Wow. I was always one who believed that gays should have the same rights and be treated with the same respect as everyone else. But POdinCowtown's illustration of the problems which result by the employment of gays has almost convinced me they should be rounded up and exiled to some island somewhere. Hire a gay = potential lawsuit. Who would have thought?
Well, that is certainly a charitably altruistic portrayal of events. He could have waited five minutes. He could have gone around the corner. Why should he have to? Well, if modesty is that important to him, and if he didn't have the patience to wait a couple of minutes, then why wouldn't he have done it? It certainly would have been easier than walking across the room and tugging her away from a different interview and arguing with her that she needs to go outside and can't be in the locker room. Anyway, the bottom line is that Marcos did not "get in trouble for refusing to change in front of a female reporter" as you portrayed it. He "got in trouble" for undertaking a one-man vigilante crusade to needlessly kick a female reporter out of the locker room that night, in direct violation of league policy. And he didn't actually get in trouble either, other than being named in the reporter's ill-considered coverage of herself. All that happened was the league reiterated the policy and had each team's PR folks remind the players to plan accordingly. And although a separate topic, I was very critical of how she handled things. I think she did both Marcos and herself a great disservice by handling it the way she did.
Why would it be bad for the Galaxy? Nobody is obligated to shower in front of anyone. The facilities are there if you choose to do so of your own volition. You can take a shower when you get home if you'd prefer not to use the on-site facilities.
First, PO'd succinctly explained how it came to be. And the other thing I will add that such access can certainly add flavor to stories. Growing up, I used to love all of the clubhouse banter and asides that would show up in Indians articles. As such, that has long been a focus of mine. It's staggering to me to think of all of the stuff that never would have appeared in the Notebook if I didn't have that access. Mixed zones and press conferences are pretty much awful for getting any sort of flavor. Everybody gets the same mass quotes. There's no interaction. No unique details. No goofy asides. It's a recipe for bland, undifferentiated reportage. Reporters have no intrinsic right to have access to the locker room other than it's U.S. tradition and the policy of each major league. If MLS decided tomorrow that mixed zones and press conferences were the way to go, so be it. But I would be sunk. So many of the impromptu comments and interactions that add valuable flavor to the Notebook would never be captured. So it's more than just "reporters thinking they are God's gift to the world and have the right to do anything they want." It's actually useful for writing stories.
And I appreciate hearing the flip side of the issue. We'd all be poorer as fans without the Notebooks. It is a tough call--but I will still maintain that some members of the press are pretty arrogant about their "rights" while often forgetting their responsibilities. Have you read the book 1964 by Halberstam? There are interesting discussions about the evolution of the press corp at that time (albeit in a baseball world). I always was a Bob Gibson fan, which attracted me to the book in the first place.
I know if I was head coach I would not allow anyone into that environment in any instance - without prior approval and under my control. That includes anyone and everyone - owners, investors, press, former players, fans, whomever etc.
I haven't read that book, but I will add it to the reading list. And of course there are arrogant reporters. I'm not denying they exist. The point was just that the access is for more than just the aggrandizement of arrogant reporters. It is legitimately useful.
Fair--and BTW the correct title is October 1964. I've got a copy (I'm a sucker for $1.99 books at an outlet) if you want to borrow it. I really do appreciate your insights as a person with a foot in both worlds: fandom and the press, BTW. I've only gotten a glimpse of the latter with my photography, and it seems to be a facinating world (but I'll bet a lot of hard work goes into it).
Sirk, nice try but burden shifting doesn't work like that. A player who chooses to use the facilities provided isn't implicitly giving consent to be ogled by Robbie. It's something the team should think about and probably has already made some adjustments for. Maybe Crewster has an employer who provides co-ed showers for employees but in an office setting sexual orientation is irrelevant. Unless you think gay people are different from straight people and are never attracted to coworkers, it's a good idea to make some accommodations. That doesn't mean Robbie or other gay players shouldn't be able to pursue their career, it just means that there are other considerations that should be taken into account.
I don't remember if Marcos had seen other female reporters in the locker room previously but you'd have to admit that having them there is weird. It's become a tradition in the US but no other country I know of has followed our example. If it was the first time he'd seen it, that would certainly make it more understandable why he acted. The policy of having interviews in the locker room has indeed given us your notebook features, which I enjoy as do all other Crew fans. It also leads to weird situations like the NBA having all access locker rooms but not the WNBA though the ownership overlaps. It has given us Visanthe Shiancoe's junk on national TV because he happened to be changing in the background while a teammate was interviewed. It's also a minefield that will eventually explode when someone wants to use the machinery of government to get back at a former team.
I don't recall there being any female reporters covering the Crew during his time, and I remember during the initial brouhaha saying some leeway should be granted because it very well could have been something he had never encountered before, even on the road. I can understand the cultural confusion and it seemed even the reporter was willing to just move on after their first interaction. But where he undeniably went over the line was when he decided to go across the room and interrupt another interview by tugging on her arm and telling her she needed to go. She had every right to be upset by that and to talk to the Crew or the league about it. All of which circles back to my point about how her very public response to the whole ordeal did neither Marcos nor herself any favors. It's something that could have and should have been resolved behind closed doors before discussing publicly. I'd say this is case in point about the earlier comment about how all it takes is one person not to behave rationally and respectfully to turn something into an issue. In this case, I think neither Marcos nor the reporter handled the situation well. He handled it poorly in the locker room. whereas she handled it professionally in the locker room but then poorly a few hours later on her blog.
There are five elements to a prima facie case of hostile workplace sexual harrassment: 1. The employee was the recipient of unwanted, intentional treatment because of his/her sex. 2. The treatment was pervasive or severe. 3. The treatment had a negative effect on the terms, conditions, or privileges of the work environment or employment. 4. The treatment would have a detrimental effect on a reasonable person of the same sex. 5. The employer (or managment) knew or should haveknown about the treatement and did not stop it. How does being looked at by a person of the same sex who might find you attractive (without more) make the prima facie case that is the burden of any plaintiff? Early on in my career I was an associate supporting an employment discrimination practice. We would not have taken that case and if I were a defense attorney I would have sought sanctions against any plaintiffs lawyer who did. The Robinson case you brought up previously was not just about a few nudie posters being put up. The were numerous. They were everywhere. There were rude and profane comments to go along with the pictures. The activity was pervasive and was not passive. The thread has been sufficiently hijacked and I am not going to post anymore on this topic, but you are simply going on with a spurious argument. No one's rights are being violated here.
But the problem you are discussing would occur in same-sex shower rooms. Those are not uncommon. My last employer, for example, a financial services company, has a workout area for employees which includes showers. Would you, POdinCowtown, recommend that they not employ gays so as to avoid the potential lawsuits you discuss?
Point 2 is the main one, but it's largely subjective, both in the plaintiff's mind and a juror's. If the question is "suppose Robbie develops a crush on a teammate who's not interested, how far can he go before he reaches legal jeopardy", the answer is not very far. Most corporate HR departments would try to separate the employees physically or temporally. Move the guy with a crush on a woman to another department or building or a different shift. If that's not feasible, they can either read him the riot act or fire him. The same laws apply in same sex cases as in opposite sex ones. Where people are unclothed at times, the employer should tread carefully.
No but it wouldn't be a bad idea to have some rules on decorum in use of the locker room. I'm a couch potato now but when I was a member at Lifetime fitness the custom was to keep ones eyes elevated for everyone's comfort. What do you make of the occasional requests from individuals or GLBQT groups for a person who is physically of one gender but identifies as the other to use the second gender's facilities?
I lied. One last post. As a guy who now runs a corporate HR department with a history of HR litigation. He reaches legal jeopardy when he makes an overt act to hit on a teammate. You do not separate employees when they might hit on one another. You separate when they do hit on one another. Again, you are overstating the risk. No one's rights have bee violated.
I'm not claiming that Robbie has violated anyone's rights to date. He may be a perfect gentleman. He should also not be expected to take vows of chastity or swear a blood oath that he's asexual. Given that issues are forseeable, the employer should try to head them off. I imagine that Robbie is happy to be able to play soccer again for a living near his family and willing to make reasonable accommodations. You're tougher on him than I would be. I'd think he could ask a teammate out a couple of times before it becomes problematic. If they're dressed at the time, there shouldn't be a problem legally though the interpersonal relationships on the team might be damaged.
I can think of at least one member of the "locker room and field crew" but I don't know when she left...or do they not have the same access as media?