Chivas USA wanting to draft mexican americans

What would Dr. Leonard Jeffries say?

 

Is a Viking or a Raider racist?

 

Say what you want about anything else Redskins is an out and out pejorative.

 

Why do we always need to go here? I mean what's next Notre Dame 'fighting irish' (which is actually in reference to civil war soldiers)?

Here is a quick synopsis of this argument so it will save us all the time.

A. Someone points out that sports teams that use Native Americans as logos/mascots are offensive
B. Someone else brings up Notre Dame or Vikings or some other logo/mascot that is white
C. The first person points out that there was a massive genocide (one of the largest in human history) that nearly wiped out an entire culture and that the land in which that mascot now dances around was literally the same land where the genocide took place.
D. Everyone shuts up.



And I stand by my original stance that CUSA position is racist but MLS knew exactly what they were getting into when they sold a franchise to Chivas and allowed them to form that club. No one forced them to sell that franchise to them, yes it sucks but I don't blame CUSA, if anyone is to blame it is MLS. And when Vergara signed that check it was at a time when MLS needed big checks or they would possibly go under, so we all know why they got in. Now we just need to live with it until he sells the team and we can all move on with our unified hatred of Seattle

 

I've always wondered why the NCAA's stance against Native American nicknames and other symbols doesn't seem to extend to the University of Hawai'i Warriors and their use of Hawai'ian indigenous symbols and culture.

 

There are white Mexicans. There are black Mexicans. There is every kind of ethnicity in Mexico. Anyone who doesn't know this is living in a cave. Anyone who calls it racism doesn't know what they're talking about. If I say I want Americans am I being racist? What if I say the same about Canadians? But if I say "Mexican" it's racist. This thread is bullshit.

 

Its not racist (as you point out, Mexican isn't a race), but it would be illegal due to discrimination based on nation of origin if somebody can prove they're only signing Mexican/Mexican-Americans.

 

Yes, it is a discriminatory practice which is illegal in the US. But people should still use the correct terms.

Regarding your question about Hawaii, I think there is a pretty clear difference between celebrating heritage and culture as opposed to using a derogatory term or imagery.

Might have better luck with Florida State University in your comparison. But then the Seminole tribe has given FSU permission and actually addressed their concerns that were brought to them in the 70s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_mascot_controversy#Florida_State_Seminoles

 

I agree, but the NCAA made a blanket rule against using any Native American imagery without permission, including FSU, but never included UH in the list of schools affected.

(By now I bet UH has permission, so its a moot point, but I always thought that was a good example of the blindness of the NCAA on this issue.)

 

Perhaps we should use the term "latino" in place of "Mexican". The argument then becomes racist vs. discriminatory. In the US, businesses are forbidden from discriminating on the basis of race, nationality, and several other groups. I, as a business owner, cannot overtly and with proclamation, fill my business with solely Americans, Nordics, or people from Mercury. It is discriminatory and WRONG! Therefore, it is not ok for Chivas to fill their roster with Mexicans, Latinos, or even Martians, if it is done by excluding other groups. Vergara has publicly stated his intent to fill his roster solely with Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. It is discriminatory and it is morally wrong. We have that whole don't cross the line campaign that is aimed at being tolerant, and yet we have an owner who directly violates this cause. The world has a fit because a Russian team's fans are angry that their team signed a black player and goes against their own policy of racism through the years. The world is right to be upset. Myself, I do not see much difference between that situation and the Chivas "Mexicans Only" philosophy. I realize that Chivas came along with cash and MLS turned a blind eye, but it does not make it right. So in the end, what is bullshit is MLS accepting what is a blatantly wrong, in exchange for cash and Vergara being allowed to conduct business while discriminating against players who are not of a Mexican/Latino heritage.

 

Well talk is cheap. First Chivas USA has to actually do it before it becomes an issue. I honestly don't think they can, there just aren't enough Mexican/Mexican-American players available to them to put together anything resembling a MLS team.

 

From my understanding, I don't think it is discrimination. MLS LLC is actually hiring everyone. They already signed a contract with every player in the draft and CUSA as a franchise holder is just obtaining the right for that player to be assigned to their club. If MLS LLC had a policy to only hire Mexican Americans or Latin Americans or whatever, then I think you have a case. But I think the single entity protects him. CUSA isn't paying these guys, CUSA isn't hiring these guys, CUSA is only selecting from a pool of players who are already signed by MLS. The decision is based on racism/bigotry or whatever you want to call it, but I'm not sure if it violates employment law by only drafting Mexican Americans.

I think where they would get into trouble would be the hiring practices outside of the roster that CUSA as a company makes. For instance if they came out and said that all front office, all staff, all coaches...everything in the organization from now on was going to be Mexican American, well then you would have a case. It would be a clear example of a company using race/ethnicity as a factor in employment.

 

Under that logic a company couldn't be sued if their shipping department manager only hired Canadians. The company did the hiring, the shipping department manager only picked from the available candidates.

 

You know, you are probably right. But it is simply a technicality. It may not be illegal, but it is definitely immoral and violates the "spirit" of the law.

 

Following that logic, a Wal-Mart store could refuse to hire black people so long as other Wal-Mart stores didn't practice such discrimination. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that wouldn't work as a legal defense for Wal-Mart, and it's not going to fly as a defense for Chivas.

 

Dan Kennedy, call your lawyer.

 

I said that if CUSA were to hire people based only on race (staff for instance) I think it would illegal, but a draft is different. Wal-Mart isn't a good example because you don't have all the employees of Wal-Mart in the country go to one single location and sign a contract, and then have each individual Wal-Mart draft employees. That individual Wal-Mart is doing the hiring and firing of their employees but the checks are coming from Wal-mart corp. But in this case CUSA isn't hiring or firing people, they are selecting people who have already been hired. CUSA isn't to my knowledge even paying these people, MLS is so it would be MLS that would need to be breaking employment laws.

I think the draft is so unique and MLS is so unique that you really can't come up with another example that is similar. CUSA is simply not hiring these people they are only requesting MLS to assign them to their team.

 

No my point is that CUSA isn't hiring anyone they are being assigned players who have already been signed.

 

No, they are choosing players from a pool and they're making their choice based on protected classes. That's no different than a department head picking applicants from a pool at a company and picking based on protected classes, and you don't think that would get the company sued?

 

I guess the question comes down to 'who is being discriminated against?'. In the analogies given it is very clear...if I'm not black or if I'm not canadian and I applied for this job and didn't get it then I can say that I was denied a job due to race/nationality or whatever. The problem with a draft in which all the players are already signed is...who got discriminated against? CUSA is going to pick one of a handful of GA guys who already have jobs they just don't know where they are going to work. Their job and their pay is already determined, so who did CUSA discriminate against?

Now if they said that they are taking applications for anything else (ticket sales for instance) and people come to their office and apply for the job and they say publicly that they only hire Mexicans, then they are in trouble. A non-Mexican can claim they were denied that job because of their race/ethnicity, it is much more clear. But in the case of a single entity signing a bunch of college players and letting franchise holders select any of them in a draft, I'm not sure if employment law comes into place since CUSA isn't hiring them, they are only asking for them to be assigned to them.

 

I guess I don't understand the analogy. The word applicants means that someone doesn't have a position yet (they are applying for one). All the players that CUSA can choose from have already been employed, no one is not going to be employed due to CUSA not selecting them. At least not from my understanding.

 

And you're missing my example. I've worked in large technology corporations where developers/QA/etc. are hired, then picked by the teams that need resources. Do you think Microsoft (to just use an example, no accusation) would get away with having a manager who only picked Mexican developers for his team out of the pool? That's discrimination based on nation of origin as the non-Mexicans were denied the opportunity to work on that team. Yeah, they still had a job but they didn't have an opportunity to get that job.

Say your a Southern California kid who starred at UCLA and you were signed by MLS in a year where the Galaxy had traded its draft picks. Being a known athlete there may be an opportunity for camps, clinics. endorsements, etc. if you go to Chivas but because you're a white guy Chivas USA doesn't pick you and you go to New England instead. Sure, you still have a job, but you never had a chance at the position you wanted because you weren't Mexican.

I don't know, this seems pretty black and white to me (no pun intended).

 

At the end of the day, if Chivas is making hiring decisions (which is what the draft is, really) based on national origin status, that is illegal discrimination. It doesn't matter if the players Chivas passes over end up on another team (except maybe for the question of potential damages), a company cannot refuse to consider candidates for employment due to their national origin.

 

Yea I'm not a lawyer, so I could be off base with my understanding of the law. Its funny because I had this debate with my fiance who is Mexican and works at a law firm when the statement was made. She initially said it was clearly against the law but when I described to her about how MLS is structured and how drafts worked she seemed confident that it was discrimination but agreed it seemed like a bit more difficult to prove if it wasn't a draft of already employed people.

As far as your Microsoft analogy, I guess it would be considered reasonable if that project manager was running a project that could include programmers moving to Mexico. Then being able to speak the language or having residency could prove a valuable to the project. Chivas USA would claim that a part of their business model is to send MLS players to Chivas.

The UCLA example I think is a stretch. So if LA did have a pick and didn't choose him, can he then sue because he isn't able to work at local camps/clinics and bank on his local celebrity? It is sports and in the end it is very subjective. CUSA could just say they don't need him or they don't like him as a player. The players who sign up for the draft know that they are going to be drafted, and they may not be able to play in their home town. And what is to say he can't make money at clinics in the off season? Did CUSA really stop that kid from making a living by having him go to NE and not LA? Especially when the kid signed up to be drafted knowing he might end up anywhere?