Jordan #23 Retirement Debate Not About Robinson

I like to begin my mornings by watching the local news channel for weather and traffic information. Afterwards I log on to CNN.com for the latest news from the world. Finally, I like to gleam the sports headlines for any late breaking news or transactions. I wish I hadn't gone there today. While rummaging through the NBA pages at ESPN I came across an article by Howard Bryant where he weighs in on LeBron James modest proposal to have the league retire Michael Jordan's number 23 in perpetuity. As you may recall, James vowed to switch numbers next year as a tribute to Jordan. The coverage of this non-story has been over the top to say the least, but Mr. Bryant's article goes beyond all others. After reading the piece I asked myself, out loud, "Is this what passes for journalism today?"

What I found troubling about Bryant's article is his invoking the name of Jackie Robinson into the discussion. I understand why, Robinson's number was retired by Major League Baseball (MLB) a little over a decade ago and any talk of similar recognition naturally gives us a  reason to reflect on Robinson. For Bryant, the Jordan retirement proposal does not meet the Robinson test. James, according to Bryant, is ignorant of Robinson's legacy and what his ascension to the Big Leagues meant to African American athletes and the country as a whole. So Jordan's legacy is not sufficient to warrant his jersey's retirement from the NBA, according to Bryant and many others.

First of all, the retirement of Jordan's number is more closely aligned with that of Wayne Greyzky's by the National Hockey League, than it is with Robinson's. Gretzky is generally regarded as the greatest hockey player of all time and likewise Jordan is regarded as the NBA's greatest player. Jordan has also been named as the athlete of the century and was one of the fiercest competitors in any sport. So James' proposal to retire his jersey is not unreasonable, or unprecedented.

But back to Mr. Bryant and his article. Bryant belittled and lectured James on why his proposal to have the league retire Jordan's number was ridiculous. He even took swipes at James' intelligence. Unfortunately for Mr. Bryant, the legacy and accomplishments of African American athletes do not begin, nor do they end with Jackie Robinson. For the record, Mr. Bryant takes a swipe at James for the company he keeps and his sense of fashion and sense of self. He ignores the fact that James is a hard worker, wise beyond his years, a friend of Warren Buffett and a world traveler with business partners in places Mr. Bryant can hardly imagine.

Bryant regurgitates the story of Jackie Robinson as we have always heard it and it is impressive. But it is not the full story. Jackie Robinson did not come from out of nowhere, he was a part of the Negro Leagues a collection of baseball teams featuring African American players that enjoyed some measure of success in this country from 1920 until the league folded around 1949. I wish Mr. Bryant would have told us why Jackie Robinson,  who was not the biggest star in the Negro Leagues, was selected to make the move to the Big Leagues? Or why the Dodgers owner chose to integrate the Big Leagues at that time? Was he concerned about social justice?

More importantly, I want to know what happened to the Negro Leagues, its owners and its players? Was the goal of integrating the Big Leagues the destruction of the Negro Leagues? Whether that was the aim or not, that was a consequence of Robinson's call up to the Big Leagues. The Negro Leagues had legendary players and was a good product. Given that Robinson won the Rookie of the Year Award it is probably a good bet that the Negro Leagues had some of the better players.

But I digress. Regardless of Jackie Robinson's accomplishments they have no impact on the ability of African American athletes present or past (though it can be said his impact was on the opportunities made available for young athletes). However, Michael Jordan and his approach to the game has had a tremendous impact on players like LeBron James and thousands of others. The NBA is now a global product and its stars, much like Jordan, transcend geographical boundaries.

It is interesting that Bryant would write an article about Robinson's legacy in this era where African American's are almost nonexistent in Major League Baseball.

I find it curious the backlash LeBron has had to endure for making the Jordan jersey retirement proposal. The coverage has been unbalanced, the opinions have been too negative and at times angry, over what is essentially a proposition where one can easily agree or disagree without getting all hot and bothered. Hasn't LeBron, arguably the best player in the game today and one of its best ambassadors and biggest draws on the road, earned the right to make a statement concerning the league and its history without being ridiculed on the pages of a prominent sports network? Where is the balance or the rebuttal article? I ask again, "is this what passes for journalism today?"

Bryant's harsh article is symptomatic of a larger and more disturbing trend: The lack of respect and devaluation of the accomplishments, contributions, opinions and significance of the African American athlete in American sports.  This devaluation is accomplished through language, specifically through the writings, commentating and on air discussions of the sports media. 

I will expand on this devaluation and the colorful language of sportscasters next week.