Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leadership. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Baseball Plays a Race Card: A Review of 42


In the United States, the race card plays as a trump. It beats other hands and plays. It shifts the dynamic and often the rules of a game. Today people mutter that minorities play the race card for gain or protection. But the history the race card is deeper and uglier. The race trump has a long history of lots of bad and a little good. The South played it at the Constitutional Convention to enshrine slavery. The South played it to end fugitive slave laws and hold the north hostage for fifty years prior to the civil war. Lincoln played it to help win the civil war, and Republicans used it to reconstruct the South. The Democrats played it to begin segregation and the Republicans played it under Nixon to create the modern race based Republican party. You get the picture.


By 1947 the plays of the race card had resulted in a segregated America reflected in sports where parallel worlds of sports, especially baseball coexisted in the economic and cultural shadow of professional baseball. In 1947 amid the tumult of the post war years, Branch Rickey the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers played the race card big time in America’s biggest sport and source of heroic narrative baseball. He shattered the rebuilt Maginot line of cultural and legal racial segregation—separate but equal—by bringing in Jackie Robinson—number 42—to be the first Negro player in the major leagues.

I once asked my dad, a midwestern moderate Republican, why he so strongly supported civil rights He looked at me and said, “I fought with Negroes in the war. They defended our country. They deserve their rights.” That’s all he said and that’s all he needed to say. His comments always stayed with me and came through very powerfully when I watched the stately and careful story of how Jackie Robinson broke the color line in baseball for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the movie 42.

 Americans have always played out their diverse tensions in their movies. It could be the racist old south defense of Birth of a Nation or the stories of multi-ethnic platoons in World War II movies or the gangster or Indian stereotypes in the movies of the thirties and fifties. Movies could respond to and help move the culture in revising these narratives as the great Godfather moves rethought the gangster narratives.

Sports has always thread through American consciousness as a source of identity, community and proxy conflict. Sports movies ally two powerful cultural forces and can address head on the many racial and gender issues. 42 continues that tradition as well as the recalling of how raw and real racism was and is with such movies as GloryRoad and Remember the Titans.

In post war America baseball occupied a unique spot as THE American sport. It riveted attention of the entire country and provided endless narratives of heroic figures. The Post-war era heightened this heroic focus because so many great players had fought in the war. Bob Feller, Joe DiMaggio, Stan Musial or Ted Williams now returned as heroes of war and sport. 42 focuses upon how this time provided a window of opportunity for Rickey to attack the fundamental taboo and color line that segregated America into two decidedly unequal cultures.

Played with crusty and mumbling charm and surprising strength by Harrison Ford, Branch Rickey laid the ground work carefully having scouted the Negro leagues for years. He prepared his own assessment of the various candidates to be the first. He turned down several candidates for not possessing the type of mental toughness to endure the abuse and stress of being the first. He thought and culled as much as the civil rights movement trained its workers during the fifties to prepare for the abuse and violence they would experience in the south.


Questioned by his own staff about the wisdom of the choice, Rickey responded in terms of sheer money and talent. He would draw in Negro fans and tap an untapped reservoir of motivated talent that could give the Dodgers a competitive edge. In public he explained the race card as about money and talent.

The movie does a fine-grained job of showing how important support from the top remained. When Robinson’s minor league manager said, “not bad for a nigger,” Rickey informed him “you call him that again, you are fired.” The lesson remains true; changing a culture requires unwavering support from the top.

Rickey turns to the famed Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro League. Jackie Robinson, played with stoic intensity by Chadwick Boseman, is chosen. In Rickey’s eyes Robinson had served as an officer in the war with a record of “insubordination” that really meant he refused to knuckle under to racism. Robinson came battle tested and a veteran. He had played baseball for UCLA that meant he could get along with white players. And he played the game with ferocious abandon dedicated to winning. To Rickey’s eye he possessed the unflinching physical courage and toughness that could help him endure what Rickey believed would be a hell storm of abuse and assault.

Robinson and his new wife worried with good reason about doing this. But the money and the chance to prove that he could compete at the best level drew him. Robinson saw himself as an individual, an incredibly strong and proud and private man, who never grew comfortable with being a symbol. A true American he wanted to achieve success as an individual, but had to serve as a reluctant but strong symbol and pathfinder. The movie makes clear that his marriage remained his source of strength and renewal amid the brutal attacks.

In a crucial meeting between Branch Rickey and Robinson, Rickey race baits Robinson. It infuriates Robinson, the anger the pain explode, “You want a player who doesn't have the guts to fight back?” Branch Rickey responds, “No. I want a player who's got the guts *not* to fight back.”

Rickey knows that Robinson is a living test and he cannot flunk it or a whole generation of young raising Negro players will have their dreams postpone longer.  Rickey ends with the warning “Your enemy will be out in force. But you cannot meet him on his own low ground.”

The movie lances through the endless private and wounding moments that illustrate the sheer tax of being black in America. Having to hide in a car being chased by rednecks. Having to live in a private home in a different part of town from the team. Having to fight hotels to be housed and served with the team. Having to take a shower separate from his teammates. Being ignored by cabs. Having to have a driver just to protect him. Walking down a street of white people abraded his life with endless affronts. This black tax exists today, very real, but more hidden.

And yet amid the endless fear and tenseness moments of grace occur. A white worker crosses the street to Robinson and his wife who both go into a defensive crouch. The worker simply thanks and congratulates him and tells him that he supports him. You can see some of this in the crowds slowly changing expectations.


Yet one scene remains with anyone who sees the movie. A young boy sits with his father and watches the game. The boy admires Robinson’s skill and drive, but when his dad starts screaming “go home nigger” and everyone else does too, the boy, almost in tears, joins his father, screaming at the player he wanted to admire. As another fifties’ artifact stated in South Pacific, “you have to teach them to hate.” It can feel like a bludgeon sometimes, but the movie records the reality of the daily assault, and we need to remember who we were and are trying to move beyond.

The press of outside culture never ends, but the deepest wounds to Robinson came from within the game. His own teammates signed a petition to not play if Robinson played. Leo Durocher the Dodger’s brash and brilliant manager played to perfection by Christopher Meloni ended those attacks and created enough fear among them to keep overt racist attacks at a distance. Durocher prophetically reminded the players that they played as a protected oligopoly. When the color line broke, a whole generation of talented, driven and skilled Negro players would compete for their jobs. A prophecy, for good and bad, that modern rosters of professional teams prove.
Durocher, however, is suspended for a year when he has an affair, and the Catholic Youth Organization condemns him. Facing a CYO boycott, the baseball commissioner suspends Durocher. Durocher’s replacement, the burnt out and ineffectual Burt Shotton is utterly incapable of standing up for Robinson. Robinson is stranded alone in the clubhouse while teammates lead by pitcher Fritz Ostermueller harass and undercut Robinson.

Yet slowly Robinson’s skill, ferocious drive to win and dignity win over a few players. One actually invites Robinson to start taking showers with the team in a very funny awkward scene.
His team does not support him; his manager is ineffectual and while slowly winning some players and fans, the worst remains. Branch is called by owners of teams, especially Cincinnati, who demand the Dodgers not play Robinson against them. Rickey does not back down and suggests the other teams forfeit.

The movie reaches its moral and critical center when the team plays Philadelphia. Ben Chapman, played with stunning guile and meanness by Alan Tudyk , stands at the dugout and baits and screams “nigger, nigger, nigger.”  The whole theater reacts in discomfort at this casual stilleto striek. Chapman abuses Robinson and taunts Robinson’s quiet teammates with a moral ugliness that is real and effective. Here and only here do we see the sheer physical and mental anguish and toll it takes upon Robinson’s herculean dignity. In real life he kept this inside and at home.

The Philly manager just explains that players all each other “wops” and “kikes< during the game. Chapman claims its all in good fun. It is not, he and everyone else knows it especially Robinson’s shamed teammates who do not support him. The cowardice of his teammates and ineffectual manager allow it to continue.  Rickey intervenes and forces baseball to act and get a public apology.
The endless moral and mental abuse slowly starts to awaken some of his teammates. Several had asked to be traded by Rickey and in one case he accommodates them sending him to “Pittsburgh!!” of all places. 

But Pee Wee Reese (well played by Lucas Black), southerner, veteran, good boy, basically decent man, does not know what to do. All he wants to do is “Play the game.” “Just play the game.” He wished the symbolic power would go away, but it is not longer just a game. It has become a morality play for the whole nation and the whole nation’s identity. Reese and others are asked to live up to the code of the game and cover their teammates back.

At Cincinnati, a very southern and hostile town, Reese walks and puts his arm around Robinson as a gesture of solidarity before the city and Reese’s own relatives. At one level Robinson cannot understand it, but to Reese and to many others, it marks one small step, steps we are still taking each day. Reese himself had ultimately been pushed over the line by admiration for Robinson’s play and Robinson’s own support of players. Reese knows his own anger at how the Philly manager had treated Robinson, but he is also angry at himself and the team for breaking the code and not supporting their own teammate.

The movie works well to remind us again of where we come from and how powerful sports can be for our collective identity. It also reminds us of how hard and lonely and ugly it can be to be a true pathfinder. We understand what so many black professionals understand that they must be better than their white peers just to be considered equal. At some points the inwardness of Robinson hides the full cost. His Spartan dignity and devotion to his wife and winning cover much of the sorrow and pain. But in real life Robinson died at the age of 52 of a heart attack, long before he should. Perhaps the internal cost of the external hatred he endured with so much self-possession.

42 does miss how deeply woven the Jackie Robinson story is into the fabric of the times. Truman integrated the army. Marian Anderson sang at the Lincoln Memorial. Paul Robeson stalked the stages, and Thurgood Marshall and the NCAA pushed up the intensity of their efforts in the south. Robinson mattered not just to baseball, but as an unavoidable and daily reminder that change challenged America’s definition of itself in the daily sports stage where many Americans defined themselves.

America’s self-narrative depends profoundly upon its ideal of meritocracy. Sports enthrall us because it is played out drama in real  time with no certainty and because it is brutally meritocratic. Elite sports exposes incompetence with glaring harshness. Money and fame and even last year’s success does not matter. All that matters is how you compete and contribute to winning. Only the best or the ones that fit into a winning team concept succeed and flourish.

Robinson opened an arena where as Leo Durocher predicted an entire generation of elite trained and hungry black athletes were waiting to come and take protected white players jobs. You can even spot the modern counter argument by one sportscaster that Negro players have inherent physical advantages that make them perfect for sports. A Negro’s very success in sports becomes a confirmation of their lack of status in other realms. Racism and the race card plays both ways in many games as trump and counter-trump

Robinson displayed extraordinary grace and self-discipline and the courage not to fight back under ugly and grueling conditions. Yet just as the black soldiers earned the grudging respect and admiration of their fellow soldiers in World War II, Robinson earned the respect of his teammates not just with his skill but his courage and his focused fury on the base paths.

The true accomplishment of these sports narratives lies in something deeper and more human. In a private conversation Robinson asks Rickey about why Rickey did this. Robinson refuses to accept the normal economic answers. Rickey talks of his own failure to protect and help succeed a young talented black player in his early coaching days. Then he speaks of the great and vital success of Robinson. He watched a young sandlot boy bend over and rub his hands in dirt just like Robinson. He looked at Robinson and said, there it is “a white boy wants to be like a black man.” 

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

The Precarious World of College Coaches and ADs


As I reflect on the new year I can’t help but think about the 25 college football coaches who changed jobs at the end of last year. About 20 were fired, and the rest moved to new jobs. The coaching slaughter at D1 athletics occurs annually. Sometimes it is richly deserved as with Bobby Petrino for his scurrilous lying and cheating at Arkansas. This year we learned elite college coaches now only have two years to turn around programs with Jon Embree at Colorado. Sometimes it ends a fine career as with Ted Tedford’s ten years at Cal. This predictable year-end carnage got me to thinking of how brutal college athletics leadership has become, and how insecure the tenure is for the senior elite college athletic leaders—coaches and athletic directors. I believe this  remarkable insecurity helps drive  the craziness of recruiting, cheating and salaries in elite college sports.

To get some perspective I thought over my almost eight years serving as a faculty athletic representative in the Pacific 10/12 conference. While my numbers may not be perfect based upon faulty memory, here is the carnage of the 10 original Pac 10 schools over that 8-year period:

Athletic Directors            21

Football Coaches            22

Basketball Coaches         24

30 leadership positions associated with revenue sports—67 personnel changes—200+ percent turnover.

The PAC 10/12 is a destination conference; most leave involuntarily. Only six left voluntarily, one to be a college vice president and one to be a conference commissioner, 2 to the NFL and 1 to the NBA. The rest left under duress. Athletic directors and head football and basketball coaches do not get fired or hired these days without the involvement of the college presidents.  This means all these firings involved the complicity of the President and often regents of the university.

NCAA President Mark Emmert dislikes the locution “business of college athletics,” so do I. Maybe the "enterprise of college athletics?" Not sure, but no words can hide the brittle brutal reality that coaches and athletic directors get fired if they do not win. Winning brings revenue and prestige and can temporarily satisfy insatiable boosters. As I learned, it does not matter how many students you graduate; it almost does not matter how many minor or line skirting violations you have, unless you bring horrible scandal to the university. The reality and incentives for coaches and athletic directors are clear—Win

Commentators scream and bemoan the cheating and legal shading and excessive rules of the NCAA. But this constellation is all connected. Coaches and athletic director must win. They know that and despite the rhetoric, little else matters. The frantic drive to win and win fast and continue winning, drives the obsession with recruiting. It drives the obsession with keeping student athletes happy once they arrive. It drives the fixation on high salaries to get the best coaching talent, but also the knowledge of the coach that they can be fired in an instant even for a winning season.  These drives are fed by possessive, obsessive and over-involved boosters who pay for the bloated salaries and new facilities as well as sponsor the skirting of the rules outside of the boundaries of the program. The inordinate power of the boosters also accounts for how little time coaches now have to build programs and how little leeway they have to have a bad season or two.  Even as astoundingly successful coach as Chip Kelly at Oregon finds himself on the outs with boosters because he does not kowtow to their whims.

This win or nothing environment and the reality that a coach or AD can go from hero to pariah in three months shapes the environment that molds coaches and athletic directors.

We all know how tightly strung modern college coaches are. These are not laid back guys; they are driven competitors and hate to lose as much as they love to win.  We see them go off like volcanoes on the sideline sometimes against their own players or assistants. At practices they can sometimes seem almost maniacal in their intensity and demands on 19 year olds. Most morph into unbelievable control freaks focusing upon micro-managing details, recruiting and games. We can watch the living archetype with Nick Saban at Alabama and see the costs of it with what happened with Urban Meyer when he had to take a sabbatical from the game to protect his health and sanity.

We need to remember that coaches are human beings, and most of them stay in college because they love working with student athletes and helping athletes grow as people as well as players. They enter coaching as driven, smart and passionate human beings. But the ultra competitive and hair trigger firing environment shapes them in ways most of them would not choose to grow. Professional sports goes through coaches at a relentless rate; the day after the end of the 2012 NFL season 7 head coaches and 5 general managers were fired. But NFL teams make no pretense to educate, care for and help young men grow. Sadly most college coaches really do care about helping their student athletes grow as humans as well as players, but they also know they are not rewarded for the quality of humanity they instill in their students.

We can bemoan a lot of this, and it has always been with us. Go back forty or fifty years and the same problems existed, the same obsessions and the same corruptions. There was less money and less TV exposure, but college sports, like most things in life, never had a time of innocence.

The point I want to make here is that to a considerable extent the behavior of coaches and athletic directors is shaped by the precarious demands of their jobs and the signals sent to them about winning as the absolute priority. Even worse all the coaches see that moral sluggards like Bobby Petrino gets hired by whomever it was that hired him. 

Despite the craziness most coaches still coach. In most college sports they receive decent pay and graduate students and love their job, their sports and their student athletes. Even at the crazed elite levels of the revenue sports you still can see this shine through in quiet moments or early time before practice or team meetings. But the players are not stupid, they are 19-22 years old, but they know their coaches are on the firing line and they feel their own responsibility when a coach gets fired.

I want to make clear that the problem here ultimately lies with the Presidents and the boosters whom they serve. Every coach who has been fired knows what it is like to be a hero one day and a nonperson the next, wiped out of the history and marketing of the university as thoroughly as Orwell would wipe someone out in 1984.

The good Presidents know they are complicit and feel trapped, riding a tiger of revenue and passion they cannot ultimately control. Most Presidents have far more important and deeper issues to attend to than college athletics, but it takes an inordinate amount of their time and accounts for most of the press their universities receive. Few like or enjoy this, yet they continue to clamor to join Division 1A athletics and football even knowing the costs and losses.

I believe this anger and fear over being trapped accounts for much of the energy driving the Presidents for modern reform. They may never get the TV money monster under control, but they know they have to try. The changes in high school requirements, progress towards degree, the penalties of APR and the new attempts to deny access of NCAA championships tied to graduation rates all create cumulative vectors to redirect some of the coaches’ energy towards education and graduation of students. It also motivates athletic directors to invest more money in academic and student support.

But here again, even as they struggle to inflect academics back into the equations and change the incentive structure for coaches, we know that some president somewhere will reliably hire a moral failure like Bobby Petrino to coach again or that John Caliperi with two vacated championships will be hired again.

At this time of pressure and absurdity, the coaches face pressures and firing windows that exist in no other industry. Yet they stay in. The vast majority live almost nomadic lives moving from team to team when staffs are fired or they have a chance to move up. But the vast majority still care about the student athletes. They still struggle to teach about life along with sport; about learning along with winning.

These leaders live in a toxic system sustained by world class educators. Some make huge salaries, most make good salaries with very unstable and nomadic lives.  They coach from passion and joy in their sport and loyalty to their students. The incentives of the elite level and their putative academic leaders often erode this, but they carry on. I salute them.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Sports Ethics: Mistakes Were Made


I was startled last week listening to a coach interview when the coach uttered words no coach or leader should ever say, “mistakes were made." I cannot think of a worse statement by anyone in authority. The phrase is designed to hide responsibility for an action and make it even harder to isolate and rectify the problems. Mistakes were made is one of the worst ethical assessments a leader can make.

I don’t know who invented the passive voice in English but you could not ask for a better way to get people off the hook. The key to passive voice is that the object—a mistake becomes the subject, and the verb moves to past passive construction. Notice the key-missing ingredient—no subject exists, the actor, the doer disappears. Mistakes were made is a favorite locution of corporate and political leaders on the spot.

Bureaucracies love the passive voice. The passive voice hides responsibility and authorship. Any institution that creates products that emerge from committees moves to the passive voice that provides wide plausible deniability for everyone associated with the process. The organization can then hide responsibility or better yet disseminate it over so many people as to make it meaningless. This in turn permits people to go about doing crazy or failed or horrible things with relatively clear consciences. It also means no one has an incentive to learn or get better because no one internalizes responsibility for the outcome and no one is held responsible for the outcome. Accepting responsibility impels learning and growth.

The ethics of the phrase begins with its construction where no one accepts responsibility for the actions done. The speaker does not accept responsibility nor does the speaker accuse anyone else of making the mistakes. The phrase represents a completely neutered moral claim—I am not responsible and I am not claiming anyone else is responsible. It is hard to imagine a more worthless phrase except to escape responsibility or to exonerate oneself.

Beyond the responsibility denying construction, the word mistakes compounds the ethical elusiveness of the claim. Traditionally when we make mistakes, even when we accept responsibility, we basically state that we did not intend to do this badly or do this harm.

A mistake is a mitigated ethical category where one admits harm was done or failure to achieve a good. A person can admit responsibility for it—although not in this construction—but the person denies that he or she intended to harm or not achieve the goal. A mistake is not done on purpose.

This is not the place to discuss in detail, but mistakes can sometimes occur because of negligence. More often, however, people make mistakes because they misread or misdiagnose a situation. A person may see the situation unfolding but miss a critical point and diagnose it wrongly. Or a person might simple respond a little too quickly too slowly after the diagnosis. Sometimes people just go blank, the mind paralyzes and no obvious pattern or meaning occurs to them. They react rather than initiate action. I could go with the myriad ways we as well intentioned people may make mistakes such as when facing surprise they were not trained for. People might react to planned deception and not see through it. All of these actions do not involve intended harm or collapse of a plan.

The language matters deeply here because patterns of language create patterns of expectations and norms. Coaches, players, and leaders who rely on the passive voice teach the wrong lesson about not accepting and claiming responsibility for actions. Claiming responsibility involves the motivation to get better and learn from mistakes.

I can understand a coach, player or leader trying to avoid calling out a colleague in a public setting. The coach I heard may know damn well who made the mistake. Often coaches know more because as spectators we only see the person who looks like he or she made the mistake, The expert, however, knows that the perceived “goat” is actually merely the player left in the lurch when others failed to follow through on a scheme or misread a pattern. The person who appears to make a mistake in fact represents the end game of a cascade of mistakes from the whole team.

So mistakes were made might be used to protect a team/player in public, but it would be much easier to use a collective “we” made mistakes or “our team” made mistakes. Leaders emphasize and isolate the collective endeavor and remind everyone, coaches included, that the team’s decisions and actions made this possible.

When my kids were growing up we had a song we loved to sing called “Mr. Nobody.” The key refrain was that whenever something bad happened and a parent would ask, “who did this?” The answer, “Mr. Nobody  did it.

Mistakes were made suggests a habit of thought that veers from accepting, isolating and speaking in private and public about common accountability and responsibility.

Speech habits can shape expectations and shape our very thoughts. If we speak one way enough, then we actually start to think that way. Worse, if we hold responsibility, then those for whom we set expectations start to internalize them

Good leaders, good coaches, good players avoid the passive voice; they do not hide, deny or duck responsibility. Even if they have not yet figured out who is responsible or what went wrong, they know it went wrong. A good leader ensures people accetp responsibly and work to make sure everyone learns from their mistakes.