Dan Dakich in hot water

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

this country has little room for forgiveness, and lots for wanting people to hurt for their transgressions. remember grayson allen?

Let's not relitigate that particular time in Duke history, please.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

No, you can't. But it's a bit weird that he apologizes and offers to resign, and instead they suspend him and declare that they're going to further sanction him in ways that won't be made public. I'm not sure I understand the point of that. Since he is evidently truly remorseful, shouldn't this be more of a teaching moment than a sanction moment? Retribution doesn't seem to make much sense in this situation, but perhaps I'm missing something.

I think intent and context should factor into the reaction (and should factor into the reaction to all situations like this). People need to stop looking for reasons to be upset. I don't know where he got that phrase from but I'm fairly sure that he didn't say it with any malice in mind. If he is giving a hellfire and brimstone pep talk, it is not scripted. I have much less tolerance for a politician making a speech (or tweet) saying something like this than a basketball coach who as far as I know has no history of problems saying that in the heat of the moment. He admitted he was wrong, we got our teaching moment out of it, let's move on. If he does something like that again, then there should be more consequences.

Also, how did this even get made public?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think intent and context should factor into the reaction (and should factor into the reaction to all situations like this). People need to stop looking for reasons to be upset. I don't know where he got that phrase from but I'm fairly sure that he didn't say it with any malice in mind. If he is giving a hellfire and brimstone pep talk, it is not scripted. I have much less tolerance for a politician making a speech (or tweet) saying something like this than a basketball coach who as far as I know has no history of problems saying that in the heat of the moment. He admitted he was wrong, we got our teaching moment out of it, let's move on. If he does something like that again, then there should be more consequences.

Also, how did this even get made public?

Not sure what it says about my particular upbringing, but I've definitely heard the phrase "off the plantation" used in some sort of pop culture (books, movies - not sure to be honest) along the same lines as "going AWOL" to mean either literally or figuratively "not in play." So, someone who used to be a reliable piece of the puzzle who has opted out of the situation.

Regardless, I'm sure I've never used that phrase myself. And if it occured to me to use it at all, my brain would probably send me some pretty intense signals to reexamine my word choice.

I know we've had threads in the past regarding coded language, and it has certainly been in the collective conscience more the last few years. Some offensive words come from unfamiliar origins that may or may not set off one's own language filter. But again, I'm pretty sure that any "plantation" analogies should be rethought before they leave one's mouth.

[throatybeard]

I
Also, how did this even get made public?

I didn't need to be made public; he did it in public. Not public is the un-cameraed interior of your own dwelling; public is basically anywhere else, including the locker room, especially if you're a public figure. In front of your players is public. And one of the assistant coaches made a public statement on Twitter.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I didn't need to be made public; he did it in public. Not public is the un-cameraed interior of your own dwelling; public is basically anywhere else, including the locker room, especially if you're a public figure. In front of your players is public. And one of the assistant coaches made a public statement on Twitter.

As I stated above, I think what he said was wrong. But I also think that if this was a first offense and he had never before shown signs of racial insensitivity, this is an over-reaction. The appropriate reaction is to either go to him directly and tell him that it bothers you, or, if you feel that there are bad power dynamics in play, go to his supervisor (the AD) or a university ombudsman and tell them there is a problem. If these actions fail to generate any sort of a response and/or the action happens again, then you consider escalating it more publicly. Going straight to the press/twitter to air your grievances is not a preferred solution, but it unfortunately seems to be the norm.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

As I stated above, I think what he said was wrong. But I also think that if this was a first offense and he had never before shown signs of racial insensitivity, this is an over-reaction. The appropriate reaction is to either go to him directly and tell him that it bothers you, or, if you feel that there are bad power dynamics in play, go to his supervisor (the AD) or a university ombudsman and tell them there is a problem. If these actions fail to generate any sort of a response and/or the action happens again, then you consider escalating it more publicly. Going straight to the press/twitter to air your grievances is not a preferred solution, but it unfortunately seems to be the norm.

I make a point of not telling other people what they should or should not be offended by, as a rule. This would carry over into what qualifies as "proper punishment" or "overreaction," as well.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I make a point of not telling other people what they should or should not be offended by, as a rule. This would carry over into what qualifies as "proper punishment" or "overreaction," as well.

I think I've expressed my POV and that any further discussion of this starts pushing us pretty far into PPB land. But long story short, there are ways to deal with conflict, and other ways not to. Most large corporations (which is essentially what a university is) have very clear channels for voicing complaints. I just did training on how my company handles it. Using proper channels allows for due process, which is the ideal situation. If you feel that due process is failing you, then move on to plan B, but it is generally best to give it a try.

[throatybeard]

I think I've expressed my POV and that any further discussion of this starts pushing us pretty far into PPB land. But long story short, there are ways to deal with conflict, and other ways not to. Most large corporations (which is essentially what a university is) have very clear channels for voicing complaints. I just did training on how my company handles it. Using proper channels allows for due process, which is the ideal situation. If you feel that due process is failing you, then move on to plan B, but it is generally best to give it a try.

Okay so then, what evidence do you have that due process wasn't followed at Creighton this week.



To the above in bold, very sad but also very true.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Okay so then, what evidence do you have that due process wasn't followed at Creighton this week.



To the above in bold, very sad but also very true.

Unlike so many others in internet message board land, I admit what I know and what I don't know. There are a lot of smart folks here at DBR and I often ask for those who know more about a topic to educate me, and I try to share my knowledge when applicable.

My initial post on the topic asked the question about how this was made public. From what I have read, it seems like it was made public and then the university responded. If it took the situation being made public for the university to respond when they already knew what happened, then I am 100% in favor of it being made public as the university ignoring the situation (or waiting until the end of the season to deal with it) is wrong. But if it was made public first, I do not think that is the ideal way to handle the situation. If someone could educate me as to the course of events, I would greatly appreciate it. I have done some googling but have not found any answers.

[cato]

I think I've expressed my POV and that any further discussion of this starts pushing us pretty far into PPB land. But long story short, there are ways to deal with conflict, and other ways not to. Most large corporations (which is essentially what a university is) have very clear channels for voicing complaints. I just did training on how my company handles it. Using proper channels allows for due process, which is the ideal situation. If you feel that due process is failing you, then move on to plan B, but it is generally best to give it a try.

I am very thankful that my company doesn’t have to deal with having head coaches on the payroll. We already deal with enough difficult personalities who have an inflated sense of their importance and a tendency to be jerks.

[kako]

I make a point of not telling other people what they should or should not be offended by, as a rule. This would carry over into what qualifies as "proper punishment" or "overreaction," as well.

+1. "Other people" here being, in my mind, his players and staff who had those statements directed at them. Any offense they took is what matters most of all, and if they feel the reaction is justified, then who I am to say it's not? Then there are those at the school McDermott represents. Many may have taken offense as well, and the punishment may seem appropriate to them.

People often say an example must be made in order for change to happen. Until change happens, all that happens is apologies. Well, there have been a lot of things like this reported in the media. Perhaps not using the word "plantation", but other such antiquated terms, situations, etc. Some people often just don't think about the words, actions, etc. they use/do wrt their sordid histories that's hurtful to others. Who's fault is that? I believe it lies with the speaker/actor. It's not political correctness... for example, is not using the n-word political correctness? Of course not. One should not use that word because it's offensive. A lot of people now are basically mad as hell at the latent offensiveness built into our society and just don't want to take it anymore. I don't really blame them. They've put up with it for so long, and now the time is ripe to speak up about it. So if McDermott gets caught in the crossfire, I don't feel that sorry for him. He put himself there. And if he's now an example for change, so be it.

BTW, Dakich would probably defend McDermott.

9F

[Steven43]

Not sure what it says about my particular upbringing, but I've definitely heard the phrase "off the plantation" used in some sort of pop culture (books, movies - not sure to be honest) along the same lines as "going AWOL" to mean either literally or figuratively "not in play." So, someone who used to be a reliable piece of the puzzle who has opted out of the situation.

Regardless, I'm sure I've never used that phrase myself. And if it occured to me to use it at all, my brain would probably send me some pretty intense signals to reexamine my word choice.

I know we've had threads in the past regarding coded language, and it has certainly been in the collective conscience more the last few years. Some offensive words come from unfamiliar origins that may or may not set off one's own language filter. But again, I'm pretty sure that any "plantation" analogies should be rethought before they leave one's mouth.

I honestly think Greg McDerrmott intended to say “off the reservation” which is, or at least used to be, a phrase that was very commonly used in the United States. It essentially means: To go or act outside the bounds of control, propriety, or acceptance of a given group. The phrase refers to the forced relocation of Native Americans to Indian reservations in the United States. Because of this origin, the phrase is often considered offensive or inappropriate.

I suspect he just had a middle-aged moment and confused his idiomatic expressions. While “off the reservation” is not exactly a nice thing to say, particularly for a coach or teacher or anyone in a position of authority or influence over young people in this day and age, I do not think he intended it as a reference to Black slavery — which is what just about everybody is accusing him of having done.

[tommy]

I honestly think Greg McDerrmott intended to say “off the reservation” which is, or at least used to be, a phrase that was very commonly used in the United States. It essentially means: To go or act outside the bounds of control, propriety, or acceptance of a given group. The phrase refers to the forced relocation of Native Americans to Indian reservations in the United States. Because of this origin, the phrase is often considered offensive or inappropriate.

I suspect he just had a middle-aged moment and confused his idiomatic expressions. While “off the reservation” is not exactly a nice thing to say, particularly for a coach or teacher or anyone in a position of authority or influence over young people in this day and age, I do not think he intended it as a reference to Black slavery — which is what just about everybody is accusing him of having done.

”Off the plantation” and “off the reservation” are equally offensive terms to me. They mean essentially the same thing, with one referencing African-American slaves and the other Native Americans. Both phrases mean “stay where you are and don’t leave. Know your place. I’m the authority figure and you do what you’re told and don’t say or do anything unauthorized.” McDermott gets no pass in my book if he meant to say “off the reservation” and instead said “off the plantation.” Both have clearly racist origins.

[Steven43]

”Off the plantation” and “off the reservation” are equally offensive terms to me. They mean essentially the same thing, with one referencing African-American slaves and the other Native Americans. Both phrases mean “stay where you are and don’t leave. Know your place. I’m the authority figure and you do what you’re told and don’t say or do anything unauthorized.” McDermott gets no pass in my book if he meant to say “off the reservation” and instead said “off the plantation.” Both have clearly racist origins.

I’m simply offering an explanation as to what I think may have happened. The fact is the expression “off the reservation” in my experience anyway, has been so commonly and offhandedly used that I don’t think the majority of people using it or hearing it think of it in a racist way. I certainly never even gave it a second thought as to what its origins were. When you hear an expression such as “off the reservation” enough times over the years and it’s used basically about anyone and everyone of any race you don’t associate it with being racist, though it clearly is.

As far as “off the plantation” goes neither I nor any of the others I have asked about it over the past few days had ever heard of any such expression. So I would bet money that he simply had a brain fart and got the expression wrong. So again, I think most people commonly use “off the reservation” without even thinking about what it’s origins are. They don’t associate it specifically with Native Americans. And since there were no Native Americans in the locker room how could he have intended it as a racist comment towards the players on his team? That’s the only point I’m trying to make.

Now maybe this McDermott guy is a bit of an overbearing authoritarian Bob Knightish caveman, and in that regard I would say he was out of line. But that does not necessarily mean that he intended his comment in a racist way towards his players. I think people are making the assumption that he was like “Hmm, let me think of a phrase that will specifically put my Black players in their place. I’ll show them.” But that might not have been his intention at all. He very likely was intending his comment for all of his players equally, whether they were Black or white. I’m simply saying that there is sometimes more gray than black-and-white in a situation like this.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I’m simply offering an explanation as to what I think may have happened. The fact is the expression “off the reservation” in my experience anyway, has been so commonly and offhandedly used that I don’t think the majority of people using it or hearing it think of it in a racist way. I certainly never even gave it a second thought as to what its origins were. When you hear an expression such as “off the reservation” enough times over the years and it’s used basically about anyone and everyone of any race you don’t associate it with being racist, though it clearly is.

As far as “off the plantation” goes neither I nor any of the others I have asked about it over the past few days had ever heard of any such expression. So I would bet money that he simply had a brain fart and got the expression wrong. So again, I think most people commonly use “off the reservation” without even thinking about what it’s origins are. They don’t associate it specifically with Native Americans. And since there were no Native Americans in the locker room how could he have intended it as a racist comment towards the players on his team? That’s the only point I’m trying to make.

Now maybe this McDermott guy is a bit of an overbearing authoritarian Bob Knightish caveman, and in that regard I would say he was out of line. But that does not necessarily mean that he intended his comment in a racist way towards his players. I think people are making the assumption that he was like “Hmm, let me think of a phrase that will specifically put my Black players in their place. I’ll show them.” But that might not have been his intention at all. He very likely was intending his comment for all of his players equally, whether they were Black or white. I’m simply saying that there is sometimes more gray than black-and-white in a situation like this.

I think something I have learned through our culture in the last few years is that "lack of intent" doesn't exonerate someone's language.

Sure, it is better than a term hurled in anger or emotion, I guess. But we are supposed to be smarter than to use words and phrases carelessly.

[kako]

I’m simply offering an explanation as to what I think may have happened. The fact is the expression “off the reservation” in my experience anyway, has been so commonly and offhandedly used that I don’t think the majority of people using it or hearing it think of it in a racist way. I certainly never even gave it a second thought as to what its origins were. When you hear an expression such as “off the reservation” enough times over the years and it’s used basically about anyone and everyone of any race you don’t associate it with being racist, though it clearly is.

As far as “off the plantation” goes neither I nor any of the others I have asked about it over the past few days had ever heard of any such expression. So I would bet money that he simply had a brain fart and got the expression wrong. So again, I think most people commonly use “off the reservation” without even thinking about what it’s origins are. They don’t associate it specifically with Native Americans. And since there were no Native Americans in the locker room how could he have intended it as a racist comment towards the players on his team? That’s the only point I’m trying to make.

Now maybe this McDermott guy is a bit of an overbearing authoritarian Bob Knightish caveman, and in that regard I would say he was out of line. But that does not necessarily mean that he intended his comment in a racist way towards his players. I think people are making the assumption that he was like “Hmm, let me think of a phrase that will specifically put my Black players in their place. I’ll show them.” But that might not have been his intention at all. He very likely was intending his comment for all of his players equally, whether they were Black or white. I’m simply saying that there is sometimes more gray than black-and-white in a situation like this.

Agree 100% with the other posts. Intention has nothing to do with it. Giving him a pass on this says that unintentional racism is OK, it's only intentional racism that's bad. He's a person in power, so he's responsible, intentional or unintentional. Saying, "I'm sorry" does not exonerate McDermott.

9F

[Steven43]

Agree 100% with the other posts. Intention has nothing to do with it. Giving him a pass on this says that unintentional racism is OK, it's only intentional racism that's bad. He's a person in power, so he's responsible, intentional or unintentional. Saying, "I'm sorry" does not exonerate McDermott.

9F

So now one’s intentions have “nothing to do with” the way an event is viewed? If that is what you’re trying to say I vehemently disagree. I am not talking specifically about the situation with McDermott, I’m saying in general. In my mind intent matters, and it matters a lot. Or at least it should.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

So now one’s intentions have “nothing to do with” the way an event is viewed? If that is what you’re trying to say I vehemently disagree. I am not talking specifically about the situation with McDermott, I’m saying in general. In my mind intent matters, and it matters a lot. Or at least it should.

I totally agree. Context is key. Each situation needs to be looked at on its own. I wish the world were so simple that that wasn't the case, but it really isn't - it would be naive to believe otherwise. I'm not saying that saying "I didn't know" about a derogatory term fully excuses someone. But it is usually pretty clear if the person is intentionally using a term in a negative, demeaning way vs. using it accidentally or to illustrate a point. The punishment should fit the crime. And the process for determining the punishment should also be related - as I have said multiple times, most organizations have very detailed ways of handling these situations, which should be the first way it is dealt with, rather than the court of public opinion. If the proper channels yield grossly unsatisfying results, then it is more reasonable to move on to Plan B.

[kako]

So now one’s intentions have “nothing to do with” the way an event is viewed? If that is what you’re trying to say I vehemently disagree. I am not talking specifically about the situation with McDermott, I’m saying in general. In my mind intent matters, and it matters a lot. Or at least it should.

Let's keep the focus on McDermott. His intent matters, it would make it worse if it was intentional. But regardless, unintentional racism is still racism. And it's on people like McDermott who are in positions of power over those affected by racism to educate themselves about it. Ignorance is no excuse.

9F

[JasonEvans]

So, as for Dakich, he should be fired for being an idiot. At the end of the UVA-Lou game he said Trey Murphy is one of the two most important transfers in the country (along with some dude at Michigan).

Murphy is quite literally standing next to Sam Hauser as Dakich makes this statement. Carlik Jones is also on the floor.

He’s too stupid for words.