I’ve been out of town for much of last week, but apparently English has tried again to apologize for his “single mom” snafu. From ESPN’s College Football Nation comes “English pens letter on single moms remark,” which was a “letter to the editor,” though the piece doesn’t say which paper. Anyway, read it yourself.
I don’t want to belabor this too much because I think that English will succeed or fail not based on a bone-headed comment in an interview but how his team plays. But I will say this:
- The (more?) full quote that the ESPN story doesn’t exactly exonerate him on the single mom crack. Actually, I think you could argue the full quote makes it sound worse.
- He starts out by saying (basically) that he was misquoted and that it was out of context and he wasn’t talking about single parents, but then he goes on to talk about his own experiences as a child raised by his grandmother and some of the single parent players he has coached.
- What he doesn’t say but he should have said was something like “you know, I kind of put my foot in my mouth with that one. That’s not what I meant at all, and I’m truly sorry for all the folks out there I’ve offended for speaking before thinking like that. Again, my apologies, and I will work harder in the future to not do that.” Or something like that.
I completely agree that English whiffed on this one. He needed to apologize more than he needed to tell stories about his own background and the success story of one student he’s helped. He simultaneously offended his three primary audiences – parents of recruits, recruits, the high school coaches of recruits. A clear, forthright, simple apology seems the best approach here.
It appears that nobody in the Athletics Dept. can wrap their minds about why the coach’s comments are a problem. This “letter” from Mr English, as I read it, fails to establish that he was misquoted and doesn’t even seriously attempt to prove that he was misquoted.
Anybody know who has an actual transcript of the MAC Media day discussion?
Mr. English’s “letter” commits one of the most basic errors in handling public controversy: insead of assuming that the critics of a controversial statement are sincerely motivated, it goes on the offensive. That is, instead of accepting complaints about the seemingly sexist statement English made as being motivated by concern with sexism, the letter insults those critics by saying that English is himself from a fatherless home, and that therefore nothing he says about the subject could be offensive. Never mind that the facts of his upbringing were not known publicly until he brought them up to defend his prior conduct.
A sincere, earnest apology, showing comprehension of why the original comment was so bothersome to so many, would have been smarter and more effective than this drawn out waffle, this non-apology apology.
By the way: The old EMU ways are hard to overthrow. Lots of staff here are upset by what the coach said and by how it’s being handled, but fearful of speaking out, least they be punished. I don’t myself think such vindictiveness still rules at EMU, but I gotta respect the reasons for being fearful. It ruled very powerfully and often painfully, in the not so distant past. Especially in athletics, where lots of folks were actively involved in open lying over such things as football attendance; and nobody got punished for that lying once it was disclosed by the ECHO.
What’s most alarming to me is that the coach and his managers seem all to assume this controversy is a purely within-the-sports world event, one without significance to an educational institution. That assumption is wrong, potentially wrong enough to produce fireworks, and certainly wrong enough to have deeply alienated many in the EMU community. The ‘I did nothing wrong’ non-apology might earn a pass in the sports world, but not in the broader world of people deeply concerned about education. Here’s hoping the fireworks aren’t ignited….
Does anybody know if it’s illegal to discriminate against students or potential students based on whether they have a “father in their background?” It seems like it would be, but I’m unable to find any information on this.
Ron English says, “I have been privileged to not only have successfully coached several young men raised by their mothers but, to have personally been a father figure and mentor to many of them.” He has coached “several” young men in this group, but he has “been a father figure” to “many of them.” The subset “many” is drawn from a group of “several”? Does this”many” include all of the “several” or just some of the “several”? How can “many” be acquired from a group of “several”? Who is editing or proofreading for the coach? Where’s the professionalism and signs of education?
American Heritage Dictionary: “several” is defined as “Being of a number more than two or three, but not many; of an indefinitely small number.” Literally, then, “several” means “not many”.