OMHA Racial Slur Incident

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

The difference is that she stood up to racist rules. The coach was running away from an ignorant kid.



How did the coach stand up for anything? He, and his team, ran away. And where does it say that the only two options are running away or doing nothing?

well pehaps he should have just shot the kid then

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

The difference is that she stood up to racist rules. The coach was running away from an ignorant kid.



How did the coach stand up for anything? He, and his team, ran away. And where does it say that the only two options are running away or doing nothing?

Mr. Walsh made the decision after the on-ice officials and the opposing coach allowed the offending player back onto the ice.

....

The other boy’s coach benched him for the rest of the second period, but when he rejoined the ice at the beginning of the third period without anyone coming over to apologize or offer an explanation, Walsh was outraged.


The whole team agreed to forfeit the game they were winning in support of McCullum.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

well pehaps he should have just shot the kid then

Or beat him up.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

It befuddles me about this whole "yeah it was wrong, but they should have just stayed and played. they made the wrong decision".

Its a minor hockey game people. For fun. A game. Some things in life - like dealing with racism - are a bit more important. But may be that's just me.

I just don't understand what was so right about quitting.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

It befuddles me about this whole "yeah it was wrong, but they should have just stayed and played. they made the wrong decision".

Its a minor hockey game people. For fun. A game. Some things in life - like dealing with racism - are a bit more important. But may be that's just me.

Except it wasn't racism. It was a racist remark. Rosa Parks fought against racial discrimination. This was just a stupid kid. It wasn't the coach's place to determine how to handle it.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I just don't understand what was so right about quitting.

Some people are so eager to demonstrate their political correctness that they don't care what he would have done. They would have supported it regardless. He was fighting racism!!

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Some people are so eager to demonstrate their political correctness that they don't care what he would have done. They would have supported it regardless. He was fighting racism!!

I'm starting to get that impression.

There are many different ways that this situation could have been handled, the way the coach and the team chose wasn't the smartest nor most effective IMO. I may not think he deserved a season long suspension, but he did break the rules.

A good lesson to the kids would have been to go back out there, finish the job they came to do, and lodge a proper complaint following the game ASAP.

[Devils'Advocate]

Okay. You are sitting at a table with someone who starts using the N word. You say that you are not sticking around to associate with people that are so blatantly racist. In your world view, that is "being a chicken" and "running away"?

I think boycotting a game on account of not holding a racist accountable is the furthest thing from "running away". It's confronting the issue rather than ignoring it and going about your business. I think going on with the game would have been the chicken-sh*t thing to do. It definitely would have been the SAFE thing to do.

[flamesfever]

From what I have read of the matter, I believe Walsh ended the game primarly because he did not agree with how the situation was being handled by those in authority i.e. the referees and the opposing coach. By not discussing the matter with him before allowing the offending player back on the ice in the third period, he obviously felt the matter should have been treated much more seriously, and therefore acted by ending the game in order to make a statement.

It could be argued that Walsh should have initiated a discussion with the refs and the opposing coach to clarify their decision, before ending the game (although this may have happened and I missed it).

In any case, I believe the decision to suspend Walsh for the full season was ill-advised, and will reflect poorly on the OMHA. And they should reconsider their decision and reinstate him as soon as possible.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Okay. You are sitting at a table with someone who starts using the N word. You say that you are not sticking around to associate with people that are so blatantly racist. In your world view, that is "being a chicken" and "running away"?

I think boycotting a game on account of not holding a racist accountable is the furthest thing from "running away". It's confronting the issue rather than ignoring it and going about your business. I think going on with the game would have been the chicken-sh*t thing to do. It definitely would have been the SAFE thing to do.

Although in your case things are pretty black and white. You have no obligation to stay and you are only responsible for yourself. The case is much different for the coach.

And the whole not holding a racist accountable? How has the hockey association had time to hold him accountable when the coach made his decision? Who made the coach the person who decides how the player who made the remarks should be held accountable?

The officials apparently didn't hear the remarks so it might have came down to a he said/she said situation. Is the ref supposed to kick a player out of the game for something their opponent claims they said? Do you not see the potential for abuse there?

Again, there are other options other than 'do nothing' or 'quit'.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

The officials apparently didn't hear the remarks so it might have came down to a he said/she said situation. Is the ref supposed to kick a player out of the game for something their opponent claims they said? Do you not see the potential for abuse there?.

Well, considering that apparently "2 game officials did"....

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...o-opposed-slur

At the game in question, McCullum and a player on the opposing Austin Trophies team were sent to the penalty box after a confrontation. There, two game officials witnessed the player call McCullum “the N-word.”

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Except it wasn't racism. It was a racist remark. Rosa Parks fought against racial discrimination. This was just a stupid kid. It wasn't the coach's place to determine how to handle it.

I'm sure the kid that was called the N word realized the hair splitting difference that you are arguing too.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Although in your case things are pretty black and white. You have no obligation to stay and you are only responsible for yourself. The case is much different for the coach.

And the whole not holding a racist accountable? How has the hockey association had time to hold him accountable when the coach made his decision? Who made the coach the person who decides how the player who made the remarks should be held accountable?

The officials apparently didn't hear the remarks so it might have came down to a he said/she said situation. Is the ref supposed to kick a player out of the game for something their opponent claims they said? Do you not see the potential for abuse there?

Again, there are other options other than 'do nothing' or 'quit'.

How do you know he is not obliged to sit at the table?
Is he in a meeting, a vegas poker game, world arm wrestling competition, at the in-laws for dinner, CIA interrogation

So you are wrong it is not black and white

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I'm starting to get that impression.

There are many different ways that this situation could have been handled, the way the coach and the team chose wasn't the smartest nor most effective IMO. I may not think he deserved a season long suspension, but he did break the rules.

A good lesson to the kids would have been to go back out there, finish the job they came to do, and lodge a proper complaint following the game ASAP.

I have been talking about this with my 14 year old for awhile since it came up in another thread. I think I agree with you.

My reasoning is this- My son plays on a basketball team that's coached by a black male, probably mid 30s I'd say. His team has 10 players, 7 black, 1 Russian, and 2 white kids. My son is very tall for just turning 14, 6'3 and he weighs 205. Last night he scored 16 points and one of the kids said 'Not too bad for a white guy.' This isn't the first time he's been razzed for being 'a white guy' and I am sure it won't be the last. They call him cracker/whitey and all kinds of other names, and his coach does it too. I really never even thought about it before, just sort of laughed along. But- I was thinking of this situation in hockey and I asked my son last night what he would have done in the same situation. He said 'Mom, they are just stupid words by stupid kids. The main thing is, we win the game. No way I'd want to stop playing over some stupid comment or name calling.'

Now, mind you, he's been brought up in Mid-Western America, not Canada. Racial issues here are just so different than I remember in Canada.

Just some comments from another perspective. I am not saying the coach was wrong- but I think that pulling the team was probably not the best way to handle the situation.

[SeeBass]

perhaps the best thing to say is we were not there, so how the heck do we really know what was right or wrong at that time?

[something]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

perhaps the best thing to say is we were not there, so how the heck do we really know what was right or wrong at that time?

It's important to be humble in our perspective on matters or any event that we were not present to witness, but we must form some accountability at some point. Consider the following: would you tell your kid when he comes home and lets you know that he was beaten up for his lunch money, "Sorry kiddo, I wasn't there, maybe you could have handled it better though?".

What a lot of the posters in this thread is forgetting is that any comment that arbitrarily, or superficially, denigrates another human, there ought to be some accountability. If you were told that you were a terrible hockey player by the opponent, it doesn't matter whether or not you are. You can demonstrate through your actions on the rink, by playing to the best of your ability whether or not such a statement is correct. If, however, someone derogated your character with no reasonable method of demonstrating the falsity of such a statement, you have no rationally connected recourse. So, for example, if you were denigrated by way of a racial slur, how could playing hockey possibly demonstrate the absurdity of such a remark - "You're a n_____" "Oh yeah? Watch my slap shot!" Failing to respond rationally will ultimately condone such ignorance.

BigBrodieFan - while I condone your child's ostensibly excellent coping mechanisms and stoic attitude, I disagree with his response. It fails to hold the offenders accountable for their comments; even though the derogatory nature of those comments can be nullified by the absence of any concern. Explaining this: language acquires substance by reciprocation; the words you use in communicating with me must be agreed upon by myself if they are to hold any substance. If I disagree with the meaning of a word you use, the worth of that word becomes voided. If you were to make a random noise with the utmost hatred towards me, it would have little effect. What we are addressing here, then, is the attempt and intention of another person to denigrate someone else without proper justification - something much more fundamental than "just words".

I do not want to presume your socioeconomic status, but probability would suggest that your son has greater future worth than children of a minority. Socioeconomic potential is a buffer to such denigration. Minorities often form identities that seek pride in who they are as is identified by the disparities among them and the majority. When you slur a child of a minority, there exists the potential of exacerbating these identities, promoting disparity. Pop culture is an excellent indication of this, as children of a minority are disposed to artists that represent their identity. Before anyone suggests that I am promoting cultural hegemony, I am not. Nevertheless, when you suppress a population on an superficially identifiable characteristic that is incongruent with mainstream conditions promoting socioeconomic worth, you catalyze tension and conflict.

This is not to say your son is immune to hurtful remarks, and I do commend his courage in the face of such remarks. I am asking only that you be sensitive to the labeling of a child other than your own, who may need some guidance and support to realize that they are not less than others.

The coach and the child who declared the racial slur must be accountable for their actions, alike. The decision of the OMHA to suspend the coach for the remainder of the season is disproportionate to the "offence" he committed. It's not like the coach was worried about making Starbucks before it closed so he could grab a venti frappuccino. He was reasonably disappointed with the officials inability to hold the offending child accountable, and exercised his discretion, not tyrannically, but democratically, to forfeit the game and send a powerful message that racism will not be tolerated.

That the OMHA did not account for these circumstances and punished the coach unduly and without proper consideration has reduced the organizations integrity, in my eyes.

[Mad Mel]

You can bet that the next time an incident like this occurs on the ice, the officials and the league will deal with it properly.

Well done, coach.

[Dion]

Ontario Human Rights Commission Barbara Hall voiced her support of Walsh’s actions in a letter to The Examiner on Friday.

Walsh bravely defended his player’s right not to be the subject of racial slurs and led his team off the ice in protest, Hall states.

“His action was admirable,” she states. “But the way he is being treated by the Ontario Minor Hockey Association – a full-season suspension – is not. All of us, on and off the ice, should stand up and say no to racist conduct.”

Sports organizations should be prohibiting, not sanctioning, racist conduct, Hall states.

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/hoc.../16599916.html

The decision has also prompted threats of a boycott of the OMHA’s three major corporate sponsors: Maple Lodge Farms, Pizza Pizza and Chrysler’s Dodge Caravan Kids.

Meanwhile, the organization Artists Against Racism will give Walsh its 2010 “Take A Stand” award. “He’s a great role model, and if we don’t recognize him, people won’t have the strength in the future to take a stand,” said executive director Lisa Cherniak.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...d-hockey-coach

[HOZ]

I see political correctness reigns supreme again on CP. Quoting Barbara Hall

I wonder how many here have actually PLAYED a game of hockey?.... shiny doesn't count. Obviously people believe that there are a lot of pleases and thank you's out there in heat of the battle and this kid dropped a bomb on polite society.

Anyways, the coaches actions were way over the top. He amputated his leg to fix a hangnail. There were many far more subtle and effective ways of dealing with this.

I don't know what the OMHA's guideline for racial slurs but a 3 game suspension sounds about right. I would assume they have issued a warning that anything further will result in a far serious penalty. I personally would have demanded a letter or letters of apology to be written.

[something]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I see political correctness reigns supreme again on CP. Quoting Barbara Hall

What, exactly, is political correctness? If I, or anyone else, were to be "PC", would that void our argument?

Or perhaps you have a better refutation to anyone opposing racism than to suggest they are being "PC".

I don't rely on the current state of racism in sports to indicate it's appropriateness. That's called the naturalistic fallacy - that something be merited by virtue of it's existence. It also coincidentally falls susceptible another known logical fallacy - circular reasoning.

There is no rational connection between the competitiveness of any sport, and a violation of human dignity. As I mentioned before, there is a big difference between the following two statements: "Your slaps shot f_____g sucks" and "you n_____r".

Both are vulgar, but only one of them can be qualified in the competitive environment, the other cannot. Take a wild guess which is which.

Mr. Ropchan may not be my first choice, but you somehow sneak in lower...