Injustice in Black Leaders' Response to Thomas Case

The Thomas affair smacks of a clear double standard among black leadership. Sure, some called for Thomas' dismissal, but not with the same gusto as with Imus.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Justice is one of those words that are frequently tossed around in the most cavalier sense. Elected officials, who support the death penalty, decry the need for justice for the victim's family. President Bush, upon the capture of Saddam Hussein, stated the former dictator would receive the type of justice he had denied so many of his people.

Those who claim to stand on the side of the oppressed demand social justice from the dominant culture. Not to suggest any of these claims are inaccurate, but there is something about the use of the word in our current public conversation that subliminally and consciously suggests that right is exclusive to their side.

That was evident during the Don Imus affair. There was justifiable moral rage against what was so clearly a racist and sexist remark. Soon after the National Association of Black Journalists broke the story, the pitchfork and torches brigade were ready for action.

The same holds true for Jena 6 as thousands descended on the small Louisiana town to protest what seems to be clearly a case of injustice. However one feels about the incident, it would be hard to make a cogent case that the black and white students involved were treated equally.

But justice tends not to be as selective as our present-day application. Can someone explain to me why New York Knicks head basketball coach Isiah Thomas still has a job?

If "nappy headed hos" can get Imus fired, it would seem to me that a person in power, who happens to be black, is guilty of calling a black woman the B-word in the workplace warrants similar.

What's worse was Thomas' pathetic justification. In a videotaped deposition played for the jury at fired Knicks exec Anucha Browne Sanders' sexual harassment trial, Thomas said he drew a distinction between whites and blacks when it came to the B-word.

"A white male calling a black female a bitch is highly offensive," Thomas said. "A white male calling a black female (the B-word), that is wrong with me. I'm not taking that. I'm not accepting that," he added.

I'm glad to see that Thomas has some boundaries, but how can this be acceptable? A federal jury has already awarded $11.6 million in compensatory and punitive damages to Browne-Saunders, not much debate about what was said (Thomas claims the tape was doctored), but somehow Thomas' behavior gets a pass on the morally contempt meter that did not escape Imus.

Where are the organized protests at every New York Knicks game? Where are the cable talk show interviews with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson demanding that Thomas must go?

Sharpton did state, back in October, he would lead protests against Madison Square Garden unless Thomas apologized for his remarks. Thomas has yet to apologize. Imus did apologize, but that did not stop Sharpton from stating: "I accept his apology, just as I want his bosses to accept his resignation."

Even with the doctored tape alibi, Thomas and the Knicks were found guilty of sexual harassment, and whom does Sharpton hold a joint press conference to show his support? That's right, the victim, Isiah Thomas.

With the primary difference between Imus and Thomas being the color of their skin, Sharpton demands Imus, who is white, be fired, but we should reserve judgment on Thomas, who is black. Why are they not simply two men equally derogatory toward black women?

Could it be that black leadership is operating on a paradigm similar to Thomas in that injustice conducted by a black man is not as egregious as a white man engaging in it?

The Thomas affair smacks of a clear double standard among black leadership. Sure, some called for Thomas' dismissal, but not with the same gusto as with Imus. Their muted protest against Thomas may work against future legitimate cries of injustice from those that are indeed victims.

The difference between how black leadership handled Imus versus Thomas is a reminder that in the selective application of justice it is easy to ignore that injustice and who conducts it can also be colorblind.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist.
E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at 510-208-6417.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot