Jerry Stackhouse, Jackie Robinson, and David Stern's African American Problem

Last Sunday, Major League Baseball celebrated Jackie Robinson Day by allowing players to wear Robinson's number 42 when they took the field.

 

A hundred or so players made the switch, including Ken Griffey Jr., Torii Hunter, and every member of the Los Angeles Dodgers. It was a fitting tribute for one of the most hallowed figures in professional sports, and Major League Baseball did a great job of making it possible.

 

It's just too bad the NBA couldn't take a hint.

  

Jerry Stackhouse of the Dallas Mavericks already wears number 42 in honor of Robinson.  In an interview with Calvin Watkins of the Dallas Morning news, Stackhouse made clear the depth of his reverence for Robinson's legacy.

"I think what he was able to bear and go through is the reason why black athletes and minority athletes are in the position we're in today," Stackhouse said. "And it was in baseball, but it transcended all sports and we should pay homage to a guy like that."

Given those words, it's no surprise that Stackhouse wanted to pay special tribute to Robinson on Sunday. His idea? He asked NBA league officials if he could wear "Robinson" on the back of his jersey...and was promptly denied.

Why this isn't a bigger news story is beyond me 

After getting shot down by the league, Stackhouse was forced to write "Jackie Robinson" on his sneakers. The result looked like something out of a junior high game, where players write messages on their shoes because schools can't afford to change jersey numbers, or sew on commemorative patches.  

And yet...where's the outrage?

If nothing else, the Stackhouse saga should at least get half the treatment of the Don Imus story—because both incidents speak to the same issue.

There's an angle on the Imus story that civic leaders like Al Sharpton have mostly missed: the problem of "separate but equal." In the early 1900s, so-called "liberals" in the United States were committed to helping African Americans—so long as those African Americans knew their place as second-class citizens.

Don Imus, despite his foul mouth, gives a lot of money to charities that benefit minorities. Of course, that doesn't mean he isn't a bigot, or that he has any genuine respect for the African American community. 

The same goes for David Stern.

The NBA Commissioner sits on his perch—which he believes to be higher then God's—and cares very little for the players who make basketball "the greatest game in the world."  Stern, like Imus, is all for supporting African Americans—so long as they know their place.

The Stackhouse incident is only the latest in a series of league policy decisions that have adversely affected current or prospective NBA players, the majority of whom are African American. The most notable is the requirement that high school seniors wait one year before entering the draft, which of course forces the few athletes who turn pro at 18 to jump through collegiate hoops (no pun intended) before they get a shot at life-changing money. 

The Commissioner's office and TV analysts want us to believe that going to college makes kids "more mature," and that they benefit from the "college experience" and "good coaching."

Excuse me, but I don't hear any outcry about white kids needing to be more mature when they get million dollar signing bonuses out of high school to go play minor league ball for the Yankees.  I didn't hear anyone say that Sidney Crosby was going to miss the "college experience" when he made his debut in the NHL at 18 years old. 

Is it just a coincidence that sports with more white athletes, like hockey or baseball, don't have such requirements? 

My question: Why not give African American basketball players the same opportunities available to baseball and hockey players by turning the NBADL into a minor league system in which high school kids could play?  

The league's new dress code reflects more of the same bias. An old white Commissioner telling young black kids how they should present themselves—is that a racist policy? I don't know, but something doesn't seem right. It's like when you feel yourself getting sick and you don't know what's wrong—your throat hurts, but is it the flu, or is it a cold or allergies? You feel like something's off without knowing exactly what the problem is.

A wise man once said that it is not reality that's important—it is the perception of reality that's important.

If anything's obvious here, it's that David Stern, with the dress code, was trying to curb the rise of hip hop culture in the NBA. Stern could have held a meeting with players to explain the importance of dressing well on the sidelines. He could have pressured teams to institute fashion rules on their own accord. Instead, he opted to rule by decree.

That decision can certainly be perceived as racist—and at the very least it casts Stern as completely oblivious to racial issues, because he could have handled the situation more tactfully and still achieved the same results.

Even the league's new policy aimed to crack down on players who criticize (mostly white) referees hints at a racial dynamic. In past years, NBA players had the same liberties given to athletes in other sports when talking to officials. This year, the league has made complaining about a call a technical foul offense.

David Stern's message is clear: African Americans players in the NBA are on top of the world—so long as they stay in line.  

In this context, the Stackhouse story hardly seems like an isolated one. What possible reason could David Stern have had for not wanting to let Jerry Stackhouse wear "Robinson" on the back of his uniform? Maybe Stern used some legal mumbo jumbo about fraud and misrepresentation from his old lawyer days. Maybe Stackhouse would have been better off if he were Nate Robinson of the Knicks and wanted to change his number to 42.  

Whatever the case, Stern obviously doesn't care how he's perceived by the African American community. Forcing Stackhouse to write "Jackie Robinson" on his sneakers is just another way that the Commissioner/Self-Anointed Supreme Being has proven himself insensitive to the interests of the league's African American players.

Was it a racist act?

I don't know, but I think I'm getting sick. I'm just not sure exactly what's wrong...