Hockey Diversity Alliance slams NHL/NHLPA announcement of Player Inclusion Coalition

[tarheelhockey]

Your playing a game of semantics here. Whether you call it a request or a demand it is still a quota system based on skin colour.

The difference between an ask and a demand is not semantics, and not related to the content of the proposal.

Their ask has consistently been characterized as a demand. What rhetorical purpose do you think that serves?

It doesnt matter if you call it a benchmark target number or set in stone number, the message is the same which is that there has to be a mandate to make sure you hire some people based purely off of skin colour.

Perhaps that’s the message you are receiving, based on assumptions that you’re reading into it, but it is not the substance of the proposal.

There are multiple approaches to hitting a diversity goal. Yes, you can just ignore all common sense and hire whatever minority person walks in the door based purely on skin color — that is one approach. Another approach would be to remove barriers and create an inclusive culture which attracts a diverse range of applicants.

Which of these approaches is HDA endorsing? Well, let’s go back to what they actually said:

“to ensure that no barriers exist to prevent Black individuals from getting hired by, and advancing within, the NHL”

Pretty simple. Change the system and the results will show up. Set measurable goals to ensure that progress is being monitored and that the long range vision is meaningful. That’s not a quote system, it’s how change happens in a business.

That is a discriminatory policy no matter how you want to dance around it. Even many DEI training material will acknowledge that so no idea why you want to pretend this is a good solution. There are far better solutions. Companies simply need to have a better system in making sure all applicants have equal opportunity. This can be done with something as simple as blind hiring where the name, gender, and race of the applicant is concelled entirely. There are many other ways ive seen.

This is literally what they are proposing, I don’t understand your objection to it.

As far as I can tell, you’re simply bothered by the notion of having a measurable end goal?

What are you talking about? HDA's request (i will refrain from calling it a demand if you feel better)

That would be great, considering it was factually not a demand. It makes me “feel better” to see people tell the truth, and the passive aggressiveness above is a little weird.

was specifically to target an outcome which is the same as representation in this case. Pretty much all of your statements are in reference to the outcome of the hiring process. You state that the NHL needs more diversity. That statement alone is referring to an outcome. Thus my response to you was not a strawman as you tried to imply. There is no need for the NHL to be more diverse by default. There is simply a need to ensure that the current demographics are not due to discrimination, to help setup a system that supports equal opportuinity for all races, and to promote the sport to different demographics in the hope that it results in the outcome of more diversity. That is it.

But there actually is a need for the NHL (not necessarily the player population, but its workforce and consumer base) to diversify.

We can go deep into the details, but it can be summed up under the heading of “good business”. It is not healthy for the game of hockey to lack diversity, in the context of a diversifying North America and Europe. It is not healthy for the NHL to lack a diverse workforce or customer base, in the context of a diversifying economy.

People keep using examples like cricket and ping-pong. If you were starting a cricket league in the United States, and your goal was for the league to be a serious contender next to the NBA and NFL, would you think you were doing super well if you ended up with crowds which were 99% people of Indian descent? If you were trying to promote ping-pong as a common community-level sport in North America, would you feel successful if only people of Chinese descent were playing it? Of course not. You’d have created a niche organization with very limited future prospects. Sure you’d do well within the niche, but that would be your ceiling. And from a participation standpoint, you’d be fighting a losing battle long term. So why would you not make a goal of spreading those sports beyond their ethnic origins, if you were serious about their future health?

That is the actual outcome that’s at stake here for hockey. It is receding in cultural importance among Canadians, largely because Canada is diversifying and hockey is not. It has made huge gains in the USA, but is still missing its greatest growth opportunities because it’s manifestly a niche “white” sport in places where half the population is not white. Meanwhile you’ve got minority members of the hockey community openly calling for support in helping spread the word to their communities. The red flags are flying… hockey missed this bus decades ago and is going to have to run to catch up. That process might be uncomfortable, but it’s necessary, and doubling-down on avoidance will only make it worse.

 

[hangman005]

I’ll admit that I’m at a point where I have no sympathy for religious defences of homophobia. What does it mean to say “I don’t agree with the LGBTQ+ lifestyle?” Why is this vague language always used?

The fact is, as you have pointed out, these things players in question think that LGBTQ+ people are inherently perverse or degenerate. I know my post will now probably get deleted for being “political” but this topic is inherently political. The personal IS political.

That’s why I said the NHL should have reaffirmed their support for the LGBTQ+ community. Because the fact is that the very existence of LGBTQ+ is actively being questioned. To bow to the pressures of seven goddamn hockey players is tantamount to saying that the “right” to religious bigotry trumps the right to one’s existence as an LGBTQ+ person. That is completely unacceptable to me, and to many other people.

To be clear, I never called for the NHL to force those players to wear the jerseys. Let them not wear them and people can make their own judgements about the type of people they are (I know I have). They can choose not to wear the jersey if the LGBTQ+ “lifestyle” makes them unable to function. But why should the NHL then go “ok, we’ll just get rid of it all?” They’re just a spineless institution that will abandon causes the second they get one iota of reactionary backlash.

Hopefully I touched on all your points, let me know if there’s something I missed.

Honestly as a gay man, I could really care less about the NHL's support... but again I wouldn't really consider myself part of the "community". I used to be and I used to do all the things I felt I was expected to do by the community and it's allies. there are plenty of amazing individuals who are LGBTQ, but I just found the collective toxic, and still do to be honest. The whole concept of "Pride" really just become really dumb to me. The three least remarkable things about, also three things I can't change about me, My Race, Gender and Sexuality, two of which I've been assaulted for. I'm comfortable with those parts of me, but being proud of it.... might as well be proud of my height. who I am is more important to me than what I am. Having the NHL wear rainbow jerseys does nothing to make me feel more accepted... I find corporations attempts more patronising than anything. But that's me.

That said in regards to the HDA and PIC, can't you come with better names, they are both just so corperate and sterile.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Honestly as a gay man, I could really care less about the NHL's support... but again I wouldn't really consider myself part of the "community". I used to be and I used to do all the things I felt I was expected to do by the community and it's allies. there are plenty of amazing individuals who are LGBTQ, but I just found the collective toxic, and still do to be honest. The whole concept of "Pride" really just become really dumb to me. The three least remarkable things about, also three things I can't change about me, My Race, Gender and Sexuality, two of which I've been assaulted for. I'm comfortable with those parts of me, but being proud of it.... might as well be proud of my height. who I am is more important to me than what I am. Having the NHL wear rainbow jerseys does nothing to make me feel more accepted... I find corporations attempts more patronising than anything. But that's me.

That said in regards to the HDA and PIC, can't you come with better names, they are both just so corperate and sterile.

This is a bit off topic but I always found it ironic that people have the most pride in things they had no control over. Height, intelligence, natural beauty, athleticism, heck even inherited wealth and citizenship.

 

[Viqsi]

Honestly as a gay man, I could really care less about the NHL's support... but again I wouldn't really consider myself part of the "community". I used to be and I used to do all the things I felt I was expected to do by the community and it's allies. there are plenty of amazing individuals who are LGBTQ, but I just found the collective toxic, and still do to be honest. The whole concept of "Pride" really just become really dumb to me. The three least remarkable things about, also three things I can't change about me, My Race, Gender and Sexuality, two of which I've been assaulted for. I'm comfortable with those parts of me, but being proud of it.... might as well be proud of my height. who I am is more important to me than what I am. Having the NHL wear rainbow jerseys does nothing to make me feel more accepted... I find corporations attempts more patronising than anything. But that's me.

That said in regards to the HDA and PIC, can't you come with better names, they are both just so corperate and sterile.

I would note that when folks take extra steps to go out of their way to remove themselves from the performative pandering nonsense, it still hurts on some level, even though we all know it's performative pandering nonsense and otherwise wouldn't really care. Sort of a "oh, come on, you can't even do that bare minimum garbage? is it really that horrible? do you really hate us that much?" sentiment.

 

[hangman005]

This is a bit off topic but I always found it ironic that people have the most pride in things they had no control over. Height, intelligence, natural beauty, athleticism, heck even inherited wealth and citizenship.

I find it sad to be honest.... That said a take an enourmous amount of pride, every time someone laughs at one of my terrible terrible terrible jokes, even more so if it's an exhasperated groan.... but at least it's something I had control of.

I would note that when folks take extra steps to go out of their way to remove themselves from the performative pandering nonsense, it still hurts on some level, even though we all know it's performative pandering nonsense and otherwise wouldn't really care. Sort of a "oh, come on, you can't even do that bare minimum garbage? is it really that horrible? do you really hate us that much?" sentiment.

I understand the sentiment and it's complicated, honestly I'd much rather them acting the right way and do the right thing without the performative pandering nonsense, and to me thats seeing me as an individual as opposed to X demographic. I take it as what it is by large, trying to get in on whats "easy and in vouge" for lack of better words. I know it's all about cold hard cash that the business can bring in, thats why the divisions of the companies in places that are not tolerant of LGBTQ don't change their logo's. I don't take personally, but I honestly I hold more contempt and disdain for these companies only doing the bare minimum were it's "popular/toleratedish" than those who do nothing at all. If your going to take a position, commit to it, even where it's not popular/tolerated. It's cowardice and I don't have time cowardice, so it's less bothersome for me.

 

[daver]

There are multiple approaches to hitting a diversity goal. Yes, you can just ignore all common sense and hire whatever minority person walks in the door based purely on skin color — that is one approach. Another approach would be to remove barriers and create an inclusive culture which attracts a diverse range of applicants.

Which of these approaches is HDA endorsing? Well, let’s go back to what they actually said:

“to ensure that no barriers exist to prevent Black individuals from getting hired by, and advancing within, the NHL”

Pretty simple. Change the system and the results will show up. Set measurable goals to ensure that progress is being monitored and that the long range vision is meaningful. That’s not a quote system, it’s how change happens in a business.

What "system" is there is in place now that prevent Blacks from getting hired? How can you be expected to change something that doesn't exist?

 

[Mike C]

The players shouldn't be put in a situation where they are forced to expose their views by their employer, no matter how important these issues may seem. (It's none of our business) They should have the right to say "no comment" for example if asked about religious or political viewpoints.

Stuff like this makes me have new found respect for guys like Jordan and Woods who never addressed off the field cultural/political issues

When I watch sports, I'm not looking for a cause to support or an activism stance. I just want to watch a dann game

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

@hangman005 and @Viqsi

You are both amazing and don’t deserve to moderate all the shit you probably see on a daily basis. There a ton of bigots on here but y’all make it better

 

[todeskultes]

I don't mean to offend, it's a very broad umbrella and I'm not sure the best adjective to use.

Is it so hard to refer to them as people? I'm seriously not trying to be snarky here.

This is all part of the dehumanization that Viqsi has highlighted having experienced herself.

I don't actually belong to the LGBTQ+ community myself, so I don't want to claim to speak for any particular person who does. But that's the thing, LGBTQ+ people are all individuals like myself too, one key difference being that my very existence isn't being questioned or threatened on a daily basis (for no other reason than ignorance, bigotry, and hatred). Fortunately ignorance, bogtry, and hatred can be overcome, but it has to be actively fought for.

On an interpersonal level, I just ask the person or I will take social cues. Sometimes I get it wrong whether on accident (I make mistakes too) or from genuinely not knowing. The times it has happened, the person just corrected me and I'd usually reflexively apologize and correct myself. To be honest, when that did happen, each person always dismissed any need for apology. Not saying this is going to or has been everyone's experience, because everyone is different. But given the immense levels of discrimination LGBTQ+ people face globally, greater empathy and compassion is warranted. A person should be able to be themselves (be happy, f*** misery politics) without having to fear for their safety or watch their rights wither away.

What harm does this "lifestyle" cause to anyone (besides LGBTQ+ people unfortunately -- American Evangelicals turned Uganda into a literal death sentence for gay people)? None, because being gay, transgender, gay, bi, transgender, etc. isn't a lifestyle in the same way that being straight or cisgender isn't a lifestyle. As Viqsi highlighted, nobody chooses what sexual or gender identity they're going to have. What sense does it make discriminate against someone for something that is both normal (in real terms, not in pseudoscientific terms), harms no other people (reactionary bigotry does), and critically, is entirely outside their control. They shouldn't have to justify their existence to anyone. Why should I have more rights because I'm a straight guy? The answer is I shouldn't, I just happened to win the genetic lottery of being born one in bloody old England. Because these things (which again, were entirely outside my control), coincide with the hegemonic view. And now because of that my existence is valid but LGBTQ+ people's existence isn't? f*** that shit, what a miserable worldview.

There's an article on the world's first transgender clinic (in Berlin back during the Weimar Republic), but it is likely crossing a line if I haven't already. If you're interested in reading it though, I'd be happy to send it to you.

*Certain things about gender can be harmful, but again gender is not sex (even if we do often use the terms interchangeably).

Honestly as a gay man, I could really care less about the NHL's support... but again I wouldn't really consider myself part of the "community". I used to be and I used to do all the things I felt I was expected to do by the community and it's allies. there are plenty of amazing individuals who are LGBTQ, but I just found the collective toxic, and still do to be honest. The whole concept of "Pride" really just become really dumb to me. The three least remarkable things about, also three things I can't change about me, My Race, Gender and Sexuality, two of which I've been assaulted for. I'm comfortable with those parts of me, but being proud of it.... might as well be proud of my height. who I am is more important to me than what I am. Having the NHL wear rainbow jerseys does nothing to make me feel more accepted... I find corporations attempts more patronising than anything. But that's me.

That said in regards to the HDA and PIC, can't you come with better names, they are both just so corperate and sterile.

Yeah that's totally understandable. I am under no illusions that any of the many corporations who "become gay" for a month actually believe any of this. But in the sense that corporations ultimately go where the money is, their "embrace" of Pride Month is indicative of public opinion being in favour of socially progressive values. Corporate support seems more salient (to me at least), given the current political climate.

 

[Viqsi]

I find it sad to be honest.... That said a take an enourmous amount of pride, every time someone laughs at one of my terrible terrible terrible jokes, even more so if it's an exhasperated groan.... but at least it's something I had control of.


I understand the sentiment and it's complicated, honestly I'd much rather them acting the right way and do the right thing without the performative pandering nonsense, and to me thats seeing me as an individual as opposed to X demographic. I take it as what it is by large, trying to get in on whats "easy and in vouge" for lack of better words. I know it's all about cold hard cash that the business can bring in, thats why the divisions of the companies in places that are not tolerant of LGBTQ don't change their logo's. I don't take personally, but I honestly I hold more contempt and disdain for these companies only doing the bare minimum were it's "popular/toleratedish" than those who do nothing at all. If your going to take a position, commit to it, even where it's not popular/tolerated. It's cowardice and I don't have time cowardice, so it's less bothersome for me.

That's fair. From my perspective, that lack of give a f*** is inherent to pretty much everything they do, so I don't see it as an exceptional slight against in nature.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

What "system" is there is in place now that prevent Blacks from getting hired? How can you be expected to change something that doesn't exist?

Eh, that’s naive daver, Crosby would be disappointed in you. Universities, where I work, don’t have a system to prevent black people from being hired, but the resulting makeup of department faculty are obvious. In careers that are difficult to get into, those with minority backgrounds rarely get hired historically. It’s not a qualification problem (sometimes it is), it’s more of a numbers game (if 99% of your applicants are white with a similar CV to those that are not white, non-white people likely aren’t getting hired). This reverberates into having less non-white people applying to a particular department, college, or university, as well. This is why, historically, non-white people have to literally outperform their white counterparts every step of the way.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Is it so hard to refer to them as people? I'm seriously not trying to be snarky here.

This is all part of the dehumanization that Viqsi has highlighted having experienced herself.

I don't actually belong to the LGBTQ+ community myself, so I don't want to claim to speak for any particular person who does. But that's the thing, LGBTQ+ people are all individuals like myself too, one key difference being that my very existence isn't being questioned or threatened on a daily basis (for no other reason than ignorance, bigotry, and hatred). Fortunately ignorance, bogtry, and hatred can be overcome, but it has to be actively fought for.

On an interpersonal level, I just ask the person or I will take social cues. Sometimes I get it wrong whether on accident (I make mistakes too) or from genuinely not knowing. The times it has happened, the person just corrected me and I'd usually reflexively apologize and correct myself. To be honest, when that did happen, each person always dismissed any need for apology. Not saying this is going to or has been everyone's experience, because everyone is different. But given the immense levels of discrimination LGBTQ+ people face globally, greater empathy and compassion is warranted. A person should be able to be themselves (be happy, f*** misery politics) without having to fear for their safety or watch their rights wither away.

What harm does this "lifestyle" cause to anyone (besides LGBTQ+ people unfortunately -- American Evangelicals turned Uganda into a literal death sentence for gay people)? None, because being gay, transgender, gay, bi, transgender, etc. isn't a lifestyle in the same way that being straight or cisgender isn't a lifestyle. As Viqsi highlighted, nobody chooses what sexual or gender identity they're going to have. What sense does it make discriminate against someone for something that is both normal (in real terms, not in pseudoscientific terms), harms no other people (reactionary bigotry does), and critically, is entirely outside their control. They shouldn't have to justify their existence to anyone. Why should I have more rights because I'm a straight guy? The answer is I shouldn't, I just happened to win the genetic lottery of being born one in bloody old England. Because these things (which again, were entirely outside my control), coincide with the hegemonic view. And now because of that my existence is valid but LGBTQ+ people's existence isn't? f*** that shit, what a miserable worldview.

There's an article on the world's first transgender clinic (in Berlin back during the Weimar Republic), but it is likely crossing a line if I haven't already. If you're interested in reading it though, I'd be happy to send it to you.

*Certain things about gender can be harmful, but again gender is not sex (even if we do often use the terms interchangeably).



Yeah that's totally understandable. I am under no illusions that any of the many corporations who "become gay" for a month actually believe any of this. But in the sense that corporations ultimately go where the money is, their "embrace" of Pride Month is indicative of public opinion being in favour of socially progressive values. Corporate support seems more salient (to me at least), given the current political climate.

I didn't say people because in the context I was using, I was referring to whatever it was the players that didn't want to wear the jersey took issue with. It could be the L, the G, the B, the T, the +..etc or all of the above.

LGBTQ covers a wide range so I tried to be generic and used lifestyle.

I understand why that could be offensive but I didn't mean to be.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

This is everyone's six hour warning because we're all once again going in circles.

Get it out of your system, because this is closing in six hours.

Go Mariners.

Buh-deep-buh-deep-buh-deep-buh-deep, that's all, folks!