Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

When the Coach Said ‘Faggot’

August 6, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

I came across the story of University of Hawaii football coach Greg McMackin’s bad behavior a little late, which in this era of the 24-hour news cycle was approximately one day. This meant I was reading editorials rather than breaking news stories. What struck me most -- initially -- about the coverage of the incident was that I could not actually find the details of the incident itself. It took me quite a long time -- at least 10 minutes, which, in high-speed internet time, is a lengthy period -- to find out exactly what McMackin said. I saw phrases like “gay slur,” “term offensive to gay people,” “derogatory term used against gay people.” But what was it? What had he said? I couldn’t even find the context of his statement right away.

But after several Google searches, I ended up on a sports blog not known for mincing words -- theirs or McMackin’s. It was the f-word -- the other one -- used in reference to the chant the University of Notre Dame football team does before games, in particular before their bowl game last year when they beat the University of Hawaii. Laughter erupted during the press conference when McMackin called the ritual a “faggot dance.” Oh, wait, am I not supposed to use the word? McMackin used it three times seemingly knowing each time he said it that he was digging himself deeper. (A recording may be found here.)

It is, as Wikipedia will tell you, a “highly pejorative term.” But what kind of understanding are we creating when we cannot even talk about the situation without using abstractions? The laughter from the reporters in the press conference and the subsequent erasure of the word and the details by most media outlets suggests that most know there is something wrong with the word. But what exactly it is remains more ambiguous. I hear people asking how “faggot” compares with other derogatory words -- most notably the “n-word.” This is not the most productive discussion, either. Hierarchizing oppression and the history of oppressed peoples does not often create awareness or engender social change.

Some might argue that punishing McMackin by suspending him and cutting his $1 million+ salary will not either. But McMackin is being punished -- and rightly so -- because he is a university employee and his employer has a code of conduct. But no one should be shocked that a university employee would utter such a word. Or rather, we should not be surprised that McMackin uttered it. This is not a personal attack -- I don’t know him. But, as the football coach, he is not really part of university culture in the way that, for example, an economics professor or residence hall director is. McMackin is part of football culture. And in football culture, even football culture that exists within a university setting, homophobic comments are commonplace -- and accepted, even today, and even as most know that "faggot" is a derogatory term. And that is part of the reason for the laughter: an awkward collision of cultures.

In high school I played tennis on courts adjacent to the football team’s practice field. And thus I and my teammates were privy to all the anti-gay terms (allegedly used for encouragement) offered by the head coach, who was also a physical education teacher at the school. No one said anything. Not even the coaches of my team -- also school employees. That was over a decade ago. But I doubt the situation has improved much. The mistake McMackin made was saying faggot in public and directing it toward an opposing team. But it is likely that he has used it before in less public settings. A press conference is not the first place one tries out a word like that. But even if he has not, he has heard someone say it; and so have all his players. And so have the players for Notre Dame. In fact, it would be difficult to find a football player or a coach who has not at least heard the word faggot used during games or practices or locker room talk.

McMackin will undergo some form of sensitivity training as part of his punishment. It is unfortunate that learning about hateful language and diversity and tolerance is couched as punishment these days -- that colleges and schools bring in the diversity trainers to athletic departments when someone behaves badly. This cultural divide that exists within university settings between athletic departments and everybody else is not productive.

There is an assumption that all non-athletic department university employees are enlightened and those within athletic departments are uneducated and small-minded. Neither assumption is true, but to the extent that colleges and universities care about the cultures of all their departments with regard to basic tolerance, they shouldn’t be looking the other way at what goes on regularly, without being recorded at a press conference. In short, universities are not necessarily doing the best job talking about these issues either. Again, there is a “we know it’s wrong, but we’re not quite sure why” kind of mentality that actually impedes productive discourse about discrimination generally and homophobia specifically.

This is not to say that the University of Hawaii, or any other university that has experienced something similar, has done the wrong thing in mandating diversity training after such an incident. Rather, I mention it as my own little attempt to eradicate the “us versus them" mentality that is at the core of this and other instances of discrimination and hate speech.

My hope is that McMackin is able to take something from the learning experience he is being presented with rather than resent the way it has arisen. But he must also pass on what he learns to his players, to his assistant coaches, to his recruits -- heck, he might even teach those reporters in the room with him something by the time he is done. He, like all coaches, must be a leader. And he, like other members of the university community of which he is a part, must adhere to, as well as set, a standard for behavior.

Kristine Newhall is a Ph.D. candidate in women’s studies at the University of Iowa and one of the authors of Title IX Blog.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on When the Coach Said ‘Faggot’

  • "Put a little fag into it..."
  • Posted by Christian Anderson , Assistant Professor at University of South Carolina on August 6, 2009 at 7:30am EDT
  • I still remember my 9th grade gym teacher's comment. He was teaching the class how to throw a football (as part of our tour of sports). To illustrate how to follow through he would say, "Put a little fag into it." Every time a kid would fail to properly follow through he would repeat that line, "Flip that wrist over! Put a little fag into it!"

    Yep, nothing like a good role model to a bunch of 14-year-olds.

  • Substantive debate
  • Posted by bevo on August 6, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • Why are we engaging in this faux debate? An employee exhibited, at best, boorish behavior, and, at worse, crass thought. So what?

    Here are better questions for the University of Hawaii. Given the multimillion dollar deficits incurred by the athletics department, how can the school justify its continuing involvement in NCAA Division I status? Given that every forecast predicts increase travel costs (driven in part by increase fuel costs), how can the university's leaders remain the state's only athletics department that competes in NCAA Division I?

    Or, why is the school's nickname no longer contain the word, Rainbow, and the football team's helmet logo no longer includes a rainbow? Here's two hints: It involves homosexuals.

    As to the employee and this faux debate, we all know (1) that the saying, "sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me," no longer applies, (2) that a national conference must be convened to determine what words can longer be used, and (3) Lenny Bruce, George Carlin and George Orwell are spinning in their graves over this faux controversy.

    I don't want words removed because I want to know who are the intellectually bankrupt among us. I want Holocaust deniers to use their language. And, more importantly, I want the enablers of Holocaust deniers to use their language. Tell us there is no truth. Tell us truth is a socially agreed upon idea, concept, construct. Keep talking because you enable the most vapid and vacuous of our society: the deniers of man's most despicable act.

    Hitler did not refer to Jews as kikes, Hebes, Yids, or other derogatory terms. Instead, he wrote and talked about how Jews are a scourge on society. All of the world's problems are the result of manipulations by Jews.

    Now, did a Hawaii university employee ever express such idea about homosexuals? Or did he use an adjective that, because it elicited laughter from his audience, he said multiple times?

    Hence, our faux controversy. It is easier to cluck our tongues, wag our fingers, and write essays for IHE about boorish behavior, than it is to explain to people that yes, we can have truth and that when you deny the existence of trust, then you deny fact.

  • Ad Hominem
  • Posted by G. Tod Slone on August 6, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Rather than view this with PC blinders, it needs to be considered on a higher level. Prohibiting vocabulary is not the answer. We need to educate citizens in the importance of vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy. In that respect, we need to educate them that ad hominem truncates such debate and democracy. Far too often, I've been called names by professors too lazy to challenge my arguments with logic. Far too often, I've been censored by professors at the expense of vigorous debate.

    G. Tod Slone, Founding Editor

    The American Dissident

    www.theamericandissident.org

    1837 Main St.

    Concord, MA 01742

  • Anecdotes
  • Posted by Bill Marcellino , Grad Student at Carnegie Mellon University on August 6, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Thank you for suggesting the level of analysis here be moved from the individual to the institutional--that's a fruitful shift in scope that needs to be discussed. I got to tell you though, your HS anecdotes aren't persuasive here. Your not using what happened to you as an example meant to illustrate and make visible something complex or abstract. It's offered as grounds for the claim that the academic side looks away from the wickedness of the athletic side. That's the supporting claim for your recommendation: "this" is going on, and we need to address it. I'd like to hear more persuasive grounds, warranted grounds, for your claims. If you want to argue that:

    "to the extent that colleges and universities care about the cultures of all their departments with regard to basic tolerance, they shouldn’t be looking the other way at what goes on regularly, without being recorded at a press conference. In short, universities are not necessarily doing the best job talking about these issues either,"

    I want to hear some sort of support other than your HS experience or introspection.

  • Two cultures
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan State U. on August 6, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • Universities, on the whole, have invested vast amounts of money and rhetoric in building up semi-pro "big time" programs in the "revenue sports" (a nice euphemism for a financial sinkhole). They have done so in blithe disregard of the fact that the adolescent would-be macho culture that prevails among coaches and players in these programs is utterly at odds with what is historically supposed to be academic culture and holds its values in contempt. To expect football coaches to stop using terms like "faggot" to get their players to despise an opponent or to shame them into avoiding mistakes is to engage in fantasy That's just the way the super-jock culture is (though it is probably a lot more muted in real sports like tennis or fencing that are now on the chopping-block in most schools).

    Universities have made their slimy deal with the devil and can't avoid the consequences. A ceremonial slap on the wrist to one coach who got caught mouthing-off will accomplish nothing (except a wave of sotto voce muttering amongst his players, boosters, and assistants about the faggots who are giving him a hard time). There is no remedy other than aq wholesale rejection of big-time sports--and what are the chances of that happening?

  • The other F word and College Sports
  • Posted by Brock Dykeman , MBA Director at Vancouver Island University on August 6, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I agree with the basic thrust of the author's blog. The problem is not the comments of one coach but the underlying culture in Athletic departments. Until this underlying culture shifts it will remain an effective deterrant to queer students participating in university and professional sports. Those that do participate are deep within the closet and live in fear of being found out. Universities have a responsibility to tackle this problem head on, by working to change the culture within athletic departments to ensure that these departments are welcoming to all students who have talent. This may mean that they need to institute sensitivity training even when there is no smoking gun, but rather as a preventative measure. Football culture can change, as we have seen it change with respect to visible minority athletes. There will always be some level of racism and anti-gay sentiment, but it must not be condoned by the university and the coaching staff.

  • "Football Culture?"
  • Posted by Martin Zinder , Professor at Bensonville U on August 6, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Kristine-in general I agree with your analysis. A couple things I'd add-first, the reporters' laughing seemed to be encouraging and affirming of the comments. The aspect of laughter that conveys surprise is still, within a masculine construct, akin to a compliment (e.g. he has balls). Related, "Football Culture" is code--it's a subset of an extreme form of masculinity--hypermasculinity in this case. "Faggot" is actually a denigrating remark based on sexism--he was saying that Notre Dame's dane was feminine. In this way, homosexuality--or more particularly behaviors interpreted to suggest it, are feminine behaviors performed by males. The coach was asserting that the Notre Dame team is less masculine (and thus less good, legitimate) because they engaged in a behavior (a dance) that was unmanly--which = feminine.

  • Restricting Language?
  • Posted by Dave , Retired at Arizona State University on August 6, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • It is hard for an academic to support the banning of certain words from our speech. That's a hopeless agenda anyway. However, it is reasonable to expect our colleagues (and our fellow citizens in general) to think about the impact of the language they choose and take responsibility for the effects of their choices. In the case in point, the coach's nervous use of the word "faggot" (i.e. he knew better but did it anyway) serves to reinforce the homophobia of jock culture--which is probably not enjoyed as heartily by the gay members of his team who are thereby more constrained from being open about their sexual identity than their heterosexual team mates. The fact that he knew he shouldn't use the word argues for the coach's cultural awareness. The fact that he then used it anyway and then joked about it is not to his credit. (I think a lot of people got tired of Don Rickles excusing his racist amnd sexist jokes and being "just jokes" or as "not intended" to be offensive. There are few if any jokes beyond some puns and wordplay that are "just jokes." ) Homophobic jokes nowadays are considered to be low cost jokes in jock culture. I doubt that is still the case with racist jokes. U of H raised the price on homophobic jokes, and that is a good thing.

  • Posted by Tomas on August 6, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • The use of the word "faggot" as well as a slew of other terms, such as "fairy," "girls" and other things that the athletic culture might spew out are not only homophobic, but sexist towards males in general--and specifically towards any male that might be sensitive, show feelings, have a more open sexuality or some form of kindness, and, indeed, any male who might not constantly be the best at sports. It is insulting, and abusive language, thus on multiple levels, denigrating towards all homosexuals and towards the male sex in general. Yet you find so much of this in America--far too much, and such abuse does need to be banned.

  • Casting Stones
  • Posted by Bill Marcellino , Grad Student at Carnegie Mellon University on August 7, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • I'm stunned by most of the comments here: mean-spirited recapitulations of the very othering they protest. Fossil's "Two Cultures" is the most visible example of the lot: he uses "jock" the same way the coach in question used "faggot," to indicate a group of others with presumable mass-qualities that can be denied their human individuality. His hatred and fear of his other is palpable, but a lot of the other posters seem very comfortable grouping human into broad categories like "jock culture" and "football culture."

    The author of the opinion piece says she wants to avoid an Us. vs Them debate, but that's what folks seem to want.

  • Tomas
  • Posted by DFS on August 7, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • I grew up to rise above such language.

    But, I have to ask you -- why is their use of such words homophobic, when so many in-our-faces public homosexuals use such language everyday?

    I mean, is there some kind of usage license here, and it is some kind of secret who gets to use it? We look to role models, and see so many using the language.

    And, since rap music is to be acceptable, I guess that we are allowed to use such vocabulary as well. Again, if some can say it (and there even make big bucks doing so) then surely anyone has permission to speak in the tongue.

    Either no one has permission to use language we know is inflammatory, or everyone does. Not just some special few!

  • Posted by Tomas on August 8, 2009 at 4:30am EDT
  • IDF, when some members of minorities take on words like n----r, they are trying to reclaim them, by using them in a positive manner amongst themselves; it does not give you as an outsider license to use such terms in abusive, derogatory, racist ways. No one has a 'right' to abuse and degrade entire groups of people (groups so large that they will never all of it's members and therefore are in place to generalize.) It is not an intellectual issue about "words," but whether you as a coach or as an ___ otherwise in your life want to degrade, insult, and put down other people in a casual, constant basis or not. That is all that using the word "faggot" can do for a public, in-your-face straight person like yourself.

    That is all I will say about that.

  • Thanks, Tomas
  • Posted by DFS on August 9, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • But I reject the conception of 'reclaiming' any offensive term as one's (group's) own. This is just a way of wedging people apart. What would be the result of such 'reclamation?' Only the exacerbation of racial tensions.

    An offensive term to one group is an offensive term to everyone. So, since I learned that the 'N' word was used only by ignorant people, I see no reason to alter my view of this based on the color of someone's skin. After all, ignorance appears in all flavors, and anyone has the right to be ignorant. They must live with the repercussions.

    And, speaking of rights, believe it or not, people do have the right to offend groups of people. For example, I reserve the right to offend my country's sworn enemies. I will also offend the wilfully ignorant, as well.

  • Politically Correct Censorship
  • Posted by Dr. Anonymous on August 10, 2009 at 4:30am EDT
  • Frankly I am appalled by the eagerness of most of the commenters to censor other people's speech, on the spurious grounds that some people will be offended by it. Yes they will. So? Life is made up of, among other things, being offended. Is the university, the citadel of freedom of expression and academic freedom, now going to punish academics and coaches for merely uttering speech that groups consider offensive. Under certain circumstances our colleagues will pronounce the words "nigger" or "faggot" or "wetback" or "bitch" or "cunt." Naturally they usually don't do so in public view; we are not supposed to do that nowadays, and a little discretion is worth avoiding heinous publicity. However, an academic or a coach who makes the mistake of uttering such speech in public is guilty only of indiscretion. Hate speech codes are unconstitutional; I dare say that punishing an academic for what some of you call hate speech is also unconstitutional. It take quite a bit of hubris to persecute coaches for what we faculty are free to do and to say. Sensitivity seminars? Like the re-education camps in the Soviet Union and Cambodia, they are evil in their essence and should all be abolished.

  • Hawaiian hypocrisy?
  • Posted by Ralphinjersey on August 14, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Would this be the same University of Hawaii that dropped "Rainbow" from its teams' official nickname a few years ago to avoid any connotation of being gay-friendly?

    Just curious. (Of course, not that kind of curious.)

  • Posted by brad , undergrad student at ohio university on August 14, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Dr. Anonymous,

    I find it quite ironic that although you feel so strongly about censoring language, you do not leave your actual name (not to say that in this day in age it is a good idea to leave your name). But to say that when a head football coach of a large program, such as Hawaii, says such a demeaning expression isn't a big deal, is what I myself would consider "appalling." "merely uttering speech that groups consider offensive" may have been condoned back in your day but the times are changing. It got me thinking that most likely you yourself hold a position at a university that would never condone such language.(hence the reason why you do not leave your name for justifying such a dispicable act.) I do believe he should be punished for what he did, regardless of what you feel is unconstitutional. Public figures should be held at different standards then the general public. Think about the gay players that are on his team, ( it would be almost as ignorant to say there is not any gay players on the team than it would be for McMackin to think there wouldn't be public outrage due to his statement) how can they come out and show respect for such a man. It makes me wonder if you, Dr. Anonymous, are racist without even knowing it. Not like that sort of thing is not common in your generation.