Jon Gruden is vulgar, but is he a racist or a misogynist ... or have we forgotten what those terms actually mean?
Context is important when discussing the disgraced former coach's emails
Jon Gruden, we’re told, used “racist,” “homophobic” and “misogynistic” language in a series of emails that were uncovered amid an investigation into the team formerly known as the Washington Redskins.
Gruden, who resigned from his position as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders earlier this week amid growing criticism and apparent pressure applied to the franchise by the NFL, made fun of league commissioner Roger Goodell and also insulted NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith. He had harsh words for former President Barack Obama and current President Joe Biden, and called Michael Sam, a former NFL player who is openly gay, a “queer.”
Gruden, who has been the subject of frequent speculation involving the University of Tennessee’s repeated coaching vacancies over the past 10 years or so, doesn’t need me to defend him. He’s got more money in the bank than I’ll ever have, and he can live comfortably for the rest of his life even if he never works another day in football or any other job.
But all of us — even those of us who disagree with the things he said — should be concerned with the dizzying speed that our journalistic types and decision makers rush to label offensive thoughts and language.
This is not a defense of anything that Gruden said. It’s not even a defense of his right to say those things. Free speech applies to restrictions against government persecution for things we say, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences when the things we say cause embarrassment and reflect poorly on our employer — even when, as is the case with Gruden, the comments were made before he was employed by his employer.
The bigger issue is the nature by which Gruden’s comments were made public. I’m not exactly comfortable that email exchanges between two individuals that were intended to be private conversations can be laid bare for public examination even when there’s no allegation of criminal wrongdoing. But by 2021, nearly 30 years since email became a household method of communication, all of us know that there’s no such thing as privacy when it comes to email, and Gruden should’ve known better.
Besides, all of the things he said are wrong. They’re insensitive and they’re offensive.
That should be the context in which they’re judged. Because it’s enough. There’s no need to turn them into something they’re not. Unfortunately, that has become the norm in our society, where we bandy about terminology like “racist” and “misogynistic” so readily that we desensitize ourselves to the very nature of language that is actually racist and misogynistic. This has been an especially apparent trend since Donald Trump took the White House in 2016 and his every dumb comment was dissected by overzealous pundits, but it’s a trend that started even before Trump rose to political stardom.
Let’s start with “racist,” since we’ve apparently forgotten what the definition of the word actually is.
The accepted definition, and the traditional meaning, of the worst “racist” is anyone who fosters the belief that one race is superior to or inferior to another due to racial traits. “Racism” is the systemic oppression of a racial group to the advantage of another.
Using racially-charged stereotypes to insult another person’s physical appearance or intelligence is insensitive, offensive and downright mean … but it doesn’t meet the definition of racism.
When Gruden said that Smith, who is black, has lips “the size of Michelin tires,” that was offensive and unacceptable. Even if you buy Gruden’s explanation that he uses the term “rubber lips” to describe someone as a liar, he has to know how a comment like that could be perceived.
So, yes, Gruden’s comment about Smith crossed a line. But it wasn’t racist.
If Gruden had said that Smith shouldn’t be the executive director of the NFLPA because he’s black, or that he’s incapable of performing the duties of his role because he’s black, that would’ve been racist.
Insulting Smith’s physical appearance — even when using a stereotypical racially-based trope — is over the line, but that doesn’t mean it’s racism. And that distinction matters, because an honest public dialogue is important if we’re going to cure America’s political and social differences.
Saying that Gruden’s comments were misogynistic is even more disingenuous. Gruden called Goodell a “clueless anti football pussy.” And he called Biden a nervous clueless pussy.”
That’s a common schoolyard insult. It’s not language that a middle-aged professional man should be using. But in what way is it misogynistic?
Calling someone a pussy is no different than calling someone a dick, to use the comparable part of the male anatomy. It’s a schoolyard taunt that’s unbecoming for a middle-aged man to use in conversation, but calling someone a dick is no more an insult to men than calling someone a pussy is an insult to women.
It’s sophomoric, but it’s not misogynistic.
While there’s absolutely no justification of Gruden’s use of the word “queer” to describe Sam, his use of the word “fagot,” another common gay slur, to insult Goodell and other NFL owners is more schoolyard insults. It’s hard to label that use of the slur as homophobic, since Goodell and the others Gruden was referencing aren’t gay. Those statements were even further over the line, to be sure. While “pussy” is crude, “fagot” is a word that is highly offensive to gay people and a word that is often used as a dog-whistle of sorts by people who truly are homophobes. But, again, the distinction is important — especially if we’re going to make an argument that Gruden should be fired because he’s a “racist,” a “misogynist” and a “homophobe.”
The truth is, Gruden is almost certainly not racist. He has spent his life in a profession that is dominated by black people, and he’s been well-respected throughout the profession for the entirety of his career. And we hardly have evidence to conclude that he’s misogynistic or homophobic based on a handful of emails.
What we do know is that Gruden is vulgar. But that’s hardly a new revelation. Those who’ve followed Gruden’s career closely know that he’s always been vulgar. He is, in some ways, a college kid who never grew up.
Is being vulgar reason enough to destroy someone’s career? That’s not my call to make. But let’s call it what it is — Gruden is under fire for being vulgar — rather than cheapening the debate by loosely tossing around phrases like “racist” and “misogynist.” There are plenty of real examples of racism and misogynism that are causing real harm to people without going looking for demons where they don’t exist.