ESPN the Magazine's "What if Michael Vick Were White?" article is a shameful case of a media outlet shamelessly race-baiting for attention's sake.
The accompanying image of Vick digitally altered to appear Caucasian conveyed clearly the editors' intentions of pimping Vick for shock value. Instead of thoroughly examining a multilayered and challenging issue, they chose to treat the subject as a cheap imitation of a Dave Chappelle skit.
"We had several conversations about how to support the essay with imagery that made people think as much as the words did," ESPN the Magazine Editor In Chief Chad Millman wrote in a statement issued on ESPN Front Row. "Ultimately, the resulting treatment felt like the strongest way to answer the question so many have been asking."
Millman is correct -- the imagery made me think. More specifically, it made me think, "this is an absolute embarrassment to sports journalism." The illustration was designed to draw attention and shock, conjuring connotations of the stereotypical blackface of 19th-century minstrel shows.
On a more subtle level, the actual article is just as anathema to good sense as the picture is. From the opening paragraph, entertainment and culture writer Touré describes Vick's "deeply African-American approach to the game" as "streetball" filled with "swag."
Touré then expands on the main premise of his article -- exploring how Vick's situation would be if he were white. In Touré's hypothetical situation, being born white "sets (Vick's) life trajectory in an entirely different direction."
Touré's declaration that "switching someone's race changes his entire existence," is the fundamental flaw in the article and should offend readers regardless of their race. Race does not change who you are; it only changes how people perceive you.
The difference is tremendous. Under Touré's hypothetical premise, being born white would have provided Vick with a stable home life, economic security and a different set of morals.
In all actuality, such logic is a double-edged sword of negativity: it makes excuses for Vick's actions, while implying certain negative behaviors are endemic to a particular race.
The focus of Touré's article is the assertion Vick would have been a different person based on his race, when a more productive focus would be whether Vick would have been treated differently if he were white. It still wouldn't be a simple discussion -- race is simply one of many important factors in how media and society treat people.
Unfortunately, race is still a massively important factor in cases like Vick's. If Vick were white, would he have been portrayed as a "good ole country boy" who didn't know better because dogfighting was culturally accepted where he grew up? As a hypothetical question, there's no definitive answer, but it is certainly worth discussing.
The only way our society can continue to make progress in moving past the stigmas and subconscious biases that affect our perception of racial issues is to openly discuss such complex issues. However, oversimplifying the discussion with generalizations is even more harmful than ignoring the elephant in the room.
Touré's article makes dangerous and harmful assumptions based on outdated stereotypes, but he has every right to express his opinions. The freedom for a diversity of opinions is part of what makes the United States a free country. Touré should by all means express his opinions and definitely did not deserve the hateful statements he received on Twitter.
The blame in this situation should not go to the author of the article, but to the institution responsible for publishing and promoting it. Aside from its ridiculous accompanying image, of which Touré expressed disapproval when asked about it on Twitter, ESPN the Magazine's decision to publish the article in the first place was a poor one.
The purpose of opinion columns should be to lead thoughtful debate and discussion about important issues. By placing such a tasteless photo alongside an oversimplified argument that failed to address the deeper issues of race in sports, the self-styled "Worldwide Leader In Sports" prioritized getting page views over serving its readership and failed miserably to lead the discussion.
Follow Hank Koebler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HankKoebler
Andrew Brandt: Vick's Vault: Inside the Deal
Why I wrote 'If Michael Vick were white'
White Michael Vick Is Gone From ESPN, But Is Here To Talk
ESPN runs controversial picture of a white Michael Vick
ESPN The Magazine Issues Statement On Michael Vick Article
ESPN The Magazine editor-in-chief discusses 'white Vick' picture
The mechanisms of any social privilege, whether it is male privilege, hetero privilege, or white privilege, always render it invisible to the very people that are privileged. I suspect that much of the criticism of Toure's commentary are from people that were never confronted with their own privilege and I suspect that for them Toure's commentary was shocking. But a confrontation with privilege and the shock or denial or anger that may follow is necessary because we will move toward a more equitable society not when we ignore race and privilege but instead when we recognize the systems of social privilege in our own lives.
Preventing the progression toward a more equitable society are those 'colorblind' individuals that ignore race and privilege and those that ignore race and privilege's full extent. Now while I don't believe the talented Hank Koebler meant for his comments to fall into this latter category, I do believe that they do. For while Koebler's line "Race does not change who you are; it only changes how people perceive you," is certainly clever, at the end of the day it holds no water.
(contd)
Also affecting who a person IS is a person's culture and its norms. It is undeniable that Vick has experienced two very different sets cultures and norms: that in the East End of Newport News and that of superstardom. (And many other sets too!) One's belonging to or alienation from the dominant culture and the degree to which one is (not) alienated from the dominant culture is also privilege.
Lastly, it is true that, for example, blacks are poorer than whites in this country. While this does not mean that every black person has less money than every white person -- there are plenty of wealthy blacks and poor whites -- it does mean that if you happen to be black, you have a greater chance of also happening to be poor and if you happen to be white, you have a greater chance of also happening to be wealthy. This is also privilege.
If after the initial denial and anger some of Touré's readers begin to accept the role of race and privilege in their own life a la the Kubler-Ross model, I think it would be appropriate to judge Touré's piece, while not without its problems, a success.
Just about everything ESPN does is distasteful.
Vick is one of the more passionate competitors in the NFL. Period. The issue running in the background of the NFL, with the white backlash in politics and in sports in a run-up to a presidential election year, is race. This episode shows the power of sports marketing world-wide. For better or for worse. Vick also Tweeted his feelings on the event, to his credit. The bread and circuses model of social organization is a tough freight train to stop.
And it is also true that they do only have one lead game announcer that is a minority, Mike Tirico. All the others are white, unless you want to talk about ESPN Deportes, which is geared solely to Spanish speakers and you never see any of those people on ESPN 1 or ESPN 2 as lead announcers in english. I wasn't talking analysts, btw, just the lead announcers.
As for your reference to the one minority who doesn't like sports, what in god's name are you talking about? That's a non sequiter.
Anyways, back to the topic: How people perceive you helps to create your own sense of self-image. Sure, it goes both ways. But to argue that, "Race does not change who you are; it only changes how people perceive you," seems to ignore the fact that the two (who you are, and how people perceive you) are intertwined.
Hank, I totally agree...the assertions about stable home life, economics, and certainly morals being tied to race are ridiculous...good analysis of an article I don't think I'll bother to read
If you don't bother to read it, how do you know the analysis is apt. I read it, and I think the analysis is 'part' right.