resolved?
Did you see the segment this morning on the CBS morning show? The video is here.
Apparently, the players of USA1 have reached a settlement with the USBF and will face no sanctions for their controversial actions last month at the closing ceremonies of the World Championships in Shanghai. Non-Playing Captain Gail Greenberg had not yet accepted the settlement offer, the details of which were not disclosed, when the segment aired earlier today. Greenberg said that the USBF’s offer came in around 2 a.m. and she would not be accepting it until she’d had a chance to confer with her lawyer.
Earlier this month, Ralph Katz wrote a letter to USBF Attorney Allan Falk and I reprint it here with permission:
As you know, I have been an active member of the bridge playing community since I was a teenager, over thirty years ago. Bridge is a very important part of not only my life, but also that of my family For this reason, I think it is incumbent upon me to express my views on the issues surrounding the Women’s Team participation in the recently concluded China World Championships.
Their conduct in displaying a sign that communicated their political preferences was unfortunate. in my view it was inappropriate for the time and place where it occurred. I also understand that if it were widely publicized and were to become “business as usual” it could harm the willingness of sponsors to involve themselves with competitive bridge. While the individuals certainly have the right to any political views they may embrace and have the right to express them publicly, they should do so on their own “nickel.” It is important to distinguish between advertising one’s politics (or any commercial affiliation) at the award ceremony and speaking one’s mind in a non-sponsored context. The former is unacceptable, the latter cannot be constrained.
However, I do not believe any of them engaged in this unfortunate display with malice. Rather, I expect that none of them thought through the implications of their conduct. Had they been advised in advance that such conduct was inconsistent with their representation of the U.S., ACBL and USBF at the World Championships, I am confident they would have refrained from their embarrassing behavior. Thus, it seems excessively harsh to levy any sort of material sanction on them for having violated a vague general rule. Nevertheless, their judgment probably does warrant some attention.
Accordingly, I strongly suggest they be publicly censured and advised that this use of ACBL/USBF resources is unacceptable and any repetition by themselves or any other USBF representative in world competition will result in a significant suspension of that person’s accreditation to represent the US in international bridge competition, regardless of the views they express. The reason the censure must be public is so that all members of the ACBL and USBF understand the behavior standards to which they will be held if they represent the league in international competition. However, I suggest that the censure acknowledge the failure of the League to properly communicate these standards to its membership so that the members can understand why a more severe sanction was not applied on this occasion, but will be in the future.
— Ralph Katz
Reaction to the “We Did Not Vote For Bush” sign was swift and vehement. The discussion forums associated with BridgeBase Online picked up the news within hours of the closing ceremonies and by the end of the day on October 13, there were more than 50 posts about the sign and potential fallout. Debate continues more than a month later.
In a letter to the USBF Board on November 7, J. David Adler, a New York-area player, wrote “As a frequent bridge player I contributed to their support to go to [Shanghai] and I find it an abuse of the trust I placed in the teams participating in the event. … If the USBF caves and let’s them off the hook I will be reluctant to play in any events that would contribute to the support of our USBF teams.” Adler’s letter was one of dozens circulating among bridge players, Allan Falk, and the USBF/ACBL Boards.
On November 15, Chris Willenken suggested the matter be dropped.
To the USBF Board of Directors:
With the opinions of both the general public and the USBF membership coalescing firmly behind the belief that punishing the NARASIMHAN team for
its actions in Shanghai would be (in the words of today’s New York Times) “un-American, unsporting and counterproductive,” it seems clear that the eventual outcome of the case will be radically different than that which was initially contemplated by the USBF Board. Given that reality, the Board should no longer be spending USBF funds on an attorney seeking harsh punishment for the team, especially as the actions of that attorney may expose the USBF to legal liability.As a USBF member who wishes to see all remaining USBF funds reserved for international bridge competition rather than legal fees and damage awards, I call on the Board to immediately fire Allan Falk and sit down personally with the NARASIMHAN team to discuss a reasonable dispensation of the case. If the Board declines to do so, I think that I and the rest of the USBF membership have a right to know exactly how much of our dues money is being spent on legal endeavors which are clearly not supported by a majority of the membership.
Sincerely,
Chris Willenken
Since returning from Shanghai, I’ve conducted an informal poll (respondents included: a few dozen old friends at Knox College’s Homecoming, my solidly Republican relatives, a pair of bright fifth graders and one precocious first grader, current and future teammates, the three non-bridge-playing couples at a dinner party held by SuperNanny, two or three east-west pairs at the Thursday night Hinsdale club game, five girl scouts and their mothers, my in-service brother) returned the unanimous reaction: holding up a sign was not okay, and punishment is probably in order. What do you think?
November 20th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I think conducting these sort of opinion polls without bias is nearly impossible. My informal polling audience consisted of 3 licensed social workers whose political leanings are unknown to me, a conservative Republican corporate attorney, and a liberal Human Resources executive. None of the above are bridge players. I also “polled” 5 bridge playing friends. The responses ranged from “good for them, the real traitos are the people trying to stifle their free speech” to “bad taste, but anything more than a slap on the wrist would be silly”. I suspect that the wide gap between your poll’s responses and mine has much to do with the way in which the question was posed.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
What more evidence is needed that how you phrase the question has major influence on the answers. I surveyed about 70 people, 60 of them bridge players. The bridge players were probably 3 to 1 against the women, the non-bridge players were 9 to 1 supporting them. Not quite unanymous. Kenny is right.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
How you phrase any question when polling has an influence. Period.
Wouldn’t think anyone would dispute this.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Rebel that I am, I’ll chance a response despite the “Period” above, which seems an attempt to end the discussion.
The point of my response, and perhaps Dave’s, is that the results of Stacy’s poll do not necesarily represent anything close to a majority opinion. I don’t know whether she intended to imply that public sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of punishing the women, but that’s how I believe many would read the paragraph about her informal poll. I think it’s relevant to note that her results may not serve as adequate evidence to support such a case.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Hmmmm. So curious to me why some people attempt to make something more of something than what it is on its face.
I cannot see a single word that I wrote about any polls having to do with this issue, my opinion one way or another about them, etc., etc.
ALL I said was that I thought the phrasing of the poll questions asked have an influence on what kind of answers you get. I added the “period” because I do believe that THIS point is so clear cut, few or none would argue with it.
So far - it appears that both Dave and Kenny are in agreement with me about that point - no?
If anyone thinks that how you phrase questions IS irrelevant - happy to hear their evidence and argumentation.
Please though - do not ascribe views to me that I either do not hold or have not expressed.
My guess about Stacy is that whatever conclusions she draws from her informal poll, she knows that it is a very far cry from “scientific.” Say what you wish about Stacy; she is nobody’s fool.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Here’s what I intended to convey: all the people I spoke to about the matter thought the action was inappropriate and that some sort of reaction was in order. There was no hidden message, no deeper meaning. The people I spoke with thought it was out of line.
I called it an “informal poll” because it was just that. I described the incident as it happened — which I happen to have seen first hand — and asked for opinions on the following two questions: (1) Was it okay to hold up the sign? and (2) If not, should there be a consequence?
When I posed the question “What do you thnk,” I thought the questions were clearly implied and am still curious what you think — was it okay to hold up the sign? If not, should there have been any consequence?
November 20th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
As I have expressed here previously, I thought it definitely not OK to hold up the sign. Not the time nor the venue to express your own political or philosophical beliefs.
I did believe that there should be a “consequence” - though I had hoped that the ladies would have appreciated, after the fact, that their sign had offended and embarrassed many, would have apologized to those they had harmed - and in turn, the USBF could have issued a “wrist slap.”
Once they were defiant and refused to apologize (at least some of the women; I am not at all sure that I have the actual facts of the case at my disposal)- I would have favored something stronger …. though, what exact form “something stronger” should have taken, I really have no clue.
I am happy that it is resolved. I am unhappy that no real acknowledgement of fault was expressed. I am particularly unhappy with some of the threats I heard, back and forth.
I’m also sad that some people seem unable to distinguish between what people can do, and what people ought to do.
Even if what the ladies did was not against the rules governing the competition (which it seems to have been), it was the wrong thing to do.
All my own opinions, of course. But - you asked, Stacy!
Here they are, for whatever they are worth.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
“So curious to me why some people attempt to make something more of something than what it is on its face”
Isn’t that what this whole debate is about: people making more of something than what it is on its face? On its face, the women made what I’m confident is a factual statement - none of them had voted for our current president. Those who wish to punish them for that statement have ascribed all sorts of meanings to that statement, such as the ascription Peg makes that they were expressing “political or philosophical beliefs.” On its face, that sign is a statement of fact, not beliefs. “Period”.
Now I don’t have a problem with attempts to understand the underlying intent of factual statements. Very rarely are statements of fact solely that. I DO think the women meant to do more than state a fact, and I DID think when I read Stacy’s synopsis of her poll that she intended to do more than provide us with some demographic stats. I thought she intended to convey her belief that most people are in favor of punishment. I can now accept that I was likely incorrect.
As for my admittedly biased opinion about the larger issue, I think the decision to hold up the sign was made in haste, and I think it was a poor one. I also think that the much more premeditated decision to propose a ludicrously disproportionate punishment for the “crime” is deserving of the media ridicule it has received, and that those responsible for that decision have done a whole lot more damage to the world’s perception of the USBF than the sign ever could.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Kenny - what I referred to when I said “so curious” was NOT the sign incident. At that point, I hadn’t said a word about the incident (at least, in this post’s comments.)
My comment was only on the reference to the phrasing of questions being crucial to polling - and that I assumed virtually all would accept that as fact (ergo, my “period”.)
“The sign” incident is something else altogether. I would NEVER say what I said about the polling about the sign incident!!
And I personally think it is a complex event and issue.
Even though I have my own thoughts, beliefs and prejudices about it, I surely can understand why everyone does not see it in the same light.