"Man-up" culture: the Miami Dolphins bullying case

The Miami Dolphins scandal concerning the treatment of Jonathan Martin by veteran player Richie Incognito is the major story currently in the sports world.

Washington Post writer Kent Babb interviewed Washington players on the locker room culture of the NFL, which includes this account:

Washington defensive lineman Kedric Golston, an eight-year veteran, said he was made to pick up breakfast sandwiches for teammates during his rookie year, and he and two others split a $2,500 dinner bill for defensive line teammates. The idea suggests a welcome-to-the-NFL moment, but Golston said the way a youngster reacts can offer hints at his commitment to teammates. 

“To see where a person’s mind-set is as far as his team philosophy, or you can be really trying to make him look silly. That’s where I think the line is drawn,” said Golston, adding that later in his rookie season, 2006, veteran players repaid the newcomers by springing for a far larger dinner tab. 

The Dolphins’ ordeal seemed to be ongoing, with some players refusing to ease pressure on newcomers, no matter how agreeable they were. The Miami Herald cited a source who described a culture in which veterans continually demanded money from younger players, with intimidation or threats implied if the youngster refused. In Incognito’s alleged profanity- and slur-laced voice mails, he threatened to slap Martin’s mother and “kill” his 24-year-old teammate, calling him “still a rookie".

The suggestion was then made in the article that one reason the Dolphins situation went so far, is that the coaches and player leadership did not step in. Veteran linebacker London Fletcher said:

“What seemed like was going on there was beyond hazing, beyond your normal rookie-type deals,” Fletcher said. “So I’m real disappointed in the leadership in the locker room down there in Miami. . . . I know Jonathan Martin didn’t feel comfortable enough to go to any of the guys because either you’re encouraging it or you’re just turning a blind eye and allowing the guy to get treated like he was getting treated.”

Tim Keown of ESPN also concludes that the Dolphins' hierarchy is responsible for its locker room culture. But he also suggests that the mind-set of the NFL is that it is up to a player to personally confront his bully, rather than for anyone to intervene on his behalf. And that's a problem:

"Even now, even after the extent of Incognito's viciousness has been revealed through voice mails and texts to Martin, there are NFL personnel people telling reporters, like Sports Illustrated's Jim Trotter, that it's a man's game and Martin failed to handle it like a man. According to these unnamed men, Martin should have manned up and handled the situation face-to-face, with his fists if necessary. 

You know -- like a man.

Seriously, though, did these men's men read the things Incognito reportedly said to Martin? Don't we encourage people not to deal with the deranged, to let the professionals handle it? Does anyone believe Incognito would be cowed by a confrontation? 

To blame Martin is to ignore reality and uphold the twisted norms of the misguided subculture that allowed this type of environment to persist and -- dare we say -- thrive."

(This was first posted on The Lead in The Episcopal Cafe)

Should be noted...

Reality:  Twitter and Facebook make up a good deal of my online time, rather than the blog.

I'll still write longer pieces here, but I hope to see you on Twitter @kurtcwiesner and Facebook

Kurt 

Shrewd business and the reality of fear

Some final thoughts from Sunday’s “dishonest steward” Gospel (Luke 16:1--13).

I’m not sure that this story translates particularly well to the 21st century.  Even when you restore it to Luke’s narrative (and not standing alone in lectionary format), its meaning is hard to decipher.

The first thing worth mentioning is that this is one of multiple stories told in the presence of multiple audiences.  Before this was "Prodigcal Son/Forgiving Father/Angry Brother", and after it is "Rich man and Lazarus".  We have “the disciples”, who are not just the twelve, but the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus was eating with.  They were those who worked for the wealthy, doing the “dirty work”, and living monetarily well for it.  We also have the “Pharisees and scribes” who are rich in comparison, higher up on the food chain.

Remembering this, we don't need this story to be the central teaching of Jesus.  Also, we are less tempted to make “the rich man” the good authority in this story.  It is in fact seldom that a rich man is the good example in a Luken story.

The text says that “charges were brought to him that (the manager) was squandering his property.”  His response:  “What is this that I hear about you?” suggests that the rich man has only an accusation, not the proof.  But he acts on it:  while he asks to see the books, he declares even before doing so that “you cannot be my manager any longer.”

Is the steward actually guilty?  Is he dishonest?  There’s no way for us to know what has happened in the past, only that he is convinced that looking at the books will not restore his place.  Perhaps he has given himself too much of the profits.  But it is also possible that the books will show that he is not dishonest in the personal profiting sense, but rather that he has not come down hard enough on the clients to MAKE money, as shown in other parables:  “throwing people in prison” until they can pay (Matthew 18:23-35), or earning exorbitant interest (Luke 19:11-27).

What he does next seems dodgy:  he cuts people's bills in quick fashion, but it is tactically brilliant because everyone stands to profit.  Those who owe the rich man pay less, but then again, some is recovered so the rich man profits without great effort.  Furthermore, those who borrowed are more likely to do business again with the rich man because they associate the forgiveness of some of the debt with the rich man (because they assume his steward must be acting on his behalf).  And yet, the rich man now needs to rethink his letting his steward go.  If he fires him, the debtors will know the steward acted on his own accord, and all the good opinions of the rich man will vanish.

Jesus’ praise of the steward is ultimately based on this shrewdness.  Perhaps the best translation for us today is to be both shrewd in our financial dealings, but in a way that does not hurt others.

While I shared these thoughts with the Littleton congregation Sunday, I also thought that there are more relevant things to hear in the rough relationships of boss and employee.  I shared this brilliant offering from Hanan Harchol’s Jewish Food For Thought: The Animated Series.  I hope you enjoy it as well.