News Review into racism at Collingwood

[sr36]

To be frank, the significance of the report's findings are starting to resemble a helium filled balloon floating off into the sky. At one time, I believed I had a fairly firm grasp on the string, but over time my grip failed and the balloon is rapidly receding from sight.

If the review delved deeply as far back as Winmar and Syd Jackson, but ignored players actually at the club, particularly in recent times, then the significance of its findings elude me. I don't understand why the media and lots of incensed individuals seized upon the report and were so outraged by Eddie's 'proud moment' statement if all that the findings basically delivered was an acknowledgement of the existence of systemic racism, without fixing points on a timeline or indicating any instance of anyone at the club actually suffering from its effects.

By all means, institute all 18 recommendations and make Collingwood the model of how to conduct an organisation providing equal opportunity for everyone along with systems of appeal for anyone who feels even slightly aggrieved by the club's actions and policies. No one wants to be a follower of a club that is reputed to discriminate against or disadvantage people of colour.

The review itself isn't hot air.. Responses to it are though. Everyone wants it to have been an overall review of howuch racism was in Collingwoods culture, so many believe that's what it is. But the Pies reviewed the right thing - what it is they can improve. What is in their control.

If you think back to your teaching days, depending on the school, there would have been a fair few racist incidents, but many of them were out of the school's control. You and the school were responsible for preventative education and you and the school were responsible for responding to incidents in a way that minimised harm and reduced the likelihood of future incidents.

Under current definitions, if you responded in a way that was likely to cause ongoing issues, it's structural racism. I'd argue that under that definition most schools and teachers in the 90s were dishing out structural racism. We gave the name caller a bollocking without finding out the underlying issues or offering mediation. The name callers usually got more pissed off and treated the kid worse. And often the name wasn't really the result of racism. It was a spiteful revenge for something the kid had done wrong. We were the overlords of systemic racism, but we weren't racist boogeyman, we just didn't know how to do better.

I don't see an AFL club or any organisation having different responsibilities in this regard. So the Pies reviewed the right thing, what was in their control. If people don't understand the review and look down on us calling us offensive names, then fu** him. They have replaced the genuine racists of yesteryear and are on the path to modern day bigotry where who we exclude for very no reason has changed, but we're still excluding for no reason - under the banner of inclusion.

 

[Markfs]

slightly to one side, i was surprised how nasty the rupertnews got with Naomi Osaka's innocent mistake on naming her opponent. They stated that she actually meant to troll her opponent.... and yet it all seems to be acceptable.

these things are confusing for someone like myself who doesn't twit or post on facebook. Here is black asian and a bit of a media darling, but there's certain ways of going about attacking a person that are acceptable these days ...so calling her a troll is ok but calling her something else is deemed inappropriate. The current people who are running what is acceptable like to think of themselves as enlightened but I'm not so sure.

 

[regpies]

It wasn't a broad review. They looked at our responses to known racial issues that the club was involved in. Leon wasn't relevant to what was reviewed.

When you’re doing a review into racism at Collingwood I’d have thought talking to the indigenous player, who played the most games as an indigenous player at the club over 12 seasons, would be very relevant.

 

[Markfs]

The review itself isn't hot air.. Responses to it are though. Everyone wants it to have been an overall review of howuch racism was in Collingwoods culture, so many believe that's what it is. But the Pies reviewed the right thing - what it is they can improve. What is in their control.

If you think back to your teaching days, depending on the school, there would have been a fair few racist incidents, but many of them were out of the school's control. You and the school were responsible for preventative education and you and the school were responsible for responding to incidents in a way that minimised harm and reduced the likelihood of future incidents.

Under current definitions, if you responded in a way that was likely to cause ongoing issues, it's structural racism. I'd argue that under that definition most schools and teachers in the 80s and 90s were dishing out structural racism. We gave the name caller a bollocking without finding out the underlying issues or offering mediation. The name callers usually got more pissed off and treated the kid worse. And often the name wasn't really the result of racism. It was a spiteful revenge for something the kid had done wrong. We were the overlords of systemic racism, but we weren't racist boogeyman, we just didn't know how to do it better.

I don't see an AFL club or any organisation having different responsibilities in this regard. So the Pies reviewed the right thing, what was in their control. If people don't understand the review and look down on us calling us offensive names, then fu** him. They have replaced the genuine racists of yesteryear and are the modern day bigots.

I beg to differ on one point. Teachers have a duty of care to try to make good people at the end. While young kids are sent to footy clubs and some of them go interstate away from their parents, I wouldnt put the duty of care tag on it. The Pies need to put in place systems to manage complaints about racism.... as an employer would.

Back to the teachers, while I think they have a job to make better people, it's almost impossible to overcome the crap that parents pass on to their kids

 

[sr36]

I beg to differ on one point. Teachers have a duty of care to try to make good people at the end. While young kids are sent to footy clubs and some of them go interstate away from their parents, I wouldnt put the duty of care tag on it. The Pies need to put in place systems to manage complaints about racism.... as an employer would.

Disagree totally. A school's responsibility in the staffroom is identical to that in the classroom. All companies are obliged to attempt to provide a safe workplace physically and emotionally as safe as they can considering the demands of the profession.

 

[Markfs]

Disagree totally. A school's responsibility in the staffroom is identical to that in the classroom. All companies are obliged to attempt to provide a safe workplace physically and emotionally as safe as they can considering the demands of the profession.

if an employee racially abuses another employee, the employer will sack them. They have no duty to show the abuser the right way...

 

[sr36]

if an employee racially abuses another employee, the employer will sack them. They have no duty to show the abuser the right way...

Nah. Mediation and an official warning.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I beg to differ on one point. Teachers have a duty of care to try to make good people at the end. While young kids are sent to footy clubs and some of them go interstate away from their parents, I wouldnt put the duty of care tag on it. The Pies need to put in place systems to manage complaints about racism.... as an employer would.

Back to the teachers, while I think they have a job to make better people, it's almost impossible to overcome the crap that parents pass on to their kids

No one can really argue with the need to 'put in place systems to manage complaints about racism' as well as promote opportunities for indigenous/coloured players. However, the review's public reception did not reflect an understanding of the need for reform. The public and the media seemed to hear only the words 'racism' and Collingwood'. The report's lack of specific information made the task of refuting such criticism difficult. In the absence of details, the likes of Lumumba helped fill the void.

 

[Markfs]

No one can really argue with the need to 'put in place systems to manage complaints about racism' as well as promote opportunities for indigenous/coloured players. However, the review's public reception did not reflect an understanding of the need for reform. The public and the media seemed to hear only the words 'racism' and Collingwood'. The report's lack of specific information made the task of refuting such criticism difficult. In the absence of details, the likes of Lumumba helped fill the void.

i dont doubt that the media and eddie haters and collingwood haters saw it as an opportunity.....

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

if an employee racially abuses another employee, the employer will sack them. They have no duty to show the abuser the right way...

In the case of expelling students for a similar offence, by not attempting to change the attitude of the bully/abuser, the problem is simply passed on to another school to deal with. And while it may be 'almost impossible to overcome the crap that parents pass on to their kids', you still have to try. The same should apply in any organisation, and for employees financially beholden to an employer, undesirable behaviour should be easier to change.

 

[Markfs]

Nah. Mediation and an official warning.

while most circumstances would be like that

How to sack a worker for racism (according to Fair Work) - SmartCompany

The Fair Work Commission has ruled an employee was fairly dismissed, after he made a series of racist and sexist comments to his colleagues.

www.smartcompany.com.au

I said originally that the person racially abused another person.... I would argue that the employer would terminate on the grounds that the employment relationship is broken.... just like stealing some money from the boss


at any rate, that wasnt my point. The employer has no role to try to make the employee see the error of their ways. I would argue that a good teacher should do that.

 

[Markfs]

In the case of expelling students for a similar offence, by not attempting to change the attitude of the bully/abuser, the problem is simply passed on to another school to deal with. And while it may be 'almost impossible to overcome the crap that parents pass on to their kids', you still have to try. The same should apply in any organisation, and for employees financially beholden to an employer, undesirable behaviour should be easier to change.

the employer doesnt have that responsibility To rehabilitate a racist employee? You gotta be kidding. Some HR officers might like to think they do

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

the employer doesnt have that responsibility? To rehabilitate a racist employee? You gotta be kidding. Some HR officers might like to think they do

I was suggesting they use their financial power to their advantage. Losing your job should be an incentive to change behaviour and mediation can help to influence attitudes. Employers don't have a responsibility to rehabilitate employees, but firing someone should not be the first option if the incident is isolated, out of character and/or there is a reasonable chance of a positive outcome.

 

[sr36]

. The employer has no role to try to make the employee see the error of their ways. I would argue that a good teacher should do that.

Collingwoods rhetoric suggests that they disagree with that view and I hope that it's more than hollow rhetoric.

Additionally, your viewing things as the Hollywood version of bully and innocent victim, which does occur but mutual error is much more common.

 

[Markfs]

Collingwoods rhetoric suggests that they disagree with that view and I hope that it's more than hollow rhetoric.

well there's the court of public opinion....and it gets funds from gov't for its holden centres...

and sometimes organisations do it just because it makes its employees feel good

tell me the reason NAB tells me 500 times a day that their business is more than just money.. i just wish they would stop it

 

[sr36]

well there's the court of public opinion....and it gets funds from gov't for its holden centres...

and sometimes organisations do it just because it makes its employees feel good

tell me the reason NAB tells me 500 times a day that their business is more than just money.. i just wish they would stop it

And there's also a heap of organisations that believe and attempt to follow their values statements. The review suggests that the Pies aren't one of these organisations, but I think that was more to do with incompetence than intent.

 

[Markfs]

And there's also a heap of organisations that believe and attempt to follow their values statements. The review suggests that the Pies aren't one of these organisations, but I think that was more to do with incompetence than intent.

i dont disagree and i think eddie thinks that he can sort out any problem without being straitjacketed by policies..

anyway have all the panels and the new policies and make sure everything is acceptable to all the stakeholders and just wait it out for about 10 years and everything will be fine..

 

[Markfs]

evidently the muppets has just become available for streaming....with a warning that it is inappropriate

 

[sr36]

i dont disagree and i think eddie thinks that he can sort out any problem without being straitjacketed by policies..

anyway have all the panels and the new policies and make sure everything is acceptable to all the stakeholders and just wait it out for about 10 years and everything be fine..

Pretty much. The damage is done. We're on the nose and will be for a while, but the odour will fade -I think quicker than 10 years - unless we stuff up again.

We had a sh*t season concenring drama, but it's been a doozy of an off season for the Pies.

 

[neilk]

evidently the muppets has just become available for streaming....with a warning that it is inappropriate

This time around, The Muppet Show comes with a caveat: a viewer advisory which is now carried on some episodes – 18 in total – which warns of “negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures”. The advisory plays for 12 seconds and cannot be skipped using the remote control.

“These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now,” the statement from US studio Disney reads. “Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it, and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together. Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe.”

 

[Markfs]

This time around, The Muppet Show comes with a caveat: a viewer advisory which is now carried on some episodes – 18 in total – which warns of “negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures”. The advisory plays for 12 seconds and cannot be skipped using the remote control.

“These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now,” the statement from US studio Disney reads. “Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it, and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together. Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe.”

so to give a simpler translation.... we thought about skipping the content but it would have affected the bottom line too much.

 

[davywap]

This time around, The Muppet Show comes with a caveat: a viewer advisory which is now carried on some episodes – 18 in total – which warns of “negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures”. The advisory plays for 12 seconds and cannot be skipped using the remote control.

“These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now,” the statement from US studio Disney reads. “Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it, and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together. Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe.”

The Gonzo character was very offensive to the non-species-specific community.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

This time around, The Muppet Show comes with a caveat: a viewer advisory which is now carried on some episodes – 18 in total – which warns of “negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures”. The advisory plays for 12 seconds and cannot be skipped using the remote control.

“These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now,” the statement from US studio Disney reads. “Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it, and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together. Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe.”

 

[sr36]

The Gonzo character was very offensive to the non-species-specific community.

And there is no way frogs are as dorky and pathetic as Kermit. It was a scandalous portrayal of one of the coolest amphibians - certainly cooler than newts.

 

[jmac70]

And there is no way frogs are as dorky and pathetic as Kermit. It was a scandalous portrayal of one of the coolest amphibians - certainly cooler than newts.

It’s not easy being green...

I loved Kermit as a child, and still do.