The charges of racism against the Yawkey family are well known and not without merit.

They passed on signing Jackie Robinson

The curs!! And the other 14 teams?

A mere two seasons after new ownership took over, the Red Sox won their elusive World Series then won a second three years later for good measure. The teams were integrated with African American, Latin and Asian players, unlike a Yawkey club.

The 1966 team, you know...the one before they 'integrated properly, and God gave them a WS appearance as a reward*'

George Scott
Jose Tartabull
Reggie Smith
Jose Santiago
Lenny Green

*God, of course being a Yankee fan..allowed NY to win six World Series between Jackie Robinson and Elston Howard.

Re: the "Paterno/Yawkey Connection" of the story

The totality of their knowledge will never be confirmed in the same manner of Louis Freeh's report about Paterno and his co-conspirators.

Really? Then maybe the pitchforks should be put away.

Mrs. Yawkey, like Paterno, took the easy way out of the controversy and died in 1992.

Diabolical mastermind.

We need a little more than a poorly executed article to blow up Fenway Park. At the very least, do some homework.

The Red Sox already tore down the statue they had in LF from 2001-2008; what more do people want?

Were children actually raped under Yawkey? I hadn't heard this, and don't want to google "child rape" at work.

There actually was a clubhouse guy who was apparently abusing children - this was reported earlier in the summer - but I don't think there was any cover-up by the Yawkeys that would make the situation comparable to Pitino.

Regardless of the Pitino analogy, I do think getting rid of the Yawkey name would be a good thing. They were terrible owners. They were racists who dug in their heels and fought the tide of integration. Their only accomplishment was that they successfully didn't sell the Boston Red Sox for many decades. Screw the Yawkeys.

I think every Boston fan would get a chuckle over MCA's Pitino/Paterno slip. THE POLICE ARE NOT WALKING THROUGH THAT DOOR. CHILD SERVICES ARE NOT WALKING THROUGH THAT DOOR. AND JOE PATERNO IS NOT WALKING THROUGH THAT DOOR. And if you expect them to, you don't quite understand the depths of the malfeasance at this university.

...I could go on.

but I don't think there was any cover-up by the Yawkeys that would make the situation comparable to Pitino (you mean Paterno).

This is from the linked article. That makes it sound very comparable to Paterno (You should edit out your mistaken reference to Pitino).

As in the Penn State case, people within the organization were informed that Fitzpatrick was raping the clubhouse boys. According to Passan, at least in one instance the team fired the victim for coming forward.

Players knew to keep kids away from Fitzpatrick. Mrs. Yawkey refused to fire him. Sexual abuse of children continued on the Yawkey family watch in Boston Red Sox facilities. He left the team in 1991 just as his first accuser came forward. Mrs. Yawkey, like Paterno, took the easy way out of the controversy and died in 1992.

There actually was a clubhouse guy who was apparently abusing children - this was reported earlier in the summer - but I don't think there was any cover-up by the Yawkeys that would make the situation comparable to Pitino.

Regardless of the Pitino analogy, I do think getting rid of the Yawkey name would be a good thing. They were terrible owners. They were racists who dug in their heels and fought the tide of integration. Their only accomplishment was that they successfully didn't sell the Boston Red Sox for many decades. Screw the Yawkeys.

Paterno not Pitino..

The clubhouse guy was Don Fitzpatrick.

I agree with you that Yawkey worship is not worth the money spent and pulling down references would do nothing to harm the franchise but accusations of their knowledge of child rape needs to be better verified.

Were children actually raped under Yawkey? I hadn't heard this, and don't want to google "child rape" at work.

It's complicated, like everything.

My scorn is for using the NCAA decisions as some sort of retroactive barometer of justice and using tired, old, fact-riddled arguments about Yawkey's racism to prop up the argument. Indignant, blogging, fat white people raise my shackles.*

*Not that Jason Whitlock and Howard Bryant don't annoy me.

Edit: I'm not saying the Yawkey's wern't racist. Inb4 someone writes a thesis.

I agree with you that Yawkey worship is not worth the money spent and pulling down references would do nothing to harm the franchise but accusations of their knowledge of child rape needs to be better verified.

It appears to be extraordinarly unlikely to implicate Tom Yawkey* (the one who is in the Hall of Fame, a status that Sullivan appears to be calling to be vacated). It says Fitzpatrick worked for the club for 15 years, leaving in 1991. Yawkey died in 1976.

* Not a defense of the rest of Yawkey's odiousness, just noting that he's probably in the clear on the Fitzpatrick case.

That's funny. Some sort of Boston sports / college sports / rhyming names synapse crossing there.

On Fitzpatrick, I should have done more reading. From Jeff Passan's article on Fitzpatrick and the Red Sox, we see the following evidence.

1) Complaints ignored and victims punished:

Never mind that the negligence dated back to 1971. One victim, according to a complaint filed by his lawyer two decades later, told Red Sox home clubhouse manager Vince Orlando that Fitzpatrick had abused him for the previous three seasons. Orlando fired the boy. Two sources, who asked not to be identified, said a Red Sox player caught Fitzpatrick sodomizing a boy in the shower, much like then-Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary did Sandusky. The player reported the incident to the team but not police. Fitzpatrick kept his job anyway.

2) The Yawkeys had a close, personal relationship with Fitzpatrick and protected him:

Donald Fitzpatrick was an orphan, exactly the sort of boy Yawkey loved to rescue. He would play pepper with the batboys off the street before Red Sox games, and he took a particular shine to the 15-year-old Fitzpatrick, whom he soon put in the parking lot, the clubhouses -- wherever someone needed him. Even as Fitzpatrick grew older and his tendencies to gravitate toward young boys became apparent, Yawkey protected him, according to two sources with knowledge of their relationship.

Save two years in the military, Fitzpatrick never left the Red Sox organization. When Yawkey died in 1976 after 44 tumultuous years of owning the franchise -- charges of racism chased him all the way through his Hall of Fame induction in 1980 and to today -- his wife's continued employment of Fitzpatrick concerned some Red Sox workers. Players for years had told young boys -- especially African-Americans -- to stay away from Fitzpatrick. Higher-ups in the organization tried to isolate him from any possible social setting. Jean Yawkey just wouldn't fire him.

This isn't nearly the kind of evidence we saw from Penn St, where there were multiple investigations of the cover-up which found material evidence to confirm it. However, even if we discount the "two sources with knowledge of their relationship" evidence that the Yawkeys protected Fitzpatrick, we still know:

-complaints were swept under the rug and victims punished
-Fitzpatrick's abuse was an open secret in the clubhouse
-Fitzpatrick and the Yawkey family had a close relationship

The simplest conclusion is that Fitzpatrick had protection from ownership to allow him to continue committing his crimes. That conclusion is supported by the anonymous sources whom Passan cites.

I was on the screw-the-Yawkeys train before this, so perhaps I'm biased, but that looks really, really bad. Screw the Yawkeys.

It appears to be extraordinarly unlikely to implicate Tom Yawkey* (the one who is in the Hall of Fame, a status that Sullivan appears to be calling to be vacated). It says Fitzpatrick worked for the club for 15 years, leaving in 1991. Yawkey died in 1976.

It says he ran the clubhouse for 15 years, not that he was employed for 15 years. The first known complaints about Fitzpatrick's abuse of children as a Red Sox employee were leveled in 1971.

My scorn is for using the NCAA decisions as some sort of retroactive barometer of justice and using tired, old, fact-riddled arguments about Yawkey's racism to prop up the argument. Indignant, blogging, fat white people raise my shackles.*

*Not that Jason Whitlock and Howard Bryant don't annoy me.

Edit: I'm not saying the Yawkey's wern't racist. Inb4 someone writes a thesis.

So, you're annoyed that people say the Red Sox were a racist organization during Yawkeys' tenure as owners, or you're annoyed that people say the Yawkeys were racist, but you don't argue that they weren't racist? Do you want people not to make claims that you don't disagree with? Do you not like their tone? I don't get it.

Glenn Stout's excellent article, Tryout and Fallout: Race, Jackie Robinson, and the Red Sox covers the ground extremely well. It is true that the reported slur at the Robinson tryout is of questionable historical value, given its source and its similarity to a famous incident involving Cap Anson. However, the Red Sox had a terrible record on race through the Yawkey years, Yawkey employed full-on old school racists near the top of his organization for decades, and accusations from Jackie Robinson and other black players carry a good deal of weight.

The simplest explanation of the evidence, again, is that the Yawkeys were racists who ran a racist organization for many years.

If this is true, then I don't see how they can justify not taking down statues and whatever else they need to do to lower the status of the cover uppers. It amazes me that child rape was tolerated so openly by the Red Sox and Penn State. WTF were these people thinking?

EDIT: I mean the child rape part, not the racism and other accusations.

It says he ran the clubhouse for 15 years, not that he was employed for 15 years. The first known complaints about Fitzpatrick's abuse of children as a Red Sox employee were leveled in 1971.

No, Sullivan wrote this: "Fitzpatrick was employed by the Red Sox for 15 years."
That's the information I was working on, though obviously that was incorrect.

I don't think it's a particularly complex issue, it looks to me like the Yawkeys covered things up, but the article makes it sound like the current ownership actively promotes the Yawkeys, they don't. Basically the only presence the Yawkeys have are "Yawkey Way" and the morse code on the scoreboard. Other than that there really aren't any consistent reminders of the Yawkeys.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm fine with eliminating/changing both of those things, just wanted to make the point that it's not like the Sox have a "Salute to Tom Yawkey" on an annual basis or anything like that.

SoSH - well, then Sullivan misread the Passan article. That's the relevant source here. I said "it" in reference to Passan's article. Passan's subject in that article, Leeronnie Ogletree, was first assaulted by Fitzpatrick in 1973, and Passan reports a previous allegation from 1971 which was actively ignored and the victim punished.

I don't think it's a particularly complex issue, it looks to me like the Yawkeys covered things up, but the article makes it sound like the current ownership actively promotes the Yawkeys, they don't. Basically the only presence the Yawkeys have are "Yawkey Way" and the morse code on the scoreboard. Other than that there really aren't any consistent reminders of the Yawkeys.

I don't disagree with your description of the situation, but I think that the ownership should actively disassociate themselves from the Yawkeys. They don't deserve what little recognition they are given, and further they deserve approbation for their crimes and other bad acts.

So, you're annoyed that people say the Red Sox were a racist organization during Yawkeys' tenure as owners, or you're annoyed that people say the Yawkeys were racist, but you don't argue that they weren't racist? Do you want people not to make claims that you don't disagree with? Do you not like their tone? I don't get it.

Because these things take on a life of their own and before you know it "Child rape was openly tolerated by the Red Sox", as Ivan so excellently slams home my point.

The moral high ground is already held re: the Yawkey's racism, things don't have to be complicated by inaccuracies such as "Yawkey yelled 'get that ###### off the field!'" or "The Red Sox didn't actually integrate until 1967" (a long-standing myth) "Reggie Smith was snubbed in 1966 because he was black" (another one...maybe, but his stats sure didn't help)

It's comp-li-cated. Someone has to be last. Did Yawkey call George Scott a ###### to his face and send checks to the KKK? Did his 'views evolve'? Even George Wallace gets some credit from history.

And back to the OP...I would think an NCAA level investigation should be warranted before we all decide Yawkey turned us into newts. Just talking about this gives *another* black mark to the Red Sox organization.

Because these things take on a life of their own and before you know it "Child rape was openly tolerated by the Red Sox", as Ivan so excellently slams home my point.

Child rape was openly tolerated by the Red Sox. That's easily the best explanation of the evidence we have, and further this toleration was enforced by the Yawkeys, who defended Fitzpatrick despite their knowledge of his crimes.

It's comp-li-cated. Someone has to be last. Did Yawkey call George Scott a ###### to his face and send checks to the KKK?

I mean, are you suggesting we give Yawkey moral credit for not being as racist as he conceivably could have been? I don't understand why any of the above is pertinent.

The Red Sox should get the death penalty.

are you suggesting we give Yawkey moral credit for not being as racist as he conceivably could have been

I'm saying life is complicated and very rarely..err...black and white.

What about all the good the Yawkeys did? Does that not count? Once one decides someone is a monster they shut all that out. Rescind his HOF membership? Do you (not that you personally called for that) know what a can of worms that opens?

As I said before, I find it odious to use an NCAA decision (Which I think was heavy-handed and I'm sure was covered to death in the other thread) as some sort of Supreme Court decision in a case of which absolutlely nothing new has come to life.

What about all the good the Yawkeys did?

Eh. They were very rich and they gave away some of their riches. They successfully ran a second-rate organization in a first-rate market for decades and decades. Then they died. It turns out they also harbored and protected a child rapist for two decades. If I were writing a biography of the Yawkeys, I'd want to tell the whole complicated story. If I were running the Boston Red Sox, I'd want to dissociate myself from them and the bad things they did.

And back to the OP...I would think an NCAA level investigation should be warranted before we all decide Yawkey turned us into newts. Just talking about this gives *another* black mark to the Red Sox organization.

There will not be an NCAA-level investigation of course as this all happened 40+ years ago. I find the second statement a little strange - a bad thing may have happened (probably happened) but we shouldn't talk about it because it was a bad thing? When these things happen they should probably be spoken of as much as possible so they don't happen again - if we're going to take any lesson from the Paterno debacle, that's probably the one.

This isn't nearly the kind of evidence we saw from Penn St, where there were multiple investigations of the cover-up which found material evidence to confirm it.

Actually, as the rest of MCOA's post details, it appears there was more evidence than at Penn State, but there never was an internal investigation to document what appears to have been a decades-long open secret.

When these things happen they should probably be spoken of as much as possible so they don't happen again - if we're going to take any lesson from the Paterno debacle, that's probably the one.

Agree with the first half but the lesson from the Paterno debacle isn't about open public discussion, though there should be that as well, but that big organizations will put the welfare of the organization above the welfare of all others. Why we haven't learned that from all the other examples is our failing, not theirs.

Agree with the first half but the lesson from the Paterno debacle isn't about open public discussion, though there should be that as well, but that big organizations will put the welfare of the organization above the welfare of all others. Why we haven't learned that from all the other examples is our failing, not theirs.

I agree, although I think this is true of many organizations, large and small. I would hope that at this point, most organizations that have anything to do with children are at least now thinking about how to formally deal with issues of this type if they haven't already. It does seem weird to me that the Paterno scandal seems to be bigger here than the Catholic church scandals, which are much, much larger in terms of number of people affected and degree of organizational coverup. Although this is a sports site, I guess.

It does seem weird to me that the Paterno scandal seems to be bigger here than the Catholic church scandals

It's bigger right now for sure, but I recall one or two megathreads on the Catholic church scandals.

I assume that's mostly a function of recency, with a sprinkling of sports relevancy. The priest sexual assault scandals, as a news item, were widely known and discussed before there even was a factory for baseball think. Breaking news always draws more attention.

I read this headline too fast, and wondered why, for the Boston Red Sox, now is the time to stop honoring the Yankees?

Those parades in Boston after the 2009 World Series were maybe a bit much. As was naming the street next to Fenway "Yankee Way".

I assume that's mostly a function of recency, with a sprinkling of sports relevancy. The priest sexual assault scandals, as a news item, were widely known and discussed before there even was a factory for baseball think. Breaking news always draws more attention.

Additionally, we probably would have had a few more threads devoted to the church scandal if three of the most prominent baseball writers had decided to hitch their wagons to Cardinal Law.

Good point - that's probably the largest factor. James, Poz, and Neyer have been major drivers of discussion here, for obvious reasons.

By the way, Luccino is speaking at my job at a lunch meeting tomorrow. Before I could decide how to push around my schedule so I could attend, it was sold out. People love the LL.

Agree with the first half but the lesson from the Paterno debacle isn't about open public discussion, though there should be that as well, but that big organizations will put the welfare of the organization above the welfare of all others. Why we haven't learned that from all the other examples is our failing, not theirs.

A small point, perhaps, but it seems to me the welfare of the institution demanded in 2001 (maybe earlier, but that's not as clear) that active measures be taken to eliminate the risk that Sandusky posed to the institution. Coming on the heels of the 1998 investigation, that risk is obviously real and significant, and the potential exposure is enormous. If you're putting the institution first, you have to figure out some way to eliminate that risk, even if you don't give a damn about the children. Giving a damn about the children is preferable and good, too, but duty to the institution should have been enough to get them to the right place.

A small point, perhaps, but it seems to me the welfare of the institution demanded in 2001 (maybe earlier, but that's not as clear) that active measures be taken to eliminate the risk that Sandusky posed to the institution. Coming on the heels of the 1998 investigation, that risk is obviously real and significant, and the potential exposure is enormous. If you're putting the institution first, you have to figure out some way to eliminate that risk, even if you don't give a damn about the children. Giving a damn about the children is preferable and good, too, but duty to the institution should have been enough to get them to the right place.

Yes. And speaking strictly from a standpoint of practical efficacy, all moral issues aside, it's in this way that Penn State committed the classic blunder of the Catholic church, as well as Richard Nixon and a gazillion other politicians: it isn't the misdeed that will really hurt you, it's the coverup of the misdeed.