12/21/24
July 02, 2006
Sensitivity Training 101: Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen will have to undergo league-mandated "sensitivity training,"...[I think we all know why]. "Guillen, who is Venezuelan, has said he'll need to "take English lessons" before attending the training courses. The team, though, has asked that the session be conducted in Spanish."
As a friend of mine once said, "Nothing pissed me off more than being ordered to attend Anger Management training." I seriously doubt that Ozzie will change.
posted by mjkredliner at 02:07 PM on July 02, 2006
I also found this line of the article interesting. This year's rookies in the National Football League heard a sensitivity lecture from a gay former player on Monday. The speaker gave them some general advice and told them to be careful about what they say in the locker room.
posted by Folkways at 05:01 PM on July 02, 2006
How do you find that line interesting Folkways?
posted by dropzone at 07:55 PM on July 02, 2006
How do you find that line interesting Folkways? You don't think it's a little unusual to hear from a gay former player, willing to speak to a group of new players? You hardly ever hear the NFL acknowledge the presence of gay players; the fact that the NFL has introduced this into their rookie orientation is very interesting, and I'm surprised it hasn't been publicly played up more by the league and/or the gay community. So, yeah, I could see how it's interesting.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:01 PM on July 02, 2006
I seriously doubt that Ozzie will change. As in, have a change of heart? Probably not. But who cares about that? It's his behavior that people are concerned with, not what opinions he holds in his secret heart. As I have said before, there is a great deal to be said for teaching people to keep their bigoted opinions behind their teeth: workplaces do it all the time, and I don't know why Ozzie's workplace should be any different.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:48 PM on July 02, 2006
As in, change his behavior.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:45 PM on July 02, 2006
As in, change his behavior. He'll change his behavior or he'll change his job. Once again, it's a who-cares. If he can't stop being a loudmouthed bigot, he could always try to get himself a talk radio show, but apart from that, there's a dearth of companies that want to be represented by that kind of verbal diarrhea.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:28 AM on July 03, 2006
How do you find that line interesting Folkways? As T_B_H put it, You hardly ever hear the NFL acknowledge the presence of gay players. Im no activest or [anything] rights advocate, being a pretty passive person. I just never concidered the need for Sensitivity training in Professional sports.
posted by Folkways at 09:14 AM on July 03, 2006
He'll change his behavior, or he'll change his job. White Sox management really doesn't seem too concerned about Ozzie, and I bet his players enjoy his "I don't care what you think" attitude. I would be willing to bet that Bud Selig, and not club management, mandated "sensitivity training" for Mr. Guillen, and, I would wager that as long as he fields a team capable of winning the World Series, he could proclaim the Pope As Lucifer Himself, and still be assured a job. As for "knowing enough English to be naturalized", there is a lack of manners in this country, and Ozzie fits right in. Just my opinion, it doesn't mean Ozzie should be excused.
posted by mjkredliner at 10:49 AM on July 03, 2006
I do see the point. I guess what the NFL is doing would be like the militairy giving the same talk to new soldiers.
posted by dropzone at 12:10 PM on July 03, 2006
An individual session may spend more time on legal issues and how the employee can keep himself and the organization out of trouble. Looks like we found out which one Ozzie will be attending. Good luck convincing him to keep his mouth shut.
posted by jojomfd1 at 06:07 PM on July 03, 2006
jojo, don't you think that such a "legal issues" session might, oh, just possibly put a little emphasis on "keep[ing] [your]self and the organization oujt of trouble" by not running your big stupid mouth when you shouldn't?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:12 AM on July 04, 2006
You would think, but lets face it Ozzie is not exactly a rocket scientist. My point is, we'll see if it works in getting him to keep his mouth shut or not. IMO you could give this man a list of things he could specifically not say, and he would turn around and say them. Just my opinion though LBB.
posted by jojomfd1 at 02:33 PM on July 04, 2006
Do I think Ozzie is wrong for calling the reporter what he did? Absolutely. Do I think there is ever a place for that kind of language? Absolutely not. Do I believe Guillen is being honest about his supposed difficulty with American English? No. Now that those questions are answered, I'm going to post an email I sent to ESPN Radio host Doug Gottlieb on the morning of Sunday, June 25 when his subject was Guillen's slur and ChiSox GM Kenny Williams' threat to fire the manager who won the first World Championship for the White Sox in 88 years if he didn't show remorse:
If "sensitivity training" actually was a training course regarding the necessity of protecting your employer from the ill-effects of being perceived as "intolerant" of minorities of a variety of types, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I can even understand a gay NFL player talking honestly about his painful experience in the locker room. But the fact is, such training often is a thinly-veiled threat; 'As long as you draw a paycheck from us, you will change the way you think, or else.' I have been through a form of it in a company I once worked for (it was mandatory; I wasn't sent for cause) and found it seethingly patronizing. Read the Reason link (it's long) and pay special attention to the rantings of Jane Elliott, a "sensitivity" superstar. Ask yourself if you would feel the same about your employer after being turned over to her for a day.
I live in San Francisco, a Mecca of homosexual activism and center of a region dominated by liberal groupthink. Later this morning, a parade dedicated to homosexuality will be attended by million people. Several elected officials in San Francisco and even more appointed bureaucrats are openly homosexual. No one famous dares say anything that is critical of homosexuality. Yet, this past February, when an organization of peaceful, polite Christian youths opposed to abortion and homosexuality based on Biblical grounds freely gathered at AT&T Park, the Board of Supervisors of S.F. passed a resolution saying they WEREN'T welcome in "America's most tolerant and progressive city." Did anyone at City Hall have to go to sensitivity training? No, because sensitivity training teaches people that so-called "oppressed classes" by virtue of their victim status have the perfect right to treat the majority the way they have been treated, and the majority has no right to object or question it. I am black. That means I am part of an "oppressed class." I am also a Christian. In the world of sensitivity training, it no longer matters that I am black -- I suddenly become an 'oppressor.' I never use slurs of any kind, but I believe homosexuality is wrong. But if I am caught by my employer saying gay sex is wrong according to the Bible, I could be fired if I don't subject myself to a session of scapegoating and psychological pummeling for thinking as I do. Someone needs to do a story about "sensitivity training" and what it really is and not just as if it is a taping of "Dr. Phil." Maybe then more will understand why some view it as hypocritical and disrespectful. Here's a primer for you, Mr. Gottlieb: http://reason.com/0003/fe.ak.thought.shtml L.N. Smithee
posted by L.N. Smithee at 03:08 PM on July 04, 2006
No one cares what you think Smithee, people care what you say. Your whole argument is based on the premise that people should be tolerant of people spreading a message of intolerance. If you think that someone spreading a "homosexual are sinners" message and someone spreading a "homosexuals are people" message are the same thing, then I don't know what more can be said.
posted by bperk at 08:33 AM on July 05, 2006
Interesting resolution of intolerance passed by "America's most progressive and tolerant city", L.N. Smithee. Don'tcha love double standards?
posted by mjkredliner at 09:56 AM on July 05, 2006
bperk: Your whole argument is based on the premise that people should be tolerant of people spreading a message of intolerance. "They're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting and they should get out of San Francisco." How dare someone say something like that about the Gay Pride Parade! OOPS! Fooled ya! That was gay State Assemblyman Mark Leno saying that about the Teen Mania group, which held the rally. Is that what you mean by "tolerant?" If you think that someone spreading a "homosexual are sinners" message and someone spreading a "homosexuals are people" message are the same thing, then I don't know what more can be said. Your response is a variation on a well-worn non-sequitur. Who said gays weren't people? I didn't. Neither did the group.
posted by L.N. Smithee at 09:38 PM on July 05, 2006
Is that what you mean by "tolerant?" Are you being disingenuous or do you really not understand the difference between saying, "They're disgusting and they should get out of XXX," because of "their" private practices that in no way affect you or are any of your god damned business, and saying of another "they", "They're disgusting and they should get out of XXX," because of "their' desire to criminalize, harass, bully, attack and persecute members of another group purely because of who they are and what they do in private? Put it another way: do you feel that the statement, "They should get out of town," has the same merit and value when uttered by a KKK member against a black family whose crime is being black, and when uttered by someone else against a KKK member whose agenda and practices are to harass, bully and terrorize others? Your response is a variation on a well-worn non-sequitur. Who said gays weren't people? I didn't. Neither did the group. Stop weasling and answer the question. Do you feel that someone spreading the message "homosexuals are sinners (and therefore should be harassed, bullied, censured, fired from their jobs, etc.)" and someone spreading the message "homosexuals are people" are doing the same thing?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:46 PM on July 06, 2006
lil_brown_bat: Are you being disingenuous or do you really not understand the difference between saying, "They're disgusting and they should get out of XXX," because of "their" private practices that in no way affect you or are any of your god damned business, and saying of another "they", "They're disgusting and they should get out of XXX," because of "their' desire to criminalize, harass, bully, attack and persecute members of another group purely because of who they are and what they do in private? Put it another way: do you feel that the statement, "They should get out of town," has the same merit and value when uttered by a KKK member against a black family whose crime is being black, and when uttered by someone else against a KKK member whose agenda and practices are to harass, bully and terrorize others? Yes, I understand the difference. Stop weasling and answer the question. Do you feel that someone spreading the message "homosexuals are sinners (and therefore should be harassed, bullied, censured, fired from their jobs, etc.)" and someone spreading the message "homosexuals are people" are doing the same thing? No, I don't think they're doing the same thing. OK? Of course, your parallel is fundamentally flawed if you are suggesting that the TeenMania ministry group is the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan, a rapidly shrinking, greatly emasculated, decreasingly violent domestic terrorist group that once boasted thousands of members and 'harassed, bullied, and terrorized' minorities nationwide. Now, here are two questions for you (no "weaseling"): 1) Do you understand the difference between demonstrating peacefully against a municipality's illegal attempt to subvert established law as well as a institution that has remained static in this nation from its inception, and 'harassment, bullying, terrorizing, and persecuting?' 2) As long as TeenMania is as non-violent as, say, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a bunch of activist drag queens who dress in nuns' habits and constantly perform obscene versions of Catholic ceremonies, are TeenMania's protests any of the Board of Supervisors' "god damned business"? TeenMania, to my knowledge, has not harassed, bullied, or terrorized anybody. They did not even respond in kind to the supposedly "tolerant" San Francisco politicos. Do you know different? If not, shut up. Calling oneself "tolerant" and then insulting and casting unjust aspersions on others for political purposes is an act of hypocrisy. Rather than making false claims that they preside over "America's most tolerant and progressive city," it would have been more honest and accurate for the S.F. Supes to say "America's most rabidly liberal city," because while tolerance by definition is blind to ideology, politicians in this town -- each one of them either Democrat, Green, or leftist independent -- sacrifice "tolerance" in favor of furthering identity politics. Referring to a non-violent Christian group as similar to the KKK is just the kind of outlook the facilitators of "sensitivity training" seek to promote. Thank you very much for demonstrating exactly what I am talking about.
posted by L.N. Smithee at 03:00 AM on July 08, 2006
He's picked up enough of our languages nuances to be familiar with our derogatory terms for homosexuals. He obviously knew enough English to get naturalized and to work in MLB in some capacity since 1985. What an idiot.