This past weekend after being inspired by an over-the-top Steve Nash cover story in Men’s Journal, I literally ran to my computer to write the article: “It’s Not Steve Nash’s Fault: A Study in White Privilege”. Then came the following sequence: I placed the article on Ball Hype and expected a few responses; the article received many favorable reviews; Bethlehem Shoals of AOL Fan House picked it up; article floats around blogosphere; Henry Abott of ESPN’s True Hoop profiles article; more reaction from blogosphere; and Jack McCallum of Sports Illustrated directly responds to article with "The Nash Dilemma" followed by some more follow-up by Abbott. Before issuing the following response to Mr. McCallum, I would like to thank all the previous parties involved in helping to have what I personally believe to be a very important discussion in how sports coverage and racial bias intersect. I would also reiterate that having such an honest and open discussion does absolutely nothing to detract from the brilliant player and even better person that Steve Nash is. By no means are these two issues mutually exclusive.

First things first: And even though Mr. McCallum, a writer that I respect and who I find genuine in his search for truth, took exception to many points in the column, I would like to also thank him for encouraging that the COSELLOUT article be read in its entirety rather than perpetuate the sound-bite-ification of sports journalism. While the original article covered four separate areas of bias (MVP voting; perceived athleticism; political stances; and community service), McCallum limited his commentary to 25% of the article: the MVP vote. Fine. Let’s discuss that one area:

Where We Agree: Mr. McCallum and I both agree that: the Men’s Journal article will not win the Pulitzer Prize this year; Steve Nash did not invent fast-break basketball, and as McCallum puts it, when “much of mainstream America looks at the NBA, they do see race. They see — all together now — the cornrows and the tattoos and the baggy shorts, and they don’t see the player.” He also offers this observation of many fans: “During a year I spent with Nash and the Suns writing a book ("Seven Seconds or Less: My Season on the Bench with the Runnin’ and Gunnin’ Phoenix Suns"), I was urged any number of times to emphasize more strongly the idea that Nash and Company were introducing a different and unique element to the NBA, as if they had invented something never before seen. … I resisted that notion. Nash is not the greatest point guard who ever lived, nor are the Suns the first team to be entertaining and fast-break-oriented.”

So while we both agree that many sports FANS perceptions are biased by race, McCallum ends his agreement when the subject turns to the perceptions of sportsWRITERS that vote for NBA MVPs. McCallum writes: “But then COSELLOUT extrapolates his point about the Men’s Journal article to indict the MVP voters, suggesting that race was a factor among the "90+% white sports-voting body."… “By and large, we in the basketball press do not see color when we vote.”

The first red flag is that he separates sportswriters from the same dynamics that might bias fans. The second red flag is that McCallum is speaking for the “colorblindness” of an entire group. The third is the wishful and dubious concept of "colorblindness" itself. Abbott’s response is helpful here on this third red flag: 

"I don’t know that I agree with Cosellout on everything, but I do find it impossible to believe race is no factor in this. I just don’t see the evidence to support the idea that any group of people as large as the voters for this award is enlightened enough to be truly color blind. Every voter might be racially well-meaning (which is all you can ask for, I guess). But that doesn’t mean they’re equally comfortable with player A and player B. It works on your subconscious, you know?"


The “POSSIBILTY” of Race as “Ridiculous Point”: McCallum states: “COSELLOUT suggests that the race issue didn’t get nearly enough attention in ’05, when Nash drubbed Shaquille O’Neal in the voting for his first MVP. It didn’t get nearly enough attention for this reason: It’s a ridiculous point. I can’t remember an easier vote I’ve ever cast.” 

Since I already conceded to “agree-to-disagree” and extend the benefit of the doubt in the original article, it would not be productive to belabor a Shaq vs. Nash rehash. But what IS productive is to point out just how dismissive McCallum is in considering that race played a role. Miami Herald Dan Le Batard was virtually the only mainstream writer to bring up the mere POSSIBILTY of race. One single mainstream writer (maybe a couple of others) out of hundreds! What does that say about the sports journalism field? Yes, I would say that the subject did not get enough attention. Consider that if only a handful of more than 100+ writers were even influenced on a sub-conscious level to vote for Nash, then the MVP trophy would have switched hands. To dismiss this possibility as a “ridiculous point” is not only ridiculous itself, but demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of how human bias operates. Even if we were to make the absolutely absurd assumption that not one single sportswriter had overt racial bias, it is simply human nature for people to subconsciously favor those that remind them of themselves.  Finally, McCallum views Nash over Shaq as a no-brainer, and then selects Chauncey Billups as MVP for the following year. No more words.


The Dismissals: More McCallum: 1) “Nash’s victory in ’06 wasn’t so clear-cut. …in the end, Nash won. Why? Because he was white? Nonsense.”; 2) “So, what about LeBron, whom COSELLOUT suggests has been overlooked in the MVP voting because of race? I don’t buy it… it had nothing to do with him being black.”; 3) Hey, don’t forget that “ridiculous point” about Shaq. …Two things are striking: Firstly, McCallum is not saying, I don’t THINK race was a factor, he is absolutely certain that it is utter "nonsense". He KNOWS it is not! Secondly, that McCallum can speak for a body of over 100 VOTERS speaks the volume of 100 voices. It is one thing to claim, rightly or wrongly,  “I’m not biased”, but it is quite another to make that claim that no one else is either. These statements apart or coupled together smack of arrogance.


The Grand Omission of the “Landslide Vote”: Surprisingly, McCallum focused on the smaller less relevant points about the MVP awards and failed to mention what was CLEARLY the articles’ CENTRAL assertion of MVP bias: THE LANDSLIDE VOTE during the second year. To recap: Lebron’s 2005-2006 season wasn’t just MVP-worthy, it was historic. He joined all-time greats Oscar Robertson, Jerry West and Michael Jordan as the ONLY players in NBA history to average at least 30 points, 7 rebounds and 6 assists in a single season. Please read that short list again. His team won 50 games, and, although he certainly played in a weaker conference, his supporting cast was far worse than Nash’s (Larry Hughes was injured the majority of the year). But McCallum simply did not address the fact that Nash had 57 first place votes to Lebron’s 16. I read the whole article just waiting to see his response… and I was sorely disappointed. How can a direct response to an article not even address the most damning piece of evidence! Perhaps he didn’t address this point because there was simply no rational explanation. Only collective incompetence and bias on the part of voters could explain such a drastic margin.

Who Should Get to Vote?: McCallum writes: “But one of the few things we do well is vote. We do it extremely well. COSELLOUT suggests that MVP voting should be handed over to coaches, and I can tell you that coaches are no more objective than writers when it comes to voting.”

Really? The facts tell us otherwise. General managers and coaches actually plan and strategize against opposing players. In 2006, The Sporting News selected Nash and Lebron as CO-MVPs based on a tie in return-ballots it received from NBA front office management and coaches. The tie vote, whether one favors Nash or Lebron, suggests that General Managers and coaches are far more competent than our nation’s sportswriters. If David Stern has any power over the situation, it would be wise to add one more rule change to his portfolio – immediately. But the problem is bigger than Steve Nash, MVPs, and award bodies. It is about a sequence of logic that is stifling all honest debate on race and white privilege in sports columns everywhere. And it is called:


Anything-But-Race (ABR): McCallum states: 1) “Voters have their prejudices: We’re prejudiced toward passers…”; 2) toward “team-oriented set-up guys”; 3) “we’re prejudiced against guys who foment discontent on their own teams”; and 4) “we’re prejudiced toward guys on winning teams.”; 5) “I think voters looked at LeBron over the last two years and saw an incomplete player leading an incomplete team.”… 6) “Maybe we voters are "age-ists," but we are not racists”

Before we begin, let’s bury the word “racist” right now because it tends to always serve as a “discussion ender”. The word has come to conjure up a meaning of “evil men who burn crosses at Klan rallies” instead of the more common biases that even many good and well-intentioned people have (which Jack McCallum, 100+ other voters, or myself are certainly not immuned). I should also state up-front that I actually agree with many of McCallum’s points about the other biases. However, I would NEVER be so presumptuous to dismiss his cited factors as cavalierly as he dismisses race. Interestingly enough, biases #1 – #4 listed FAVOR Lebron James status, so McCallum, naturally kept reaching for new biases, ANY biases… “anything-but-race” biases.

Sportswriter Race Rules: McCallum’s analysis, which includes a grand total of SIX biases, is a common sportswriter staple for race discussions in the mainstream sports media. The common flaw is the “either-or” thinking that states “It’s not race, it’s (fill in the blank)”. If any of this is confusing, then just try and visualize Mitch Albom or Mike Lupica on virtually ANY episode of The Sports Reporters. If you are still not getting it, picture them talking about Barry Bonds. Because the sportswriter race rules dictate that a racial bias and any other bias can’t simultaneously be true. Of course, there can be 27 OTHER co-existing biases – just not race! Generally speaking there will be no stone or bias unturned before arriving at a more warm and fuzzy conclusion. Sportswriter Race Rules and Anything-but-Race Syndrome have severely hampered the prospect of honest and productive dialogue about race, white privilege, and by extension, racial progress. Oh, and by the way we are waaaaaay past Jack McCallum who I do NOT want to characterize as a frequent offender.

 
Did He Say That?: McCallum stated at the top: “It’s about four months too early for a discussion about the MVP voting and about 40 years too late for a discussion about race.”

Perhaps I read this one wrong so I leave that possibility open, but considering some past quality columns that I have read by Mr. McCallum, this caught me off guard. The second part of this statement I found to be both highly objectionable and revealing. Is Mr. McCallum suggesting that racial bias is no longer a serious issue to be discussed and dealt with in our country? At a time when: there has been a 40% rise in # of hate groups since 2000; the Jena 6 may have all been facing 20 year sentences without intervention from activists; 14 year old Shaquanda Cotton received 7 years for pushing a hall monitor; 17 year old Genarlow Wilson received 10 years for consensual sex with a 15 year old; last month this umpteenth report came out about the severe racial disparity in arrests, convictions, and incarcerations of non-violent offenders. Did I mention our public schools?


The Big Picture: And what exactly do MVP votes and the media’s coverage of Nash’s athleticism, politics, and community service have to do with all that. Well, just about everything. If “Anything-But-Race” syndrome dictates that we are unable to diagnose fairly straight-forward collective biases in sports, then how exactly are we as a nation going to properly assess and diagnose major racial institutional disparities when the stakes are far greater than distributing MVP trophies? Could there be a common connection between our collective unwillingness to, say, properly identify racial bias in MVP voting disparities and our mass unwillingness to identify crack vs. cocaine disparities? The first might be relatively meaningless, but the second is not. And for those commenters who keep wondering why I “waste so much time talking about white privilege and Steve Nash”, it is PRECISELY because if I ever talk about white privilege and cocaine laws, I can’t get as much as three people to visit this blog. Like the entire history of sports as a reflection of our society, Steve Nash is merely a symbolic laboratory to tell us more about ourselves. Perhaps we should all use him to look in the mirror.

—————————————-

Added October 21:  Sometimes you look over an article a day later and want to add what may have been missed. Here goes: McCallum has since expressed to me that the "40 years too late"  comment was poorly communicated on his part and not what he meant at all. More accurately, he agrees that race relations are still 40 years behind the times.  This makes far more sense as the updated clarification is much more consistent with McCallum’s larger body of work. And, even if it wasn’t, we will naturally extend Mr. McCallum the benefit of the doubt because he is white ! :-) .  …..About NBA sportswriter voter incompetency: If the thrust of McCallum’s argument is that a good portion of voters are not biased because of race, but are biased because of a whole other host of reasons, well that statement doesn’t exactly comfort the soul as far as the competency of voters. Shouldn’t the most deserving player win the award free of ANY bias? Should I be comforted that Lebron may have lost an award because he may have been too young? In explaining voter biases, EVEN IF MCCALLUM WERE TO BE 100% CORRECT that race bias was no factor, doesn’t he still spell out a pretty good case to remove the vote from the writers anyway?

…I don’t know if it was articulated well enough, but I do appreciate McCallum’s willingness to respond and extend him credit for engaging in the discussion at all. And while I clearly found his  response to be a flawed one, I make it a habit to not judge journalists and reporters on their worst days or worst articles or poorly-communicated sentences. Since athletes get unfairly judged in this manner by journalists all the time,  as a media critic, COSELLOUT must have a fairer standard. Judging from McCallum’s larger body of quality work, the profession of sports journalism is certainly better off with him in it. There are enough people already out there whose worst days are Monday thru Friday every week for COSELLOUT to focus on.  — Charles "MODI" Modiano