Athletes don't need to be vocal activists

Nation sports editor Dave Zirin does a fantastic job of chronicling the nexus of sport and politics in his documentary “Not Just a Game”.

The movie adroitly highlights the manifestation of dominant ideologies in American society and how they are reflected in sport. However, I must take issue with Zirin’s implied assertion that prominent athletes should be activists for change. More specifically, my criticism is with the way Michael Jordan is portrayed.

Zirin bashes Jordan for not loudly agitating for social progress; Jordan instead chooses to maintain a financially vibrant corporate image. One of the documentary’s main examples for Jordan’s perceived indifference is his refusal to endorse “African-American” Harvey Gantt, a Democratic Senate candidate, who ran against Republican incumbent and “opponent of civil rights” Jesse Helms.

The answer Jordan gave was “Republicans buy sneakers, too.” As cynical as that answer sounds, it cannot mask the bigger question that needs to be posed to Zirin: Why should Jordan endorse Gantt or anybody else? It is implied since Gantt is black and Helms is an “opponent of civil rights” that Jordan naturally should back Gantt.

This sort of commentary is highly problematic. Why do commentators assume that certain (read: black) issues should automatically determine how blacks should vote? For all women, should issues on reproductive rights automatically dictate how they should vote?

As for Jordan’s nonendorsal of Jesse Helms, what would Zirin say about James Meredith? Meredith, whom The Clarion Ledger says is the "first known black" to attend the University of Mississippi, worked for Helms in 1989. Is he less of an icon because his politics do not comport to Zirin’s views of what activists should be?

It is also not fair to compare Jordan to that of Muhammad Ali, John Carlos or Tommie Smith. The world they lived in during their athletic primes and the world Jordan lived in during his are radically different. Ali, Carlos and Smith were competing in the throes of both the civil rights and anti-war movements. Lots of blood was shed and many lives were lost in the battle to transform U.S. society.

This is not to say the 1980s and 1990s were a halcyon for civil rights, but societal attitudes were certainly different. The fervor from the previous generation had calmed considerably. There is no doubt the courage displayed by Ali, Carlos and Smith is legendary and paved the way for Jordan and others today, but why should Jordan, LeBron James or Tiger Woods be compared to them?

Athletes are placed in prominent positions in American society, right or wrong. Wanting them to effect positive change is a noble effort, but who gets to define what is “positive?” Issues are contentious because passions run strong along all (not just both) sides.

Maybe some notable individuals would rather work through charities or some other means to improve society. One need not have the podium or the loudest voice to help people.

-- Steve Bien-Aime

Sports and politics collide

Is sports outside the realm of politics?

Cleary not in the United States. Politico recently reported that the Arizona Cardinals franchise donated $5,000 to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s super political action committee or super PAC.

The article mentions that the NFL has a traditional PAC and that executives from various sports teams have previously donated to candidates.

Fans become fired up over whether a coach should be fired or various player personnel moves. Often the general manager or another executive explains to the fans (often through the media) the rationale behind those decisions. In its report Politico said team officials could be reached for a response.

If sports teams actively engage in politics do they owe their fans an explanation here as well?

-- Steve Bien-Aimé

Kagan once played softball, which means she's gay?

Ever since President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, questions about her sexuality have figured into the overall news narrative. Recently, news sources have begun showing a picture of Kagan playing softball, and suggesting that her affiliation with the sport shows that she is indeed lesbian. (Pat Buchanan, the MSNBC pundit, provided particularly insightful commentary, stating that playing softball is a lesbian “signal,” just like “two guys sunbathing together” brings the “immediate implication that they’re gay.”) Aside from the problematic ideology that an out lesbian is somehow a mark in the negative column in evaluating this potential justice, the implication draws from an age-old stereotype about female athletes. News media own the responsibility of ethically informing the public so that we may become better citizens equipped to make educated decisions. What Kagan’s short-lived amateur softball career has to do with her potential as a Supreme Court justice is unclear. What is clear, however, is the persistent stigmatization of women who do not conform to traditional notions of femininity, including those who have the gall to use their muscles and swing for the fences on a softball field.

--Erin Whiteside

When Sports Stars Become Authority Figures, Women Lose

By now anyone interested in sports knows about the upcoming Tim Tebow ad set to appear during the Superbowl. Feminists and other activist groups have critiqued the ad for providing unsafe and misleading information to women about their reproductive health (see here, here and here for more on that). But this is more than just an anti-choice ad: it’s the manifestation of a hegemonic system that creates male sports stars who in turn seem perfectly natural choices to sell any product or in this case, speak on any issue from the biggest mediated platform in American sports.

Tebow is a known social conservative, but just as importantly for this message, a star football player. There’s a reason Focus on the Family isn’t simply airing an ad with James Dobson discussing abortion. Rather, it’s because he is a football star that Tebow is the star of the ad. And it is because of his exploits on the football field, combined with a media system that privileges “power” men’s sports, that Tebow is a recognizable star in the first place.

And herein lies the problem for women: As long as sports – and especially football – are culturally understood as a space only appropriate for men, female athletes will simply never earn a comparable type of hero status, and therefore cannot enter the discourse to speak on political issues with the same kind of impact– even those central to women’s lives.
--Erin Whiteside

What The Blind Side is blind to

The film The Blind Side is the most recent sports-themed movie to hit the box office. The film tells the “true” story of Michael Oher, an overweight, black teenager with a tragic background who is taken in by a white, middle-class family, the Touhys, and makes it out of the projects and into the NFL.

The Blind Side’s reviews were mostly favorable. Rotten Tomatoes, a reputable movie review compilation site, included reviews that called the film , “incessantly positive because it's about good deeds and its ripple effects” and “potentially culturally offensive and overly schmaltzy, The Blind Side instead threads an almost impossible needle, pulling off a surprisingly moving and inspirational story of compassion, self-discovery and hope.”

Oher’s story as depicted by the film certainly is a touching one. However, aspects of the film are problematic, as critics have pointed out. Christopher Chambers, a guest columnist for the ColorLines blog, called the film “an obvious appeal to white guilt” and asserts that the Blind Side is simply the latest “feel good” film in which “white characters become immersed in and changed by loving blackfolk.”

Melissa Anderson, columnist for the Dallas Observer, makes a similar argument writing that the movie, “peddles the most insidious kind of racism, one in which whiteys are virtuous saviors, coming to the rescue of blacks who become superfluous in narratives that are supposed to be about them.”

These critiques can be taken even a step further. Movies like The Blind Side make an argument, although subtly, that existing institutions meant to help people in Oher’s situation are failures. They promote the idea that private acts of “good” are the only successful means to pull people by their bootstraps and out of poverty. The Blind Side includes scenes of the neighborhood where Oher comes from, a ghetto filled with drug dealers and the threat of violence, a mother who is a crackhead. Oher also has flashbacks of being taken from his mother by (assumedly) social services. A move that, at least according to the film, brought him nothing more than continued misfortune.

So who does save Oher? Well, a rich, white family with charitable hearts, a private (mostly-white) Christian school that gives Oher a chance, a university that gives him a scholarship, and finally the National Football League. Now that’s something whites, especially those who denounce public welfare and social services, can feel good about.

--Erin Ash

College football promotes military values

When Maryland’s star receiver Torrey Smith caught a pass in the second quarter of the Terps’ game vs. Virginia Tech Saturday, fans saw the familiar No. 82 streak past his defender for a 21-yard gain.
Above that No. 82, though, was not “SMITH,” but the word “COURAGE.”
Maryland’s players were wearing special military-style uniforms as part of a promotion for the Wounded Warriors project, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping veterans transition to civilian life. The uniforms, also worn by South Carolina’s players in a separate game, featured camouflage sleeves and various military ideals printed on the back, such as “DUTY,” “COMMITMENT” and “COUNTRY.”
In some ways, the promotion was similar to the WBCA Pink Zone campaign, which raises awareness about breast cancer with the help of various college women’s basketball teams who wear pink uniforms and shoes on a designated “Think Pink” day.
What’s different is that the pink uniforms and shoes relate directly to the organization. The uniforms worn by the football players, however, promoted military ideals and gave no hint to fans or media members about the actual Wounded Warriors project. In fact, the Wounded Warriors project has its own set of core ideals, such as “FUN,” “INTEGRITY” and “INNOVATION,” but those words were not on the jerseys.
The Wounded Warrior project is not about blind commitment to country, but about helping soldiers re-adjust to life after perilous combat experiences. As scholar Michael Butterworth argues, such promotions are seemingly “innocent” displays, but position the United States’ military as good and just, while at the same time silencing critique of American military policies. In the case here, media accounts were more about uplifting stories from the battlefield and less about the problems soldiers face in returning from war, such as high rates of suicide or post-traumatic stress syndrome. As the Associated Press wrote:

[The Terps' Matt] Grooms spent six months in Kuwait outfitting and fixing transport trucks in Iraq. He was nearly killed by a virus and was rattled by an American missile that exploded too close to camp. Still, he said it was “the best four years I’ve had.”

No one will argue with the value of the Wounded Warrior project. And considering various reports about the struggles soldiers face in readjusting to civilian life, it’s clearly a badly needed program in need of visibility and support. Too bad the promotion forgot to focus on the soldiers who need that support.
-Erin Whiteside

Sports, media, politics: An alliance

The election-eve appearances of Barack Obama and John McCain on Monday Night Football tonight mark the second presidential election in a row when the candidates made their final, national televised appearance in a sports venue (In 2004, Kerry and Bush appeared on SportsCenter.) The partnership of politics and sports has been a natural pairing in the U.S. for as long as the two have been institutionalized -- both are sites for the display of masculine power, and some might argue that sports is a microcosm of the wider political landscape.
The partnership isn't only for the TV cameras. The NFL this year became the second sports league to form its own PAC, where owners, team CEOs and league executives invest in influencing the electoral process to secure favorable outcomes on legislative proposals that could cut into profits.