November 22, 2007
Dorrell Finally Issues Clarification … 3 Days Later
Karl Dorrell has finally caved to the pressure surrounding his incendiary comments regarding race and publicly issued a clarification 3 days after he made the comments. Were it not for the firestorm generated by posts on DumpDorrell and Bruinsnation and perpetuated across the boards, Karl Dorrell's embarrassing and damaging comments to Kurt Streeter of the LAT on Sunday would have gone unchallenged. That's because the beat press has long since lost it's hold on sports dialogue in LA. But in the high speed high touch world of the internet, where the average fan has gained some much needed power, Dorrell's middle-finger comment on how he "didn't get a fair shake" or a "level playing field" at UCLA turned even his few remaining supporters against him.
We at DD jumped on it immediately and demanded that Karl Dorrell issue a public statement exonerating UCLA:
Karl Dorrell needs to make a public statement that UCLA has indeed given him a fair shake and a level playing field and remove all suspicion that UCLA and Bruin Nation are racist.
The boards lit up. Emails were sent to Dorrell and Streeter. Dorrell surprisingly responded to a DD reader email. But he failed to address his ugly comment at his weekly press conference on Monday, and no one asked him about it! Bruins would not let it die however, not when our great reputation was at stake. Such was the climate on the UCLA boards for several days that Karl Dorrell finally felt pressured to issue a clarification publicly via UCLA's official website (it still remains unreported by the press Wednesday night):
"This statement is to clarify issues arising from an article written about me this past Sunday. During the interview, the reporter asked a question regarding the issue of race in today's college coaching environment. I told the reporter that there still exist issues in this profession, with qualified minority candidates not receiving college head coaching opportunities. In college football, six out of 119 Division IA head coaches are African American. This was the context in which the subject was addressed during the interview.
"My comments regarding race issues were expressed in a general sense, and clearly not as an indictment about my experience at UCLA. I have seen a lot of issues in this profession over the last 20 years, but I have not had to deal with any such concerns during my time at UCLA."
Though the press release does address the most critical point of contention with Dorrell's original comment, the cloud of suspicion he placed over UCLA, it fails in many ways to clarify what Dorrell actually said and what he meant (why does that sound familiar?!). There are very cogent examples of what we mean by many at BruinsNation.
We have exhausted our interest in Karl Dorrell's race-flaming quote to dissect his press release ourselves. We got enough of a clarification from Dorrell here to remove the suspicion of racism from UCLA and to prove that Dorrell's quote was irresponsible, which is really what was important. And Dorrel's public clarification removes the legal jeopardy (we assume as we are not attorneys) Dorrell placed on UCLA by leaving open the possibility of a discrimination law suit.
Oddly, it turns out that his press release looked a lot like an email Dorrell sent to a DD reader, and Daily Bruin ad contributor, on Monday. Great job to the readers on this story … you kept it going!! Go Bruins!!
3 Comments on Dorrell Finally Issues Clarification … 3 Days Later
November 22, 2007
WHP '68 @ 10:55 am:
My apologies for a somewhat tangential post, but Mark Whicker’s column in today’s OC Register bears a look. He describes the upcoming eminently watchable Friday evening contest between Boise State and Hawaii for the WAC championship.
Mark extols the virtues of the participants (both top 20 teams) as having powerful offenses but deftly segues into an a dissertation on Chris Petersen and the possibility of his becoming UCLA’s next football coach:
“You would imagine UCLA might call, if it decides to fire Dorrell. The Bruins would have to load up. A 12th victory this year would guarantee Petersen a $1.011 million salary for each of his next four years. He has a $750,000 buyout.
“‘People don’t realize the strides we’ve made,’ Petersen said, ‘The salaries have jumped dramatically, the facilities are great, we’ve won more than anybody, and people love it here. I have a lake 10 minutes from my house and a ski mountain 40 minutes away.
“‘I’m not going to go down the road of saying never, never. Things like this are tough for coaches to handle. But it would take a special situation. I mean, I live 12 minutes from the offive.’
“At UCLA, Petersen could spend 12 minutes at the intersection of Wilshire and Westwood. At Boise State, his offence hasn’t seen a brake light yet.”
Whicker makes it sound like Petersen is happy at Boise State. However, I am thinking that those salary numbers are surprisingly “affordable” in light of the pile of loot we’re shoveling down the toilet for a pathetic, incompetent head coach now. Also, we pay Ben Howland a well-deserved mil-and-a-half now. A promising football coach should be able to pull down that type of loot.
There is another silver lining. In sifting through the article, one reads how both teams — Hawaii and BSU — are on the back door of making it into BCS consideration. At a venue like UCLA with similar results, Petersen’s teams would be thrust into national prominence — even championship consideration. Moreover, if coaches were interested in skiing and fishing, then they would be skiers and fishermen. I got a hunch that the fire that burns inside Petersen would welcome a challenge, national prominence, and a superior venue that UCLA has to offer.
..he can always retire after an illustrious career and live close to a lake or mountain.
November 23, 2007
Al B. @ 1:39 pm:
Below is my response to Kurt Streeter’s lastest blog:
Mr. Streeter, after reading your eloquent posts and your initial column, I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re convinced that Karl Dorrell would be immune to criticism if he were a no-nonsense, Southern, gruff, straight-from-central-casting type coach. That is your suggestion, correct? You believe that “some” Bruins fans are so unsophisticated that they’re only capable of embracing coaches who fit the traditional or standard mold. As a non-white male, I don’t doubt (and I’m sure research corroborates this view)that in many situations white males receive more positive responses than non-white males. I know research has shown that in job interviews young white males receive more favorable initial responses than women or minorities. But these are surface judgments (which, of course, can have greater implications in the aggregate) which I don’t believe apply in Mr. Dorrell’s case. Let’s be straight here, you and Karl Dorrell are not representative of what the academic world labels as “persons of low socio-economic status.” You’re also on a slippery slope. If you believe that some fans, have an issue with Dorrell’s appearance (and it is about appearance because culturally he’s not exactly an inner city casualty) then you should also acknowledge that Mr. Dorrell isn’t exactly the poster child for the inner city black community. I would speculate that a Magic Johnson, at least culturally and phenotypically, has more of a connection to the underrepresented black male than Mr. Dorrell.
One more clarification or elaboration, I’ve never been one to defend USC; however, I think you should look into their academic standards, in athletics and overall. I believe that they have raised or surpassed UCLA’s average SAT score for incoming freshmen. Over the last ten years, they have definitely invested in improving their academic standards. They’re now admitting UCLA/Cal/Stanford quality students. And as a Cal grad, you may recall Russell White’s story. He had intended to follow in the footsteps of his uncle, USC Heisman Tropy winner, Charles White. However, USC would not admit him due to his sub-800 SAT score. Where did he end up? The University of California at Berkeley.
November 24, 2007
Paul Stine @ 8:13 am:
In the past, I’ve defended Dorrell as a good guy. However, after his racist non-sense, he should be fired. If White person were to say what he said, they would have been.