Priefer Deserves His Own Thread

[DanAS]

I'm kind of sick of the attention given to Kluwe. Kluwe is a whistleblower. He blew the whistle on a nauseating statement made by a guy who operates in a environment where homophobia almost certainly remains epidemic (or else Sam wouldn't be a trailblazer in 2014). It strikes me that the Vikes are essentially condoning Preifer's statement by giving him what will ultimately be a two-game punishment. Others might disagree and say that statements like the one Priefer made, while stupid, aren't the kind of thing that should warrant a major punishment. And I can understand that there are two points of view there, but that's really the issue now, not Kluwe. Kluwe isn't even on the team.

Invariably, when people blow whistles against beloved institutions, the whistleblowers become the object of intense scrutiny. But as Congress once said in the legislative history of a whistleblowing statute, "it takes a rogue to catch a rogue." So go ahead and view Kluwe as a hero for whistleblowing, or view him as a rogue for being a snitch, or talk about his hypocrisy because he's a whistleblower who has himself made mistakes, as Congress recognized back when Congress actually did stuff, all whistleblowers are human -- some are very flawed, some are slightly flawed, but none is perfect -- and when they blow the whistle on a guy who denies the most pointed allegation and later is found to have committed that allegation, what do you say people stop focusing on the whistleblower and start focusing on the object of the whistleblowing?

What if Priefer had said that all black people (let's say he used a different word than "black") or all Jewish people should be sent to an island and nuked? Two games? I don't think so.

In Priefer, the Vikes have a coach who is a symbol of hatred against a group of people who traditionally have been treated like pariahs in society simply because their nature attracts them more to members of their own gender. I find that depressing. As for Kluwe, I like the fact that he believes in gay rights, I don't like the fact that he whined about being fired in spite of mediocre punting numbers, and I could care less about his role as a whistleblower. He's not even on the team any more.

Focus on Priefer. And as a Jewish heterosexual, I will assume he made the statement about Jews instead of gays, because just as we are trained that "we are all once slaves in Egypt," we need to have compassion with others who are the object of injustice, and gay people certainly count big time in that regard.

[Funkytown]

[DarthBrooks]

For comparison.

August 2, 2013, 10:18 AM ET

Riley Cooper to receive training

Commissioner Roger Goodell said Thursday on ESPN Radio that the NFL will not punish Riley Cooper for his use of a racial slur, while the Philadelphia Eagles announced later in the day that the wide receiver would undergo sensitivity training.

"Obviously we stand for diversity and inclusion. Comments like that, they are obviously wrong, they are offensive and they are unacceptable. There is no one that feels stronger about that than the NFL, our teams and our players," he said on the "Mike and Mike" program.

"He has accepted responsibility for it. He has spoken to his team. He has been disciplined by the club and will go through some training with the club to understand," he continued.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp13/s ... es-further

I'm not going to blindly defend Priefer. At the same time the comment was made out of irritation with the distractions disrupting the focus of his players. Let's use a different analogy.

You have a coworker obsessed with StarWars. Every conversation is sprinkled with bits of trivia from Star Wars. Whole conversations get steered toward Star Wars at inappropriate times. A deadline is looming and work needs to be planned out and you hear "Qui Gonn would have just reversed the polarity of the phasers and made the situation all shiny."

And you say "__________________

[Just Me]

What if Priefer had said that all black people (let's say he used a different word than "black") or all Jewish people should be sent to an island and nuked? Two games? I don't think so.

Dan,

What punishment seems appropriate? As reprehensible as the words were, I find the actions of others (where discipline was used as a 'similar' standard) were a more egregious offenses. Again, there is no excusing Priefer in his comment. Do the Vikings need to fire him? Is 4 games the 'price' needed for atonement? 2 won't cut it, so what is the number? If it's 4, shouldn't the DUI standard be more games then?

[Purple bruise]

[DanAS]

Dan,

What punishment seems appropriate? As reprehensible as the words were, I find the actions of others (where discipline was used as a 'similar' standard) were a more egregious offenses. Again, there is no excusing Priefer in his comment. Do the Vikings need to fire him? Is 4 games the 'price' needed for atonement? 2 won't cut it, so what is the number? If it's 4, shouldn't the DUI standard be more games then?

I think Kluwe had it about right -- nine would be too many, three too few.

But that's just me. The point is that a statement has to be made that there really has been an epidemic of homophobia in American professional team sports and we need to make a strong statement that it must stop. It is truly embarrassing that we have not had openly gay players in major league American team sports until now. It's time to nip in the bud that sorry record.

Two games seems like a slap on the wrist to me -- an amount of punishment that is given because the Vikes felt the need to do "something," rather than because they were legitimately appalled. I would agree that Priefer's career shouldn't be ruined because of his comment/bigotry, but the Vikes need to send a strong message that (1) the era of treating homosexuality as some kind of illness must stop and (2) homophobia has been a particular problem in the major team sports arena and must be confronted especially harshly in that domain.

[DanAS]

I think there is a good case to be made that Priefer let off steam in retaliation to Kluwe's attitude, we don't even know if Priefer was or is anti-same-sex marriage at that.

What are we going to do with the use of either the "n" word in the NFL or a slightly altered version as heard in some rap songs?? A white person certainly couldn't use that term. Why could African Americans be allowed to use it? Double Standard or it's hard to actually police people for saying the wrong thing.

In this kind of situation (whether we're talking about a race, creed, or whatever), the leaders of that community would send the strongest message possible that either everyone could use the word or nobody can use it. But there will always be some people who don't give a damn what the leaders of their community believe; that's their problem, and those people who aren't a member of that community shouldn't worry about them.

[Mothman]

I'm kind of sick of the attention given to Kluwe. Kluwe is a whistleblower. He blew the whistle on a nauseating statement made by a guy who operates in a environment where homophobia almost certainly remains epidemic (or else Sam wouldn't be a trailblazer in 2014). It strikes me that the Vikes are essentially condoning Preifer's statement by giving him what will ultimately be a two-game punishment. Others might disagree and say that statements like the one Priefer made, while stupid, aren't the kind of thing that should warrant a major punishment. And I can understand that there are two points of view there, but that's really the issue now, not Kluwe. Kluwe isn't even on the team.

He's not on the team but he is absolutely as much a part of "the issue" as Priefer because this case has never been about one issue. It's not Kluwe vs. Priefer.

Invariably, when people blow whistles against beloved institutions, the whistleblowers become the object of intense scrutiny. But as Congress once said in the legislative history of a whistleblowing statute, "it takes a rogue to catch a rogue." So go ahead and view Kluwe as a hero for whistleblowing, or view him as a rogue for being a snitch, or talk about his hypocrisy because he's a whistleblower who has himself made mistakes, as Congress recognized back when Congress actually did stuff, all whistleblowers are human -- some are very flawed, some are slightly flawed, but none is perfect -- and when they blow the whistle on a guy who denies the most pointed allegation and later is found to have committed that allegation, what do you say people stop focusing on the whistleblower and start focusing on the object of the whistleblowing?

In Priefer, the Vikes have a coach who is a symbol of hatred against a group of people who traditionally have been treated like pariahs in society simply because their nature attracts them more to members of their own gender. I find that depressing.

I find it depressing that you view him as a symbol of hatred. He's not an abstract concept, he's a human being who, as far as can be verified to this point, made a statement in a moment of frustration that crossed a line he shouldn't have crossed. Loeffler seems to think that statement was made for shock value, not seriously, and was made to get the players' attention, not as an expression of deeply held, homophobic beliefs. He said that he and Kluwe laughed it off at the time.

Unless a much stronger case can be made and a more substantial pattern of bigotry can be established, Priefer doesn't deserve to be a "symbol of hatred". Heck, most of us know next to nothing about the man. Are we just supposed to take the word of a bitter ex-punter about who he is and what he believes?

As for Kluwe, I like the fact that he believes in gay rights, I don't like the fact that he whined about being fired in spite of mediocre punting numbers, and I could care less about his role as a whistleblower. He's not even on the team any more.

Focus on Priefer.

I couldn't disagree more. We need to pay attention to the case as a whole and to whatever actual evidence and convincing testimony emerges. We should absolutely continue to focus on Kluwe and on the veracity of his accusations. Priefer deserves focus only to the extent that the case involves him.

Kluwe has been more than just a whistleblower. He's been an accuser, a mudslinger, and from the very beginning, he has wrapped it all up in his personal experience and accused more people than Priefer of wrongdoing. There is no way to extricate him from it, to set him aside and focus elsewhere. He's cast himself in the role of victim/martyr/hero and made his personal experience the centerpiece of the entire case.

And as a Jewish heterosexual, I will assume he made the statement about Jews instead of gays, because just as we are trained that "we are all once slaves in Egypt," we need to have compassion with others who are the object of injustice, and gay people certainly count big time in that regard.

Is it compassionate to dehumanize Priefer and reduce him to a symbol? Kluwe has accused of him of more than just the one statement that's been verified and there's still almost nothing other than Kluwe's word to indicate that Priefer is a hateful bigot. If he's not that person, if he's just a coach who said something extremely inappropriate in a moment of frustration, said it for shock value and in an effort to get players to focus, isn't he being done an injustice by being portrayed as a bigot?

A whistleblower doesn't deserve to simply be taken at his word and thus far, there's been very little to indicate that Kluwe's version of events is trustworthy.

[Mothman]

I think Kluwe had it about right -- nine would be too many, three too few.

But that's just me. The point is that a statement has to be made that there really has been an epidemic of homophobia in American professional team sports and we need to make a strong statement that it must stop. It is truly embarrassing that we have not had openly gay players in major league American team sports until now. It's time to nip in the bud that sorry record.

Two games seems like a slap on the wrist to me -- an amount of punishment that is given because the Vikes felt the need to do "something," rather than because they were legitimately appalled. I would agree that Priefer's career shouldn't be ruined because of his comment/bigotry, but the Vikes need to send a strong message that (1) the era of treating homosexuality as some kind of illness must stop and (2) homophobia has been a particular problem in the major team sports arena and must be confronted especially harshly in that domain.

No, they don't, Dan. That's a message you want sent but the Vikings duty here is to hand out punishment they feel is appropriate for the transgression that occurred, not to use Priefer as a way to make a statement about a larger social issue. That's reducing a person to a symbol again.

[Just Me]

I think Kluwe had it about right -- nine would be too many, three too few. But that's just me.

OK. I don't really have an issue with that, but given the 'standard' punishment (according to Kluwe - I can't independently vouch for the accuracy of the remark) for drunk driving is 4 games, does this seem to be a punishment (for DUI) that fits the crime? You're a lawyer. Does this seem to be commensurate justice to you? Hateful words (and I'm even ascribing 'hatefulness' to Priefer's words as it is the 'worst case scenario' for him. There are some facts that would support that there was no "hate" intended in his comment.) are the equivalent of recklessly endangering lives with an automobile in an illegal act?

Two games seems like a slap on the wrist to me -- an amount of punishment that is given because the Vikes felt the need to do "something," rather than because they were legitimately appalled. I would agree that Priefer's career shouldn't be ruined because of his comment/bigotry, but the Vikes need to send a strong message that (1) the era of treating homosexuality as some kind of illness must stop and (2) homophobia has been a particular problem in the major team sports arena and must be confronted especially harshly in that domain.

The first part of your assertion here is extremely difficult to refute or confirm. It would require one or both of us to "know" what the 'Vikings Organization' was thinking when the discipline was imposed. Given the Wilf's substantial support to LGBT causes and the owner's personal supportive comments to Kluwe after Kluwe's activism, how could you be sure they were not legitimately appalled? When I was involved with assessing and assigning discipline for employees, I would review previous disciplinary decisions (and their associated infractions) to try and determine a fair penalty. It seems to me that 4 games is too much. Not because I think Priefer's comments were 'innocuous' - because his words, no matter how objectionable or offensive, are still...words. He can't actually 'round up' all the persons spoken about, I hope he doesn't actually have access to nuclear weaponry, and the logistics of moving a group that large to an island are not feasible. It was not a statement with any basis in the ability to carry out the suggested act. So at best, (for your argument) we have a hateful bigot who used "words" about how he really feels about people who are different from him. What if he actually paid $1000 to every one of his special teamers that caused injury to homosexual players on the other team? (Obviously worse, right?) I separate 'words' from 'actions' and I don't see your suggestion that a punishment on par with "bounty-gate" or DUI being congruent here. I realize we all see things differently and YMMV. Peace brother.

[Purple bruise]

The Bleacher Report: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2134 ... &hpt=hp_t4

What about Kluwe's behavior in the locker-room? http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 52061.html

Justice for thee but not for me.

If I made jokes like this at work, I guarantee you, I'd be fired.

Freaking hypocrite. The Vikes need to tell him to pound sand

[maembe]

In what world did this need it's own separate thread?

[tnvikesfan]

Disclaimer: I haven't read everything about this, just enough to see there are multiple issues.

Coming at this from an HR standpoint (as an HR person at a VERY diverse company), we have a few things to consider.

1. Statements allegedly made by a supervisor that are highly inappropriate

2. A former employee who did not report the supervisor's behavior at the time of occurrence.

3. Misleading or inaccurate or outright false allegations from former employee.

4. A former employee who was terminated for poor job performance.

5. A former employee who belongs to a 'protected class'.

6. A supervisor who did not follow appropriate disciplinary procedures for an employee creating disruption in the work area.

We have 2 people at fault here.
1. The Company needs to discipline the supervisor for not following the Harassment & Discrimination policy. This would be for verbal violations, such as an impromptu comment due to frustration. A supervisor should be able to control his emotions and speech, understanding that as a position of authority he is required to follow a certain standard of behavior. Since no physical action (unless I missed something?) happened, it is all verbal and should be treated as such. Remember, everyone is still allowed to have opinions in this country, we just have to follow the rules of expression - especially in the workplace.

2. The former employee loses credibility for not reporting any and all incidents upon occurrence. It is the employee's job to do that, so that a problem can be addressed and corrected (I can't tell you how many times an employee will bring up alleged 'bad supervisor' issues while in for disciplinary action of a completely different nature to try to escape responsibility for their own actions). The employee also should have been properly disciplined for creating disruptions in the work area and was not. Just like an employee who takes excessive breaks or is late to their job area, creating disruptions and distractions during work time should not be tolerated. It doesn't matter WHAT the disruption is, it's still a disruption. He is there to work, not follow a personal or political agenda.

I understand why Kluwe has not been picked up by another team. Poor performance + personal agenda can have an exponentially negative impact on a team. Remember, they are paid to win games, not be politically correct quota makers. Professional sports seems to be one of the few venues left where performance is valued above anything else. It is also a very sharp double edged sword in that it allows inappropriate and illegal behaviors to be overlooked for performance value.

From what I've seen of all this hoopla, the supervisor in this case was disciplined appropriately for a first offence. The former employee is reaping what he has sown for all his actions, including his job performance.

[Purple bruise]

In what world did this need it's own separate thread?

Exactly, as if one wasn't one too many already

[jackal]

This kind of stuff, scares me a little.

I have some friends who are gay and I really respect, I don't ask them anything about their relationships;
as i don't talk about what goes on in my life, either.

When start not allowing people to express themselves ,or force behavior you get into a whole other
level with people. With some people you turn their ignorance into a passion; that was not there before.
They stick their feet into the mud, and won't budge.

Bottom line is history shows again; how forcing people beliefs goes wrong, from the middle ages, moving forward.