Priefer Deserves His Own Thread

[Mothman]

Had I called for a 12 month suspension I might have agreed with you. But I think you are beating around a strawman. That's a logical fallacy. However, I recognize that logical fallacies aside, there are two sides to the underlying issue.

I don't think it's a straw man. You're saying Priefer is a symbol of hatred. I'm saying he doesn't deserve that based on the scant evidence against him thus far. At the very least, it seems like that's a label and perception that should be held back until there's something more than Kluwe's claims to demonstrate that Priefer is actually hateful!

People become symbols. Look at the Israeli soldier who was captured years ago and gave rise to a 1000-1 prisoner swap. We can ignore the symbolic value of events, but that is no better than taking events solely in terms of their symbolic value.

I'm not saying we should ignore them but how about waiting to see if the symbol fits before applying it? People become symbols because they're made into symbols. They're used as symbols.

Re-read my post. Look at my conclusion as to the appropriate punishment. And please, don't reduce my perspective to an absurdity by assuming that I am taking certain principles and making them swallow up every other relevant fact.

I don't feel I did that at all and if you do, I apologize. I read your post and your conclusion about appropriate punishment and I articulated why I disagreed with your view that the focus should be on Priefer and not Kluwe the whistleblower. Regarding the punishment: based on the summary (the Littler memo) the Vikings released, it seems appropriate to me, especially when compared to other disciplinary measures handed out in the NFL. I can understand and respect why you disagree about that but I think we can agree that the appropriate duration of Priefer's is subjective in nature.

If Solomon would disagree with me, fine, but I made room for that outcome. Have you made room for the possibility that your perspective is also lacking?

Of course I have and I'm doing my best to keep an open mind.

Truly, we both must, as this is not an issue of definitions or mathematics, it's an issue of values, and subjectivity is a key component of the context whenever we're addressing hard situations like this one.

All the more reason to base our opinions, as much as possible, on the facts (to the degree that they can be established). Thus far, Kluwe's allegations appear to be unreliable, and unless further evidence merges in support of his claims, rather than increasing focus on Priefer, I think the focus on Kluwe is entirely justified. When someone steps forward, makes the kind of claims he's made without providing supporting evidence and makes them in a nasty, vengeful way, I believe the accuser deserves as much scrutiny as the accused. It's necessary to understand the bigger picture and to get a clear idea of what actually happened.

It's clear that the homophobic nature of sports locker rooms is an issue that concerns you greatly. The growing tendency in our society for people to be assumed guilty when accused, to be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion long before the evidence actually reveals guilt or innocence, is a social issue that concerns me.

[Just Me]

They have been a target for a while. That's true. However, you can't compare racism to homophobia, in any context.

If you attack someone due to color, religion, gender preference it's considered a hate crime. That does not clump the three into the same category. For starters, there weren't global wars fought over being gay, there were over religion, some still ongoing. People have been killed for being gay, attacked, etc. But you can HIDE the fact that youre gay, alot did/do it very well, you cant really hide the fact that you're black, or hispanic, or asian. See where i'm going with this?

What about "hiding your relgion?" I'm not suggesting (nor desirous) that should happen, just trying to be fair with the argument. If homosexuals need to to "hide" their gender orientation, should I hide my religious beliefs?

Racism has been rampant for centuries, this whole gay pride thing is fairly new. (Not the part of being gay, the whole coming out movement and forcing people to accept it.) The slave trade, aparthied, #### germany, our own civil rights movements from the 50's and 60's. Being gay has been a clandestine area of society since the dawn of man. And its a miniscule part of our world population. So of course racist statements will warrant harsher penalties, because they hit a societal grenade alot harder than something that's come to fruition in the last 10 years or so, maybe less.

I'm not sure how 'miniscule' is being defined, but so the context is more apparent, Wikipedia suggests a "consistent statistical range of 1.20–5.60% of the adult population" as falling into the LGBT community. Certainly not a majority, but to put it in perspective: According to Wikipedia, 1.7% of the United States' population is of Native American descent. My only reason for drawing the parallel is that I don't think one can make an effective case for the importance of protections based on the number of affected individuals.

There is an argument I make frequently among people I know. Having served 6 years in the military, and seeing what's going on now with vets being put on a pedestal that is fairly new itself, the gay pride thing is in the same exact boat. The media and the populous now is overcompensating for how vets were treated after vietnam. Now everything is blown out of proportion if you served, almost like putting a cape on and becoming a superhero.

Priefer was a Vet. You mean to say we're all human and have noble and "not-so-noble" qualities? Get outta here!!

Years of being in hiding, now all of a sudden BAM it's everywhere. In your face 24/7. People used to joke about "the token black dude" on tv shows, now its "the token gay moment". There is rarely a new show that is released now that doesn't have a gay couple in it. It's like a head rush from eating ice cream too fast. Priefer said what he said to a STRAIGHT male who laughed it off, now all of a sudden he has issue with it. It's not like he singled out a gay guy in the locker room and said what he said. He shouldn't be suspended at all IMO. Talked to yes. Issue public apology yes, suspended, no.

In actuality, third party complaints (in other words - if someone had overheard the comments that wasn't even meant to hear them) are not uncommon and management has to address these issues. The fact of the matter is: You can't make those comments in the workplace. And I think that is Dan's point about the racism comparison. Would you defend someone who made a racial joke about an African American to another "white guy"? It still doesn't make it OK. And a third "white guy" could be offended by it and initiate action (usually via HR/Management) which would have to be addressed. Priefer still has freedom of speech, but not as a manager within the Minnesota Vikings. He can say those things at his local bar, church, or whatever until the cows come home. (Of course, if the media gets ahold of it and senior management decides that it's conduct that reflects poorly on the Vikings and is a 'distraction' he will suffer any consequences that go with that). He CANNOT say that while he is on the 'time clock.'

There is a problem with Kluwe waiting (at least from a company policy standpoint). I'm assuming there is a mandate to have these items reported "as soon as practical" (or similar wording). Kluwe would have violated that directive. Loeffler presumably would have violated it too (as would have Blair Walsh, if Kluwe can back up his assertions that Walsh send him a text confirming it). This means those two will likely face some type (albeit probably lesser) of discipline. Kluwe will not, simply because he no longer works for the company.

The problem with NOT suspending Priefer is that you do indeed "send a message" that this "isn't really that big of a deal." The two day suspension is for a "first offense." Continued violation of company policy "will result in progressive discipline up to, and including, discharge." (usually the type of wording that goes with these suspension letters).

Tom Skerritt (Top Gun) has the perfect line: "These rules are not flexible, nor am I. Either obey them or you are history."

[Just Me]

Honestly, one should hear what Pilots say in the ready room. Priefer was a Naval pilot as well. Not sure if bringing in military-speak helps in this case.

And actually, saying this does not compare to religion or skin-color as well is a good point.

What if someone was upset with the opposite sex and in a huff, they say "They should take all of the opposite sex put them on an island and nuke it until it glows." It's an absurd statement on the face of it. This is probably a better comparison.

Again, not sure if one should be judged on one mere statement where the person who said it probably had an expectation of privacy. What about all of the other statements that are said in the locker room that are not acceptable.

The line was meant to refer to the adherence to policy/rules, but point taken. Tailhook is still in my memory.

As far as the whole thing about the statement(s):

1) The company has a policy
2) If the company fails to enforce the policy(ies) when they know they are broken, they increase their liability
3) The judgment is on the violation of policy (as Jim pointed out earlier - it's not the company's position to effect social change).

An "expectation of privacy" comes from the 4th Amendment (protecting us from the government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures). Even then, your expectation of privacy can be (such as on an open practice field in view/earshot of everyone) greatly diminished. In short: "expectation of privacy" is not applicable here. If there are other comments made that management is aware of they would be required to address these comments per their policy.

[Purple Reign]

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.

I agree that a whistleblower shouldn't be taken at his word, but so far I am more inclined to believe Kluwe then Priefer. Didn't Priefer originally 'vehemently' deny all of Kluwe's allegations? Yes, only one statement has been verified but that doesn't mean there weren't other instances. It appears to me that Priefer's strategy is to deny everything and then only admit to what can be verified later, which makes his apology hollow and insincere. If it really was just one statement out of frustration/motivation, why didn't he admit that right away if he didn't feel it was such a big issue? Also the fact that the Vikings won't release the full report suggests that the Vikings are trying to keep something hidden from the public.

[Just Me]

Also the fact that the Vikings won't release the full report suggests that the Vikings are trying to keep something hidden from the public.

I think that was my initial reaction too, but after considering that other discipline might be recommended for Loeffler for not reporting the incident, the Vikings might not want to release as it may contain personnel disciplinary recommedations. True, they can redact the identities of the personnel mentioned in the report, but since the executive summary has been released, it would not be difficult to determine who "player X" is that was present when "Coach Y" made a comment about "nuking an island until it glows. Player X gets a reprimand for not immediately reporting the issue. Hmmm, wonder who that could possibly be????

[Mothman]

I agree that a whistleblower shouldn't be taken at his word, but so far I am more inclined to believe Kluwe then Priefer. Didn't Priefer originally 'vehemently' deny all of Kluwe's allegations? Yes, only one statement has been verified but that doesn't mean there weren't other instances.

... and it doesn't mean there were, which is why I phrased the paragraph you quoted above carefully. Priefer originally denied making the comment. Kluwe described it in an entirely different setting and the only part of his description that appears accurate at this point were the words Priefer said. This far, neither has proven themselves to be reliable or trustworthy in this matter.

It ppears to me that Priefer's strategy is to deny everything and then only admit to what can be verified later, which makes his apology hollow and insincere. If it really was just one statement out of frustration/motivation, why didn't he admit that right away if he didn't feel it was such a big issue? Also the fact that the Vikings won't release the full report suggests that the Vikings are trying to keep something hidden from the public.

You're making several assumptions in that paragraph... my point is to wait for evidence rather than assuming it exists, assuming guilt, assuming something significant (and relevant to the case) is being hidden, etc.

[DanAS]

Jim,

You and I don't know Donald Sterling personally, but we are able to conclude that what he said was very ugly. Indeed, even if we knew nothing more about him than his audio-taped statement, he would come to symbolize the mentality of the slave owner in my mind despite the fact that he has never owned slaves.

What Priefer said was not in the same league. But it was still, in the context of a locker room, a statement that reflects either hatred or tremendous ignorance about the human condition. And through that statement, he has come to symbolize for a portion of the population a very ugly form of bigotry, whether you like it or not.

Am I looking into Priefer's soul? No. Do I know enough about him to call him hateful, bigoted, or ugly? No. But that goes to the old adage about "separating the sin from the sinner." He works in a profession where he has certain responsibilities, as do we all. If I came on to a paralegal or an intern in my office, I'd be fired in two seconds, even if all I did was use words and all I had in my heart was love. The things we say in the workplace have consequences, and there are certain statements made in certain workplaces where the bosses need to have zero tolerance.

In my opinion, Priefer's homophobic statement, given that it was made by a coach in an NFL locker room to his charges, must not be tolerated. Why? Because these kinds of statements have kept people in the closet for as long as the NFL has existed, and nobody should have to live that way, particularly when their only "crimes" were (a) being born and (b) realizing their actual nature.

As you know, I am a devout person of faith, and perhaps I feel so strongly about this issue because homophobia gives religion a bad name. I would like to eradicate anything that is getting in the way of turning religion into a force of unity, and not a force of division, in our society.

[Mothman]

Jim,

You and I don't know Donald Sterling personally, but we are able to conclude that what he said was very ugly. Indeed, even if we knew nothing more about him than his audio-taped statement, he would come to symbolize the mentality of the slave owner in my mind despite the fact that he has never owned slaves.[

What Priefer said was not in the same league. But it was still, in the context of a locker room, a statement that reflects either hatred or tremendous ignorance about the human condition. And through that statement, he has come to symbolize for a portion of the population a very ugly form of bigotry, whether you like it or not.

I'm not debating whether a portion of the population views him as a symbol or not. I'm saying he shouldn't be viewed as a symbol, at least not at this point.

The comparison to Sterling IS a straw man. One situation has almost nothing to do with the other and there's a vast difference in the amount of evidence involved. There's a recording of Sterling. There's a long and demonstrable history of racist attitude there. Priefer has no such track record, at least not one that's been revealed. On the contrary, just about everyone we've heard from other than Walsh seems to think he's a good coach and a good man.

Am I looking into Priefer's soul? No. Do I know enough about him to call him hateful, bigoted, or ugly? No. But that goes to the old adage about "separating the sin from the sinner." He works in a profession where he has certain responsibilities, as do we all. If I came on to a paralegal or an intern in my office, I'd be fired in two seconds, even if all I did was use words and all I had in my heart was love. The things we say in the workplace have consequences, and there are certain statements made in certain workplaces where the bosses need to have zero tolerance.

In my opinion, Priefer's homophobic statement, given that it was made by a coach in an NFL locker room to his charges, must not be tolerated. Why? Because these kinds of statements have kept people in the closet for as long as the NFL has existed, and nobody should have to live that way, particularly when their only "crimes" were (a) being born and (b) realizing their actual nature.

It continues to sound like you're saying you want to make an example of him to further an agenda. perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but that's the message I'm getting from your posts. I know you to be a compassionate person so it's difficult to understand how you can argue so vociferously on behalf of people who are hiding "in the closet" and simultaneously refer to a man as a symbol of hatred while admitting that you don't know enough about him to call him hateful, bigoted, or ugly. I realize there are people that already view him that way but why further that symbolism?

Consider a slightly different version of the hypothetical scenario you put forth involving a paralegal or intern: suppose they didn't like you or misinterpreted a comment you made as an advance, informed your boss and then you were fired in two seconds, even though all you did was use words and you had no love in your heart for that intern, she just had it out for you or misunderstood you. How would you feel then, especially if the story received national publicity and you became widely known as an "office creep"? Looking at that scenario, I'm sure you can understand why I object so strongly to focusing attention on the accused and not the whistleblower when the veracity of the latter's claims is largely unestablished.

You may believe there should be a zero tolerance policy in the NFL (or on the Vikings) regarding homophobic language but as far as I know, no such policy exists. Assuming that's correct, I don't think it would be fair or responsible for the Vikings to treat Priefer as if he violated such a policy.

There have been consequences for the things he said in the workplace so I think it's pretty difficult to argue that the Wilfs chose to tolerate them.

As you know, I am a devout person of faith, and perhaps I feel so strongly about this issue because homophobia gives religion a bad name. I would like to eradicate anything that is getting in the way of turning religion into a force of unity, and not a force of division, in our society.

That's a worthy goal but would extending Priefer's suspension really be a significant step toward that goal or just another injustice committed to further a cause? I don't know the answer to that because we still don't have all the details on this case yet but if Loeffler's version of events is to be believed, Priefer made the comment on the practice field, after becoming frustrated that Loeffler and Kluwe were not focused on football, and Loeffler didn't think Priefer was serious when he made the comment. He thought Priefer was just trying to stop Kluwe and Loeffler’s joking around.

If that's full extent of Priefer's transgressions, then I think the punishment is appropriate and making him an example to further an agenda would be wrong. If that doesn't represent full extent of Priefer's transgressions, perhaps there's more to discuss.

[DanAS]

Jim,

I don't like to think of myself as having an "agenda" here. But perhaps for some people, it is -- much like fighting racism or sexual harassment could be viewed as an "agenda."

We agree that just because homophobia is bad doesn't mean we should draw-and-quarter everyone who has demonstrated homophobia. Punishment should be proportionate to the offense. But the "offense" should also be considered in context.

I also agree with you that the Sterling comparison is a strawman. Then again, I kind of said as much. I meant it to illustrate a limited point, not to say that the two situations are the same.

I further agree with you that we should have compassion for Priefer. And once again, I believe I said as much by saying that we should separate the sin from the sinner and limit punishment to a fraction of what folks have received for certain other violations (like the head coach involved in Bounty Gate, who got a full year). I hardly think that, say, a six game suspension tars Priefere as evil. Quite the contrary, it would add to the notion that he has made a mistake, received a suitable punishment, learned from his mistake, and moved on.

Consider an analogy -- and please don't tell me again that you can distinguish between the Priefer situation and this one or you'll make my fever go even higher. Michael Vick committed a crime. To some, it was no big deal, as it simply involved animals, and dumber animals than pigs. To others, it involved the killing and torture of intelligent, innocent creatures, and should have been punished by many, many years in prison. I count myself in the camp that thinks Vick didn't do enough time. But I recognize that he did a fair amount, and it was clear that the system wasn't simply slapping him on the wrist. That actually makes it easier for folks to forgive Vick than if he had received 30-days and probation. It would be easier for folks to forgive Priefer if his suspension had been four games or more.

I watched Kluwe on the Ed Show. (I'm not a fan of MSNBC or Fox News -- I was just channel surfing the news channels so I can hear anything I can about Israel/Palestine.) I saw Kluwe's schtick. Yes, Ed Schultz quoted Kluwe's earlier statement that he was screwed by "two cowards and a bigot," with Priefer being the bigot. And of course, Ed highlighted Priefer's statement about rounding up and killing the gay people so that not only did you hear it, but you also saw the statement printed out. But Kluwe wasn't there to bash Priefer. He was there to say that the Vikes should release their entire report, especially because of the 29 pages that were released, 26 dealt with Kluwe and only three dealt with Priefer.

If Kluwe's numbers are correct, that would be a big problem. The focus here should be as much on Priefer as on Kluwe. At a minimum, we know that Priefer said a truly disgusting thing -- again, just substitute "blacks" or "Jews" for "gays" and the full impact will be felt by folks who think with a late-20th century mentality as well as folks who are trying to make the 21st century different. But that's not all -- we also know that Priefer denied making the above statement after Kluwe came out with his allegations. Were it not for one witness, the long-snapper, who had the courage to admit what he heard, we'd never know the truth, and Kluwe would be characterized as a total liar by Vikings' apologists.

Now, Kluwe is asking for the entire report to be released. The Vikes are balking at that, much as Priefer balked at telling the truth when he was first confronted. I say, the Vikes can't have it both ways, either they should release the entire report, or if they don't, at least treat this seriously enough that the punishment can't be compared to a mere slap on the wrist. That's really what I'm saying, not that Priefer should be put on the Mount Rushmore of evil.

[DanAS]

If you attack someone due to color, religion, gender preference it's considered a hate crime. That does not clump the three into the same category. For starters, there weren't global wars fought over being gay, there were over religion, some still ongoing. People have been killed for being gay, attacked, etc. But you can HIDE the fact that youre gay, alot did/do it very well, you cant really hide the fact that you're black, or hispanic, or asian. See where i'm going with this?

No, but you can hide the fact that you are Jewish, say. Back in the middle of the last century, most of my relatives stayed with their communities, and lost their lives for it. I'm proud that they were true to themselves.

One of the reasons there haven't been wars over being gay is that only a small part of the population is gay and they have historically been bottled up by social taboos. To me, those are the same kind of taboos that kept white people from marrying black people. You can say that it's a troglodyte mentality, or that it's a pre-modern mentality, but hopefully we can agree that whatever you want to call it, it has to end.

[Mothman]

Jim,

I don't like to think of myself as having an "agenda" here. But perhaps for some people, it is -- much like fighting racism or sexual harassment could be viewed as an "agenda."

We agree that just because homophobia is bad doesn't mean we should draw-and-quarter everyone who has demonstrated homophobia. Punishment should be proportionate to the offense. But the "offense" should also be considered in context.

I also agree with you that the Sterling comparison is a strawman. Then again, I kind of said as much. I meant it to illustrate a limited point, not to say that the two situations are the same.

I further agree with you that we should have compassion for Priefer. And once again, I believe I said as much by saying that we should separate the sin from the sinner and limit punishment to a fraction of what folks have received for certain other violations (like the head coach involved in Bounty Gate, who got a full year). I hardly think that, say, a six game suspension tars Priefere as evil. Quite the contrary, it would add to the notion that he has made a mistake, received a suitable punishment, learned from his mistake, and moved on.

Consider an analogy -- and please don't tell me again that you can distinguish between the Priefer situation and this one or you'll make my fever go even higher. Michael Vick committed a crime. To some, it was no big deal, as it simply involved animals, and dumber animals than pigs. To others, it involved the killing and torture of intelligent, innocent creatures, and should have been punished by many, many years in prison. I count myself in the camp that thinks Vick didn't do enough time. But I recognize that he did a fair amount, and it was clear that the system wasn't simply slapping him on the wrist. That actually makes it easier for folks to forgive Vick than if he had received 30-days and probation. It would be easier for folks to forgive Priefer if his suspension had been four games or more.

I suppose but in the end, I find it hard to believe that a slightly longer suspension would make much difference at all in the bigger picture. It might make a few people feel better or make it easier for them to forgive Priefer (assuming they have any interest in forgiving him at all). for some it would be enough, for others too much, and for still others, it would seem completely inadequate. Among the other things we agree about here, I think you and I agree that the appropriate length of Priefer's is a subjective determination.

I watched Kluwe on the Ed Show. (I'm not a fan of MSNBC or Fox News -- I was just channel surfing the news channels so I can hear anything I can about Israel/Palestine.) I saw Kluwe's schtick. Yes, Ed Schultz quoted Kluwe's earlier statement that he was screwed by "two cowards and a bigot," with Priefer being the bigot. And of course, Ed highlighted Priefer's statement about rounding up and killing the gay people so that not only did you hear it, but you also saw the statement printed out. But Kluwe wasn't there to bash Priefer. He was there to say that the Vikes should release their entire report, especially because of the 29 pages that were released, 26 dealt with Kluwe and only three dealt with Priefer.

If Kluwe's numbers are correct, that would be a big problem. The focus here should be as much on Priefer as on Kluwe. At a minimum, we know that Priefer said a truly disgusting thing -- again, just substitute "blacks" or "Jews" for "gays" and the full impact will be felt by folks who think with a late-20th century mentality as well as folks who are trying to make the 21st century different. But that's not all -- we also know that Priefer denied making the above statement after Kluwe came out with his allegations. Were it not for one witness, the long-snapper, who had the courage to admit what he heard, we'd never know the truth, and Kluwe would be characterized as a total liar by Vikings' apologists.

"Apologists" who would be basing that opinion on the complete absence of any verification of Kluwe's claims, which would make them pretty darn reasonable. However, that's not a scenario we're even facing so let's forget about it.

Now, Kluwe is asking for the entire report to be released. The Vikes are balking at that, much as Priefer balked at telling the truth when he was first confronted. I say, the Vikes can't have it both ways, either they should release the entire report, or if they don't, at least treat this seriously enough that the punishment can't be compared to a mere slap on the wrist. That's really what I'm saying, not that Priefer should be put on the Mount Rushmore of evil.

It looks like we're going to find out if the Vikes can have it both ways or not.

The summary covers a number of things Kluwe claims Priefer said but it only really gives us an idea of how those interviewed responded about one of them, the most infamous comment. I'm sure that's one of the primary reasons Kluwe wants the complete investigation released. He's undoubtedly hoping it will provide further confirmation of the comments he attributes to Priefer (and perhaps it will).

However, I think you are still way off base in saying there should be as much emphasis on Priefer as on Kluwe. Again, thsi case isn't Kluwe vs. priefer. it's Kluwe vs. the Vikings. Priefer's comments are significant to the case but the real core issue, and the reason the summary focuses more on Kluwe's claims as a whole than just on his claims regarding Priefer, is the accusation of wrongful termination. If Kluwe and Halunen follow through on their threats and file this week, it sure sounds like that will be the main thrust of the lawsuit and consequently, I don't see it as a "big problem" that the summary deals more with Kluwe than with Priefer.

The summary of the investigation was prepared for the Vikings and explicitly states:

You have asked us to review RKMC’s investigative materials that you provided and to
provide you with an assessment of the investigation’s findings from an employment law
perspective, to help the Vikings decide how to address Kluwe’s claims fairly and in accordance
with the law and team policies. You have directed us to be non-partisan in our assessment of
the evidence uncovered by the Investigators.

In light of Kluwe’s allegations, we believe there are four critical questions that we must
answer to determine how the Vikings should proceed in response to Kluwe’s claims. They are:

1. Did Special Teams Coordinator Mike Priefer make homophobic comments
during the 2012 season?

2. Did members of the Vikings’ coaching staff or management improperly try to
discourage Kluwe from his activism in favor of marriage equality and LGBT
rights?

3. Did Kluwe’s activism on behalf of marriage equality and equal rights motivate
the Vikings’ decision to release him from the team in May 2013?

4. Were there institutional failures in the Vikings organization that harbored or
created a hostile work environment on the basis of sexual orientation?

Hopefully, that direct quote makes it very clear why the main focus isn't on Priefer.

[DanAS]

I try to be an open-minded person. But on the issue of whether gay people should be rounded up and killed, or merely dehumanized, humiliated, or ostracized (which is what I observed when growing up), my mind is pretty much closed. Priefer's comments still sting me a heck of a lot more than Kluwe's BS in denying that he was a mediocre, overpaid punter (which is how I would rate him late in his career).

[DanAS]

In light of Kluwe’s allegations, we believe there are four critical questions that we must
answer to determine how the Vikings should proceed in response to Kluwe’s claims. They are:

1. Did Special Teams Coordinator Mike Priefer make homophobic comments
during the 2012 season?

2. Did members of the Vikings’ coaching staff or management improperly try to
discourage Kluwe from his activism in favor of marriage equality and LGBT
rights?

3. Did Kluwe’s activism on behalf of marriage equality and equal rights motivate
the Vikings’ decision to release him from the team in May 2013?

4. Were there institutional failures in the Vikings organization that harbored or
created a hostile work environment on the basis of sexual orientation?

Hopefully, that direct quote makes it very clear why the main focus isn't on Priefer.[/quote]

That's helpful to explain the 26-3 disparity. But I still would like to see them release at least the lion's share of their report.

Mind you, I have defended the Vikes as to their decision to let Kluwe go based on his on-the-field performance -- remember, unlike others with my "agenda" here, I actually remember the stats. But I have opposed any efforts by Vikings management to chill his ability to speak out on social causes, which is another of Kluwe's accusations (hence "two cowards and a bigot"). That "don't speak out" mentality is, according to Kluwe, part of the Vikes' management "culture" that he insults in the media. By not releasing more of the report (unlike some of the other NFL investigations that have been released), the Vikes are digging themselves a hole by suggesting thatKluthey are guilty as charged.

[Mothman]

That's helpful to explain the 26-3 disparity. But I still would like to see them release at least the lion's share of their report.

Mind you, I have defended the Vikes as to their decision to let Kluwe go based on his on-the-field performance -- remember, unlike others with my "agenda" here, I actually remember the stats.

I'm getting the distinct impression that my use of the word agenda offended you, Dan, but I didn't mean it as an insult. All I was trying to say was that your priority, your "agenda" seemed to be to seriously address and change the locker room culture of the NFL. That's an admirable goal and I don't fault you for wanting to see it happen. I'd like to see it happen too.

But I have opposed any efforts by Vikings management to chill his ability to speak out on social causes, which is another of Kluwe's accusations (hence "two cowards and a bigot"). That "don't speak out" mentality is, according to Kluwe, part of the Vikes' management "culture" that he insults in the media. By not releasing more of the report (unlike some of the other NFL investigations that have been released), the Vikes are digging themselves a hole by suggesting thatKluthey are guilty as charged.

The summary addresses that accusation and I strongly suggest you read it. It doesn't take long.

[Purple Reign]

You're making several assumptions in that paragraph... my point is to wait for evidence rather than assuming it exists, assuming guilt, assuming something significant (and relevant to the case) is being hidden, etc.

But if they don't release the full report (evidence) - then we will never know for sure and then what else is there left to do but make assumptions. You can't wait for the 'evidence' if they won't release it.