RETHINKING THE ISSUE: Black Coaches and Racism

  We began this blog in the summer of 2016 with a series on why black college football coaches and sports executives sometimes seem doomed to fail and why a black coach or executive likely would not succeed them.  We used the examples of Texas football
coach Charlie Strong and Houston Texans General Manager Rick Smith, both of whom were under fire from fans and media.Now things have happened that cause us to ask if the world is changing.  

In the last few weeks, institutions with which we are very familiar have picked black basketball coaches to replace failed black coaches.  The University of Arkansas—Little Rock (mostly known now as just “Little Rock”) named Clark Atlanta

University coach Darrell Walker its men’s basketball coach, succeeding Wes Flannigan.  The University of Memphis replaced Tubby Smith with Anfernee “Penny” Hardaway We understand differences exist between a power

five college program like Texas or an NFL franchise on one hand and mid-major college basketball programs like UALR and Memphis on the other.  We’ll examine those differences, but we think the fact these institutions took the path they did remains worth considering.  We should note Rob graduated from both Little Rock and Memphis and Woodson served on UALR’s Board of Visitors for ten years. 

 

 

 

Charlie Strong and Rick Smith

In three posts in July and August of 2016, we explored the difficulties Strong and Smith were having as pioneers in their respective positions.  We noted the view, expressed openly by some and privately by others, that if the Longhorns and the Texans pulled the plug on Strong and Smith, black men wouldn’t replace them.  In November 2016, we saw the handwriting on the wall for Strong and predicted Texas would try to hire Houston coach Tom Herman.  

Texas fired Strong that month and picked Herman.  Smith dangled for another year, but stepped aside after the 2017 season, ostensibly to deal with his wife’s health problems.  Nobody expects him back.  The Texans selected a white general manager, Brian Gaine.  We are not here to argue race discrimination led to either outcome.  The facts are what they are.

 

Darrell Walker and Penny Hardaway

Darrell Walker led the second wave of really good basketball players at Arkansas under Eddie Sutton.  He followed the Sidney Moncrief/Ron Brewer/Marvin Delph triplets and played on excellent Arkansas teams.  The Knicks picked Walker 12^th overall in the 1983 NBA draft.  He played ten years before starting a coaching career that has seen him lead the Toronto Raptors for two seasons, work as an assistant for four teams, serve as interim coach of the Washington Wizards, and coach the WNBA’s Washington Mystics.  He shifted to college coaching at Clark Atlanta where he turned a losing program into a two – season, 45-18 run.  Little Rock expects similar success after a 7-25 disaster under Flannigan in 2017-18.

Hardaway played two seasons at Memphis, then enjoyed an NBA career spanning 1993-2007 during which he was paid $120 million.  Hardaway was initially academically ineligible to play at Memphis, but rebounded with a 3.4 grade point average and returned to earn his degree in 2003.  Memphis hired him to replace Smith, whose career has taken a downturn since his 1996 national championship at Kentucky.

 

Yes, there are differences

The reasons for these different outcomes are obvious and obscure.  First, football isn’t basketball and basketball isn’t football.  When Arkansas Athletic Director Frank Broyles hired  Nolan Richardson

as the first black head coach at a major southern university  he reportedly acknowledged that basketball was becoming a black sport. It follows that coaching would eventually reflect that. Black players filtered into the coaching ranks, creating a pool of young, talented coaches who could move from assistant to head jobs.  While some succeeded and some failed, sheer numbers meant the availability of more black coaches and that more coaches with the qualities athletic directors seek are black. Darrell Walkers and Penny Hardaways don’t grow on trees.  Both have resumes many basketball programs desire in a coach.  For a host of reasons, the process of developing that pool of potential black head coaches has proceeded more slowly in college football.

College football remains the flagship program in most athletic departments.  It’s the one thing an athletic director and university president cannot mess up.  Football pays the bills and university leaders can leave it in the hands of only someone they trust totally.  Is it not possible many ADs and presidents feel they can’t chance a second “experiment” with a black coach?  Indeed, that’s exactly how one sports talk host referred to Strong’s tenure in suggesting Texas wouldn’t hire a second black coach if it decided to dump him.  We wonder if ADs and presidents feel the same pressure with regard to basketball.         

Finally, we think fan bases for college basketball have gotten blacker.  We’re through two generations of integrated southern colleges and universities, meaning more black former students and families identify with once all-white or mostly white colleges.  Our children grew up following the same college teams as anyone else’s kids, not the case in our early years. Then it was rare to know a black graduate of a “white” school.  Acceptance of black coaches generally probably follows from this development.

The hiring of Walker and Hardaway doesn’t mean the problem we identified with Strong and Smith has disappeared.  But, the differences between the sports notwithstanding, we still regard their employment as steps in the right direction and some indication the world is changing for the better.  And you think?         

                                   

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND DUE PROCESS: From Easy Cases to Hard Ones

A little while ago we started exploring sexual harassment.  We acknowledged the discussion must begin from a premise of intolerance. To repeat: No woman

(or man) should have to endure unwanted sexual advances to get a part in a film, work in a bakery or congressional office, pursue educational opportunities, or serve in the military.  We recognized, though, that’s not the end of the inquiry.  After discussing definitions and recent high profile cases, we noted one of the difficult questions surrounding sexual harassment – balancing due process and fairness concerns with the need to encourage victims to come forward.

 

Rob Porter, Rob Porter, Rob Porter

For a while, the case of White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter

gripped Washington.  Porter resigned, or was fired, depending on the correct interpretation of statements by Chief of Staff John Kelly, after reports surfaced that Porter physically abused his two former wives and, therefore, couldn’t get a permanent security clearance.  The FBI investigated Porter and apparently told the White House during the summer of 2017 what it found.  Porter, who denies the abuse charges, obtained temporary

clearances and remained on the job until a British newspaper published the domestic violence allegations.  The FBI investigation likely turned up a restraining order one of the women obtained against Porter and a photograph showing one with a black eye.  Amazingly, reports surfaced this week that the White House is considering rehiring Porter.

Kelly first claimed not to have known about Porter’s issues and defended him as “a man of true integrity and honor.” Kelly reportedly urged Porter to ride out the storm.  After the photo surfaced, however, Kelly asserted Porter “was gone forty minutes later.” This account conflicted with FBI Director Christopher Wray’s congressional testimony that the Bureau updated the White House on its findings about Porter three times in 2017.  Sources said the July 2017 report detailed the spousal abuse allegations, meaning Kelly probably knew about Porter’s alleged transgressions long before the British newspaper report. 

 

President Trump lauded Porter’s work. “He did a very good job when he was in the White House,” Trump told reporters.  Journalists and critics noted the President said nothing about the victims of Porter’s alleged conduct.

No Entitlement 

Because no one has a constitutional right to work in the White House or any other agency requiring a security clearance, we have no trouble concluding Porter was treated fair and, therefore, received what we’ll call due process.  The FBI investigated the claims against him and reported them to the agency involved – the Executive Office of the President.  Leaving aside the question of when it acted, having received that information, the White House properly dismissed Porter (or accepted his resignation).  Porter’s alleged actions made him unfit to handle sensitive, sometimes classified, information.  Abuse charges, aside from the immorality and deficient character they potentially demonstrated, left Porter susceptible to blackmail, not to mention criminal and civil process.  We have no difficulty in saying (1) he had to go and (2) he was treated fairly.

What, you ask, about his denials?  Porter retains his presumed innocence in any criminal proceeding and he can require that his accusers prove his culpability by a preponderance of the evidence in civil cases they might bring.  The information developed in the FBI probe likely would become part of those proceedings and the fact finders would consider all the evidence. But that’s different than whether he gets to work at the White House.  Neither Porter, nor anyone else, is entitled to a White House job.  We believe Porter got what amounted to due process and coming to that conclusion wasn’t especially difficult. 

Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump 

If Porter’s alleged transgressions cost him appointment to a White House job, partly because of the risk of someone blackmailing him, what of credible claims of sexual harassment against President Trump?  Aren’t the claims against him just as credible as those against Porter?  Isn’t the President as vulnerable to blackmail as Porter?  Should the fact of Trump’s election as President put the allegations against him in our political rear view mirror?  Must Trump’s fate await the outcome of the Mueller investigation?  We’ll have more to say about these important questions later, but for now, we close the book on Porter.

There are other kinds of cases  

Porter’s case differs from others the country has seen or will see in the #MeToo era.  Many people charged with sexual harassment don’t have to undergo FBI background checks.  The facts never get developed in the same way.  What’s appropriate in those situations?  Many sexual harassment incidents occur in the private sector, in jobs that don’t involve the public trust.  Do the standards applicable to government positions apply the same way there?  What’s the difference, if any, between big corporations and small businesses?  Does the same regime apply to the corner mom and pop grocery story as to IBM?  What about conduct occurring outside the work place that still impacts employment?   What process is due when a man (or woman) allegedly misbehaves toward another person in a social setting, but an employer or business contact must decide a response?

Some cases mostly concern how the public views the alleged abuser/harasser. What happens to the service station attendant, plumber, teacher, or other professional who aggressively pursues sexual conquests?   What constitutes due process or fairness in those situations?  Such instances, we think, present harder cases than the Porter affair.  Please give us your thoughts as we tackle those issues.