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...
comments (6) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 year ago
This is what happens when a league is almost entirely black and the management is almost entirely white. It's nobody's fault that that is the case, but it's the reality. There's gonna be a disconnect.
On an aside, I thought that the VT hats in Washington were really great and Bud Selig should be thanked for not going to the rule book on that one. I bet that Stern would have said that it was a nice idea but unprofessional and wouldn't fly in his league.
about 1 year ago
God I love the NBA there's nothing better than watching Gods among men defy the laws of physics night in and night out.
Watch Allen Iverson crossover and cross out the league's top defenders. Watch 7 foot behemoths like Garnett, Duncan or Dirk play like they're 6 feet tall. Watch Kobe throw a giant orange ball into a hoop not even twice as big from 30 feet away.
That being said, the league is run by old men who are totally out of touch with the trends of 07', and as you point out, have little sensitivity towards the black community. David Stern needs to wake up and smell the coffee; the dress code is ridiculous and downright insulting, considering that those guys with cornrows and long shorts are the very people that fans pay so much money to see. Denying Jerry Stackhouse the ability to put Robinson on his jersey shows a similar lack of understanding for racial issues. And the icing on the cake...the "collegiate experience" crap?
Makes me want to puke. What are these kids gonna learn during one year in college anyway? They probably won't go to class the majority of the time and meanwhile they'll risk getting injured and ruining their chances of making it big.
Clearly, the only thing guys like David Stern are thinking when making a decision like that is: "I went to college, and look how I turned out. These punks need to become mature before they play in my league. Off you go, little punk."
Even though there is absolutely NO reason why these kids shouldn't be able to show their skills in a league where they are financially rewarded for their efforts! Is this America or the USSR Mr. Stern?
But honestly: how can you expect Stern to understand? Not like he grew up in a poor inter city neighborhood. Not like he understands that the money these guys are making is not just to fly first class and buy fancy cars but to feed their families and friends who don't have a big league contract.
David Stern and the NBA needs to accept that the vast majority of their stars are black (no offense to Nash or Dirk). They need to live with this reality and not be so critical of the way that Allen Iverson looks and dresses. Rather, they should embrace AI's style and give some respect to a guy who's brought nothing but heart to the league.
Most importantly, they need to remember that they are running a professional basketball league here not a pre school. David Stern's job is not to teach these kids life lessons; it's to run the league effectively and let the boys play ball, even if the stars of the league occasionally act like immature punks.
Your article correctly points out how the NBA (and the NFL, for that matter) seems to always make a big deal out of this stuff, even though the same issues exist in other leagues with a higher percentage of white players like baseball and hockey. Coincidence? I think not.
about 1 year ago
David Stern feels that the league appeals to more people when the player's dress in a somewhat professional manner (the dress code is collared shirt and pants btw - pretty casual by most Americans standards). More appeal means that the league is more profitable.
It comes down to this: a lot of NBA fans were turned off by ridiculously rich and often spoiled athletes showing up dressed the way they were dressing. Now you can make the argument that these people are short-sighted, biased, etc and that the way a person dresses doesn't have an impact on their productivity at work. But try telling that to a law firm or an IBank.
The point is that if the NBA wants to put forth a certain image b/c they believe it will lead to increased profitability, then they have every right to do so. And is it really THAT big of a deal?
about 1 year ago
The players are the ones that make the NBA profitable in the first place. The dress code was instituted mainly because David Stern and the other guys that run the league felt it was an appropriate gesture to show the players that they meant business not because fans actually gave a shit.
Did Stern ever show you any statistical evidence that the way players were dressing was cutting into the profits of the NBA? Nope you just took his word for it. If you can show me that evidence, perhaps I'll back down from this point.
about 1 year ago
David Stern works for the owners. The owners have a board of governors who approve rules and policies.
So a majority of the owners wanted these policies, such as the dress code and respect for the game on complaining to refs. The league office does make individual decisions as they come about, such as the Stackhouse one, but that falls under the guidelines of a player's jersey only having his last name, no first names like long ago when Pete Maravich had "Pistol" on his jersey instead of just his last name.
Bottom line is if the owners don't like what Stern is doing they can change it. It is not Stern's league, it is the owners.
about 1 year ago
i think it si aswsome what you did . you are my favorite player for attitude like that and the way that you play. I think your so cool.
write a new comment