Bryant Gumbel: Why the David Stern Characterization Was Wrong
When the backlash to LeBron James' departure from Cleveland grew from the understandable lamentations of an impassioned and historically frustrated fanbase into nationwide pettiness and hypocritical caterwauling, media sentiment began to turn against the naysayers. Soon enough, sports anchors and commentators alike were wondering aloud if the vitriol had less to do with LeBron's actions, and more to do with the color of his skin.
Of course, asking the question of racial motivation is essentially making the assertion that the criticisms of LeBron were racially-motivated, just as it is when one asks another if they have an ulterior motive for their actions; you wouldn't ask the question if you didn't already know the answer.
The African-American NBA commentators on ESPN and other networks were quick to answer in the affirmative, of course, without actually providing a sound argument for their opinions. While it is undoubtedly true that racism exists in this country, and that it pervades everything in sports from ownership groups to ice cream vendors, it has become regrettably fashionable for the media to jump to the conclusion that virtually every criticism of a black athlete is based whole-cloth on their race, and is therefore baseless.
That's why I wasn't surprised when Bryant Gumbel said NBA commissioner David Stern aspires to be a “modern-day plantation overseer” on the latest edition of Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.
In his rant, Gumbel pointed to Stern's tactics during the current lockout—specifically, the commissioner's inference that the players were being “misinformed” by union head Billy Hunter—as well as the dress code he initiated in 2005 in defense of his characterization, which Gumbel himself admitted would induce cringes.
Count me among those cringing.
We expect sports commentators (indeed commentators of any ilk) to make bad analogies, to miss the point, to hold contrarian opinions for the sake of being contrarian, but as was the case when Jessee Jackson said LeBron James was treated like a “runaway slave,” and Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert had a “slave-master's mentality,” the comments aren't simply off the mark, they're irresponsible.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what Jessee Jackson thinks of Dan Gilbert, nor even what Bryant Gumbel thinks of David Stern, because the accusations are superfluous and only meant to garner attention and ratings and raise their respective profiles.
Even if David Stern were a racist, it hasn't affected the players in any measurable way; the union won the last round of collective bargaining. So lopsided was their victory that 23 franchises are currently losing money. There are no important dialogues that need to be had in that context. But in a country where sports are so important, the recklessness of these characterizations becomes evident.
We call our leaders quarterbacks, we call our last-second accomplishments buzzer-beaters, we call our long shots Hail Marys. When asked to list the most important icons of the civil rights movement, inevitably, one will mention Jackie Robinson among the pantheon, when his greatest contribution to the cause was simply playing the game.
Sports informs our culture in a way nothing else outside of religion can lay claim to. Fashion moves on, pop culture icons become embarrassing relics, but sports last forever. This is where the danger lies in people like Gumbel—a staple on American television for over 30 years—in conjuring images of slavery as metaphors for labor negotiations between billionaires and millionaires.
We are already too sensitive to racial matters as a country, so much so that it is nearly impossible to have a meaningful dialogue about them without someone feigning offense. I cringe to recall when Questlove, the drummer for The Roots, snapped a picture of a lunch board at the NBC cafeteria last year and caused a micro-controversy. The board toted lunch specials for Black History Month, and included Soul Food staples such as fried chicken, collard greens and black-eyed peas. Inexplicably, the image brought accusations of racism upon NBC. Of course, when it was revealed that the chef responsible for compiling the menu was herself black, the whole issue just sort of went away.
When Bryant Gumbel compares David Stern to a slave owner, he wittingly or not signs off on it is a viable characterization for any white person with authority, regardless of the situation. It's an easy one to make, but it's never—ever—the correct one.
There is nothing about David Stern's words or policies that liken him to a slave owner.
His dress code edict did not only affect black players, and indeed it is said that one of the key offenders which brought about the decision was Steve Nash, a white man. The bad contracts he's seeking to squash are not only held by black players; it could be argued that the last NBA lockout was as much about the inflated contract of Keith Van Horn as it was anyone else.
We, as a culture, need to hold people like Gumbel (and, yes, even the Good Reverend Jackson) responsible for their words when they are so poorly chosen as this.
At best these characterizations are wrong and serve only to muddy a problem that wasn't so convoluted before race was introduced; at worst they are raising racial tensions without warrant, and for that there are always casualties, whether it's the Golf Channel reporter who was suspended for saying the other golfers' only hope to stop Tiger Woods was to lynch him—even though there have been more whites lynched in this country than blacks, and the fact that the reporter was actually a friend of Tiger's and meant no harm—or a whole new generation of Americans whose natural progress of being born into an integrated, mass-media America is stunted by having the useless hangups of their parents foisted upon them.
The healing can begin with Gumbel owning up and apologizing for his careless words.
