Did the Vikings cut Kluwe because of what he says?

[Mothman]

If it's not during work hours or otherwise affecting their job, I don't see what legal authority they have to silence that person. There's a gulf of difference between not liking someone's views and preventing them from voicing them, as a person OR a business.

I think we have to make a distinction between silencing a person and simply choosing not to employ a person. Cutting Kluwe doesn't silence him. Even if the Vikings chose to cut him for expressing his views, they didn't impinge on his right to express them.

And I'm saying they don't have the right to alienate, silence or condemn players for their opinions. "Protecting their pulpit" as you call it, to me, is a gentler way of suppressing a player's free speech because any act to "protect' this would likely infringe on their rights, would it not?

I'm not well-versed on the legalities but I would say no, at least in terms of the right to free speech. They have a right to protect their brand and image and releasing a player doesn't seem to infringe on his right to free speech. If there is a rights issue there, I would think it would involve a case for wrongful dismissal or something but it would sure be tough to make such a case for Kluwe.

That very well may be the case. I'm just struggling a bit with a team that cut a guy like Kluwe and kept a guy like Cook, both of which are average (or slightly above average) at their respective positions and, given the nature of their "experiences" (we'll call them) the message they send by the actions they took.

As you can see from the varying reactions to the move, it's a message that is largely in the eye of the beholder.

[dead_poet]

I think we have to make a distinction between silencing a person and simply choosing not to employ a person. Cutting Kluwe doesn't silence him. Even if the Vikings chose to cut him for expressing his views, they didn't impinge on his right to express them.

There's a fine line there in my view. And what kind of message does that send? Put yourself in his shoes. You're speaking out about something you're passionate about. Your work isn't suffering but your employer fires you for it.

I'm not well-versed on the legalities but I would say no, at least in terms of the right to free speech. They have a right to protect their brand and image and releasing a player doesn't seem to infringe on his right to free speech.

Legal issues aside, the message could be interpreted "We don't mind you sharing your views. As long as you don't share them here." I have a problem with any organization that sends that particular message.

That very well may be the case. I'm just struggling a bit with a team that cut a guy like Kluwe and kept a guy like Cook, both of which are average (or slightly above average) at their respective positions and, given the nature of their "experiences" (we'll call them) the message they send by the actions they took.

As you can see from the varying reactions to the move, it's a message that is largely in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed. And if he had a CLEARLY awful season, or was 38 years old I wouldn't be nearly as upset. I'm going to try and put my blinders on and assume this was a purely football-related move (somehow). That leaves a distinctly better taste in my mouth.

[dead_poet]

Simple. They have a replacement that they know can do the job Kluwe was doing. Replacing Cook, while "average"(your words), do they have someone to replace him?

I believe there are in the neighborhood of 8 cornerbacks presently on the team.

I thought calling Cook "average" was being pretty fair. He really hasn't shown that he's better than that by NFL standards (provided he's on the field). Granted he might've been our best corner not named Winfield, but that can be interpreted a few different ways and said more about the state of our secondary than it did about his talent.

[Mothman]

There's a fine line there in my view. And what kind of message does that send? Put yourself in his shoes. You're speaking out about something you're passionate about. Your work isn't suffering but your employer fires you for it.

It would be very upsetting. I'm just saying it doesn't seem like a freedom of speech issue since cutting Kluwe doesn't interfere with his right to express himself freely. Even if the Vikes cut him for speaking out (and I don't think they did), they have in no way suppressed his voice. Cutting him and silencing him are wholly different actions.

Legal issues aside, the message could be interpreted "We don't mind you sharing your views. As long as you don't share them here." I have a problem with any organization that sends that particular message.

I think it depends on the circumstances. In this particular situation, IF the Vikes released Kluwe solely because he shared his views on gay marriage, I'd have a problem with it. However, in a more general sense, I don't because an organization has a right to employ who they want to employ and a right to protect their image. If a player was expressing views that went strongly against the grain of what is currently considered right in society, I suspect we'd see very different reactions. What if a player was aggressively racist, pushing "white power" in a very public way? Setting aside that it would obviously not fly in the locker room, that kind of stance is widely viewed as unacceptable. Would an NFL team (or some other organization that could have it's image seriously damaged by an outspoken white supremacist employee) be out of line cutting/firing that person and would people think it was wrong that he was released for expressing that viewpoint? It's obviously an unlikely and purely hypothetical situation but hopefully, it illustrates the point. there are circumstances inw hich I think most of us would find it understandable and acceptable for an organization to fire a person for what they were saying in the media (social and otherwise).

Indeed. And if he had a CLEARLY awful season, or was 38 years old I wouldn't be nearly as upset. I'm going to try and put my blinders on and assume this was a purely football-related move (somehow). That leaves a distinctly better taste in my mouth.

believe me, I get where you're coming from but I look at it this way: if he wasn't an outspoken person, would this move have done any more than briefly raise an eyebrow? It might be seen as curious but I doubt it would be considered terribly controversial. When the Vikes cut Mitch Berger for cap reasons in 2002, I remember people being disappointed because they liked him but I don't recall anyone being terribly surprised or upset that he had been released.

I think the Vikings deserve the benefit of the doubt here. Kluwe didn't have an awful season but there are other reasons to replace a punter. We don't know if he was resistant to what Priefer was trying to teach him, if they were unhappy with the way he shanked a few punts at inopportune times last season, if they wanted to save a little cap money to put toward re-signing Griffen or toward signing a veteran free agent this summer, if they simply think Locke can be so good that they felt they had to draft him, etc. There are are many reasons to make a move like this.

[PurpleJarl]

I really don't get this issue. There is in existence as of writing this, NO evidence to support that Kluwe was let go of for his mouth. NONE. Not a little bit, not weak evidence but ZERO. Apart from the fact that he was let go in the same calendar year as when some of the things he said went public... ohhh damning... This is such a non story its almost funny. Even Kluwe doesn't think he was fired for that reason. To be clear, I agree with almost everything Kluwe has said and am personally a vocal advocate of gay rights. But there is no proof that Kluwe was let go for any other reason then punting and maybe MAYBE a negative attitude towards the new special teams regime. So lets enjoy the good times he gave us and turn to what we do best; ripping apart his replacement based on collegiate tape.

[glg]

I really don't get this issue. There is in existence as of writing this, NO evidence to support that Kluwe was let go of for his mouth. NONE. Not a little bit, not weak evidence but ZERO.

Completely disagree. Preifer made comments about it during last season and implied that Kluwe's campaigning was impacting his performance (which Kluwe denies).

As I said earlier in either this thread or the other (and I'd merge them if it wasn't for the poll), I do not think he was cut as any statement against this particular opinion, rather I think he was cut for daring to have an opinion at all. It's a "distraction". Nevermind that players in other sports have plenty of opinions without it causing problems.

[Captain]

Sorry I haven't been able to come back for a couple days to respond dead_poet, busy time. Mothman (thanks!) has pretty much for the most part said what I would have anyway so I'll let that stand. I will however add that I agree with you that limiting free speech isn't right and I'd be the first one out protesting it I felt like that was happening in our country.

[CalVike]

rather I think he was cut for daring to have an opinion at all. It's a "distraction".

I agree, Priefer made comments that support your argument, Geoff. But I think they were borne out of what Priefer perceived to be woefully poor on the field performance by Priefer's standards in 2012, not by the political stands. IIRC, Kluwe had some dreadful games while the team was struggling in all facets other than running game. And a veteran punter will never get the same leeway as a 2nd year franchise QB over such perceived struggles.

[PurpleJarl]

Completely disagree. Preifer made comments about it during last season and implied that Kluwe's campaigning was impacting his performance (which Kluwe denies).

As I said earlier in either this thread or the other (and I'd merge them if it wasn't for the poll), I do not think he was cut as any statement against this particular opinion, rather I think he was cut for daring to have an opinion at all. It's a "distraction". Nevermind that players in other sports have plenty of opinions without it causing problems.

So, like I said, there exists no evidence to support the idea that Kluwe was cut due to his opinions. it doesn't matter what a third party thinks or heard. Until anyone can prove that he was let go due to his opinion, this is a waste of time. I understand your point of view but disagree about compelling evidence.

[DanAS]

I'm inclined to think they cut him because the Blair Walsh draft experiment worked out so well and Kluwe was highly paid, but maybe not? The more I read about this story with some Vikings org folk not happy with his various remarks makes me think maybe there was something to it. Not only the gay rights stuff, but also chiming in on Hall of Fame issues, the Players strike, etc. What do you guys think? Was there more to this than just replacing a veteran with a young guy?

Simple and obvious answer -- we can't know without having inside information.

Honestly, the Vikes have created more controversy about their management by getting rid of Kluwe than they ever could have by keeping him around. Now, we have a majority of the Vikings fans on this board thinking that Kluwe's mouth may have had something to do with his firing. And surely, many of us are thinking the following: You can be as violent off of the field as you are on the field and the Vikings will welcome you as part of the family. But if you dare exercise your right of free speech in support of the rights of other groups who have historically been objects of discrimination, you had better be near the top of the league in productivity, because otherwise, you're gone.

I can't imagine worse PR for this franchise than this. It makes the management seem like they're run by such troglodytes.

How could this controversy have been avoided? Perhaps, a member of management could have come out IN FAVOR of what Kluwe was doing. They didn't even have to take a stand in support of his public policy views; they could simply have provided seemingly heartfelt praise for having the courage of his convictions, or for the fact that he cared about others, was such an articulate spokesperson for his views, etc. Maybe they've done that and I missed it. But from what I can tell, they just got rid of him by saying as little as possible, and that leaves it for the rest of us to speculate about their motives and assume that perhaps they truly didn't care for his message after all. Given the increasing popularity of that message -- at least in my part of the country, if not also in Minnesota -- that's REALLY stupid PR on the part of the Vikings management.

[DanAS]

I think the Vikings deserve the benefit of the doubt here. Kluwe didn't have an awful season but there are other reasons to replace a punter. We don't know if he was resistant to what Priefer was trying to teach him, if they were unhappy with the way he shanked a few punts at inopportune times last season, if they wanted to save a little cap money to put toward re-signing Griffen or toward signing a veteran free agent this summer, if they simply think Locke can be so good that they felt they had to draft him, etc. There are are many reasons to make a move like this.

Jim,

You are correct that there were multiple potential reasons to get rid of Kluwe other than his mouth. The problem is, allegations are floating around that at least certain coaches weren't happy with his mouth any more than the rest of us were happy with his punting. This inherently raises suspicions about their motives. So, it becomes incumbent on them to come up with the right words to use to demonstrate that it was ONLY the punting, and not also the mouth, that mattered. From what I can tell, they haven't bothered to make that demonstration. If it's true that all they've done is to simply assert, summarily, that the mouth had nothing to do with it, that's not how you earn the benefit of the doubt.

(And I say this as someone who wasn't thrilled with his punting last season.)

[glg]

So, like I said, there exists no evidence to support the idea that Kluwe was cut due to his opinions. it doesn't matter what a third party thinks or heard. Until anyone can prove that he was let go due to his opinion, this is a waste of time. I understand your point of view but disagree about compelling evidence.

This is a message board, not a court of law. Nobody has to prove anything. You're attempting to shut down this debate with this crap and I do not appreciate it.

[J. Kapp 11]

I have a problem with any organization silencing a person's free speech. I would have major problems with that.

I would, too. But the Vikings didn't silence his free speech. They cut him. Just because he's not employed by the Vikings anymore doesn't mean he can't talk. It's just that now, the Vikings won't be associated with it.

At the same time do you think an organization like say Emily's List allow someone thats not for pro-choice use their podium to campaign for something they believed in? I would think no. I'm not saying the NFL is agains't gay marriage or whatever other issue there might be is or trying to silence anyone, what I'm saying is that until they decide what their message is going to be they'll protect their pulpit just like any other organization would. But having said that, I DON'T think the reason he got cut was because the NFL or the Vikes doesn't want him speaking out.

Given Kluwe's low net average and lack of ability to pin opponents inside the 20, I would agree that this was mainly a football decision. Especially when they draft a kid with a deft ability to do exactly what Kluwe can't.

That being said, I don't think Kluwe's method helped him at all. When you write a letter to a sitting public official and say things like, "I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage, so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your closed-minded, totally-lacking-in-empathy pie hole" (and that's about the only non-profanity laced comment in the letter) ... well, it may be funny, but it's not going to engender true conversation about a very important topic. It's completely disrespectful, highly ineffective and incredibly immature. I actually don't blame Mike Priefer or anyone else in the organization for being mad. Kluwe painted the Vikings in a bad light.

I think he got cut mainly for his performance with the team just getting tired of the other stuff and deciding it wasn't worth it to keep an average player + media attention.

That's exactly it, IMO.

Here's the thing about free speech in the workplace. In most cases, employees are protected. As long as you don't go public with confidential information or client lists, you're protected most of the time for practically anything you say. So if I go on Facebook and say the organization I work for is run by a bunch of blubbering idiots, they can't fire me for that. I'd have grounds to sue them if they did because it's protected free speech.

But they sure as hell can (and would) take a long, hard look at any negative aspects of my job performance.

[Captain]

Thats what I'm saying. You put it in clearer words

That being said, I don't think Kluwe's method helped him at all. When you write a letter to a sitting public official and say things like, "I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage, so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your closed-minded, totally-lacking-in-empathy pie hole" (and that's about the only non-profanity laced comment in the letter) ... well, it may be funny, but it's not going to engender true conversation about a very important topic. It's completely disrespectful, highly ineffective and incredibly immature. I actually don't blame Mike Priefer or anyone else in the organization for being mad. Kluwe painted the Vikings in a bad light.

Again, couldn't agree with you more here. When I first read through a lot of what Kluwe wrote, I found his methods far more disengaging and doing a diservice to the cause than actually aiding it. Like you say it was disrespectful, and immature. I wouldn't be a happy boss either if my employee went out in his/her own time and did things in a disrespectful and immature ways. Like it or not, and even whether its true or not, the perception that you're always representing your organization (especially when you're associated with such a high profile organization) exists. I have a friend who was the CIO of a major corporation and a very good speaker, yet whenever he was introduced at events to speak that did not involve his company, he always asked for the company's name to be left out of his intro so that he could speak freely for himself and not have it associated with or for the company he worked for.

[The Breeze]

Let's face it Kluwe is a Raider.

Most likely he will sign a huge deal with Oakland and punt that franchise back into prominence. The Bay Area rivalry between he and Andy Lee will become the stuff of legend culminating in the ultimate "Battle Royale" as both guys kick their teams all the way to the superbowl. The contest will be such a classic display of dynamic punting that even the Smithsonian will lobby for some scrap of Kluwe's clothing to display in it's museum.
All the publicity he gains for being MVP of the Superbowl will launch Tripping Icarus into elite band stauts and their number one song "Hang Time" featuring sampled sound bites of Ray Guy on acid will become the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" of it's generation. It will be seriously hardcore.

The Viking organization will rue the day they let go of this superstar in favor of some gimicky belief that a younger, hungrier left footer will give them any advantage at all at what is arguably the most important position in the game...after about 20 others. This will make the Herschel Walker trade seem like a bargain.

Udder madness will ensue....(that's the part where fans will resort to wearing hats that rsemble cows udders in protest)