1) robert lapchick, who is pretty much considered the dean on minority hiring in sports in academia, wrote a column for ESPN's Page 2 about ty willingham getting fired by notre dame. anything that i might have thought, he's pretty much crystallized pretty well here. something interesting about this whole ty willingham deal is that almost everyone (at least the major sports writers) all thinkn that ty got a raw deal here, but almost no one is saying that race might have had something to do with it. again, i'm not saying ty got fired cuz he's black, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. an interesting bit at the end is lapchick comparing the advancement of african americans in sports to the advancement of women in sports. he says that women, even with the passage of title IX, really didn't get anywhere. it wasn't until people starting suing under title IX that high schools and universities started to shape up, although, they're still far from where they need to be. which leads us to....
2) an interesting report in slate by my favorite legal writer dahlia lithwick about a supreme court case where some dude got fired from his position as a coach at a high school for complaining about how the girls basketball team was getting the shaft (figuratively, not literally...i mean not figuratively....oh dammit, forget it) when the high school wouldn't let them practice in a new gym that the school had just built. all the legal stuff is interesting and you should read it, but what amazes me is that some school's administrators were such huge jerks that they wouldn't let the girls practice in a new gym? WTF? i couldn't imagine that during the planning stages of building the gym that anyone was saying, "you know, let's only build a gym for the boys team". how can you have enough education to be a school's principal and decide that girls aren't good enough to play in the new gym? do only the smart kids get to use new classrooms? i mean i'm from texas, and even there, most of the schools that i know rotated practices if there was a nice and a not nice gym. in texas!
3) f cbs and nbc. they've decided to not air ads from a church that features a gay couple joining this inclusive church. ridiculous quotes galore from the networks. according to the united church of christ, a CBS executive told them
Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcastCBS will not comment on whether or not someone at CBS actually said it, which probably means that someone did. nbc's quote was just as dumb. they're not quoted directly in the story, but according to the story
An NBC spokeswoman said the problem with the ad was not its depiction of same sex couples at church, but its implication that other religions are not open to all people.ummm...newsflash, almost all religious denominations are not open to all people. when's the last time southern baptists let gay people in? i suppose i shouldn't be picking on southern baptists SINCE PRETTY MUCH ALL CHRISTIAN DEONOMINATIONS AREN'T OPEN TO GAY PEOPLE. anyways, the point is, cbs' and nbc's excuses are lame and ridiculous. what gets me is that the gay marriage referendum (if you believe that's what turned the election) didn't pass last november, so why are the networks so scared to just out and say, "we don't like gay people?" cuz deep down they, like most of the jerks who discriminate based on sexual orientation, know how immoral it is to hate on my cock-loving brothers and vagina-loving sisters, that's why.