Revered former NFL coach Tony Dungy has come under fire for commenting that he wouldn't have drafted openly gay athlete Michael Sam. While the apparently homophobic tone of Dungy's remarks are up for debate, the one thing that Dungy's words illustrate unquestionably is his hypocrisy. He actively advocated for Michael Vick, who was convicted of dog fighting in 2007, who predictably came with baggage following his release in 2009. But his statements about the "distractions" of Michael Sam because he is gay imply that he would avoid controversy like the plague. Dungy, who is known as a religious man, vocally opposes homosexuality in support of conservative "family values" so it's easy for one to assume that his comments are homophobic.
Dungy's opinion and his statement wouldn't be as inflammatory on their own (maybe), but in the context of his public stance on homosexuality, and his defense of Vick, the fact that he said what he did about Michael Sam is completely hypocritical (via Washington Post):
"So it isn't a surprise that Dungy wouldn't have wanted the distraction of dealing with Michael Sam. Never mind that pioneers, like the first player to break baseball's color barrier or the first black head coach in the NFL, are always a 'distraction.'"
After back-pedaling yesterday in the press, the issue at hand still seems to be that Dungy is letting his personal beliefs affect his objectivity (via Slate):
"'I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization ... My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation.'
"Confusingly, Dungy goes on to argue that we should give Sam an opportunity to prove himself as a player while simultaneously explaining that his own distraction-averse draft philosophy would preclude him from giving Sam that very chance."
While it's true that the media frenzy surrounding Michael Sam is a legitimate factor in whether to Draft Sam for every team in the league, Dungy's track record makes it clear that his decision would have been based on his intolerance of homosexuality, not an aversion to distraction.
What do you think?
Tell us your thoughts in the comment field below.
© 2024 Classicalite All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
