Michael Vick and Tucker Carlson: Does Racism Still Exist in Sports Today?

There are two points on racism that most Americans would agree on. First, it's an ugly thing, and second, it's an ugly thing to be accused of unfairly. With Martin Luther King Day approaching this Monday, it has become a topic of conversation.  What is the present condition of racism in the United States?

Ironically, part of the problem when answering this question is that while there's agreement among most that racism is wrong, there's not agreement on what racism is. Racism is often confused with prejudice. While the two may be connected, it's actually possible to be racist without being prejudiced as it is possible to be prejudiced without being racist. 

The basic difference is that prejudice assumes behavior about a person based on race. Racism assumes superiority based  on race. So, for example to use a trite reference, a white person may assume a black person is a better dancer or jumper because he's black. That's prejudiced. However, he may not think that that he's worth more than the black. That would be racist. 

Then there is also a difference between being a racist, and accepting racism. Being a racist is to advocate for a system of racism. But what if there is a case where racism is systemic? What obligation is there for a person to change a system of racism? How broad or thin is the line between advocating for a racial system and actively and tacitly ignoring it when it does exist?

I point this out because often the two get confused in these types of conversations. When it comes up in conversation there are often accusations flung about irresponsibly, and often heard when they aren't there. Recently I read a comment where a black person accused a person's ancestors of "profiting off of slavery." It was a prejudicial statement.  

Even in the south most whites did not own slaves. Certainly now the vast majority of American whites have not held slaves in their history, as more than half the white population's ancestors were not in America during the time that slavery still existed. 

Inflammatory rhetoric, ad homonym attacks and red herrings are easy to throw out in this conversation. It's incredibly critical that the nature of the conversation not be hostile. There are probably fewer areas in our society today which really talking could help more, and which foolishly arguing about can hurt more.

The key to this conversation is to actually here. To listen. To not assume what's going to be said, but to understand what's being said. Excuse me for the lengthy preamble, but it is necessary on this topic.

Tucker Carlson said that Michael Vick should have been executed for his crimes.That's not racist, it's Republican. Conservative announcers' job right now is  just to find fault with anything and everything that President Obama does.

They don't do it because he's black, they do it because he's a Democrat. And before you get sensitive and say that the liberal commentators did the same to Bush, hold you're though. They did. It's the nature of politics today. It is laughable that Carlson has position that is to the left of PETA on something. Somehow I doubt that there will be any animal rights sponsorship by Tucker in the near future. 

Some perceive that Michael Vick is getting a free ride by the media. Others feel that he's still getting condemned for past mistakes. Probably both are true as both stories are in the media. Meanwhile Ben Roethlisberger was accused of raping a girl and though there was not enough evidence for there to be an indictment, many will point that he has received more favorable attention. 

It's a fascinating comparison. In Vick you have a person who was tried and convicted. In Ben Roethlisberger you have a person who was only accused. ESPN's Outside the Lines survey though, while blacks and whites both had a negative view of Roethlisberger, only whites had a negative view of Vick. 

According to the report "When asked to rank five athletes by how the media treated them (One being the kindest; Five being the worst), the survey revealed the African-American athletes believe Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger (1.6) was handled with kid gloves compared with Eagles quarterback Michael Vick (4.8).

This is particularly interesting because whites were actually more inclined to say that they admire Vick (25 percent) than admired Roethlisberger (22 percent). Meanwhile blacks were much more forgiving of Vick (65 percent admired him) than Roethlisberger (30 percent).

In other words the disparity isn't with the whites, it's with the blacks. While blacks were more forgiving of both quarterbacks, they were much more forgiving of Vick, nearly twice as much. If there was more negative media coverage of Vick then it isn't affecting perceptions.

It should be added that with Vick there was actually more to cover. There was a criminal investigation, a compound, a trial, a prison term etc. With Roethlisberger there was merely an accusation, yet both whites and blacks were more forgiving of Vick.

When Vick was being investigate there was a lot reminders that a person was innocent until proven guilty. Those reminders rarely accompanied the stories regarding the Pittsburgh QB, even as it turned out that he may not have actually done anything. In fact the general perception is that he got away with it. 

In short it appears that racism is perceived to exist where it does not. Does that mean that there's not racism though? Again, I'm not necessarily suggesting full on, Hitler-loving, white-nation-advocating, American History X style racism. I mean is there still inequity in the system?

African-American head coaches make a million dollars less than their white counterparts. In college they make 400,000 less. While there are some black head coaches, the percentage is significantly smaller. In the upper echelon's such as general managers in professional sports, blacks are significantly under represented.

Studies have shown that black players are less likely to be put into the "central" positions on football teams beginning in high school, such as quarterback, center, or middle linebacker. These are the leadership positions. 

Does racism still exist sports? Well there's certainly still a racial distinction. That distinction is either one) racial or two) systemic. In other words whites tend to be more represented because they are actually better or else they are there because the system inherently favors them. This doesn't mean that there's a conscious decision where "whitey" puts down "the black man." 

In other words sometimes things are perceived a certain way because we are used to perceiving them that way. When we think of a "running" quarterback we don't think of Steve Young, we think of Michael Vick. When we think of a smart quarterback we think of Peyton Manning or Tom Brady...or Steve Young.

Is there a hard fast line here? Is anyone going to say that white quarterbacks are smarter and rely on their minds while black quarterbacks rely on their athleticism? No. But how many black quarterbacks are praised for their athleticism and how many are praised for grasp of the offense and ability to attack a defense?

There may be exceptions, but these aren't the rule. It's important to understand because it's not just what happens at the end that effects who becomes the head coaches and the GMs. A few black head coaches doesn't make racism go away anymore than Obama being President means that racism has gone away in society in general. 

The problem here isn't overt racism. Nor is it the media promoting some sort of hidden racist message. It's that there's a system in place that has perpetuated a racial disparity. To not be for changing that system is to be for maintaining it. To be in favor a maintaining a system that causes disparity is to be, at the very least, tacitly racist. 

Herein lies the crux of all of this. It's tacit. Whites need to be able to acknowledge this without feeling guilty. We inherited it too. At the same time their needs to be some recognition that it isn't as apparent to whites because it's not as ubiquitous to whites. 

Consider this. How many people does the average  person encounter in a typical day? Twenty at least? Say hypothetically five percent of the population is overtly discriminatory or racist. It doesn't mean card carrying member of the KKK, but get a little nervous when a black man is coming racist. 

The thing is the average white person is going to see that racist and never know it or because of that think anything of it. The average black person though is going to encounter racism or prejudice every day. It's a part of the daily reality of a black person.

Blacks may sometimes see racism when it is not there such as in the case of Roethlisberger and Vick, but that's because they're far more inclined to see it when it is there. Whites rarely deal with it so they rarely think of it.

These problems aren't going to be solved by hiring rules or quotas (though that doesn't mean that some of those things don't help), they are going to be solved by a lot more talking and listening, and a lot less denying and arguing. It's not a problem that gets solved overnight, but over a generation.

As long as racism exists, no matter how tacit it is, thing swill never change. These things, the salary distinctions, the leadership positions and so on, are manifestations, not the problem. You can't solve a manifestation of a problem without solving a problem. The only way this problem is solved is by really, actually talking, and that also means listening, by everyone. Accusations and arguing will only exacerbate it. But talking and listening, eventually that will solve it.