Racism

[EdRomero]

If that’s the quote, it sounds more like sour grapes than racism.

Yeah, I agree. Here's the video

It's some good behind the scene cynical sports media stuff with a LeBron spokesman, so I'm thinking there is a lot of politics with the leaking and taking sides.

[EdRomero]

There's also the problem of the thinking (and saying) she got the job because she's black, not because the hiring people thought she was better. Giving those excuses for why you didn't get a job is usually just sour grapes (I think we've all heard people complaining they wanted to hire a woman, hire someone younger, etc), but it's a pretty insulting to say about someone who's earned a job, so I guess it does fit in the racism thread.

[mister d]

She called her a diversity hire. Nichols may not be a racist, but that comment clearly involved race.

[degenerasian]

But it was a diversity hire, or at the very least a shuffle. ESPN had felt the pressure of diversity, which is totally true. The players walk-out in the first round made a big impact. I don't know if additional salary was gained/lost by Taylor/Nichols in this shuffle.

I think there are a couple of issues here. First, it sounds like Nichols was already promised the NBA Finals host position, either verbally or in writing.

Nichols: So they said to me ‘Hey instead of hosting the NBA Finals, how about you do Doris [Burke, ESPN commentator]’s sideline reporter job for the NBA Finals?’

"Instead of" sounds to me like something was promised and now taken away. They're giving it to Taylor right at that moment because of the racial unrest back in July. I don't think ESPN can deny this and it's not wrong for Nichols to point it out.

The other thing is that this was a private conversation, not something she posted on social media as a complaint or a tweet dug up 12 months ago.

[EdRomero]

But it was a diversity hire, or at the very least a shuffle. ESPN had felt the pressure of diversity, which is totally true. The players walk-out in the first round made a big impact. I don't know if additional salary was gained/lost by Taylor/Nichols in this shuffle.

I think there are a couple of issues here. First, it sounds like Nichols was already promised the NBA Finals host position, either verbally or in writing.

Nichols: So they said to me ‘Hey instead of hosting the NBA Finals, how about you do Doris [Burke, ESPN commentator]’s sideline reporter job for the NBA Finals?’

"Instead of" sounds to me like something was promised and now taken away. They're giving it to Taylor right at that moment because of the racial unrest back in July. I don't think ESPN can deny this and it's not wrong for Nichols to point it out.

The other thing is that this was a private conversation, not something she posted on social media as a complaint or a tweet dug up 12 months ago.

We do not know if that's true. Switches happen all the time in the media for so many factors. When Dave O'Brien replaced Don Orsillo on NESN, O'Brien didn't have to hear people claiming he was hired for his race or gender.

[degenerasian]

We don't know that. We didn't hear Orsillo's private conversations!

[Shirley]

Is there a non-paywall link that includes quotes with Nichols saying it was a diversity hire? I’ve only seen the quotes that were posted above where she complains about ESPN giving Taylor her spot. I think anyone would be pissed about that.

[EdRomero]

Isn't this from the quote above saying it?

If you need to give her more things to do because you are feeling pressure about your crappy longtime record on diversity

[Shirley]

Isn't this from the quote above saying it?

If you need to give her more things to do because you are feeling pressure about your crappy longtime record on diversity

That says nothing about hiring her. Hasn't Maria Taylor worked at ESPN for a while now? And the rant generally sounds like a criticism of ESPN, not Taylor. I interpreted her pointing out that Taylor does football and basketball as saying that Taylor is good.


Isn't it fair point that taking one minority (a woman in sports broadcasting) out to add another in (a black woman in sports broadcasting) is not really the greatest solution? Now, maybe the moves have nothing to do with diversity, I don't know. But it's certainly a reasonable observation.

So, again, is there more to this audio? Or is there a history with Nichols that I don't know about that's making everyone jump on her here?

[degenerasian]

Isn't this from the quote above saying it?

If you need to give her more things to do because you are feeling pressure about your crappy longtime record on diversity

That says nothing about hiring her. Hasn't Maria Taylor worked at ESPN for a while now? And the rant generally sounds like a criticism of ESPN, not Taylor. I interpreted her pointing out that Taylor does football and basketball as saying that Taylor is good.


Isn't it fair point that taking one minority (a woman in sports broadcasting) out to add another in (a black woman in sports broadcasting) is not really the greatest solution? Now, maybe the moves have nothing to do with diversity, I don't know. But it's certainly a reasonable observation.

So, again, is there more to this audio? Or is there a history with Nichols that I don't know about that's making everyone jump on her here?

I don't believe there is any history at all with Nichols. She's beloved as far as I know. And I believe that it was wrong for the NYT to leak the phone conversation, it now puts ESPN in a really tough position for something that should have been confidential.

[EdRomero]

I think the video I posted has everything that's available so far. I don't care if the criticism is is at ESPN. It's still crappy to say your coworker got the gig because ESPN is dealing with diversity problems. By saying that, she's making her coworker's race the issue when ESPN could have made the decision for so many other reasons.

[degenerasian]

I think the video I posted has everything that's available so far. I don't care if the criticism is is at ESPN. It's still crappy to say your coworker got the gig because ESPN is dealing with diversity problems. By saying that, she's making her coworker's race the issue when ESPN could have made the decision for so many other reasons.

She said it in private. The contract was hers. The fact that she just complained in the moment (blew off steam) and took no action is good for ESPN. It's a private matter, maybe ESPN will reward her in the future. But now its all blown up.

[Johnnie]

Rachel Nichols: "Oh, so ESPN sucks at diversity and they are screwing me out of my position in favor of looking better publically?"

The internet: "RACIST."

Is this where we're at now? Looking for racism where there isn't any? Especially when ESPN pit two accomplished women against each other to make themselves look good?

Unless there's literally a whole bunch of context completely left out, the person that leaked the conversation had an axe to grind and did it in a very cutthroat way.

[EdRomero]

I think the video I posted has everything that's available so far. I don't care if the criticism is is at ESPN. It's still crappy to say your coworker got the gig because ESPN is dealing with diversity problems. By saying that, she's making her coworker's race the issue when ESPN could have made the decision for so many other reasons.

She said it in private. The contract was hers. The fact that she just complained in the moment (blew off steam) and took no action is good for ESPN. It's a private matter, maybe ESPN will reward her in the future. But now its all blown up.

I just re-read the NYT article, and according to the article, it's been a huge internal issue at ESPN for the past year. Taylor and other black employees were pissed at Nichols and there were many strange work arrangements because of it. Sure, the twitter police may have jumped all over it when the story came out, but it was an issue before it became public because back to my original (I think) point, it is awful to say a coworker got the job because of diversity, even if it's a private conversation.

[Johnnie]

it is awful to say a coworker got the job because of diversity, even if it's a private conversation.

But...what if it's the truth?

Ask the ESPN person to his, I'm assuming, white male face: "Why did you throw out Nichols in favor of Taylor during summer of 2020? Why would you do that?"

And if his answer is somewhere in the realm of "Well, we need to be more diverse..." then there's your problem. Not Nichols's thoughts on it.

Reminds me of the time Bill Burr went on a morning show and was confronted about his jokes of the Catholic church "going too far" on F is for Family. And he was like "Don't you think the Catholic church went a little too far?"

So the problem isn't the institution. It's commenting about the institution. Got it.

[mister d]

If Taylor had to take five steps up just to be in consideration for that NBA role, how many times do you think she’s heard that she only took a step because she’s black? Over/under 4.5? And how many times do you think Nichols heard she was handed a step she didn’t earn because she was female? Or younger? Or more attractive? Or anything but deserving on merit?

Like I said before, this doesn’t necessarily condemn Nichols the person, but there’s a lot of work to be done not to condemn this reaction.

[degenerasian]

The question would be why were Taylor and other black employees pissed off at Nichols? Just for these comments? Nichols is not in a position of power. They could have gone to ESPN who must know about the comments and thus the strange arrangements. This is an internal company issue that we didn't need to know about.

[EdRomero]

it is awful to say a coworker got the job because of diversity, even if it's a private conversation.

But...what if it's the truth?

Ask the ESPN person to his, I'm assuming, white male face: "Why did you throw out Nichols in favor of Taylor during summer of 2020? Why would you do that?"

And if his answer is somewhere in the realm of "Well, we need to be more diverse..." then there's your problem. Not Nichols's thoughts on it.

Reminds me of the time Bill Burr went on a morning show and was confronted about his jokes of the Catholic church "going too far" on F is for Family. And he was like "Don't you think the Catholic church went a little too far?"

So the problem isn't the institution. It's commenting about the institution. Got it.

What's the truth? Execs thought Taylor was better than Nichols? Taylor got along with coworkers better? Taylor seemed to have a brighter future so they wanted to give her better roles? Nichols tested better with audiences? There wasn't a rumor Taylor was sleeping with a player in the bubble? Taylor is a better interviewer? Nichols is too close to LeBron's camp so we're not sure if she'll be objective enough on air? There are so many possible reasons for the decision, but Nichols went with there's a lot of talk about racism lately so ESPN went with the black girl.

And why are you assuming someone told her something close to "we need to be more diverse?" to Nichols. If it's like any management I know, they'll say a generic we wanted to go in a different direction and not give any reason at all. The issue is Nichols' thoughts on it because she said her thoughts, not what we're imagining what an exec may or may not have said to her.

[EdRomero]

The question would be why were Taylor and other black employees pissed off at Nichols? Just for these comments? Nichols is not in a position of power. They could have gone to ESPN who must know about the comments and thus the strange arrangements. This is an internal company issue that we didn't need to know about.

Are you really asking why black employees are upset about finding out a coworker said another coworker got the job as a diversity hire?

[degenerasian]

The question would be why were Taylor and other black employees pissed off at Nichols? Just for these comments? Nichols is not in a position of power. They could have gone to ESPN who must know about the comments and thus the strange arrangements. This is an internal company issue that we didn't need to know about.

Are you really asking why black employees are upset about finding out a coworker said another coworker got the job as a diversity hire?

As Johhnie said. The truth is the truth. It wouldn't upset me. I'd probably be more upset that they didn't pick me as the diversity hire!

[mister d]

Romero gave you a half-dozen reasons that could just as easily be "the truth" and anyone here could give a dozen more. Diversity hire being an acceptable default "truth" is a huge part of what's driving the entire backlash.

[mister d]

Here’s an easy one … do you think when the Nuggets hired Ujiri as GM at age 40 in 2010 he was the objective best paper candidate? Think anyone who had prior GM experience or had been with the Denver org a long time could have made or did make the same claim as Nichols?

[Johnnie]

Was the GM position vacant or was there a person already fulfilling that role who was asked to step down while there was a simultaneous and completely unrelated negative racial climate issue in Denver?

I'm half serious with this question because I have no idea what the Nuggets were doing with their front office in 2010.

[Ryan]

The GM was Rachel Nichols

[degenerasian]

Romero gave you a half-dozen reasons that could just as easily be "the truth" and anyone here could give a dozen more. Diversity hire being an acceptable default "truth" is a huge part of what's driving the entire backlash.

Dude, you're not reading between the lines. Remember, this is an internal decision, we weren't supposed to know. Nichols was pulled aside and told that management want to reshuffle and let Taylor host the NBA Finals to show diversity and diffuse the anger that was happening at the time. Nichols was not happy about this and Taylor and the black employees are not happy with her about her not being happy. Now, Nichols could have made this public, but she chose not to.

When Nichols is venting to Mendelsohn, she's not speculating, she's telling him. "I wish ESPN went somewhere else instead of to me, this is my contract." Basically playing two-sidesism. I want ESPN to be diverse and progressive but not at my expense. Why are you guys speculating on if there were other reasons?

As for whether what ESPN did was right or not, that's a different issue. Did they break contract? Could Nichols have sued? Does Nichols need to be compensated in a different way? All these are dealt with internally. We don't know what the deals are. But Johnnie is right, someone has a vendetta and leaked the video to the press.

[mister d]

Nichols being mad about being skipped is totally fine. No one, anywhere, is saying otherwise.

[Johnnie]

Since this is the racism thread, here's what actual racism looked like in Philadelphia this past weekend.

Dude's from some 2 bit extremist group from Fort Worth dressed as Best Buy employees wearing face coverings and decided to act a fool.

[degenerasian]

Nichols being mad about being skipped is totally fine. No one, anywhere, is saying otherwise.

Lots of people are saying otherwise. There are enough stories out there saying she should have been a 'good teammate' she's not aloud to be mad.
Here's on example.

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/rachel ... etter.html

Wow. Just wow.

Don’t know Nichols. Never met her. Can’t judge what’s truly in her heart. At best, she’s a horrible teammate. At worst, she’s Sports Karen.

The Times reported that Nichols tried to apologize to Taylor via texts and phone calls. Taylor hasn’t responded. On Monday, Nichols opened The Jump with an on-air apology to Taylor and others at ESPN.
This was the bare minimum. It feels inauthentic, like a carefully crafted statement approved by lawyers. ESPN wants this kerfuffle out of the news cycle and with the NBA Finals starting, our attention span will shift.

It takes a certain amount of hubris and lack of awareness to say that. Many of us have been passed up for promotions. Maybe we’ve been treated unfairly. If Nichols had legitimate gripes or if this were simply a personality conflict, this story would have played out differently: two highly qualified media stars vying for one position. Someone is going to be disappointed. Happens every day in corporate America.

Part of being a good teammate means standing up for each other. Being as supportive as possible, both publicly and privately. Why? Because gossip and resentment often have a way of getting back to people. And when you’re talking about an African American co-worker, you better be sure not to make disparaging remarks centered on race.

[mister d]

If they'd done a little research they would have marched in South Philly and been safe.

[EdRomero]

Romero gave you a half-dozen reasons that could just as easily be "the truth" and anyone here could give a dozen more. Diversity hire being an acceptable default "truth" is a huge part of what's driving the entire backlash.

Dude, you're not reading between the lines. Remember, this is an internal decision, we weren't supposed to know. Nichols was pulled aside and told that management want to reshuffle and let Taylor host the NBA Finals to show diversity and diffuse the anger that was happening at the time. Nichols was not happy about this and Taylor and the black employees are not happy with her about her not being happy. Now, Nichols could have made this public, but she chose not to.

When Nichols is venting to Mendelsohn, she's not speculating, she's telling him. "I wish ESPN went somewhere else instead of to me, this is my contract." Basically playing two-sidesism. I want ESPN to be diverse and progressive but not at my expense. Why are you guys speculating on if there were other reasons?

As for whether what ESPN did was right or not, that's a different issue. Did they break contract? Could Nichols have sued? Does Nichols need to be compensated in a different way? All these are dealt with internally. We don't know what the deals are. But Johnnie is right, someone has a vendetta and leaked the video to the press.

That's where are problem is. This was not stated. It's an assumption Nichols, you, and Johnnie made because of timing I guess.

[mister d]

If we start with a baseline of "Nichols would be mad about being replaced by anyone at all", pretend it was Doris Burke instead of Taylor, think about what her complaints would have been and go from there. You can be really mad about something without resorting to the demeaning handout shit reaction. Public or private.

[degenerasian]

Romero gave you a half-dozen reasons that could just as easily be "the truth" and anyone here could give a dozen more. Diversity hire being an acceptable default "truth" is a huge part of what's driving the entire backlash.

Dude, you're not reading between the lines. Remember, this is an internal decision, we weren't supposed to know. Nichols was pulled aside and told that management want to reshuffle and let Taylor host the NBA Finals to show diversity and diffuse the anger that was happening at the time. Nichols was not happy about this and Taylor and the black employees are not happy with her about her not being happy. Now, Nichols could have made this public, but she chose not to.

When Nichols is venting to Mendelsohn, she's not speculating, she's telling him. "I wish ESPN went somewhere else instead of to me, this is my contract." Basically playing two-sidesism. I want ESPN to be diverse and progressive but not at my expense. Why are you guys speculating on if there were other reasons?

As for whether what ESPN did was right or not, that's a different issue. Did they break contract? Could Nichols have sued? Does Nichols need to be compensated in a different way? All these are dealt with internally. We don't know what the deals are. But Johnnie is right, someone has a vendetta and leaked the video to the press.

That's where are problem is. This was not stated. It's an assumption Nichols, you, and Johnnie made because of timing I guess.

Come on, me and Johnnie maybe but no way Nichols made an assumption.

[Nonlinear FC]

1) The fact that this was originally a private conversation does ZERO to alter or dampen what her intention or meaning was with that comment. Only saying this because it has been thrown out a number of times and I don't really think it matters.

2) The notion that there are hidden, corporate politics and motivations at play that are unknowable, again, doesn't really change the context or meaning of what she said. The only thing I'll entertain is if we have actual confirmation of what, exactly, was going on at the corporate level to inform this staffing move. But just speculating as to what seems (to you) to be the "obvious" context isn't really all that helpful.

IOW, bringing these two things up repeatedly has very little bearing on the pretty basic fact that while she may not be A RACIST, what she said is at the heart of what creates and perpetuates a racist culture. She's making the most negative assumption possible UNLESS the network came up and explicitly said "we are making a diversity move" which as has been discussed is EXTREMELY unlikely.

3) The article from AA explicitly states that Nichols complaining about being passed over or moved aside or whatever shifting is going on is... Perfectly OK. So, I'm not really sure how all of the stuff being quoted proves your point. It's OK to kvetch about being passed over in a private conversation. The obvious point here is that you shouldn't say "diversity hire" unless you are 100 percent sure that's what's going on.

Not really sure why this is being made so complicated, frankly.

[Nonlinear FC]

Romero gave you a half-dozen reasons that could just as easily be "the truth" and anyone here could give a dozen more. Diversity hire being an acceptable default "truth" is a huge part of what's driving the entire backlash.

Dude, you're not reading between the lines. Remember, this is an internal decision, we weren't supposed to know. Nichols was pulled aside and told that management want to reshuffle and let Taylor host the NBA Finals to show diversity and diffuse the anger that was happening at the time. Nichols was not happy about this and Taylor and the black employees are not happy with her about her not being happy. Now, Nichols could have made this public, but she chose not to.

When Nichols is venting to Mendelsohn, she's not speculating, she's telling him. "I wish ESPN went somewhere else instead of to me, this is my contract." Basically playing two-sidesism. I want ESPN to be diverse and progressive but not at my expense. Why are you guys speculating on if there were other reasons?

As for whether what ESPN did was right or not, that's a different issue. Did they break contract? Could Nichols have sued? Does Nichols need to be compensated in a different way? All these are dealt with internally. We don't know what the deals are. But Johnnie is right, someone has a vendetta and leaked the video to the press.

That's where are problem is. This was not stated. It's an assumption Nichols, you, and Johnnie made because of timing I guess.

Come on, me and Johnnie maybe but no way Nichols made an assumption.

You honestly think management went to Nichols and explicitly told her "we're putting her in that chair because there's lots of heat out there about diversity and this will help"?

That's not how shit works, man.

[degenerasian]

You honestly think management went to Nichols and explicitly told her "we're putting her in that chair because there's lots of heat out there about diversity and this will help"?

That's not how shit works, man.

I do. It happens where I work, HR is quite open about it and I think it's becoming the norm. I like it this way, what's worse than a company playing lipservice to diversity and not acting on it. Heck, we even have a Diversity Officer in HR.

They look at everything from youth to experience to gender to race. Our executive has to be 50/50 gender equal.
We have a particular small department of 4 people who are all Filipino. When one leaves, another replaces. The manager of that group, who is not Filipino, likes it that way, good for cohesion. Is this right? is this wrong? Have there been complaints? Have their been lawsuits? I don't know.

But I'm convinced, and maybe I'm wrong, that Nichols was told to bite the bullet due to race. Nichols is 100% sure. ESPN needed to look better at that time. And I think that's fine. I think both ESPN and Nichols acted as normal people would. This is not a news story to me, but it was leaked and published.

[mister d]

Can we take a little step back here on the quota stuff? Did I read it right that this was the 4th person joining Woj, Jay Williams and Jalen Rose?

[Shirley]

You honestly think management went to Nichols and explicitly told her "we're putting her in that chair because there's lots of heat out there about diversity and this will help"?

That's not how shit works, man.

I do. It happens where I work, HR is quite open about it and I think it's becoming the norm. I like it this way, what's worse than a company playing lipservice to diversity and not acting on it. Heck, we even have a Diversity Officer in HR.

They look at everything from youth to experience to gender to race. Our executive has to be 50/50 gender equal.
We have a particular small department of 4 people who are all Filipino. When one leaves, another replaces. The manager of that group, who is not Filipino, likes it that way, good for cohesion. Is this right? is this wrong? Have there been complaints? Have their been lawsuits? I don't know.

But I'm convinced, and maybe I'm wrong, that Nichols was told to bite the bullet due to race. Nichols is 100% sure. ESPN needed to look better at that time. And I think that's fine. I think both ESPN and Nichols acted as normal people would. This is not a news story to me, but it was leaked and published.

Your company sounds super fucked up. I appreciate honesty, but hard quota policies - official or unofficial - are gross. Every organization should strive for diversity of thought, background, gender, race, etc. That's a good thing. But then applying that to individual roles or jobs is what leads to offensive terms like "diversity hire."

Honestly, I have no problem if ESPN decided that they really should have a black woman on the sidelines. (I know that kind of sounds contradictory to what I wrote above, but TV is different and we're talking about very few spots here.) But I also get Rachel Nichols being pissed about losing her spot. That Awful Announcing article did a good job explaining why her bitching - even if it was really directed at ESPN instead of Taylor - was harmful.

[Shirley]

Oh, and Nichols's on-air apology was weak. She mostly said the right things, but very quickly and then immediately had two black guys jump in and apologize on her behalf for way longer than she talked. It was weird.

[EdRomero]

[EdRomero]

You honestly think management went to Nichols and explicitly told her "we're putting her in that chair because there's lots of heat out there about diversity and this will help"?

That's not how shit works, man.

I do. It happens where I work, HR is quite open about it and I think it's becoming the norm. I like it this way, what's worse than a company playing lipservice to diversity and not acting on it. Heck, we even have a Diversity Officer in HR.

They look at everything from youth to experience to gender to race. Our executive has to be 50/50 gender equal.
We have a particular small department of 4 people who are all Filipino. When one leaves, another replaces. The manager of that group, who is not Filipino, likes it that way, good for cohesion. Is this right? is this wrong? Have there been complaints? Have their been lawsuits? I don't know.

But I'm convinced, and maybe I'm wrong, that Nichols was told to bite the bullet due to race. Nichols is 100% sure. ESPN needed to look better at that time. And I think that's fine. I think both ESPN and Nichols acted as normal people would. This is not a news story to me, but it was leaked and published.

My work experience is the exact opposite. When possible, personnel decisions were made given generic reasons so they couldn't be contested in court. If you did have to give a reason, there had to be a long paper trail with lots of factual evidence.