Dorrell Plays Race Card: I Don't Feel I've Gotten A Fair Shake
by BruinCore on Nov 17, 2007 10:15 PM PST
Email
Printcross-posted from DumpDorrell.com
Well this will blow your mind ...
I ran some of (Dorrell critics) criticisms past (Karl Dorrell): He is too inexperienced; he has never been a head coach before. He cannot recruit; after all, don't those other teams have all-star players on their second and third strings? Only then did (Dorrell) shake his head. "I don't feel like I've gotten a fair shake."
This is from Kurt Streeter of the LAT, a Cal grad (!), on his new personal blog ... wait for it ... DontDumpDorrell.blogspot.com (we wont link to it). This is all very real apparently. An LAT columnist doesn't exactly have to be unbiased and objective, however, he is going out of his way to support Karl Dorrell by starting a personal website the sole purpose of which is to save Dorrell's job, a potential subject of his columns.
But it gets better. Cal grad Streeter pulls the race card and baits Dorrell to play it ... and Dorrell does:
Does (Karl Dorrell) feel as if he is not getting a fair shake because he is black?
"Let me put it this way," he said. "In every opportunity that I've had in my coaching career, it was never in my mind that I was dealing with a level playing field. I've had to do more to accomplish what I've accomplished."
Uneffing believable. Dorrell got one of the best coaching jobs in college football without so much as having run an offense, let alone coached a team ... and he didn't get a fair shake??!! He wasn't dealt a level playing field?? Well, on the second count maybe he wasn't ... Dorrell was given and took the WRONG job. He should have started at a smaller program and trained there. He was given a prime-time job as a training vehicle. That is where it all went wrong.
Fair shake?? What a disgrace!!! And now he is looking at those who gave him the opportunity of a lifetime ... that no one with his experience should have even sniffed at ... and he is telling them he did not get a fair shake and that he is not dealing with a level playing field!!! Utterly ungrateful ... and so damaging. What does Karl Dorrell think other University boards and presidents and athletic directors are going to think about when they are considering hiring a promising black coach?!! They are going to think about Karl Dorrell ... who played the race-card to save his job after performing well below standard. Utterly ungrateful and irresponsible!
And the pathetic Kurt Streeter deserves blame as well ... just listen to what the guy says:
I'm convinced that race plays a role in what some of you critics are saying.
That is a huge claim by an LAT columnist, but Kurt provides no evidence of this supposed racism. Here is Kurt's logic: There are racists in society that hate blacks. Karl Dorrell is black. Therefore, those who criticize Dorrell must be racist. Kurt Streeter does not belong on the pages of the LAT. Cal grad Streeter is damaging UCLA's great name in the interest of what??? Saving the job of a horrible coach who's record is nothing short of mediocre, whose record cannot stand any test of excellence ... AFTER 5 YEARS!! Kurt also doesn't realize how he is insulting minority coaches himself by holding Dorrell to a lower standard.
Kurt should read what college football analyst Jason Whitlock said about Karl Dorrell when Karl was first hired. Whitlock is black and he predicted that Karl's hiring would hurt black coaches everywhere because Karl was set to fail .. why?? Because he had no business being a head coach at UCLA ... HE WAS UNQUALIFIED:
I should be overjoyed today. I'm black. I played college football. I'm tired of seeing black assistant coaches passed over for head-coaching opportunities. Why don't I view Dorrell's hiring as a major sign of progress?
Because if Dorrell were white, I would be screaming from the rooftops, "Who the hell is this mother… and when did he become such a hotshot candidate? A 39-year-old, nondescript black NFL receivers coach would've never landed such a good job."
I hope Dorrell can coach football. Because I'm not confident the people he'll be working for know a damn thing about football ... Because if he's not ready, if he's unsuccessful at UCLA, black assistant coaches will be hearing his name, not Willingham's, every time a high-profile job becomes available.
Jason Whitlock is not a prophet, he just used sound reason to note what the future would likely hold for coach-in-training like Dorrell. And Dorrell is obviously proving him right. Kurt Streeter should also read what Dan Guerrero said when he hired Dorrell:
"Karl is a man of high principles whom I feel is well-suited to the college game," UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero said. "I believe that Karl is the man who can build UCLA football to the elite level."
Sounds like a fair shake to us. After 5 long years, are we at the "elite level" ... have we even sniffed "elite level"?? No. Karl Dorrell got his fair shake, just like Toledo - who was fired even though he won the Pac-10 title and had a better record than Karl has. Just like Lavin, who pleaded for fan reason every year he disappointed the faithful. Just like Farmer, and Hazzard, and Barnes.
Karl Dorrell has crossed the line with his comments to Kurt Streeter. He is waving a big middle finger at UCLA. It is a disgrace and it is shameful.
ps. is Karl Dorrell putting the university on notice that if he's fired he will sue based on racial discrimination??
Update: Kurt Streeter's website post actually appeared first in the LAT as his column. Shameful.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Lavin and Dorrell
I raised this possibility a couple of months ago
I, for one, did not over-estimate his integrity, and I have suspected all along that he would go in this direction to save his job.
This a-hole knows very well he could never, ever, get another opportunity like he has at UCLA.
When the race card is raised in a firing situation, Dan Patrick puts it this way: If there is race card, why is a black coach hired in the first place? You cannot bring up the race card only upon firing.
If Dorrell really had integrity
I'm thankful for the opportunity that UCLA has given me. I've worked hard to bring the program up to a certain level, both on and off the field. Off the field, I've done that. On the field, I have not met the expectations that are expected here at UCLA. UCLA is a great school and deserves a winning program. If they choose not to retain me at the end of the year I will not hold any ill will towards them, but will be thankful that I was able to coach at such a great university.
But no, we've got to hear him play the race card. That should be an insult to everyone, whatever your race is. Because you know what Karl, I'm white, but my road has not been easy either. I've had to work my ass off to get to where I'm at now, and nothing's ever been handed to me. Not a damn thing. And I know what the expectations are in my job, and I better meet them. Instead of owning up to your situation like a man, you have to spew this crap!
by NickBruin on Nov 18, 2007 6:31 AM PST up reply actions
Effect of the race card
This may sound a bit odd at first, but I have come to see its prospective use to defend bad/clearly underachieving coaches as having an effect similar to the employment laws in France (My IR background showing here). In sum, under French law, once an employer hires a young employee, it is nearly impossible to fire said employee. The result is that in recent years, the youth unemployment rate has skyrocketed. The point being that when businesses are faced with hiring an employee that can not easily be removed if business conditions or performance warrant, the employer will often not make the hire.
In terms of coaching, if the race card is used successfully to save a mediocre coach, or to bring public opinion or media pressure onto an AD, what lesson will be learned by others? What if 3 years from now, the Athletic Director at another major D-1A school faces an otherwise tough decision between 2 coaches who he believes to have equal chances of success, one of whom being of color. Think of the possibility that after a 5-7 or 6-7 season, an underachieving coach (guess who?) was able to save his job because of the threat of a wave of bad press, even cries of racism? Or that this coach was fired in spite of a slash and burn pr campaign criticizing the decision as racially motivated.
If you are this future AD, who would you hire?
My letter to Kurt Streeter
This is my first post on this board (although I have been a reader for over a year). Streeter's article was so insulting that I had to send him the following:
Kurt,
As an African American and a UCLA alum (class of '94) I found your article entitled "Keep Karl!" to be pandering and insulting.
Karl Dorrell should be fired for the same reason that anyone gets fired - because he failed to meet the agreed upon performance goals that his boss set out for him and that he accepted. In his press conference HE said that his goals were to consistently win the Pac-10, play in the Rose Bowl, and beat USC. We have not won the Pac-10 (shared titles are meaningless), we have not played in a Rose Bowl, and we have beaten SC once. And now, in his 5th season, with 20 returning starters, in what he called his "show me" season; Dorrell has embarrassed himself and the university on the field. Injuries are part of the game Kurt. Ask Utah, who demolished us without their starting QB, running back, and top two wide receivers. In any other job Dorrell would be considered an underperformer and a candidate for termination. As for his 10 win season, his predecessor Bob Toledo had TWO of them and still got fired! He has a stronger discrimination case than Dorrell.
The contention that 6 wins a year is on par for UCLA frankly shows some ignorance on your part. In the past 50 years, Sports Illustrated ranks UCLA as the #16 football program in the country. That equates to more than "6 wins per year". Just because the Dorrell era has lowered your expectations of the program, you have no business projecting that on to the rest of us.
Dan Guerrero did not hire a Truant officer, he hired a coach. Keeping his players from committing criminal acts and having them behave like civilized human beings should be a minimum requirement, not a performance goal (if it was, Pete Carroll would have been fired years ago). Being a nice guy is not a reason to be retained. There are plenty of nice people in the world who cannot coach football (Dorrell apparently being one of them).
The insulting part of your article is where you essentially claim that Dorrell should be retained primarily due to the color of his skin. This is completely antithetical to Martin Luther King's dream in which we are to be judged by our content, not by our color; by our performance, and not our skin tone. I parlayed my hard work and education into a well paying career here in San Francisco, however if I were to be offered a position in which I failed to perform, I would have too much pride as a man to try to retain that job by using my race to curry sympathy at the expense of my company. That Dorrell seems willing to do that (and you seem willing to support him) is completely pathetic and does race relations more harm than good.
I take pride in the fact that I refuse to accept mediocrity in my performance and in the performance of the coach of my football team. Don't feel sorry for Karl Dorrell. At the end of the day, he got a job he didn't deserve, got paid near seven figures for it and will get an enormous severance package after he is fired this year. Save your sympathy for real victims of racism.
by Regul8in on Nov 18, 2007 12:34 AM PST reply actions
Nice Effort
Streeter himself should be careful playing with matches- it could easily be inferred that he was given his new column to replace J.A. Adande, a fellow African-American.
Streeter's Stereotyping
As one of KD's most severe critics I resent the rascist stereotype presented by Streeter when he wrote:
"I'm convinced that race plays a role in what some of you critics are saying. To think otherwise would be plain foolish. Some of you just don't know what to make of a coach who does not fit into your convenient stereotypes."
I will put my life-long-record in the battle for social justice and equality against anyone's -- including Streeter's. I have been on the frontlines of the battles in the streets, in the fields, in courtrooms, in the media and in classrooms. I've been a part of the struggle for almost 50 years. I've not backed down from white racists and I won't back down from Streeter.
The truth is, Streeter, just doesn't know what to make of critics who use facts not name calling to point out why KD has been a failure who must be replaced.
So, he resorts to his own racial stereotypes and assumes race is what motiviates us, or that racial insensitivy clouds our judgment of KD's record.
All of the cards played by the apologists to date, including Streeter -- the injury card, the "he cleaned up the program" card, the "expectations are too high card" -- have been trumped by fact based empirical arguments on this board each time they are played.
So, Streeter stoops to play the "race card" in hopes that we will not know how to deal with it.
Shame on him. And, shame on KD for allowing him to do it.
Thanks to everyone for your comments
by Regul8in on Nov 18, 2007 3:15 PM PST up reply actions
That's the dream
Response from Streeter?
by Fedup on Nov 19, 2007 7:34 PM PST up reply actions
The Worst Call of His Career
No, the worst call in KD's career was to cooperate with Streeter in the clumsy attempt to save his job by playing the race card.
It will ensure that he will NEVER be hired for a coaching position, again.
Yes, he tries to soften the "play" by pointing out that he is not directly accusing anyone of racism -- that it might be a matter of his own personal perception -- with the "never in my mind" portion of this quote
""In every opportunity that I've had in my coaching career, it was never in my mind that I was dealing with a level playing field".
Instead of playing the card himself, he allowed Streeter to make the direct allegation on his behalf. In a set up interview as carefully choreographed as a Dancing with the Stars routine, (I love the leather couch part), KD gives his mouthpiece just what he needs to play the race card -- without it coming directly from KD's hand.
But, like he does so often, KD called the wrong play. Look carefully at the quote and you will see that KD is accusing every person at every place he has coached with racism. He claims the "unlevel playing field", which the article leads us to understand is tilted by racial prejudice, "in every opportunity" he has had.
Dumb move. Who will hire you next? Who will give you another "opportunity" knowing that, if you fail, you will make clear that that performance, as with all your others, was not fairly judged.
Shame on you. You are hurting all of the qualified people of color who just want some of the opportunities you have been given and who are willing to be judged on their performances, alone.
After you are fired, and no one beats a path to your agent's door, you may want to look at that quote and realize what you have done -- you have sealed the deal, permanently.
DG the Racist?
Just what did DG do to put KD on an "unlevel field"?
Bad move. KD. Worst play call yet.
KD
I knew this was coming. It was a matter of time.
I'm Surprised He Did It
As I've written elsewhere -- playing this card was a huge tactical mistake, a mistake I did not think KD's friends and supporters would let him make.
But, like almost every other play KD's called over the last several years, this is the wrong call at the wrong time.
First, he will not get support from the BCA or any other group that favors equal opportunity in the coaching ranks. They cannot take a stand on behalf of such a bad coach who was given a fair chance; to do so would limit the opportunities of good coaches who should be given a chance.
Second, this is the wrong place to play the card. UCLA has a stellar history on race related issues -- in the classroom, in the community and in the athletic department. No one will forget who we are and what we are. Right now, DG, makes clear our commitment to diversity. KD was hired by DG over far more experienced candidates. UCLA leveled the field for him. I'm surprised that he played a card that could further alienate DG; were I DG, I'd be more than miffed by this.
Third, I don't believe that the Donahue/Field support base will fall in behind the implicit claim of racism. In fact, I think very few of his supporters will. He may well have isolated himself from all who support him but Streeter. I can't even see the shameless tool, Dohn, going down the race street.
I am surprised that he made such a dumb move.
by Class of 66 on Nov 18, 2007 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
he has played the race card before
Is there a way to consolidate all this stuff
All of these threads contain some of the best writing I've seen on BN -- and I've seen a lot of great writing.
I'd to see it pulled together and sent to the media and to DG.
Fire him now
Wow
Get a good seat, boys and girls. This figures to get real interesting!
by Fedup on Nov 18, 2007 11:29 AM PST reply actions
FIRE
Sorry, dustball, no can do.
(And if you don't know about the fishwrap appellation, find the Jim Healy site with his many, many sayings. It's good to look at that from time to time even you don't have a reason for doing so.)
If I could talk to Dorrell right now . .
When he was hired, my first take was to accept him with open arms as a member of the Bruin Family. When he struggled early in his career here at UCLA I defended him by saying that Toledo had left an empty talent pool and he needed time to improve recruiting. When we lost to Arizona during our 10-2 season, I defended him by saying that the team as a whole got caught looking ahead to South Central. In 2006, I defended him by saying that injuries had cut short Ben Olson's promising season and Pat Cowan was experiencing difficulties being thrust into the starting line up.
But after Utah I ran out of excuses. Out of the many dissapointments we have suffered during the Dorrell tenure, Utah is the one glaring example where I could not make excuses. We lost to a team without it's starting QB, RB, 2 WRs, the defense was plagued with injuries, and it's not like Urban Meyer is still coaching there.
And the thanks I get for defending Dorrell over the years is to be labeled a racist? Really? As so many have said before me, I have lost all remaining respect for you. Gone is all the good will you have engendered for wins over USC, Cal twice, a 10-2 season; the 2004 game against USC we won and got robbed by conspiratorial referees.
Karl Dorrell you are dead to me. Please leave.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
