Argonauts Should have Let John Murphy Apologize. Let's Discuss.

The Toronto Argonauts should have given John Murphy a chance to apologize.

The facts of the case:

1) on Sunday, December 5^th, 2021, the Argonauts were defeated in the East Final by Hamilton,
2) Despite their team’s victory, the Hamilton fans became belligerent and attacked Argonauts players, shoving, spitting, and throwing hard objects,
3) Multiple Hamilton fans jumped the barriers separating the Argonauts players and fans in the tunnel to the dressing room,
4) Law enforcement and stadium security were attempting to subdue the offending fans, but did not have the situation under control,
5) John Murphy was in the tunnel, appeared to be attempting to prevent Hamilton fans from attacking Argonauts players or interfering with law enforcement,
6) In a confrontation with two Hamilton fans (one of which had crossed the barrier and entered the player tunnel), Murphy reportedly calls one Hamilton fan a homophobic slur,
7) Murphy and the Argonauts players make it into the dressing room while stadium, law enforcement continue attempting to subdue unruly Hamilton fans,
8) Days later, the team and CFL release a statement that Murphy has been terminated and suspended indefinitely over the incident, with the homophobic slur being the implicit reason.

Analysis: Murphy found himself put in a very dangerous situation where he and his players were at risk of significant injury. In an effort to protect himself, his players, and security personnel, Murphy lashed out at the aggressors: Hamilton fans who were in an area of the stadium they were explicitly not allowed to be. At this point in the analysis, Murphy’s conduct seems completely understandable, or even reasonable, given the unpredictability of the situation.

This brings us to the homophobic slur. First, it is never acceptable to use this language. Words and terms such as these belong in the dustbin of history, and while we are free (from government) to use these words if we wish, we are not immune from consequences from the people and private organizations with whom we interact. Especially when performing one’s duties, one is representing one’s employer and it is perfectly reasonable for an employer to discipline an employee who violates company policy, acts unprofessionally, or tarnishes the employer’s name or image. Therefore, I submit, John Murphy’s use of the homophobic slur was in no way justifiable and was wholly deserving of negative repercussions.

Second, termination and an indefinite ban from the Canadian Football League represents the maximum punishment that the team and CFL can levy on an employee. As in the legal system, maximum punishment ought to be reserved for maximum offenses. Otherwise, the perpetrators of lesser offenses would have “nothing to lose” by going on to commit greater offenses.

The crux of my argument concerns the extenuating circumstances of the offense and the scale of the punishment. Murphy was not sitting quietly at home, leisurely posting homophobic messages on social media. Murphy was not making public homophobic statements on radio or television. Murphy WAS thrust in an extremely fluid and dangerous situation due to the insufficiency of stadium security, completely outside of his regular duties and expertise, where he understandably felt obligated to defend himself and his players. Additionally, emotions were running high all around after a very tough playoff loss with a blown lead in the 4^th quarter. Under such duress, making split-second decisions, the standard for what a reasonable person might do should be different from those under circumstances described above (social media, interviews, etc). Therefore, while the maximum penalty would likely be warranted under the latter circumstances, the extenuating circumstances in Murphy’s case make his at least a marginally lesser offense and therefore not deserving of the maximum punishment.

Now, given the discriminatory and homophobic nature of Murphy’s language, it is worth conducting the thought experiment investigating the hypothetical “well, what if Murphy had used the N-word? What then?” I agree that, while I can see some arguing one way or the other, it is reasonable for the team and the league to consider these slurs to be comparable and thus deserving of the same punishment, regardless of which was used. I think it is also reasonable, however, to submit that using the N-word to address a black individual is a greater offense than when addressing a white individual. Along the same lines, using homophobic slurs against a member of the LGBTQ community constitutes a greater offense than using the slur against a non LGBTQ individual. While Murphy had no way of knowing the sexuality or gender identification of the Hamilton fan, circumstances were such that a reasonable person might not expect it. Therefore, Murphy’s likely used the word carelessly while in the process of lashing out at an aggressor, rather than as a deliberate profanity targeting a member of a marginalized community. Therefore, even given the discriminatory and hateful nature of the word used by Murphy, circumstances were such that it does not rise to the level of maximum hate/language offenses and is thus again not deserving of the maximum punishment.

It cannot be argued that the indefinite ban was the league’s only option for disciplining unacceptable behavior. It was also not the only way to repair damage done to the relationship between the league and the wronged communities. Murphy could have received a suspension rather than a ban. He could have been required to make a public explanation and apology for his behavior. He could have been required to undergo sensitivity training and spend time understanding the impact that use of these slurs has on the LGBTQ community. I submit that a combination of these measures would equally (or better) achieve the disciplinary and reparatory goals of the league, without resorting to the maximum punishment for what was (I submit) not a maximum language-based offense. In conclusion, while Murphy’s language was and is never acceptable and cannot be condoned, circumstances were such that it was undeserving of the maximum offense that the league could impose. The measures described above, including an apology, would have been more appropriate.

I appreciate that others may have different views from mine and I welcome further debate. Also, I understand that this is an emotionally-charged issue and, despite my best efforts to discuss it in a neutral and sensitive manner, I may have inadvertently offended some readers. This was sincerely not my intention, but I apologize in advance regardless.

I shed no tears for him. To use the hate slur (you can call it homophobic, but the fact it it’s a hate slur especially when used in A rage) shows his true colours. I personally am glad they canned him for it. They have a much classier front office as a result.