By now, we have all read Kurt Streeter's original column. You may have also seen Streeter's follow-up blog-response and his near-hysterical email response to someone who commented on his column.
As Nestor put in his post, I really think Streeter is "losing it."
Please recall that it was Streeter who first brought up the issue of the alleged racial motivation of "some" of Dorrell's critics. It is not clear to me why he brought it up and that is honestly the focus of this diary.
Look carefully as Streeter gloats, in his blog response, as to the nerve he touched by addressing this alleged racial animus. "Ah ha!" he seems to be saying, "if it were not true that some of Dorrell's critics were motivated by racism, then why would so many people be so offended by this one tiny little aspect of my column?"
Because, Streeter, your words are offensive. Because, Streeter, you offered up no evidence in support of your charge. Because, pal, you waved a bloody flag and there was no reason at all to do so.
Now, I am not naive enough to think that none of Dorrell's critics are pure of mind, body and spirit when it comes to race. Or that there might be "some" people who want Dorrell to go based on the color of his skin.
Like Streeter, I have no evidence to support this theory. But I grant that it is possible.
The reason for the furor, the reason for the controversy, the reason for the pure shame of it all is this:
Here on BN, if someone calls for Dorrell to be fired, we are generally preaching to the choir. We do not need to say, "Well, he should be fired because of 66-19, or because of his blind devotion to the ineffective WCO" or whatever. If you are a regular reader on BN, you are probably already a believer.
Streeter's original column was called, "Keep Karl." It was an interview with Dorrell but more than that, it was ostensibly a reason to "keep" him as UCLA's head coach.
I am fine with someone defending Dorrell. I really am. Tell me why a coach with his record should be given another year, or two, or three, to succeed. Persuade me. I am firmly in the camp which wants a new coach, but I am open to a reasoned argument on the other side.
Interjecting the issue of the possibly questionable motives of some of Dorrell's critics does nothing to persuade me to "keep" Dorrell as head coach. Why would it?
I am not a psychologist. I do not know why Streeter thought it necessary to add this element to the discussion. But look at his ranting email response: How many times does he mention race? Why does he adopt such a sarcastic tone? Why bring up the problem of race in America? The author of the email to Streeter did not deny the existence of racial problems in America. That extra item was not on the agenda until Streeter addressed it.
I offer to you, based only on Streeter's words, that it is Streeter himself who has the problem with race. It was he who first brought up the topic. Then, when faced with responses to the same topic, it was clear that a nerve had been touched. Streeter's nerve.
I think Streeter's column was about a lot more than Dorrell and UCLA football. It was about more than race in America.
I think it was about Streeter.
I want to talk about wins and losses. I enjoy discussions about playcalling and the strengths and weakensses of our team and of our opponents. I like Sunday-morning quarterbacking. I like all that "guy" stuff because, well, I'm a guy. (I know, some women dig that stuff, too, and that is cool.)
I wanted Dorrell to succeed because he was in charge of my favorite football team. I want him gone because I believe he is the wrong man for the job. I never cared what color he was and still don't care.
I do not want to talk about race when there is no reason to do so.
It was never relevant from Day One and it still isn't relevant.
Streeter never got the memo.