NO TROLLS Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed. Part 3

[Wosh]

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread.
Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the report button, please and thank you.

If you feel upset or need to talk you can call either Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636 or Lifeline on 13 11 14 at any time.

- Crisis support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 13YARN (13 92 76) 13YARN - Call 13 92 76 | 24 /7

This is a serious topic, please treat it as such.

Videos, statements etc in the OP here:

NO TROLLS - Hawthorn Racism Review - Sensitive issues discussed.

Don’t use this thread as an opportunity to troll North or any other clubs, you’ll be removed from the discussion. Stick to the topic and please keep it civil and respectful to those involved. Keep personal arguements out of this thread. Help moderators by not quoting obvious trolls and use the...

www.bigfooty.com

Link to Hawthorn Statement. - Link to ABC Sports article. - Leaked Report

Process Plan - https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...erms-of-Reference-and-Process-Plan-FINAL-.pdf

AFL Ends Investigation - 'Imperfect resolution' as Hawks probe ends, no one charged

DO NOT QUOTE THREADS FROM OTHER BOARDS

 

[phantom13]

Sensitivity to lived experience (in mental health) is now being highly pushed … but it becomes hard to draw the line between being sensitive and just pandering to anything the consumer wants (even if that is admission without any discharge plan, or to not take medication even though they put others at risk via impulsive behaviour)…

Sorry it’s a bit derailed but the point was that lived experience should not outweigh objective facts

Probably fair with something like mental health where there is a diagnosis and health impact from losing objectivity.

 

[gouki88]

It is almost impossible imo to avoid inadvertently perpetuating structural racism (at least that’s what I find when posting here) it has got to a point where I now go “**** it yep I’m a structural racist. So ****ing what” because it seems impossible to change (rather the effort required really does not seem worth it)

What an incredible admission. It's not convenient for you to oppose structural racism, so why bother? Are you serious?

 

[Crankyhawk]

What an incredible admission. It's not convenient for you to oppose structural racism, so why bother? Are you serious?

Yes I’m serious. I do not have the time or energy to do so. Which means posting in a manner to oppose structural racism would be hypocritical as I don’t actually do anything about it. And actual change, **** I have no idea where to start

 

[sr36]

It is almost impossible imo to avoid inadvertently perpetuating structural racism (at least that’s what I find when posting here) it has got to a point where I now go “**** it yep I’m a structural racist. So ****ing what” because it seems impossible to change (rather the effort required really does not seem worth it)

This isn't about structural racism. The coaches aren't accused of structural racism. They're accused of coercive control over the private lives of the Aboriginal recruits they managed.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

This isn't about structural racism. The coaches aren't accused of structural racism. They're accused of coercive control over the private lives of the Aboriginal recruits they managed.

Not trying to be difficult or annoyingly contrary but in my view this is about structural racism. My understanding of the key concerns here is that the coaches have varying degrees coercive control over the private lives of all recruits but that the blanket manner in which the coaches approached certain issues was not sensitive to the needs, experiences and perspective of Indigenous recruits.

At a very high level this is my understanding of elements of structural racism - that our systems and processes align to the preferences and styles of a certain (usually dominant) race of people.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[phantom13]

I think it’s a bit of both.

We’ve gotta be past the point of denying the structural and institutional racism in Oz and in the AFL specifically. Like SURELY no one is denying that’s a thing that has and is happening.

So yea there is a piece of this about that (lack of policy or lack of inclusive policy). However.

There is also a very specific piece to the individuals involved in this and their specific actions.

I think the “case” and certainly the original investigation was about the systemic stuff and hoping to understand it for the purpose of changing and then it morphed.

 

[Crankyhawk]

This isn't about structural racism. The coaches aren't accused of structural racism. They're accused of coercive control over the private lives of the Aboriginal recruits they managed.

I know that; I was more responding to a post about structural racism in the specific.

 

[ferball]

It is almost impossible imo to avoid inadvertently perpetuating structural racism (at least that’s what I find when posting here) it has got to a point where I now go “**** it yep I’m a structural racist. So ****ing what” because it seems impossible to change (rather the effort required really does not seem worth it)

Yes. That's a good observation.

If you are involved or represent an institution then odds are your actions will reinforce structural racism. whatever your intentions or lack of personal racism.

So people who aren't racist not taking that personally, being aware that is how things are and then maybe making an effort to force a change in the institutions they work for or represent is a good next step. Because once upon a time all the other worst things in our society seemed impossible to change too.

 

[ferball]

This isn't about structural racism. The coaches aren't accused of structural racism. They're accused of coercive control over the private lives of the Aboriginal recruits they managed.

Look the reality is that's what footballers face.

They're expected to maintain particular behaviours if they want a chance to play at that level. For most suburban kids thats not too difficult. For country kids its a little bit harder and then from country kids in indigenous communities its even harder again.

 

[Intothewind]

Not trying to be difficult or annoyingly contrary but in my view this is about structural racism. My understanding of the key concerns here is that the coaches have varying degrees coercive control over the private lives of all recruits but that the blanket manner in which the coaches approached certain issues was not sensitive to the needs, experiences and perspective of Indigenous recruits.

At a very high level this is my understanding of elements of structural racism - that our systems and processes align to the preferences and styles of a certain (usually dominant) race of people.

Regards

S. Pete

That's my understanding too Pete.
It highlights both the challenge of mediation and the potential path forward for society with greater understanding of everyone's historical context.

 

[sr36]

Look the reality is that's what footballers face.

They're expected to maintain particular behaviours if they want a chance to play at that level. For most suburban kids thats not too difficult. For country kids its a little bit harder and then from country kids in indigenous communities its even harder again.

There's a difference between expecting behaviours and coercing behaviours and there's also the question of what behaviours are expected and whether the expectations are appropriate or discriminatory.

 

[ferball]

There's a difference between expecting behaviours and coercing behaviours and there's also the question of what behaviours are expected and whether the expectations are appropriate or discriminatory.

Traditionally coaches did this, they coerced, cajoled and manipulated the "appropriate"* behaviours out of their players. As did captains and other leaders.

Its no secret Clarkson has done this stuff and its also no secret that he also says he needs strong people around him to keep him in line and that North did this with Todd Viney. Its not all losing the plot tho.

There's an element of this that's performance. Basically every controversy he has been involved in at North (apart from this racism thing) has resulted from him reacting to defend one of his players. Even swearing at the umps, which he was found not to do but apparently its the worst thing ever, shows investment in the team.

He wouldn't have been the only one to act in particular ways as a performance ... playing the role of intense coach.

One of the reasons coaches do or did this is to create a specific rapport within the team. To motivate the players to be willing to go beyond what they thought they could to win the game. And this requires good will on the part of the players. It won't work if they're alienated. I don't understand how all these individuals would go to this extreme without knowing the consequences - losing a player and possibly more players as well, as a result.

*ie appropriate for a player or footy side on field. Obviously it changes over time. Once upon a time a coach could tell a player to take out another player during an important game and the player would do it. There'd be serious questions if it turned out a player like Jimmy Webster was instructed to take out someone like Jy Simpkin and in the process cause a career threatening concussion. Thirty or fourty years ago no one would care.

 

[Elixuh]

I think it’s a bit of both.

We’ve gotta be past the point of denying the structural and institutional racism in Oz and in the AFL specifically. Like SURELY no one is denying that’s a thing that has and is happening.

So yea there is a piece of this about that (lack of policy or lack of inclusive policy). However.

There is also a very specific piece to the individuals involved in this and their specific actions.

I think the “case” and certainly the original investigation was about the systemic stuff and hoping to understand it for the purpose of changing and then it morphed.

One outcome to this is likely an admission from Hawthorn that they did not have appropriate systems and processes in place to provide players with cultural safety.

Coaches and general employees of clubs do not have the training, experience or expertise to provide interventions into the personal lives of players or to entirely understand the cultural implications for any actions they may take.

The challenge then is how do you manage this in the future. If you want to remove the organisational risk then there needs to be clear rules in place so that coaches do not involve themselves in the personal lives of players and so that if a player comes to a coach with a personal issue, they are redirected to another employee who can provide the player with a list of people/organisations that can privately assist them with whatever the issue is.

I don't really know how I feel about the above. The AFL is an abnormal workplace and the line between the work environment and private life has always been blended. I know from the information I've gotten over the years that coaches can have a profound impact on the personal lives of players, especially those who have troubled personal lives and need help. I mean imagine the work that North has done with Tarryn Thomas to try and help him. But on the flip side, the Hawthorn review has shown that it can lead to undesirable circumstances and/or disgruntled players.

I think the level of input coaches have into the personal lives and personal development of players is completely undersold and not well understood. I mean, one former Lions player (I won't mention their name or cultural background) came to the coaches complaining that his phone didn't work and the coaches figured out that he hadn't paid his phone bill. The player didn't know that you had to pay a phone bill or how to do it. The coach spent time with the player teaching him how to find his phone bill, how to set up direct debit etc.

 

[Philhawk]

One outcome to this is likely an admission from Hawthorn that they did not have appropriate systems and processes in place to provide players with cultural safety.

Coaches and general employees of clubs do not have the training, experience or expertise to provide interventions into the personal lives of players or to entirely understand the cultural implications for any actions they may take.

The challenge then is how do you manage this in the future. If you want to remove the organisational risk then there needs to be clear rules in place so that coaches do not involve themselves in the personal lives of players and so that if a player comes to a coach with a personal issue, they are redirected to another employee who can provide the player with a list of people/organisations that can privately assist them with whatever the issue is.

I don't really know how I feel about the above. The AFL is an abnormal workplace and the line between the work environment and private life has always been blended. I know from the information I've gotten over the years that coaches can have a profound impact on the personal lives of players, especially those who have troubled personal lives and need help. I mean imagine the work that North has done with Tarryn Thomas to try and help him. But on the flip side, the Hawthorn review has shown that it can lead to undesirable circumstances and/or disgruntled players.

I think the level of input coaches have into the personal lives and personal development of players is completely undersold and not well understood. I mean, one former Lions player (I won't mention their name or cultural background) came to the coaches complaining that his phone didn't work and the coaches figured out that he hadn't paid his phone bill. The player didn't know that you had to pay a phone bill or how to do it. The coach spent time with the player teaching him how to find his phone bill, how to set up direct debit etc.

Very, very well said.

 

[Crankyhawk]

One outcome to this is likely an admission from Hawthorn that they did not have appropriate systems and processes in place to provide players with cultural safety.

Coaches and general employees of clubs do not have the training, experience or expertise to provide interventions into the personal lives of players or to entirely understand the cultural implications for any actions they may take.

The challenge then is how do you manage this in the future. If you want to remove the organisational risk then there needs to be clear rules in place so that coaches do not involve themselves in the personal lives of players and so that if a player comes to a coach with a personal issue, they are redirected to another employee who can provide the player with a list of people/organisations that can privately assist them with whatever the issue is.

I don't really know how I feel about the above. The AFL is an abnormal workplace and the line between the work environment and private life has always been blended. I know from the information I've gotten over the years that coaches can have a profound impact on the personal lives of players, especially those who have troubled personal lives and need help. I mean imagine the work that North has done with Tarryn Thomas to try and help him. But on the flip side, the Hawthorn review has shown that it can lead to undesirable circumstances and/or disgruntled players.

I think the level of input coaches have into the personal lives and personal development of players is completely undersold and not well understood. I mean, one former Lions player (I won't mention their name or cultural background) came to the coaches complaining that his phone didn't work and the coaches figured out that he hadn't paid his phone bill. The player didn't know that you had to pay a phone bill or how to do it. The coach spent time with the player teaching him how to find his phone bill, how to set up direct debit etc.

IN addition, how many clubs would meet the threshold for cultural safety, in particular when the review is conducted by someone with what we now know to be questionable methodology and ethics but at the time was believed to be standard of approach? (As in how would clubs know that what Egan was doing was outside of scope - because club officials certainly could not be part of the Egans process as players would not feel safe to speak - but Egan also not equipped/ intended to gather evidence of what he was being told either)

it is a mess

 

[sr36]

I don't really know how I feel about the above. The AFL is an abnormal workplace and the line between the work environment and private life has always been blended. I know from the information I've gotten over the years that coaches can have a profound impact on the personal lives of players, especially those who have troubled personal lives and need help. I mean imagine the work that North has done with Tarryn Thomas to try and help him. But on the flip side, the Hawthorn review has shown that it can lead to undesirable circumstances and/or disgruntled players.

It is pretty simple - educate rather than coerce. And if the player doesn't prepare well enough to succeed in the profession - they get delisted. Selecting a player in the draft doesn't give a club paternalistic rights over that player.

The nature of elite sport means that decisions in a player's personal life can have a bigger impact on job performance and being fully prepared than in most jobs, but it doesn't give coaches more rights to interfere in the personal lives of players than managers have in other industries.

The historical nature of coercion of players in footy doesn't make it acceptable, just as the historical nature of racial abuse in footy doesn't make it acceptable.

 

[phantom13]

IN addition, how many clubs would meet the threshold for cultural safety, in particular when the review is conducted by someone with what we now know to be questionable methodology and ethics but at the time was believed to be standard of approach? (As in how would clubs know that what Egan was doing was outside of scope - because club officials certainly could not be part of the Egans process as players would not feel safe to speak - but Egan also not equipped/ intended to gather evidence of what he was being told either)

it is a mess

Yeh have made this point to some supporters of my club. We’d fail and likely have some pretty horrible stories (Robbie Muir only recently came back to the club as one example).

The afl and the clubs are trying to enact this change (to a degree) hoping to avoid admission and transparency on historical issues (some very recent).

I thought the collingwood report was pretty well done and the recommendations pretty clear and concise but my lens is pretty narrow too.

 

[Sherrinator]

Can we please change the tag of this thread to Debunked??

 

[sr36]

Yeh have made this point to some supporters of my club. We’d fail and likely have some pretty horrible stories (Robbie Muir only recently came back to the club as one example).

The afl and the clubs are trying to enact this change (to a degree) hoping to avoid admission and transparency on historical issues (some very recent).

I thought the collingwood report was pretty well done and the recommendations pretty clear and concise but my lens is pretty narrow too.

The issue is Collingwood were always going to get a finding of systemic racism is/has been present in the club - as most clubs would (even though our history is far worse in terms of direct racism). And they got smashed for it with inevitable heads rolling.

Noone else is going to do a public review due to the reaction to the Pies one - although they should all be doing and probably are doing private reviews about how they can be more inclusive.

 

[Elixuh]

It is pretty simple - educate rather than coerce. And if the player doesn't prepare well enough to succeed in the profession - they get delisted. Selecting a player in the draft doesn't give a club paternalistic rights over that player.

The nature of elite sport means that decisions in a player's personal life can have a bigger impact on job performance and being fully prepared than in most jobs, but it doesn't give coaches more rights to interfere in the personal lives of players than managers have in other industries.

The historical nature of coercion of players in footy doesn't make it acceptable, just as the historical nature of racial abuse in footy doesn't make it acceptable.

Unfortunately I think that is a very simple view without appreciation of the challenging dynamics faced by club employees managing 44 young men - all from different backgrounds.

I don't think anyone disagrees that club employees shouldn't exert coercive control - ie the use of threats and force over unwilling people - over the personal lives of players. Is that what happened in the Hawthorn example in relation to each or any of the complainants? I don't know.

If a player repeatedly comes to a coach asking for help and the coaches help them in the best way they can with the limited training and experience they have is that coercive control? How would you like to see that dealt with?

Saying we just need to 'educate' is great. But what does that mean? What does that mean in the context of day to day interactions with 44 young men in the context of an AFL club, where for some players, the coaches/employees are seen as friends or paternal figures as opposed to colleagues?

Where do you draw the line in the sand re the personal issues you can help players with (especially where club employees couldn't possibly know all of the circumstances related to the issues they may be presented with)? It is all very murky and unclear.

 

[M Malice]

What's the context that he is accused of nodding his head and why do you think it wasn't mentioned in that article ...

Oh yes, we must all be careful with our head nodding, many different variants, was it accompanied by a shoulder shrug, was it a slow or fast nod... Hopefully we will find out how serious the nod was in Federal Court.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Interestingly in replying to me for pointing out I’ve never been subject to racism.

Like I've said a few times I got the wrong impression, apologies.

Now I’ve also been called a skip, cracker etc. but I’ve not felt that it was racist because it has zero effect on my credibility,

Of course it's racist, but only sensitive people take offence to it, like I said those who are overly sensitive or those who look for offence in bad faith.

there’s no historical or social bias against white people so even if there was malice in it, it doesn’t really work.

Yet we've both given glaring analogous examples of racism against white people, but hey that doesn't matter coz white privileged people. White people can't experience racism.

You, saying Mrs.Rioli is overly sensitive because she thought the jeans comment was racist, see those comments (skip etc) as racist.

Not so much her, apologies should've been clearer. Moreso the bleeding hearts taking offence on her behalf (which is offensive in itself, but that's ok coz we got a virtue to signal). Another glaring example of over sensitivity or people looking for offence in bad faith.

Also, hardly anyone has mentioned that whatever constitutes racism obviously differs in opinion from person to person, so there is no arbitrary line.

The fact of like no one wants to talk about is that someone somewhere will be offended (or look for it) regardless of what one says or thinks.

 

[phantom13]

The issue is Collingwood were always going to get a finding of systemic racism is/has been present in the club - as most clubs would (even though our history is far worse in terms of direct racism). And they got smashed for it with inevitable heads rolling.

Noone else is going to do a public review due to the reaction to the Pies one - although they should all be doing and probably are doing private reviews about how they can be more inclusive.

As all clubs would.

It’s unfortunate because a degree of accountability for people who have overseen some of the more egriegious examples is a good thing.

Overall I agree with you though.

 

[sr36]

Unfortunately I think that is a very simple view without appreciation of the challenging dynamics faced by club employees managing 44 young men - all from different backgrounds.

I don't think anyone disagrees that club employees shouldn't exert coercive control - ie the use of threats and force over unwilling people - over the personal lives of players. Is that what happened in the Hawthorn example in relation to each or any of the complainants? I don't know.

If a player repeatedly comes to a coach asking for help and the coaches help them in the best way they can with the limited training and experience they have is that coercive control? How would you like to see that dealt with?

Saying we just need to 'educate' is great. But what does that mean? What does that mean in the context of day to day interactions with 44 young men in the context of an AFL club, where for some players, the coaches/employees are seen as friends or paternal figures as opposed to colleagues?

Where do you draw the line in the sand re the personal issues you can help players with (especially where club employees couldn't possibly know all of the circumstances related to the issues they may be presented with)? It is all very murky and unclear.

Heaps of managers have a much more diverse workforce than AFL clubs - in terms of the men's team we're talking aobut a very narrow band of age and sex. And heaps of workers ask for advice from their managers. And whilst there is some grey area where advice from a manager can be viewed as a demand, the accusations are that managers pressured and drove around to players homes to force separations. The accusations aren't within a grey area. They may not be true, but the accusations certainly aren't within the rhelms of acceptable managerial behaviour - not even close to being in the grey area that you are searching for.

In terms of education over coercion, it is simple. Coaches can't make personal choices for players or pressure players regarding lifestyle - even if they think it's in the player's best interest. And yeah if they do, they run the risk of exposing their cultural biases and having their decisions labelled as racist.

 

[Elixuh]

Heaps of managers have a much more diverse workforce than AFL clubs - in terms of the men's team we're talking aobut a very narrow band of age and sex. And heaps of workers ask for advice from their managers. And whilst there is some grey area where advice from a manager can be viewed as a demand, the accusations are that managers pressured and drove around to players homes to force separations. The accusations aren't within a grey area. They may not be true, but the accusations certainly aren't within the rhelms of acceptable managerial behaviour - not even close to being in the grey area that you are searching for.

In terms of education over coercion, it is simple. Coaches can't make personal choices for players or pressure players regarding lifestyle - even if they think it's in the player's best interest. And yeah if they do, they run the risk of exposing their cultural biases and having their decisions labelled as racist.

I won't comment on the accusations because as I said in my original post, I don't know any of the details.

It is disingenuous to compare the work environment of an AFL club with a manager in an ordinary work environment. They're not the same. And if you think they are then that is a flawed conceptual argument not rooted in reality. Either that or you lack awareness of the issues players and their partners bring directly to club employees/officials. I think you would be shocked as to the level of deep involvement club employees have with the partners of some players, eg there is a player who plays for a Victorian club and at the request of the player and partner, the partner has weekly one on one meetings with the clubs footy boss. That is anything but a normal work environment.

I also think you're arguing a much narrower point than my original post which you quoted. No one is arguing that coaches should be able to coerce players in relation to their personal lives. We agree with you. However, not all challenges or issues will be borne out of overtly coercive actions in an AFL environment. In fact most won't.