How about some "great leadership" from ESPN?

I previously commented on Lou Holtz's unfortunate Hitler comment. I could let it end here, but I can't, especially after I got the transcript of exactly what Holtz said, according to someone at ESPN:

Lou Holtz: "Let's remember Hitler was a great leader too."

Rece Davis: "You're saying he was a bad leader."

Holtz: "Yes he was a bad leader...what I am trying to say is some people are going to lead your team the wrong way and complain….some will lead down the right way."

My reading on Holtz's comment: When he starts with "Let's remember...", Holtz is making it pretty clear that he is repeating something he heard, believed and likely repeated before.

Holtz did apologize for making an "unfortunate reference," although he glossed over how he remembered Hitler...not as a vile, despicable genocidist, but as a "GREAT leader." Where do they teach this...at the School of Holocaust Denial? It's freaking 2008. Anyone who still believes Hitler was a GREAT leader is in serious need of education, something I doubt occurred in the time span from the "unfortunate reference" to the on-air apology.

So what's ESPN's rationale that Jemele Hill gets suspended for her Hitler reference, but Lou Holtz does not? Hill was absolutely wrong for what she wrote, but on a scale from 1 to Hitler was a GREAT leader, her Hitler reference hardly registers.

UPDATE: My friend, Adam Rose, and I have had a great exchange on this issue, even though we are in respectful disagreement. Common ground on Adam's point: "Hitler and Nazi Germany are touchy subjects, but we should never make open discussions taboo. That would be Hitler-like. Completely avoiding references to Hitler even runs counter to the wishes of Holocaust survivors. They've asked us to never forget."

My last word on the subject: All Coach Holtz had to do was qualify his statement, saying something like "Let's not forget SOME BELIEVE Hitler was a great leader." The one and, I think, only political lesson from Sara Palin (courtesy of her speechwriter): Sara doesn't say Obama is a socialist; but Joe the plumber thinks he is. Provides a little wiggle room. In Holtz's defense, he didn't have the benefit of reading off the teleprompter, which studies show significantly decreases the chance of gaffing.

Comments

[JC]

I understand the issue, but maybe it was an interpretation thing. Giving Holtz the benefit of the doubt, I think it is well understood and unquestionable that Hitler's motives and what he led people to do was indeed bad (horrible, despicable, awful are better words), but was hitler technically a BAD leader? I guess thats more of an amoral, tactical analysis right? I'm no history buff, so I have no answer for that question...

I think Holtz was attempting to say Hitler was a great leader at leading people to do bad things... similar to a cancer on a team infecting the team to underperform, compain or whatever. Isnt that completely different than saying Hitler was a good guy or leading people to a good cause? I agree it was said wrong and probably not the best analogy, but I'm not sure its as bad as you want to make it... just my opinion

[Jason]

The bottom line to me is ESPN's handling of the issue. Lou holtz said something that was somewhere between "unfortunate" and "offensive." That is for Lou to deal with and explain.

What I do not understand is ESPN's decision to do nothing about it. Just a few months ago, ESPN suspended Jamele Hill for writing something far less offensive about Hitler in a column (that was, no doubt, read by far fewer people than who saw Holtz's comment). She was suspended. How can ESPN possibly justify doing nothing to Lou Holtz for what is certainly a far worse comment?

Double standard? I guess being a not-too-well-known black woman means ESPN can suspend you but if you are a prominent old, white guy ESPN treats you with kid gloves.

Puh-lease!