To take off CALI's comments, these same professionals had to institute a formal rule to preclude them from considering race when hiring their respective staffs, though the perceived effectiveness of said rule is underwhelming. I don't think it's beneath them to consider hot-button social issues when making roster decisions (which, for the record, I don't see as wrong).
That said, I still don't see this as a discrimination issue; no one is implying that the Ravens cut him because they are at odds with his stance, nor do I believe that Ayanbadejo feels that way. He specifically acknowledged his age, role, and salary as key factors. The article reads as if the reporter specifically asked him whether he felt his advocacy played a part, to which he responded affirmative. That doesn't mean he felt is was the sole reason, nor does it mean he felt it was even a significant reason. However, it is highly likely that the potential for distraction caused by his championing may have been perceived as unhealthy for the organization. My opinion is that to outright dismiss it as a consideration at all is short-sighted.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if the interview is released verbatim - in context, without the editorial spin - the message will be much different. I have been wrong once before, but to imply that it could happen twice is just grasping at straws.
