Though it is typically not my intent to disparage anyone, I
have been so terribly disappointed by ESPN’s decision to continue to use Jason
Whitlock in any capacity that I don’t mind in this case. Indeed I often disagree with his take on
sports, but I’m most disturbed by his ventures into social analysis; an area
where he has often been demonstrated to be flat wrong, historically/factually
incorrect and where his inaccurate and disparaging speculations have done
tremendous damage to individuals as well as groups of people. Instead of just venting in a column about it
here at The Vortex, a few months back I wrote ESPN’s Ombudsman to express my
displeasure. Unfortunately ESPN seems
bent on retaining Whitlock and, to the dismay of anyone who ever cared about
facts and/or black people, letting Whitlock head up a “Black ESPN” site,
similar to espnW, ESPN's site dedicated to women in sports (see the recent hire for the site: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/11/mike-wise-espn-jason-whitlock-washington-post). Thus I’m posting the letter that I wrote the
Ombudsman (see below).
I should point
out that I’m far from the only person who has expressed their disgust
concerning Whitlock. For greater
context, you can find some other columns concerning Whitlock by following these
links:
Dear ESPN Ombudsman, Mr. Robert Lipsyte,
I was delighted to see that ESPN hired someone with your
credentials as Ombudsman. Your many
decades of journalism, particularly as it pertains to issues of race, I think
lend great credibility to the station; especially because race and sports often
meet in both good and bad ways. Back in
March I read your column “Give fans what they want, or should have?” In the column, you mention ESPN’s “The
N-Word” special that featured Michael Wilbon and Jason Whitlock as
panelists. You also ended your column by
stating “I look forward to Whitlock’s new site, which he sees as a home for
black journalists and fans.” I would
like you to know that I do not look forward to anything Whitlock ever has to
say, especially on the issue of race, and I hope this letter makes it clear to
you why. Although it’s been several
months since I read your column, and I thought to write you then, I have been,
and continued to be, deeply disturbed by ESPN’s insistence on using commentator
Jason Whitlock. So I’m writing you
now.
I am bothered by Jason Whitlock’s presence as a substitute
host for Pardon The Interruption (PTI) and as a writer for the network because
he has an incredibly horrible track record of making insensitive racial and
social comments. Not only has he been
insensitive in these arenas, he is also often factually false when expressing
his views on these topics. Given that
ESPN dismissed Rob Parker last year on the basis (at least in part) that he
made racially tinged comments directed at NFL player Robert Griffin III (RG3),
I would have thought as a matter of consistency that ESPN would not hire
someone like Whitlock given his long, extensive and egregious track record of
racially insensitive and inaccurate statements.
Let me say at the outset, although I do draw the Rob Parker
comparison several times in this letter, please don’t miss my point. Whether or not there was ever a Rob Parker
(whom I was aware of and saw on the network numerous times, but never cared to
follow), Jason Whitlock is not a credible writer or commentator on the merits
of what he’s said and written in the past.
This is about Whitlock’s deplorable track-record, not simply a
lowest-common denominator comparison.
I could list numerous times when Whitlock has made ginormous
missteps. I won’t even get into the
over-the-top and out of bounds and on its face wrong racially incendiary comments he made concerning the
circumstances that caused the death of NFL player Sean Taylor in 2007 – a
circumstance in which he violated every rule of human decency and compassion,
while violating every basic rule of journalism, like getting your facts
straight. But for simplicity sake, I'll
focus this letter on his 2013 comments aimed at NBA player Jeremy Lin. Following a superb performance that added to
the so-called 'Linsanity,' Whitlock tweeted the following:
'Some lucky lady in NYC is gonna feel a couple inches of pain tonight.'
This statement was an obvious reference to the stereotype that Asian men have small penises (Lin is of Asian descent).
Instead of apologizing for this insensitive infraction, Whitlock responded with a very convoluted response that raised numerous other problems. In part, he said
'...I then gave in to another part of my personality — my immature, sophomoric, comedic nature. It's been with me since birth, a gift from my mother and honed as a child listening to my godmother's Richard Pryor albums. I still want to be a standup comedian...'
Apparently that’s what qualifies as an apology in Whitlock’s mind (you can find his full “apology” online with a simple google search). Again, I point out that Rob Parker was dismissed from ESPN with the racially charged statements directed at RG3 specifically cited as part of the rationale for his dismissal. Yet, several months later, Jason Whitlock was re-hired despite his racial stereotype comment directed at Asian-American NBA player Jeremy Lin? How in the world are those two realities reconcilable?? I fail to see how Whitlock's comment directed at Lin (and the disconcerting non-apology that followed) is somehow more desirable than Parker's comments to RG3.
'Some lucky lady in NYC is gonna feel a couple inches of pain tonight.'
This statement was an obvious reference to the stereotype that Asian men have small penises (Lin is of Asian descent).
Instead of apologizing for this insensitive infraction, Whitlock responded with a very convoluted response that raised numerous other problems. In part, he said
'...I then gave in to another part of my personality — my immature, sophomoric, comedic nature. It's been with me since birth, a gift from my mother and honed as a child listening to my godmother's Richard Pryor albums. I still want to be a standup comedian...'
Apparently that’s what qualifies as an apology in Whitlock’s mind (you can find his full “apology” online with a simple google search). Again, I point out that Rob Parker was dismissed from ESPN with the racially charged statements directed at RG3 specifically cited as part of the rationale for his dismissal. Yet, several months later, Jason Whitlock was re-hired despite his racial stereotype comment directed at Asian-American NBA player Jeremy Lin? How in the world are those two realities reconcilable?? I fail to see how Whitlock's comment directed at Lin (and the disconcerting non-apology that followed) is somehow more desirable than Parker's comments to RG3.
Part of the irony in Whitlock’s non-apology is his apparent
admiration for Richard Pryor who is THE GUY who made the use of the ‘n-word’
prolific amongst black people as a term of endearment through his comedy
sketches.
In February, I watched ESPN’s Black History Month special
about “The N-Word.” Although I tuned in
with intrigue, the show immediately lost credibility when I saw Whitlock was
present as a part of the panel. Once
again, I don’t understand why or how someone with his track record was ever
allowed into this discussion. As I
watched, I heard Whitlock literally fabricate a reality based on his
position. I am specifically referring to
his insistence that (and this is a paraphrase) ‘the last word that a black man
heard when he was killed by a white lynch mob last century is the same last
word that he hears when he’s killed by another black man in the streets
today.’
REALLY???
What an incredibly ridiculous simplification of
reality. That statement has so many
flaws and it was completely unsubstantiated by Whitlock with any facts or
evidence (mostly because it can’t be substantiated with any facts or evidence
because the facts and evidence do not agree with this statement). This very flawed statement (that Whitlock
stated as matter of fact) ignores an enormous amount of tangible, documented
data concerning circumstances in which black men have been killed in the last
century up to today. It also ignores the
fact that white people use the term, often with hateful intent (e.g. NFL player
Riley Cooper, comedian Michael Richards).
His view of the n-word makes it seem as though only ignorant, young,
hip-hop generation black people use the term AND that the term can ONLY be used
with maliciousness. This is despite the
fact that his friend, Michael Wilbon is not young or from the hip-hop
generation, and he is not ignorant about the term and the ways it has been
used, yet Wilbon uses the term ‘every day,’ including using it as a term of
endearment.
Whitlock, who often speaks in a cavalier, 'I know it all'
manner was also false in his characterization of the n-word's history. He said
the history is rooted in hatred. It actually is not. The term was used for
millennia as merely a word to describe someone who was of dark skinned African
descent. For example, the word from whence it is derived is used in the Bible
to describe Simeon the Niger (Acts 13:1). The term is Latin in origin and
simply meant black. It was not until the turn of the 20th century that it began
to be used by white people toward black people with hateful spite. (As a side
note, I was also disappointed in Bob Ley and all the panelists for not knowing
this fact prior to commencing the special).
In general I agree that anyone who wants to be respected
should refrain from using the term.
However, I don’t need to make up scenarios in order to espouse that
position. The Sunday after “The N-Word”
special aired, I heard John Saunders commentary on “The Sports Reporters” about
how the word shouldn’t be used. Why not
use John Saunders as a panelist on “The N-Word” special? Why not Chauncey Billups, who appeared
briefly in the special and claimed that same position? There are any number of other credible
writers, athletes and journalists who could have represented the position
Whitlock represented who don’t have the deplorable history of racial falsehoods
and missteps in their background that Whitlock has, and who wouldn’t have made
up scenarios to make the same point. Why
use Whitlock?
And I guess that’s the big mystery as well as the big point
I want to make. Whitlock is not
necessary! There are hundreds and
hundreds of journalists who are credible and don’t have a terrible track record
like Whitlock; many of them already work at ESPN, and there are many that don’t
work there who would jump at the opportunity to be ESPN employees. Whitlock brings nothing positive to the table
that couldn’t be provided by other commentators. Whitlock just brings discredit and dishonor
to the station, as I hope I’ve outlined here.
I could continue discussing his disparaging comments about Scoop Jackson
and Mike Lupica (which apparently got him fired from ESPN before), or his
incredibly flawed, arrogant and condescending statements about DeSean Jackson
when he appeared on PTI earlier this year following Jackson’s “gang-ties”
controversy. Whitlock’s journalistic
‘rap sheet’ is long and terrible!!!
And I'm certain all the things I've written about here are
things that ESPN was cognizant of when the network decided to re-hire him.
Which makes his hiring all the more disappointing (and confusing when
considering the previous dismissal of Rob Parker). I think ESPN really should consider the
following questions:
1.
What are the standards for hiring someone and
firing someone? If Rob Parker can be
suspended and then removed for questioning a player’s relationship to their
race, can the station then hire someone who has specifically targeted a player
with a demeaning stereotypical racial jab and who has a documented history of
poor racial understanding?
2.
Knowing that issues of race, class and politics
often intertwine with sports, teams and athletes, considering his record, is
Jason Whitlock really the guy you want speaking on those topics when they
collide with sports?
Finally, I have been an avid and ‘religious’ viewer of the
PTI program since its inception, but I find his presence very disturbing. And so, although my personal protests and
objections will probably go unnoticed and seem insignificant to a station with
the large following that ESPN has, ESPN loses this diligent viewer of PTI each
time Whitlock appears on the program. As
the Ombudsman, I sincerely hope you give what I’ve written some time, some
thought, research it, and discuss it with management there at the station.
I thank you kindly for reading.
Sincerely,
Maelstrom
