News Collingwood News & Media

[76woodenspooners]

Respect your opinion and the way you’re engaging this very important topic.

What we now term as casual racism and discrimination was certainly common place in the workplaces and sport teams I was part of pre 2010’s. I’m not saying it was promoted, or encouraged but it certainly wasn’t discouraged in the way it would be today. I’m not saying it was ok back then, just that being politically incorrect, having a ‘joke’ was more common than it is today. The White Australia period is extreme and there was nothing casual or politically incorrect about that…it was a purely disgusting and shameful period in our history.

I believe H’s claims in part, I also believe he has spun it out of context and I believe he is taking an opportunity to blame the club for things that probably stem from other elements of his life. This is as much about helping him as it is the club, he has no benefit (mentally) from having this platform from which to voice his opinions. It would be taking a heavy mental toll on him. The media is perpetuating this, and capitalising on his poor mental state.

I believe the club, in the end, has done everything it should have. It investigated, it owned the issue, it has apologised…and most importantly it is putting steps in place to raise awareness and address the issues. This is the norm today, and I don’t think the club was any more or less ‘racist’ compared to similar institutions and society across the board over that period.

Even today I think there is a difference between organisations that take the matter seriously and undertake an authentic response, versus those who go through the motions, tick the boxes, placate the folks who need to be placated.

Us punters have no idea about the quality and authenticity of the club’s response to the matter. The gold standard is to have the whistleblower(s) who raised the complaint sign off on the corrective action to validate that the matter has been satisfactorily resolved.

If Heritier had instead said “I am happy with the club’s response to the Do Better report” then us supporters can have confidence.

Sometimes it can feel difficult to make a whistleblower happy. That’s one reason why organisations should avoid this nonsense in the first place. And why they should deal with a matter at the time and not let it fester for so long before even properly investigating it.

And it’s not just Heritier who isn’t signing off on the club’s response, Leon and Andrew haven’t endorsed the club’s response either.

 

[sr36]

It’s an interesting point regarding kickouts not being a “score-source”.

If I were to invoke the dreaded Moneyball, they worked out via regression analysis that “defence” in baseball was effectively bunk. Scoring runs was the only thing that really mattered, and runs were correlated with pitches faced and runners getting on base.

The same is not true of AFL. Defence definitely matters, as far as I can tell. Tackles are not a score source, but do it badly enough and you get outscored. Spoiling toward the boundary line, or rushing balls through for behinds makes you harder to score goals against. Kickouts may not score you many end-to-end goals, but utensil them up and you’ve turned it over inside your own 50m. Seems pretty important to me, and well worth spending some time training on.

I'd assume that he meant it wasn't a high score source in either direction. I can't say I've seen it as an issue for us this year.

 

[76woodenspooners]

You are basically saying you agree with white privilege and that white men shouldn't be able to have a say on issues of race nor defend themselves against a version of so called "truth".

Huh? Where did I imply anything of the sort?

My truth is different to Heritier’s.

Surely Heritier is a lot closer to what’s going on than you are?

Is him defending himself he is saying that H's version of events doesn't align with his and from his view are inaccurate.

As for the other comment re what he wants that is out of frustration that a lot of changes have been made, apologies made and yet here we are still going through the same stuff.

I have no idea whether Heritier is being reasonable or not.

All I know for a fact is …

… at least three players were subject to racism at the club, two of the three are claiming that they felt marginalised, it took at least 6 years for the club to launch an independent investigation, the club sat on the results for a couple of months before their hand was forced by having it leaked, that the report was scathing about the internal culture of the club, that the President stood down after trying to spin the report as a “proud day for the club”, and that all three players don’t feel that the club’s response has been appropriate.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Even today I think there is a difference between organisations that take the matter seriously and undertake an authentic response, versus those who go through the motions, tick the boxes, placate the folks who need to be placated.

Us punters have no idea about the quality and authenticity of the club’s response to the matter. The gold standard is to have the whistleblower(s) who raised the complaint sign off on the corrective action to validate that the matter has been satisfactorily resolved.

If Heritier had instead said “I am happy with the club’s response to the Do Better report” then us supporters can have confidence.

Sometimes it can feel difficult to make a whistleblower happy. That’s one reason why organisations should avoid this nonsense in the first place. And why they should deal with a matter at the time and not let it fester for so long before even properly investigating it.

And it’s not just Heritier who isn’t signing off on the club’s response, Leon and Andrew haven’t endorsed the club’s response either.

Do we know if they’ve been approached to sign off on progress? Have they been fully briefed? Given the report was written to specifically address systemic processes and response mechanisms, is there a need to get individual responses? Especially given the quality of the panels working through the report implementation. Is there a suggestion that they’re not up to it and we therefore need additional oversight?

 

[sr36]

Do we know if they’ve been approached to sign off on progress? Have they been fully briefed? Given the report was written to specifically address systemic processes and response mechanisms, is there a need to get individual responses? Especially given the quality of the panels working through the report implementation. Is there a suggestion that they’re not up to it and we therefore need additional oversight?

The report is very clear that addressing past issues is a vital part of moving forward and that the easy option of just looking at the future isn't good enough.

Below are the recommended actions from the club within 12 months of the report.

Addressing the Past

That as part of its internal education and orientation programs, the Collingwood Football Club develop a process of ‘truth-telling’ as a constructive step to more deeply understand the experiences of First Nations people and People of Colour, their history and culture and the impacts of racism. Board CEO Expert Group on Anti-Racism

That the Collingwood Football Club develop a strategy to address and reconcile past acts of racism in a way that is proactive and seeks to reward, not punish, people who speak out against racism. Board CEO Expert Group on Anti-Racism

 

[domus]

How do you know Buckley wasn’t racist? Buckley apologised, as did the club. Why would they apologise if they didn’t have anything to apologise for?

Do you understand what racist means? Do you really believe Bucks and Eddie are prejudiced against anyone they encounter who has a darker complexion or belongs to another race? It is an utterly fatuous suggestion. People use such labels without care or consideration and it renders the word meaningless. People can misspeak, upset or misunderstand people who happen to be indigenous or from another race without their actions being in anyway related to a belief that that person is in any way inferior or less worthy of courtesy or respect because of their race.

Imagine if an indigenous player was branded FIGJAM. Yet most players openly called Bucks that name and let him know about it in his early years. That would no doubt be considered racist if it was attached to Buddy Franklin. Accusing people of the most heinous attitudes is out of control in our current society.

As for apologies, many people offer them to someone who claims to have been hurt or upset. It doesn't mean you are conceding you were malicious or deliberately mistreated them. You apologise for any offense or hurt they may have felt as a result of something you did or said. That doesn't mean what you did or said was offensive or malicious in your eyes.

 

[domus]

The report is very clear that addressing past issues is a vital part of moving forward and that the easy option of just looking at the future isn't good enough.

Below are the recommended actions from the club within 12 months of the report.

Addressing the Past

That as part of its internal education and orientation programs, the Collingwood Football Club develop a process of ‘truth-telling’ as a constructive step to more deeply understand the experiences of First Nations people and People of Colour, their history and culture and the impacts of racism. Board CEO Expert Group on Anti-Racism

That the Collingwood Football Club develop a strategy to address and reconcile past acts of racism in a way that is proactive and seeks to reward, not punish, people who speak out against racism. Board CEO Expert Group on Anti-Racism

But there is a danger in suggesting that every accusation of racism is legitimate or an accurate description of what took place. Hertier and Buckley is a perfect example of this. Every accusation or occasion when someone "speaks out" does not mean they are giving an accurate account of what took place. You enter dangerous waters when you start making blanket statements. As I've said before, indigenous people could take advantage of the current climate to gain from an accusation, just as any person of any culture or race might do.

What does develop a process of "truth telling" in quotation marks mean? Whose truth? What about THE truth and how do we find it?

No race has the moral high ground when it comes to misrepresenting events or conversations.

Every accusation needs to be thoroughly investigated and all parties should have the chance to give their recollection of the alleged racist incident. What does seek to reward those who speak out against racism mean?

 

[sideswipe]

But there is a danger in suggesting that every accusation of racism is legitimate or an accurate description of what took place. Hertier and Buckley is a perfect example of this. Every accusation or occasion when someone "speaks out" does not mean they are giving an accurate account of what took place. You enter dangerous waters when you start making blanket statements. As I've said before, indigenous people could take advantage of the current climate to gain from an accusation, just as any person of any culture or race might do.

What does develop a process of "truth telling" in quotation marks mean? Whose truth? What about THE truth and how do we find it?

No race has the moral high ground when it comes to misrepresenting events or conversations.

Every accusation needs to be thoroughly investigated and all parties should have the chance to give their recollection of the alleged racist incident. What does seek to reward those who speak out against racism mean?

Guessing you are really looking forward to Albo implementing in full the Uluru Statement from the Heart?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

But there is a danger in suggesting that every accusation of racism is legitimate or an accurate description of what took place. Hertier and Buckley is a perfect example of this. Every accusation or occasion when someone "speaks out" does not mean they are giving an accurate account of what took place. You enter dangerous waters when you start making blanket statements. As I've said before, indigenous people could take advantage of the current climate to gain from an accusation, just as any person of any culture or race might do.

What does develop a process of "truth telling" in quotation marks mean? Whose truth? What about THE truth and how do we find it?

No race has the moral high ground when it comes to misrepresenting events or conversations.

Every accusation needs to be thoroughly investigated and all parties should have the chance to give their recollection of the alleged racist incident. What does seek to reward those who speak out against racism mean?

The report makes it clear that there were instances of direct racism, despite them not being itemised in the report. The report makes it clear that Collingwood should address past issues of racism and try to reconcile them. You basically can't commission an expert report and then say: "We know better."

That doesn't mean every accusation should automatically be viewed as racism. Whilst a "truth telling" process is historically designed to encourage victim voices to speak up - a decent process also encourages accused voices to air their version of events and what their perspective of events was. A lot of reconciliation trubunals around the world have been criticised for turning them into kangaroo courts, but they're getting better at allowing a range of perspectives to help with reconciliation.

 

[Mollythedolly]

The report is very clear that addressing past issues is a vital part of moving forward and that the easy option of just looking at the future isn't good enough.

Below are the recommended actions from the club within 12 months of the report.

Addressing the Past

That as part of its internal education and orientation programs, the Collingwood Football Club develop a process of ‘truth-telling’ as a constructive step to more deeply understand the experiences of First Nations people and People of Colour, their history and culture and the impacts of racism. Board CEO Expert Group on Anti-Racism

That the Collingwood Football Club develop a strategy to address and reconcile past acts of racism in a way that is proactive and seeks to reward, not punish, people who speak out against racism. Board CEO Expert Group on Anti-Racism

That’s arisen as a consequence of the Do Better Report recommendations, not as a focus of the Do Better Report itself.

And I think you’re getting ahead of where we’re at as you’ve outlined above.

1 Develop a process of truth telling. AFAIK we’ve initiated this and AFAIK H declined to participate. What about Leon and Krak? Were they involved? If not, exactly how are we to get them to sign off if they won’t engage the process? Why would we need to?

2 Develop a strategy to address and reconcile past acts of racism. If individuals choose to disengage from the truth telling then how, even with the best intentions, is the club going to “address and reconcile” their specific past experiences? Will this sort of disengagement even potentially dilute the comprehensiveness of the strategy?

I thought that the Expert Group on anti-racism they’d put together were excellent. I just don’t see what these 3 individuals gain from disengaging?

https://resources.collingwoodfc.com.au/aflc-coll/document/2022/05/20/9bf989a2-3772-4b2e-9302-6f0cd1ce91ac/EXPERT-GROUP-ON-ANTI-RACISM-ESTABLISHED.pdf

 

[gouki88]

But there is a danger in suggesting that every accusation of racism is legitimate or an accurate description of what took place. Hertier and Buckley is a perfect example of this. Every accusation or occasion when someone "speaks out" does not mean they are giving an accurate account of what took place. You enter dangerous waters when you start making blanket statements. As I've said before, indigenous people could take advantage of the current climate to gain from an accusation, just as any person of any culture or race might do.

What does develop a process of "truth telling" in quotation marks mean? Whose truth? What about THE truth and how do we find it?

No race has the moral high ground when it comes to misrepresenting events or conversations.

Every accusation needs to be thoroughly investigated and all parties should have the chance to give their recollection of the alleged racist incident. What does seek to reward those who speak out against racism mean?

Just admit you don't know what racism means.

 

[sr36]

That’s arisen as a consequence of the Do Better Report recommendations, not as a focus of the Do Better Report itself.

And I think you’re getting ahead of where we’re at as you’ve outlined above.

1 Develop a process of truth telling. AFAIK we’ve initiated this and AFAIK H declined to participate. What about Leon and Krak? Were they involved? If not, exactly how are we to get them to sign off if they won’t engage the process? Why would we need to?

2 Develop a strategy to address and reconcile past acts of racism. If individuals choose to disengage from the truth telling then how, even with the best intentions, is the club going to “address and reconcile” their specific past experiences? Will this sort of disengagement even potentially dilute the comprehensiveness of the strategy?

I thought that the Expert Group on anti-racism they’d put together were excellent. I just don’t see what these 3 individuals gain from disengaging?

https://resources.collingwoodfc.com.au/aflc-coll/document/2022/05/20/9bf989a2-3772-4b2e-9302-6f0cd1ce91ac/EXPERT-GROUP-ON-ANTI-RACISM-ESTABLISHED.pdf

Addressing the past isn't just a tack on recommendation, it's all through the report.

Agree that if we're following the advice and relevant people don't want to participate there's nothing we can do.

However, Leon has also made it very clear that he's disappointed about what he feels is our post report lack of response, with Krak also not participating so the optics don't look good.

Them not being involved won't dilute the process, but it will dilute the outcome. We can't address the past without them.

 

[TradeDraft]

 

[domus]

Guessing you are really looking forward to Albo implementing in full the Uluru Statement from the Heart?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Why? I don't know anything about it.

 

[domus]

Just admit you don't know what racism means.

Are you one of the expert group on racism?

 

[domus]

That’s arisen as a consequence of the Do Better Report recommendations, not as a focus of the Do Better Report itself.

And I think you’re getting ahead of where we’re at as you’ve outlined above.

1 Develop a process of truth telling. AFAIK we’ve initiated this and AFAIK H declined to participate. What about Leon and Krak? Were they involved? If not, exactly how are we to get them to sign off if they won’t engage the process? Why would we need to?

2 Develop a strategy to address and reconcile past acts of racism. If individuals choose to disengage from the truth telling then how, even with the best intentions, is the club going to “address and reconcile” their specific past experiences? Will this sort of disengagement even potentially dilute the comprehensiveness of the strategy?

I thought that the Expert Group on anti-racism they’d put together were excellent. I just don’t see what these 3 individuals gain from disengaging?

https://resources.collingwoodfc.com.au/aflc-coll/document/2022/05/20/9bf989a2-3772-4b2e-9302-6f0cd1ce91ac/EXPERT-GROUP-ON-ANTI-RACISM-ESTABLISHED.pdf

How do you become a part of an Expert Group on anti-racism?

 

[noideaatall]

Much appreciation to 76 for tackling this topic in what seems to be against the trend approach.

I support Collingwood. For me this means interest in the club and interest in the on field performance, not ever any connection to player or personnel being anything special. I don't view accusations of racism, past or present, as a threat. This and other threads on this forum suggest to me other posters do not support in the saume way. It saddens me that the do better report has not, apparently, changed the general view. Since 2017 I have the impression we are playing catch p footy in this area, not getting on the front foot or leading us in the way a corporation of CFC's size and statue might warrant.

Who knows what defines a 'racist' or 'racism'. I don't but am sure it is not defined by intention but rather outcome. The continual view that HL has a mental issue is torn apart when Davis and Krak are in the same camp. I sincerely hope CFC can find some resolution to this that brings back these players to the fold and accepts a past we can all live with.

 

[domus]

Much appreciation to 76 for tackling this topic in what seems to be against the trend approach.

I support Collingwood. For me this means interest in the club and interest in the on field performance, not ever any connection to player or personnel being anything special. I don't view accusations of racism, past or present, as a threat. This and other threads on this forum suggest to me other posters do not support in the saume way. It saddens me that the do better report has not, apparently, changed the general view. Since 2017 I have the impression we are playing catch p footy in this area, not getting on the front foot or leading us in the way a corporation of CFC's size and statue might warrant.

Who knows what defines a 'racist' or 'racism'. I don't but am sure it is not defined by intention but rather outcome. The continual view that HL has a mental issue is torn apart when Davis and Krak are in the same camp. I sincerely hope CFC can find some resolution to this that brings back these players to the fold and accepts a past we can all live with.

If you can't define racism or truly believe it is indefinable than how can we even use the word? It has no meaning.

 

[sideswipe]

Why? I don't know anything about it.

Just wait.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[noideaatall]

If you can't define racism or truly believe it is indefinable than how can we even use the word? It has no meaning.

It was rhetorical. I believe I am in the best position to define what I consider racism that denigrates myself. I don't believe I am in the best position to define what is racism in regards to my actions or words in regards to another. I have been in both positions.

 

[sr36]

Just admit you don't know what racism means.

It's meaning has become so heavily negotiated and used with adjectives to broaden its meaning that noone can be confident what anyone means when they say it - unless they have the particular definition explained to them. But for most people, I think it still is most firmly and immediately connected to direct intentional stuff - like Domus seems to define it.

I'm with Domus in that I think the broadening of the term is counter-productive, as racism is a really powerful word that carries a stigma due to immediate association with direct intentional racism. When Chris Mayne spoke out against feeling isolated due to crap wellbeing practices with no systems in place, it doesn't carry a strong stigma, so the club acknowledged it immediately, apologised for it and by all reports worked immediately to address it. When someone of colour is affected by similar crappy systems, it's labelled as a form of racism and thus it carries a strong stigma, so the club is much more likely to go on the defence rather than acknowledge poor handling of issues, concerns and player feelings of isolation.

 

[jmac70]

But there is a danger in suggesting that every accusation of racism is legitimate or an accurate description of what took place. Hertier and Buckley is a perfect example of this. Every accusation or occasion when someone "speaks out" does not mean they are giving an accurate account of what took place. You enter dangerous waters when you start making blanket statements. As I've said before, indigenous people could take advantage of the current climate to gain from an accusation, just as any person of any culture or race might do.

What does develop a process of "truth telling" in quotation marks mean? Whose truth? What about THE truth and how do we find it?

No race has the moral high ground when it comes to misrepresenting events or conversations.

Every accusation needs to be thoroughly investigated and all parties should have the chance to give their recollection of the alleged racist incident. What does seek to reward those who speak out against racism mean?

The truth telling process involves the establishment of a culturally safe environment in which people can share their experiences of racism.

It’s not about making accusations or somehow gain an advantage.

It’s about telling the truth and listening.

 

[HeathySure]

I think a lot of ignorance is being called out as racism.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Addressing the past isn't just a tack on recommendation, it's all through the report.

Agree that if we're following the advice and relevant people don't want to participate there's nothing we can do.

However, Leon has also made it very clear that he's disappointed about what he feels is our post report lack of response, with Krak also not participating so the optics don't look good.

Them not being involved won't dilute the process, but it will dilute the outcome. We can't address the past without them.

Sorry, didn’t realize you were being Captain obvious. Without the past instances of racism, there was no point doing the Do Better assessment so I’m certainly not ignoring them or suggesting the report does. But the Do Better report wasn’t looking to remediate those past instances, it was looking at the system failures associated with each of those instances. Looking to redress each of those instances, and others that come to light, is a recommendation of the report.

 

[sr36]

Without the past instances of racism, there was no point doing the Do Better assessment so I’m certainly not ignoring them or suggesting the report does. But the Do Better report wasn’t looking to remediate those past instances, it was looking at the system failures associated with each of those instances. Looking to redress each of those instances, and others that come to light, is a recommendation of the report.

Have you read the report? It makes it very clear that addressing the past is a central part of moving forward - which is what the report is all about - looking to the past to improve the future.