Derek Johnson Muses

(A note: while I write for a website that covers the Nebraska Cornhuskers, this is derekjohnsonmuses.com piece and not a piece that reflects the views of huskerlocker.com . The goal of this piece was to cover the one aspect of the Brown-fiasco that concerned sports, although I may have spilled over into social commentary in some places. As those of you who read this blog regularly know, I consider myself to be a devote Christian and a social conservative. In future posts, I intend to deal with the other aspects of raised by Brown’s testimony that concern Christian apologetics.)

For a while, Ron Brown’s testimony at a public forum in Omaha has been on my mind, as both a sports topic and a Christian apologist’s topic. I wonder if the whole thing would have blown up the way that it did if Brown had just differentiated his position from that of the University of Nebraska’s at the meeting. He spoke for three minutes at the meeting, mostly just calling the council to consider the Scripture and what it said. It was a bit uncouth, but never in the statement did Brown say anything hateful. In response, ESPN’s Page 2 was flooded with articles calling for Brown a bigot and that leaders who took such “hateful” positions should be relegated to positions with religious non-profits.

But there is really only one relevant question for sports talk radio in this matter: should an assistant coach at a major college be taking any political position? I’ve mulled over how I would feel if there was a Nebraska assistant taking the opposite position on homosexuality. I would be saddened, but that’s that particular coach’s right to do so.

In general, there’s a good reason that coaches are discouraged from taking controversial political positions. To develop a well-formed position that is above reproach takes time and study, and coaches spend all day in their offices studying tape. The debate over a gay anti-discrimination ordinance specifically is a difficult piece of legislation to debate. While they are community leaders, they are not the first people we should look to on issues like the one before us.

Brown’s testimony at the public forum could have been tailored better (as it was in his open letter he sent to the Lincoln Journal-Star the day before Lincoln had their public forum on the “fairness” amendment).  Don’t misconstrue what I’m writing: I’m not saying that Ron Brown can’t take the stage at public forums as a private citizen. But, in the debate over the gay agenda, each side is waiting to pounce on the others flubs, and Brown did give them a reason with his unpolished statement.

But the sports writers who have taken up positions against Brown have made the same mistake he did, only worse. Charles P. Pierce wrote in his grantland.com post said “But somebody should take [Ron Brown] aside and explain to him that the world is changing around him and that, for everyone’s sake, it’s time for him to adjust or get out of the way.” Just telling Ron Brown to shut up and get out of the way? While they gay lifestyle is widely accepted where Pierce lives in Massachusetts, it’s not as widely accepted in other areas of the country (even California voted to ban gay marriage), and that hammering it at other people’s heads doesn’t help his position, the hallmark of which is tolerance. Which means being permissive of the views of other and supporting their right to have those beliefs, even if they disagree with your own.

Alongside Pierce, Rick Reilly and Gene Wojciechowski have been quick to publish angry, politically driven piece on ESPN. If one of these sportswriters took these positions and went into town hall-debate with a Christian apologist like James White or Colleen Carroll Campbell on the homosexual lifestyle, I would not be surprised if their arguments looked shoddier than Ron Brown’s did. But then of course, they are sportswriters.