Getting an I-Full

I tuned in, like I do most weekday mornings, to listen to Tony Kornheiser. Today was the day they were going to weigh in on Don Imus. Don Imus is, after Howard Stern, the most noted "shock jock", a guy who'll say offensive things on the radio, but had enough of a listenership who agrees with what he says, or at the very least, is entertained by what he says.

Imus made a comment about the Rutgers women basketball team. They made a surprise runner-up showing in the NCAA Division 1 Women's Tournament, losing to Pat Summitt's Tennessee team, a dominant team through the 90s, but looking to reclaim some lost glory, ten years removed from its last title.

Imus called the team "nappy-haired hos" and has been apologizing for saying this ever since, mostly, I imagine, because he thinks he'll lose his job over such comments. Tony Kornheiser is left in the unenviable position of trying to defend Imus, not so much because he agrees with what Imus said, but because it seems very much like the politically correct police gone out of control.

Now, I'm assuming Imus has said at least as scandalous a thing before, though I would say that I agree that his use of the word "hos" is more offensive than nappy-haired. Heck, I've seen an African American woman who proudly claimed she had nappy hair! And I didn't know what she was talking about!

There's a much lower threshold for racism than sexism, and commentators have pointed this out. It's Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson that come out to protest these remarks. Were these remarks made on Asians, would it get airplay? Were these remarks made about white women, would it get airplay? Indeed, why is it getting airplay?

To me, it says as much about racial politics in the US. We're not living in the 60s where civil rights advocacy meant lynchings and attacks, and so the kinds of brave actions that were taken are now reduced to finding occurrences of racism, most notably against African Americans, that are worth fighting, because such protests give rise to debates. Indeed, what better choice than a shock jock than Imus, and what better target than an athletic team! Because once it's about athletics, then the echo chamber of sports punditry takes over, and it gets discussed ad-nauseum by people like Tony Kornheiser, because somehow it's become a sports issue.

People are clamoring for Imus to lose his job, but are we prepared to have Tim Hardaway lose his? At least his comments were straight-forward, not in the context of a joke. He said he simply did not like gay people. What if Imus simply said "I don't like black people. I don't want to be near them. I would keep my distance away." Would he deserve to be fired? If you say yes, then you should say yes to Hardaway too.

Or do your sensibilities get rankled. African Americans are already a persecuted lot, so they should get a pass if they try to say something critical like this. Most people said that Hardaway wasn't particularly enlightened, but no one's saying get him out of the NBA.

Now, you can claim that these cases are indeed different. Imus has had a history of such outlandish comments. Perhaps, as Tony points out, this is much like Bobby Knight, who also had a history of being a bully. No one act was enough to get him ousted, but a history of repeated actions meant that the next straw would be enough to get him booted out. To that extent, Hardaway has kept his opinions mostly to himself, and so he hasn't had the same history.

Part of this is because it's Imus. Pick another person and heck, you wouldn't even know who that is. I mean, Imus is almost barely in the radio conscious, but he's just recognizable enough to serve as scapegoat.

Tony was treading very lightly on the topic, because Tony is an intelligent man. Is this being made a big deal because it's being perceived as a race issue? Yes. Would the same thing happen if he had made similar comments about white women athletes? No. Is this a form of "thought police"? Yes.

The subtext is even greater. Tony is, in case you hadn't noticed, a bit of a comedian on his show. His histrionics is what makes his show enjoyable. Does he make fun of people? You bet! Remember Melinda Doolittle? She's got no neck! She's older than Greg Oden! Why, they're all African Americans? OK, so maybe it's not enough to push anyone's racial button, but maybe the no-necked advocacy group should complain about this.

But you can see why Tony might be nervous. He can claim that he's not strayed into the realm of hateful speech because he's not deliberately hateful at all. He'll hate, but on oddball things. He'll pretend he wants to ban John Feinstein. It doesn't hurt that it's all an act, and both are Jewish American sportswriters, so it's okay to bust the chops of someone in the same boat as you. He can say that there are differences, but at what point might someone say, there are no differences, and he becomes the next guy accused of saying something inflammatory, as a joke?

Indeed, African Americans are much more likely to raise issue when there is a racial slight, but usually when there is some political advantage to doing so. No other ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation group has even close to the kind of media play. It might be something if Jesse Jackson defends some Asian Americans against perceived racism against say Abercrombie and Fitch, a company noted for its lily white models and for a racist Asian shirt. But you don't hear it happen much, do you?

And because you don't, people are more willing to look at such protests and say "well, there goes the PC police!".

To be honest, I think the Rutgers women don't give two hoots about what Don Imus says and are perfectly capable of defending themselves. I'm sure some other group is being slighted by similar comments and we don't even hear it. Does this make the comments right? No. But the kind of uproar seems more for political benefit (oh, Rev. Jackson is still around?) than to effectively combat racism.

I won't say it has no effect, because many people agree with the sentiment, but it does polarize people, and puts people in corners they don't want to be in because of the implications of why this became a big deal to begin with.