Ken Hatfield is not a victim of political correctness. He violated the stated policies of Rice University and deserves punishment. Every organization has a right to impose its chosen values on its members. For instance, is the NAACP obligated to allow membership to someone who hates black people? Censorship is inherently unavoidable. The only legitimate debate for a viable democratic society is where do we draw the line.

yeh. Seems like a clear issue of employment law to me. A contract is a contract - this is about doing one's job properly. PC is a "speech" issue, and this is about selecting people to play only on the basis of sporting criteria. Rice University and its sports teams are not the US military, and there is no legitimate comparison between them. I loathe political correctness [PC] and its imposition, but it weakens the case against PC to use it to attack equal protection (which you might not like either, but which is different).

David Thompson writes, "He violated the stated policies of Rice University and deserves punishment."

I assume Mr. Thompson is basing his evaluation of the situation completely on the words from the article, which say:

"Hatfield's statement is certainly disgraceful on a moral basis, but, as Charles points out, it also violates his employer's official nondiscrimination policies, so Hatfield deserved all the trouble he got."

But to know whether this is truly the case (that the coach "violated his employer's nondiscrimination policies") would require knowing what those specific "non-descrimination" policies are.

I would be quite surprised to learn that those "non-descrimation" policies restricted speech...especially speech that speculates about future actions. I could certainly understand if the "non-descrimination" policies actually fobade those actions.

Since the coach appears to have only "said" he would consider removing "an" (sic! it doesn't say "the") openly gay player, I would be surprised if that violated his contract.

For example, if a faculty member said that he would consider having a sexual relationship with a student...even if the actual ACTION violates his contract...I would be very surprised if the speech violated the contract. For example, suppose a faculty member was interviewed for the the university newspaper, and said (foolishly...without checking with a lawyer first! ;-)), "Yes, being a bachelor, I could see having an affair with a graduate student." I'd be very surprised if that statement was a violation of the faculty member's contract...whereas I certainly wouldn't be surprised of the actual action of having the affair was a contract violation.

Similarly, if a head basketball coach said, "I may cut all my white players; white men just can't jump"...I doubt that would typically be a violation of the coach's contract. Whereas actually cutting all of the white players after making such a statement--especially if some of the white players actually COULD jump ;-)--would probably be a violation.

The point is a coach/faculty member speculating on his/her future actions probably wouldn't be in most employment contracts. The actual actions would be...but the speculation about doing such actions probably wouldn't. (Of course, contracts vary.)

"But to know whether this is truly the case (that the coach "violated his employer's nondiscrimination policies") would require knowing what those specific "non-descrimination" policies are."

Rice University is only a short drive from my front door. I'm sure that the school has strong anti-discrimination policies concerning gays. You do, though, have a vlid point. Is Hatfield indulging in wild speculation--or would he truly discriminate against gay football players? In this particular case, the school has a right to ask him for further clarification. Does that sound fair enough?

PS: A few years ago the Rice student newspaper even permitted me the opportunity to state my qualified defense of affirmative action. Here is the link:

http://www.rice.edu/projects/thresher/issues/83/960412/Opinion/Story3.html

There's a technical term for a statement of intent to damage someone under stated circumstances, even if the person to be damaged is not identified. It's called a "threat." If the coach said what he's reported to have said, he was threatening to dismiss any player who came out as gay. Pewrhaps Rice's policies allow coaches to threaten players in this way. But I doubt it.

Brad, a nitpick. The piece in the Houston Chronicle was an op-ed, so it may not be fair to evaluate the Chron's views based on this. (Don't know if the Chron editorialized on it.)

Dittoes to Mark K, while I'm posting.

Interesting to see the Prof getting back to fundamentals, although the evangelical turn is a bit unexpected.