Coach DeBerry said nothing "racist". He only spoke the truth. TCU's black athletes were much faster as proved by the final score.

Give the man a break!

I see Godwin's Law is still in play ("As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”)

If you're comfortable implying I'm a Nazi, ("I don't actually KNOW you wear a brown shirt, BUT STILL...), calling me "sophomoric" and accusing me of having a "small mind," all I can answer is God help your students if they learned their concepts of statistical analysis from you.

BYU's handling of AFA did kinda blow Fisher Phillips' argument out of the water. (On the other hand, BYU definitely could've used a few quick D-backs -- it's not every day you give up 41 points and still win by 20.)

You are right that Coach Phillips' main offense was making lame excuses for the fact that his team stinks this year. If he'd been criticized for that alone, there'd be no need for further "existential" analysis. But the criticism didn't end there. He was accused of being "racist" for observing that there is a correlation between a team having lots of African-American athletes and having a high average running speed -- thus leading us to consider what is "racist" about that observation.

You are supposed to be a scientist, Gary. (That is, if sociology counts as a science.) Where is the room in science for your dogmatism? I can at least consider the possibility that genetics may have nothing to do with the representation of different ethnic groups among champion athletes. You take it as an article of faith -- to be defended to the point of discourtesy -- that this cannot possibly be true. You base your dogma not on scientific study, but on (1) your concern that if people thought genes were involved, there could be negative social consequences, and (2) anecdotes showing that some whites are faster than some blacks, which isn't at all consistent with average differences among large populations.

I'm well aware of the pseudo-scientific studies in "eugenics" in Germany in the 1930s (and also in the United States and most of the developed world during the first half of the 20th century). As "science," those studies were next to worthless (especially in the Nazi case) because the pursuit of truth was subordinated to political ends, with it being signalled by the powers that be that certain conclusions were strongly desired before the research began.

You're not a Nazi, but you are falling into the same trap: You refuse even to consider the possibility that science may demonstrate differences in the frequency of physical traits between different ethnic groups, because it will upset your view of how things ought to be.

I brought up "alleged church doctrine" (in fact, as you know, there's nothing "alleged" about Hebrews being characterized as "the principal ancestors of the American Indians", which they aren't) to show that the failing you've fallen into isn't a liberal/conservative thing, but a universal human flaw: Ultimately, for everybody, there are scientific truths we'd rather not know. We're improving in this area (we used to send scientific heretics to the stake; now we only send them to sensitivity training), but human nature hasn't changed much.

If your son slacks off in football training because he thinks all African Americans must be faster than he is, you need to educate him on the concept of averages. Look at another example: Statistically speaking (and this is absolutely uncontroversial among scientists who study these things), a person of my ethnic background is less likely to have a high IQ than someone of an Asian or Ashkenazi Jewish background. Did that mean that I, in law school, should just have conceded that I couldn't compete with my Asian and Jewish classmates? Of course not. You do the best you can -- because the characteristics of an average member of a class tells you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the characteristics of any particular member of that class.

My ideal, as far as race is concerned, is Justice Harlan's ideal expressed in his dissent to the atrocious Plessy v. Ferguson decision: Our society should recognize no classes among citizens; the Constitution is color-blind. If people really believed this, then it wouldn't be too long before there ceased to be any significant differences in gene frequencies among American ethnic groups, making this whole argument moot.

This last sentence brings me to one of two main issues regarding my contacting you today and that is TO WHOM DID DeBerry APPOLOGIZE TO? I have asked my friends and associates this question over and over again "was he apologizing to the black community, to the white community or to the public in general"? If he was apologizing to the black community then I must ask "for what"? If he was apologizing to the white community then I have to ask "to whom specifically" and if he was apologizing to the community in general then I have to ask "to what end".

It is not a secret that it becomes evident and obvious that African-American athletes at certain levels of visibility have talents, with speed being one, that lend themselves to superior performance on the athletic fields of the world. I recall to this day being informed of this by our track coach at my Jr. High School back in 1972. This gentleman, was (he is deceased) a white coach at an all white school pointed this fact out to us (12 and 13 year olds) in a discussion of athletes of those times. He always called it the way he saw it, was ahead of his time in both social understanding as well as the intimacies of athletic training from the simple (run as close to the line as possible when rounding the curve in the 220 yard dash) to the more complex (he explained to us the concept of white and red muscle fibers). He did not see colors he saw athletes and he, earlier than most in that area, was willing to discuss openly that in general black athletes were superior to white athletes. He enlightened us in particular of the difference in speed and quickness (not necessarily a message received with open arms in that community in those days). While he was perhaps ahead of his time in understanding and certainly ahead of his time in courage to share "facts" in his community, was not the only one to see this reality.

Today it would be hard for me to honestly accept that any rational and honest person would not readily acknowledge that there is a difference in certain talent levels between black and white athletes competing at the Division 1 football level as an example. While acknowledging this talent level in general terms I believe, as do many that it can not be applied individually as there are athletes of all skin tones who possess exceptional abilities.

This brings me to issue number two and one that has had a direct impact on my family. How is it that coach Patterson at TCU and other Division 1 football coaches can be all upset, surprised, astonished and otherwise outraged that coach DeBerry would make such a statement as he did after the TCU game? The answer is that he "outted" those coaches dirty little secret that there is a level of discrimination against Caucasians in recruiting at the Division 1 level. It is my opinion that these coaches will not really even entertain a look at a Caucasian athlete at running back anymore (certainly they can walk on and such once at school but they are not really recruited). I have been told as much, by those who would know, both directly and indirectly (through use of key words and phrases which all who are intimate with Division 1 football are familiar with). These coaches do not want to invest time in "potential", they do not want to waste time on "development" and they do not want to "teach" those talented Caucasian athletes in key "skill positions" that require "speed" (a known and widely acknowledged code word for black among Division 1 coaches).

My son played Tailback with a couple of the best Tailbacks (both happen to be African-American) to come through this North Texas area recently (both play at the Division 1 level currently) and many here would tell you he did not suffer in comparison to their performance. As a matter of fact while he performed so very well in areas that are harder to measure (blocking skills - pass protection, team leadership and pressure performer) he holds the team record in a more measurable area (average yards per carry at 9.9). Both of these young men I mention above have more speed than my son does by stopwatch standards but he is still fast by the same measurement and in overall ability and end results he ranks right along side of them both (and they are all three not only outstanding football players but outstanding young men in general). My point is that, simply because of his skin color, I believe my son would have received more Division 1 interest and offers if he had chosen to play another position, say safety as an example, instead of running back / wide receiver.

It is my opinion and therefore my reason for writing you today to say that I believe coach DeBerry was indeed apologizing, but not to the black community, the white community nor the community in general as perhaps the new Air Force Superintendent intended. I believe he was apologizing directly to my son and others like him for a system that does not give them the same level of opportunity as others of different heritage. I believe he was apologizing to me for those persons who have felt the need to question me as to how his "desire" to recruit more minority athletes" will impact my son as a future (Caucasian) Fullback for the Falcon's. Most importantly I believe he was apologizing for the hypocrites who practice so extraordinarily well those things they were so outraged and appalled to hear coach DeBerry articulate. I believe coach DeBerry was apologizing for the secrets being kept by those in position of authority at the Division 1 football level. As we all know too well, when those in power make the rules without public scrutiny then bad things will surely follow.

I for one think coach DeBerry should be taking a bow for his statements after the TCU game!

Thank you for entertaining my thoughts today. Please know that I am not attempting in any way to compare this issue with the issues of racial discrimination that the black community has suffered through for so very long in this country! I would not take that leap nor would I insult those who have worked and continue to work so hard to correct those injustices. Please feel free to contact me via e-mail if you desire if you have an comments or questions regarding this communication!

Sincerely,
Tim
Timata1@aol.com

On to the subject at hand, I guess you would say that now that BYU handled Fisher Deberry's AFA team with 62 points (with predominantly Caucasion boys)that that was a statistical anomoly. Well, that is why the constitution allows free speech; so that the spectrum of Hitlerian to silly views can be offered. (One of these days you should study the Hitlerian scientific views of the 30's and 40's they are strikingly similar to your analytic justifications) I am not sure whether your concepts are intended to be Hitlerian in nature, however, since they are not in the vogue, you some how justify them as new and enlightened; and anyone who does not "think about them" is shallow-Hal. Relive history and you may save yourself some time and embarassment, not to mention actual people not wanting to talk with you, or argue with you. Deberry's comments were not intended to be enlightened new thought; they were intended to be "sour grapes" about his recruiting problems. A kinda back lash at BCS teams. If you cannot see that simple concept and continue to try and interjet a "more existential" meaning to it, you have lost the point and the arguement before you even started. Come back to earth Thomas; or should I say "Earth to Thomas, Earth to Thomas". [Just a side note: Please also avoid justifying your silly argument with alleged "church doctrine". You give us a bad name.]

I suggest that people who considered DeBerry's comment to be racist did so because they themselves are racists.

The concept of "race" is an unfortunate human failing. It is an artifice used by people to gain advantage over others. The concept should be eliminated or redefined.

I propose that humans be reclassified into a group called "Chordata Sapiens", consisting of vertebrates having a somewhat higher level of awareness than the other vertebrates. The group is subdivided into four "races", each group sharing 99.9% common DNA and differing from the other groups by more than .1%. The four races I would include are: humans, chimpanzees, dolphins, and pigs.

Now, saying that African-Americans run faster than others is only acknowledging that they may have longer leg bones, more flexible muscles, and better utilization of oxygen. These physiological differences are well within the 99.9% DNA variability and are not to be considered as "racial" differences. No one should have to apologize for publicly stating this assessment.

Being Mormon myself and a graduate of BYU, I think your accusations of anti-Mormon prejudice are a bit silly. I simply believe that it is unconscionable to reject verifiable scientific conclusions because they make us uncomfortable. That goes as well for uncomfortable conclusions on genetic influences on average physical capacities, as for the ancestry of American Indians and some of Mormonism's sillier historic teachings on race.

I juxtaposed the two points to show that both secular liberals and religious conservatives pick and choose which scientific conclusiosn they will accept, and which to ignore. Follow the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

What did you teach at BYU, by the way? Not statistics, biology, or anthropology, I'd guess from your continuing inability to see the fallacy in trying to disprove my point by pointing out that some whites are faster than some blacks.

It says absolutely nothing about the physical potential of your own 15-year-old linebacker son that he is statistically less likely to be physically gifted than a random black athlete. He may only have a 50% chance of having won the genetic lottery for football gifts instead of a 60% chance. But he'll never know unless he does the best he can. If he rises to the top levels of his sport (as there is an excellent chance he will), it is beside the point if the champions among whom he finds himself are disproportionately black.

(Also, even if it turns out he may be marginally less genetically gifted than a competitor, his intensity and self-discipline can more than make up for the marginal starting disadvantage -- just look at how those intense foreign basketball teams whupped our bored professional prima donnas in the last Olympics.)

"why are there equal numbers of whites and blacks of scoring forwards in World Soccer"?

Actually, that proves my point, since 50% of the soccer-playing population isn't black. Blacks are therefore overrepresented.

You wrote that coaches ought to tell people "everyone can run fast, if they simply try." That is patently ridiculous. I simply don't have the genetic composition to be a world-class sprinter, no matter how hard I might try. (I have short stubby penguin-like legs, which actually helped me become a great swimmer instead.)

In the evolutionary shuffling, it does seem that a few more blacks than whites have gotten high cards. That doesn't mean that a lot of whites haven't also gotten kings over aces -- it just means that if you look at the population as a whole, the distribution of advantages is going to be different.

It cracks me up that liberals (rightly) ridicule "intelligent design" as a silly, pseudoscientific effort to undermine the scientific consensus on evolution -- and yet they insist as an article of faith that human evolution shut down 40,000 years ago, and all populations have genetic inheritances that are identical for all major purposes, no matter how long they have developed independently of each other.

"No, Thomas, leave your prejudices in the closet since even in your rather “deep” meanderings they seem to show through. After all isn’t it prejudice that we are talking about here, and layering your religious distaste for Mormons in the forefront of your argument seems to not only miss the mark, it makes you appear small. You either do not get it, or like to hear yourself make “fancy Harvard-like” comments like the guy in Good Will Hunting that makes a fool of himself with his blather."

Touched a nerve, did we? Yelling "Prejudice!" isn't an argument, it's an ad hominem attack. All I'm saying is that differences in genetic inheritance may go at least part of the way towards explaining the disparity in representation among world-class athletes in certain intense sports by people of African descent. I'm not stating that I know for a fact that genetic differences are all or even part of the answer; I don't have a Ph.D in genetics and what I know on the subject is self-taught through popular literature. If you can point me to a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that environment and conditioning can account for all differences in athletic performance, I'll change my mind.

I suggest that if anyone is prejudiced, it's you: prejudiced against even considering the uncomfortable idea at issue here.

"This idea of blacks being genetically advanced in speed/agility is an outdated and stupid explanation."

Please identify the studies that have demonstrated this idea to be "outdated".

"but did anyone ever think that its because black people are not accepted into professional, white collar jobs?"

Utter crap. My black classmates at USC Law School had interviewers falling all over themselves to recruit them, even those whose academic performance was only average. Americans are so ashamed of their country's historic racism that most of them (aside from rednecks who don't control the levers of power) go out of their way to make sure African-Americans are given greater opportunities than average, not less.