the context.

Tony Dungy was invited and awarded the "Friend of the Family" award at a Christian organization called the Indiana Family Institute that's a leading member for a federal ban on same-sex marriage. While at the function, Dungy said, "I appreciate the stance (on a same-sex marriage ban) they're taking, and I embrace that stance."

Reactions range from insensitivity to Dungy isolating a portion of the Colts fan base. Some even made the accusation that Dungy's remarks are reflective of the Indianapolis Colts. Which, to me, is ludicrous.

Here's where my point comes in.

I've always contended that we put too much emphasis on the personal lives of celebrities; what they say, what their vices are, etc. We shouldn't put so much stock on the opinion of celebrities because, in most cases, their reactions are not well thought-out intellectual arguments.

The annoyance of celebrities providing their opinion often comes in response to a question at an awards show or movie premier; not some random thought on global warming, foreign policy or same-sex marriage. And when most people are prompted about their beliefs, they quickly come up with something for the sake of saying something. As a result, celebrities say the most bone-headed five-year old comments that haunt them later -- in the Drudge world we live in, later means instantaneous.

However, what Dungy did and the context of the forum he was in, is completely different than the stereotypical celebrity shoutout. It wasn't televised on any of the major networks. There wasn't a pre-awards show with millions watching the fabricated skin of the Rivers' women. He was speaking to a small group of people that embraced an equal ideology. Unlike the celebrities we're all annoyed with that spew their beliefs -- like a running back sitting on the bench after scoring a touchdown shouting, "HI MOM" -- this doesn't apply in Dungy's case.

Some believe in Dungy's point of view. Other do not. It's another prime example that right and wrong is a point of view.

Wait, did you even make a point yet?

No, I didn't make my point yet. I keep setting the stage but fail to cross the bridge of point making. Here's my point. Ready? Tony Dungy is a head coach that has a status of high profile celebrity. Dungy is also a man with powerful convictions. His belief as a man of god trumps his role as a head coach. Like it or not, it's his reality. I may not agree with Dungy, but he expressed his belief in the proper forum -- a group of people with like-minded beliefs.

He has the right to do what he wants, during non-NFL sanctioned events, with his free time. He can discuss his ideology or play Madden on the Xbox 360. It's his choice; like it's your choice to do whatever you want during your time off. This wasn't an act of hatred or even action. It was a speech on ideas that revolved around their perception of right and wrong.

I also support anyone's right to rip that person to shreds. I'm a firm believer in answering your own consequences. No government entity or interest group can hold a candle to the degradation of public perception. And Dungy's perception took a hit and he's dealing with the consequences. It's the natural order of things.

Dungy's Comments Spark Controversy [Mile High Report]

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Question:

And let me caveat by saying I largely agree with much of what you said.

Is there anything a Coach could publicly say that would classify as an ill-informed comment according to you? If the answer is yes, how did you reach that conclusion?

by Skin Patrol on Mar 22, 2007 12:25 PM EDT 0 recs

RE:

Depends. And keep in mind, my point about ill-informed comments is directed at the context and the forum they are made.

I'd have a serious problem if Dungy said this during a post-game interview. It's a broader audience that doesn't invite free-reign of a coaches personal point of views not related to football or the team.

My point is that Dungy had to right to say what he did because of the forum he presented it in.

by Kirkendall on Mar 22, 2007 1:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

I agree

that a certain amount of context is lost in this entire debate. Tony Dungy was at a meeting with a bunch of people who agreed with him. He made statements (though it's clear what he meant) in support of the group he was visiting.

Couldn't tacit endorsement of a group, even by agreeing to speak at their event, be viewed as crossing the line by itself? If another Coach attends a KKK meeting this year and makes a qualified statement along the lines of "I support this organization and its goals. That's why I'm here. Do with that what you want." Would we be thinking of this differently?

Would that be fair to the gay community? If we're going to socially demand our Coaches exhibit decorum as it relates to some matters -- race, for instance -- than is it such a stretch to demand it elsewhere?

by Skin Patrol on Mar 22, 2007 1:48 PM EDT up 0 recs

RE

Yes, we would. And that has everything to do with what we've learned of Dungy over the years. And it has everything to do with the organization he spoke to. A modest man that's favored by nearly everyone in the NFL community that's hardly, if ever, raised a controversial topic. At the same time, I don't think you can presume similarities with other individuals and organizations until they actually happen.

You make a fair point. That's the thing. What Dungy said and believed is what is truly right in his eyes and mind. Whereas you and I either don't care what others choose in their life, Dungy's ideologue and convictions -- what appears to be Christian right -- teaches him that this is god's work.

by Kirkendall on Mar 22, 2007 2:07 PM EDT 0 recs

Now we're getting somewhere

You've spoken to Dungy's conviction here which I certainly hadn't questioned. But that Dungy, when speaking or attending an IFI gathering, is sincere in his comments hardly excuses them. I don't doubt that many or most Neo-Nazis are genuine in their beliefs. It might not be "God's work" but they certainly think they are doing what is right.

Why should Dungy or the IFI or, by extension, Christianity get an exemption here? Gay rights are a contentious issue in America. The results of that public discourse have consequences for the people involved. If we want to make the comparison more familiar, what if Dungy had said that White people shouldn't be allowed to marry Blacks -- or alternatively he simply attended a meeting supporting a group that was against Interracial Marriage. If we honestly would treat that differently than we would what happened at IFI, then we're not being fair to the gay community.

I do not think that Dungy's sincerity or conviction was ever in question, nor do I think it is relevant. It makes the issue in question no less controversial.

Just my 2 cents. If any of the above sounds the least bit confrontational, know that it was not at all intended to be so. I think it's an interesting discussion worth having.

by Skin Patrol on Mar 22, 2007 2:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

RE:

If any of the above sounds the least bit confrontational

Not at all.

Why should Dungy or the IFI or, by extension, Christianity get an exemption here? I think this could be included on a broader topic. It's not that there's any exemption. There's literally thousands of groups in America that preach their beliefs. The only reason the IFI got any play was because of the high-profile speaker that's a head coach in the NFL that spoke in line to the ridiculous proposal to create an amendment in the constitution during the '04 elections. But speeches like this have been going on in forums like this for years. I'd go as far to presume when President Bush talks about this, most people just blow him off that's not in league with groups similar to the IFI.

If we want to make the comparison more familiar, what if Dungy had said that White people shouldn't be allowed to marry Blacks -- or alternatively he simply attended a meeting supporting a group that was against Interracial Marriage.

Well, I don't agree with the comparison. That would affect many many more people. And race has been a hot button issue in America for centuries which centers around a large majority of the United States' population. Gay rights is an issue that's only openly discussed by gays and the religious right. Most of us shrug our shoulders and move on about our merry lives.

I do not think that Dungy's sincerity or conviction was ever in question, nor do I think it is relevant.

I agree. However, at the time, during that function with that group, it was relevant. And that's my point all along in regards to the proper forum. He was talking about his beliefs with a group of people that agree. Some say they don't want to hear about celebrities beliefs. And I 100% agree. However, Dungy's was very low-key. If the IndyStar didn't break the story (which I think they did), then this post and discussion never happens.

by Kirkendall on Mar 22, 2007 3:25 PM EDT 0 recs

RE:

I think this could be included on a broader topic. It's not that there's any exemption. There's literally thousands of groups in America that preach their beliefs. The only reason the IFI got any play was because of the high-profile speaker that's a head coach in the NFL that spoke in line to the ridiculous proposal to create an amendment in the constitution during the '04 elections. But speeches like this have been going on in forums like this for years. I'd go as far to presume when President Bush talks about this, most people just blow him off that's not in league with groups similar to the IFI.

I think a President is expected to take a stance on legislative actions, and IFI's platform promotes a legislative action. I think constituents are owed an answer from their President regarding such matters. It would be more inappropriate for a President or Elected Rep not to take a stance than it would be to politely decline comment. The same is not true of NFL Coaches, in my opinion.

Well, I don't agree with the comparison. That would affect many many more people.

Is this relavent? Dwarfism affects less than 500,000 people in the United States. There's probably more homosexuals. Had Tony Dungy said "I think Dwarfism is gross and those people shouldn't be allowed to get married/have children/vote" would you feel differently? Should we? Should Dwarfs?

If there were fewer Interracial Marriages in the United States last year than there were homosexuals who wanted to get married, would that make the suggestion that Interracial Marriages should be illegal any less controversial?

What if Tony Dungy had simply said that Kirkendall shouldn't be allowed to get married because he doesn't like you. Only one person would be affected by that proposal, right?

And race has been a hot button issue in America for centuries which centers around a large majority of the United States' population. Gay rights is an issue that's only openly discussed by gays and the religious right. Most of us shrug our shoulders and move on about our merry lives.

This is a very good point and I grant fully that the history of race relations in America makes that subject especially contestable in public discourse. But to the gay community, what possible substantive difference should they be expected to recognize?

If we are going to presume that protecting rights based on race is more important than protecting rights based on sexual orientation, then we should be explicit about that. We should say "Dungy's comments/actions are forgiveable because they were about homosexuals." Because if we wouldn't forgive such claims/actions as applied to racially motivated statements yet we will in this instance applied to homosexuals, that's essentially what we're saying.

However, at the time, during that function with that group, it was relevant. And that's my point all along in regards to the proper forum. He was talking about his beliefs with a group of people that agree. Some say they don't want to hear about celebrities beliefs. And I 100% agree. However, Dungy's was very low-key. If the IndyStar didn't break the story (which I think they did), then this post and discussion never happens.

I think this is the best point you've made and I have to grant it. I never got the indication from Dungy that he was trying to antagonize people and now it seems like he was trying to antagonize people. He was telling a room of people nothing they didn't already agree with him about. It's unfortunate how invasive our News-Feed society is on the personal lives of Head Coaches, and how they are put in a situation to either mute their personal beliefs or else face public criticism. I view that as very regrettable for those individuals.

Then again, I guess the same claim would make sense if we simply replaced "News-Feed" with "American" and "Head Coaches" with "homosexuals". That's dangerously close to sounding as if I am taking a stance on the issue -- I do not want to do that -- so I'm going to walk away from this one. The final word is yours, though I've appreciated the back-and-forth. You've made some great points that I hadn't considered prior and for that I'm thankful.

Cheers.

by Skin Patrol on Mar 22, 2007 4:28 PM EDT 0 recs

RE

I think a President is expected to take a stance on legislative actions, and IFI's platform promotes a legislative action. Again. You're right. But I'm not talking about each role. When the topic comes up, people pay less attention to it as they would, say, race in Cincinnati.

Is this relavent? Dwarfism affects less than 500,000 people in the United States. There's probably more homosexuals. Had Tony Dungy said "I think Dwarfism is gross and those people shouldn't be allowed to get married/have children/vote" would you feel differently? Should we? Should Dwarfs?

He'd be insulting a race of people. That goes back to the race issue which is a controversial topic that prominently affects many many more lives. And there's no hot ticket that calls for insta-opinion (not before) when someone challenges a race, sex or lifestyle with Dwarfism. And few people actually spend time defending those they carry the banner for long before the actual controversy.

And I think we should remove Dungy's name from the topic together because now we're talking about the ideologue of an organization.

What if Tony Dungy had simply said that Kirkendall shouldn't be allowed to get married because he doesn't like you.

I'd respect his opinion. Then I'd get married, have a kid or two and send him copies of cheery cutesy family photos during Christmas time... in our Bengals jerseys. :)

We should say "Dungy's comments/actions are forgiveable because they were about homosexuals." Because if we wouldn't forgive such claims/actions as applied to racially motivated statements yet we will in this instance applied to homosexuals, that's essentially what we're saying.

You and I? Not really. But you could make that conclusion in society as a whole. How much have you heard about this story? Did it fall that below the radar? Did someone like Dungy get a free pass? Is this just a topic people have limited interest in? Are people tired of hearing about the right promoting family values by adding a constitutional ban on it?

It's unfortunate how invasive our News-Feed society is on the personal lives of Head Coaches, and how they are put in a situation to either mute their personal beliefs or else face public criticism. I view that as very regrettable for those individuals.

I 100% agree. But personally, that's because of us. Not them. If we tune out about stories regarding public figures, perhaps, just perhaps, we won't put them on this unjustified pedestal... and perhaps, just perhaps, the legal system wouldn't favor people of fame.

Then again, that sounds funny coming from a couple of Bloggers.

by Kirkendall on Mar 22, 2007 9:16 PM EDT 0 recs