NBC suspends Jeremy Roenick for inappropriate remarks

[Reggie Dunlop]

NBC HR is naturally doing a thorough internal investigation to determine if there's other incidents, not only with Roenick but other staff. The suspension is warranted.

Hard to say at this point whether Roenick is fired. On the surface, an apology and agreeing to undergo sensitivity training might be enough. But these are different times.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

It's bizarre to me that people are so fervently in favor of self-censoring whenever there is a possibility of someone being offended. I listened to the interview and it was slightly risque while obviously being a joke involving friends. If that offended you then you should limit what you listen to, not try and restrict what other people can say or do.

Who is doing that?

NBC employs him, if they want to suspend him for his comments what right is it of yours to tel then they can’t? If that action offends you couldn’t you simply stop tuning into NBC?

These conversations seem to circle the same drain over and over. Do I think he should be fired? No, but I also understand that joking about a threesome with your co-worker is over the line, so whatever happens, happens. I’m not going to get my feathers ruffled if a corporation makes a hiring or firing decision I don’t like. If I do, I’ll blame them directly and speak with my wallet. I’m not going to blame some “cultural boogeyman.”

And as far as the idea that Roenick was hired to be controversial. Sure he was... about hockey. Not about banging his coworkers. Even controversial guys have lines and sometimes those lines change, sometimes they don’t and it’s just the first time the person has crossed it.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

On the surface, an apology and agreeing to undergo sensitivity training might be enough. But these are different times.

Assuming there's no other incidents, I would be disappointed if it was anymore than this. I am completely fine with a reasonable suspension, and certainly he should receive sensitivity training but I don't think there was malice. Without the malice (which I think separates this from say Peters), then I think this should just go down as a mistake that hopefully he, and others, learn from and overall be looked at as a positive.

Tappen is shown that she is respected by NBC and won't let her male coworkers degrade her, even in jest.

NBC shows they don't have tolerance for inappropriate sexual remarks.

Roenick can apologize and learn from it.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Jiri, out of curiosity, did you listen to the interview in its entirety?

I listened to the entire episode the day it came out. I was driving and had to rewind the part where he alluded to the threesome. I was in the car by myself and reflexively said out loud “he’s gonna want this interview pulled ASAP” because it was obviously inappropriate even in a joking context.

Even if he has that kind of open and joking personal relationship with Tappen, it’s not something that should be talked about in that manner considering she’s a coworker. I learned as much in workplace harassment training 20 years ago!

[Oling_Roachinen]

Also, I'm conflicted about how much weight you can put on Tappen here. Of course she's the most important person to consider but she could feel pressure to toe-the-line, keep her head down and accept the remarks just so she doesn't cause a wave, being a female in a male dominated industry. And of course she's friends with Roenick's wife, and probably Roenick, so she could have felt insulted or degraded without wanting to ruin her friends career. Inversely, she could feel pressure to speak out as a woman in the industry having many others looking up to her.

Niche situation, but it's sort of what happened on Survivor this season where Kellee was unreasonably pressured to decide the fate of one of her inappropriate "coworkers" which she felt was unfair, and CBS said they wouldn't do again.

And even Aliu felt pressured to take that photo who's "coworkers" thought was just a friendly joke as well.

So I think companies need just blanket policies, and at that top of that list right now will be sexual harassment.

[powderjunkie]

The best people to judge whether it's reasonable for women/minorities to be offended are definitely white men.

Life pro tip: just because someone says they aren't offended by something, doesn't mean they aren't (or shouldn't be). Any other response risks them being labeled as a snowflake.

If there's any question of something being offensive, it probably is. Doesn't mean there can't be a time/place for it, but there also isn't anything of substance 'lost' by just not being dicks when the opportunity presents itself.

[dino7c]

NBC is well within their rights...they do hire many of these commentators due to their looks/sexuality though. Hard to take their stance to seriously

Most sports desks are hot blonde/couple fat old losers

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Who is doing that?



NBC employs him, if they want to suspend him for his comments what right is it of yours to tel then they can’t? If that action offends you couldn’t you simply stop tuning into NBC?



These conversations seem to circle the same drain over and over. Do I think he should be fired? No, but I also understand that joking about a threesome with your co-worker is over the line, so whatever happens, happens. I’m not going to get my feathers ruffled if a corporation makes a hiring or firing decision I don’t like. If I do, I’ll blame them directly and speak with my wallet. I’m not going to blame some “cultural boogeyman.”



And as far as the idea that Roenick was hired to be controversial. Sure he was... about hockey. Not about banging his coworkers. Even controversial guys have lines and sometimes those lines change, sometimes they don’t and it’s just the first time the person has crossed it.

I am commenting on the decision of NBC, not trying to tell them they are not allowed to make one. Just as you expressed your opinion on where you think the line is and what the appropriate response would be. Just because my view does not align with yours does not make what I am doing different.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Also, I'm conflicted about how much weight you can put on Tappen here. Of course she's the most important person to consider but she could feel pressure to toe-the-line, keep her head down and accept the remarks just so she doesn't cause a wave, being a female in a male dominated industry. And of course she's friends with Roenick's wife, and probably Roenick, so she could have felt insulted or degraded without wanting to ruin her friends career. Inversely, she could feel pressure to speak out as a woman in the industry having many others looking up to her.

Niche situation, but it's sort of what happened on Survivor this season where Kellee was unreasonably pressured to decide the fate of one of her inappropriate "coworkers" which she felt was unfair, and CBS said they wouldn't do again.

And even Aliu felt pressured to take that photo who's "coworkers" thought was just a friendly joke as well.

So I think companies need just blanket policies, and at that top of that list right now will be sexual harassment.

In a properly run organization retaliation is taken serious. She is allowed to feel the way she does. I would expect HR rep to have a confidential conversation with her and share only a general review back to management.

Anyways, if Jeremy is as buddy with this lady as he says he is, he shouldn’t worry at all. If he isn’t and she is offended I think it just proves the point on warranting suspension.

[DiracSpike]

I can’t believe JR would joke about having sex with a coworker. Top it all off that he also commented on their looks. Yeah, he also mentioned later that they were a great broadcaster as well but it’s a little late when he’s already made overt statements on their face and body. You just can’t joke about having sex with a coworker, and now that JR knows that let’s hope he never degrades Patrick Sharp again no matter how physically attractive he finds him.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by dino7c

NBC is well within their rights...they do hire many of these commentators due to their looks/sexuality though. Hard to take their stance to seriously

Most sports desks are hot blonde/couple fat old losers

This is so bizarre.

What someone looks like is no licence to say ridiculous offside comments.

How is that hard to take NBC’s stance serious?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Yoho

This is so bizarre.

What someone looks like is no licence to say ridiculous offside comments.

How is that hard to take NBC’s stance serious?

Who said that? I am saying NBC are hypocrites...they hire broadcasters based largely on T and A in some cases and then cry foul on this

Hey, I suppose she might have been the most knowledgeable about baseball of those who applied

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Who said that? I am saying NBC are hypocrites...they hire broadcasters based largely on T and A in some cases and then cry foul on this

Hey, I suppose she might have been the most knowledgeable about baseball of those who applied

No doubt appearances matter in broadcast television but I wouldn’t say it’s based largely on t and a
More importantly that doesn’t let jr of the hook
That’s like saying if bars hire attractive servers they should expect to tolerate sexual harassment from their fellow staff members, and the bar shouldn’t do anything about it when it happens

[canadiancactus]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Who said that? I am saying NBC are hypocrites...they hire broadcasters based largely on T and A in some cases and then cry foul on this

Hey, I suppose she might have been the most knowledgeable about baseball of those who applied

nm

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Who said that? I am saying NBC are hypocrites...they hire broadcasters based largely on T and A in some cases and then cry foul on this

Hey, I suppose she might have been the most knowledgeable about baseball of those who applied

If you think that NBC are hypocrites, you really don't get it.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The best people to judge whether it's reasonable for women/minorities to be offended are definitely white men.

This thread is a great example of a bunch of (mostly) white men telling other (mostly) white men how they should feel about an incident...

[memphusk]

Is sensitivity training the nice way of saying the world is soft, or just saying shut your mouth?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Who is doing that?

NBC employs him, if they want to suspend him for his comments what right is it of yours to tel then they can’t? If that action offends you couldn’t you simply stop tuning into NBC?

These conversations seem to circle the same drain over and over. Do I think he should be fired? No, but I also understand that joking about a threesome with your co-worker is over the line, so whatever happens, happens. I’m not going to get my feathers ruffled if a corporation makes a hiring or firing decision I don’t like. If I do, I’ll blame them directly and speak with my wallet. I’m not going to blame some “cultural boogeyman.”

And as far as the idea that Roenick was hired to be controversial. Sure he was... about hockey. Not about banging his coworkers. Even controversial guys have lines and sometimes those lines change, sometimes they don’t and it’s just the first time the person has crossed it.

Great post. It really comes down to basically a business decision.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The best people to judge whether it's reasonable for women/minorities to be offended are definitely white men.

Life pro tip: just because someone says they aren't offended by something, doesn't mean they aren't (or shouldn't be). Any other response risks them being labeled as a snowflake.

If there's any question of something being offensive, it probably is. Doesn't mean there can't be a time/place for it, but there also isn't anything of substance 'lost' by just not being dicks when the opportunity presents itself.

While I generally speaking do agree with you I wonder why we care so much about people being offended? Not necessarily this incident or context but there seems to be a lot of arenas lately where the social contract is being restructured around who or what is being “offended”. In a wildly diverse world we truly are bound to offend people eventually one way or the other across different degrees and at some point whether people are “offended” or not should probably stop mattering.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Matt Lauer forced unwanted anal sex on a coworker sooo a little different.(but I see what you are saying)

I’m not sure why you rephrased rape.