In the nearly 9 years Sports Byline USA has been on the air, no comment has generated more response and debate than a recent call from Scott in Columbus. He started off by saying, "I don't want you to think I'm a racist." That was a clue Scott was going to say something people wouldn't like. He went on to say he doesn't watch NFL football anymore because too many blacks are playing. For Scott, this was a tough, but honest statement to make. While I personally and professionally disagreed with his position, I wanted to understand why he felt that way. As a journalist and broadcaster, there have been times when I've disagreed with a person, but have come to understand their position if it's consistent with their exposures and experiences.
Scott explained his feelings, saying he grew up watching NFL football during a time when there were more whites than blacks playing. Even though he acknowledged blacks dominate the game because of their talent, he still couldn't accept that domination because of this early exposure.
These questions came to mind: Is Scott a racist? Is Scott in the minority or majority with his opinion? And why, when the talent and performance can so definitively indicate a player's ability to do his job, is race even a factor?
In opening up the lines for discussion, I cautioned callers that I wouldn't countenance emotionalism, hate or unsubstantiated statements. What I found was, sports is the most honest reflection of our society and human attitudes.
The overwhelming majority of callers thought Scott was racist. I disagree. Bigoted, yes. Prejudiced, yes. But racist? No. A racist is a coward who acts on his ignorance and prejudice. History is full of examples. Scott presented his views honestly and understood he would be slammed for them. A racist does his work from hiding, gunning down innocent people and burning churches in the middle of the night. Most minorities will tell you they deal better knowing how someone feels rather than dealing with someone who says one thing and thinks another.
Is Scott in the minority or majority with his opinion? The answer to this question comes from a person's comfort factor. Scott's opinion was seeded in his comfort of watching and enjoying pro football at a time when white players were more prominent. I suspect a lot of people feel that way, especially if they come from a previous generation. Comfort comes from exposure. I grew up exposed to many different cultures, races and attitudes. I enjoy and judge people according to how they treat me and purely on a human level. A baseball owner I knew once told me he hadn't seriously considered hiring a black manager because he'd never been exposed to blacks. He didn't know them professionally or socially. Too many times our reluctance to accept or even consider something different, because we haven't been exposed to it, leads to a single-mindedness. In terms of human relations, that leads to opinions like Scott's.
Another factor affecting fan's opinions is the media. Today, unlike 15 or 20 years ago, the media reports more than just the final score. And, the way they report more than just the score has greatly affected the fans' comfort levels and their opinions. I strongly suspect the media's reporting of minority athletes' off-field, off-court problems creates an image in the fan far more negative than that of the white athlete who does the same thing. One of the things Wilt Chamberlain recently told me was how sorry he was his claim of bedding 20,000 women had perpetuated the negative stigma about the sexual prowess of African-American men. While Chamberlain's original pronouncement was titillating, it was far from newsworthy. The media trumpeted his claim to hit people's "hot buttons." Compare that to the reported sexual infidelities and escapades of baseball's Wade Boggs and Steve Garvey -- they were lightly reported and done so without titillation and judgment.
Impression is everything. Today the image people get of athletes is molded and enhanced by television. Fans, particularly white ones, make their decisions of whether they like an athlete more on style than on substance. ESPN SportsCenter and other television highlight shows have bombarded us with great plays, which they should. But they've also shown us athletes spitting, scratching their crotches, having emotional explosions and celebrating. The media can't defend the showing of the first two. Showing an emotional explosion is fine if it's presented in context to the competition and explained fully as to why it happened. Too many times television shows these explosions merely for impact purposes. This pushes fans to make judgments based on the impact rather than on an understanding of the facts.
Celebrations are an important part of sports. They recognize success and triumph. Without celebrations sports would be a wasteland of human emotion. I sense that a lot of Scott's desire, along with others who share his sentiment not to watch football because there are too many blacks playing, comes from his discomfort with seeing the type of showoff celebrations that go on. It's one thing to celebrate when one scores a touchdown or makes an interception, as these feats are worthy of celebrating; it's unsettling to the senses, however, when one celebrates effusively after a mere tackle or sack. The National Football League is 68% black and thus a preponderance of those TV celebration highlights are going to be of blacks. Combine this with white people's lack of exposure to minorities, an uncomfortableness to showboating and a subconscious resentment to political correctness, and you have the foundation for judgmental closed-mindedness.
What does all this mean? Sports is a reflection of society. These attitudes also exist in the workplace and in our neighborhoods. Should they exist? Of course not, but even less so in sports. Sports should represent a performance of excellence. Not white excellence. Not black excellence. Just excellence.
I feel better now.
I'm Ron Barr.
Agree or Disagree with this Column
Go to Ron's General Bulletin Board
Read Ron's Archived Commentaries