The Question and The Column

It happens every spring. And every summer, fall and winter. Some black athlete accidentally gives an honest and accurate answer to The Question, and then it's off to the races.

The Question in question, which gets asked on an almost daily basis, is some variation of "How is your experience different from that of a white quarterback/coach/hockey player/golfer? Ninety nine times out of 100, the athlete dodges, ignores or jokes away The Question. Every black athlete in America has gotten good at doing so -- otherwise they'd have to spend nearly every waking hour responding to it, again and again, as sports reporters lined up to ask it over and over, each thinking he was somehow being edgy, clever or original for doing so.

But then there's that 100th time, when some black athlete actually answers. Maybe he's tired, or he had a bad day, or he's just sick of hearing the same &%@# question over and over, but this time he responds, honestly and accurately, as though it were a legitimate inquiry about his experience and not just a stupid, unvarying Gotcha! game. And then it's off to the races.

What follows is inevitable, predictable, hackneyed and dull, but the participants in this weird ritual of the sports pages all pretend this is something new and noteworthy, something that they didn't just finish doing, three months ago, almost verbatim. The Question being answered, it becomes time to write The Column.

The Column appears in dozens of newspapers simultaneously, with different bylines and a few other, very slight, variations. The similarities are creepy enough to make you wonder whether sports columnists might actually be some kind of multiheaded macro-organism, something like that giant mushroom in Michigan.

The athlete's answer, The Column says, is wrong. The athlete's answer is always wrong. His answer shows that he is thin-skinned; that he has a chip on his shoulder; that he doesn't know what he's talking about because Roger Maris got death threats too and that surely proves it's not a racial thing. They booed Pee Wee Reese too, you know, and ...

Frankly, The Column is boring. It was boring 20 years ago when Charles Barkley answered the question honestly and was roundly condemned for doing so, and it was boring 30 years ago when the same thing happened to Reggie Jackson. And it hasn't gotten any more interesting or enlightening since.

The most recent go-round of this inane ritual centered on Donovan McNabb, whose answer to The Question was measured, understated and true. Here's what he said:

"There's not that many African-American quarterbacks, so we have to do a little bit extra. ... Because the percentage of us playing this position, which people didn't want us to play ... is low, so we do a little extra."

He also suggested that white quarterbacks "don't get criticized as much as we do." That hardly seems radical or extreme, but it's more than enough to give white sports reporters the vapors. Pressing a dainty handkerchief to their foreheads, they staggered to their keyboards and -- en masse -- cranked out yet another dismally predictable adaptation of The Column.

This time around The Column was particularly entertaining because of the setting for this episode: Philadelphia. This is the city with a statue of Connie Mack.* This is the home of the last team in the National League to integrate (after Jackie Robinson retired). This is the city that transformed Major League Baseball -- free agency was created expressly because Curt Flood refused to play in what he called "the most racist town in America." Yet last week, in dozens of examples of The Column, Philadelphia was portrayed as a colorblind, purely meritocratic utopia and a magnet for black athletes happy to be judged only on the quality of their performance. After all, Ryan Howard has already been allowed to play here nearly half as long as Richie Allen was. (Here's the paper's contribution to the corpus, a fine imitation of Stephen Colbert -- "Am I white? I can't tell. I don't see color" -- except without the irony.)

The latest round of this sad ritual ended Sunday afternoon, when McNabb played his first game of the year without a knee-brace, throwing for 381 yards and four touchdowns en route to a 56-21 win over the Detroit Lions. After the game, of course, he was asked The Question again, but he sidestepped it this time just like he did the Lions' pass rush.

The Question isn't going away. Reporters will keep asking it, seemingly unable to grasp that the very act of asking it is, itself, all the answer they should need.

For a refreshing alternative to The Column, see CBS Sports' Mike Freeman, who actually wrote a real column, rather than just recycling the same thing he wrote back in 2001 when The Answer answered The Question. He seems to come at this subject from a different perspective than that shared by so many of his hivelike colleagues.** While you're at it, also be sure to check out the responses Freeman's gotten. (I wonder how many of those e-mails came from here in Philly.)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* Reason No. 2,347 that I believe God has a sense of humor: The former site of Connie Mack Stadium is now the location of a thriving multi-ethnic church preaching a message of "racial reconciliation."

** Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the monochromatic horde of sports writers who congratulated themselves last week for churning out another version of The Column are all racists. Nor am I suggesting that they are all cliched, talentless hacks incapable of original thought. This is clearly an instance of lazy, thoughtless, gratuitous hackery, but whether or not it indicates a chronic condition is something that would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Comments

[Drak Pope]

I'm pretty sure that most newspaper articles are generated by rundown computers somewhere in Kinshasa. There are many that are thoughtful, informative, and/or insightful, but many more that look like something that was run two days ago tweaked slightly and given a new title and illustration.

[Rozzen]

Here's the paper's contribution to the corpus, a fine imitation of Stephen Colbert -- "Am I white? I can't tell. I don't see color" -- except without the irony.

"People tell me I'm white, and I believe them, because I got to be a quarterback and I hardly ever get criticised !"

[Rozzen]

This is clearly an instance of lazy, thoughtless, gratuitous hackery, but whether or not it indicates a chronic condition is something that would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

It may also be a case of desperately wanting what you wish were true to be true. A well-known trait of creationists and other deluded folk.
Or think that if you wish hard enough the world were color-blind, it will become true.

[mmack]

white quarterbacks "don't get criticized as much as we do."

I'm guessing McNabb didn't watch Retch Grossman's performance last night. We here in Chicago are demanding Rex's head on a silver platter, to be stuck on a pike outside of Halas Hall.

I think the problem with sportswriting in general was encapsulated in Max Mercy's character in The Natural:

Hobbs: Still dogging me, huh, Max?
Mercy: End of the road, Hobbs.
Hobbs: Want to hear what I think our chances are?
Mercy: You read my mind.
Hobbs: That takes all of two seconds.
Mercy: They come and they go, Hobbs. They come and they go. I’m guessing I’m going to be around here a lot longer than you or anybody else around here. I’m here to protect this game.
Hobbs: Whose game?
Mercy: I do it by making or breaking the likes of you.
Hobbs: Did you ever play ball, Max?
Mercy: No, never have. But I make it a little more fun to watch, you see. And after today whether you’re a goat or a hero, you’re going to make me a great story. See you around.

The sports section seems to be the main place in a newspaper where writers seem to have a difficulty discerning the difference between a reporter (Noun: a person employed to gather and report news, as for a newspaper, wire service, or television station.) and an editorialist (Noun: a journalist who writes editorials, SYN: columnist). One states facts, the other states opinions. Evidently a sportswriter blends the two together and seasons with a dash of hypocracy.

[Rozzen]

a dash of hypocracy.
Was it you who made that spelling mistake the other day, or is "hypocrisy" pronounced wierdly enough by some people to make that spelling mistake common ?

It's like flouride and tounge. Especially tounge, some people misspell it consistently enough for it not to be a typo, but why on Earth would anyone think that's the correct spelling ?

[hapax]

Oh, it's hard to spell
"Oly-ma-kitty-luca-chi-chi-chi"
But in Tounge, that means... "No"!

[Richard Hershberger]

I think to some extent both positions are right. Yes, black athletes, especially in prominent positions like quarterback, have to prove themselves a bit more than white athletes. But Philly fans ragging on their quarterback for opening the season with two lousy games? There is no need to invoke race to explain this. They rag on Pat Burrell because he is only pretty good, while at the beginning of his career it looked like he would be very good, and Burrell is about as white as they come.

Is there an added edge in some fans' criticism of McNabb? Undoubtedly. But I also don't doubt that much of the reaction to those two games would have been the same regardless.

[the opoponax]

The main problem with "I wouldn't get X treatment if I were not a member of Y group" is that it's not really provable in any way. Which isn't to say that there isn't totally something to it (and I tend to trust a person who says "I get treated differently because of my membership in Z group" more than the folks in Y group who insist it couldn't be true). But it's just a really, really problematic way to start a conversation about oppression. Which is probably why reporters love asking about that, rather than some other aspect of racial issues within sports which could be answered without inviting so much "nuh-uhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!"

[the opoponax]

I totally messed up my variables, there. But you get the idea.

Also, v. confused about "tounge" vs. "tongue".

The thing sitting in the bottom of your mouth that enables you to speak is a tongue. I don't know about this "tounge" you speak of...

[Rozzen]

For a refreshing alternative to The Column, see CBS Sports' Mike Freeman, who actually wrote a real column, rather than just recycling the same thing he wrote back in 2001 when The Answer answered The Question.

What I don't get about Freeman's column is that he seems to assume McNabb is accusing everyone of blatant racism. Leaving aside whether McNabb is right about his impression or whether he's "too thin-skinned", I don't know a thing about american football and its world anyway, don't they realise that what McNabb said is completely consistent with the kind of unconscious racism that tons of studies show exists ?
Like the "job interview" study, where they show that interviewers treat black and white job applicants differently in subtle ways and that this affects their performance ? Like the study where they give a test, and blacks will do as well as whites and asians, males will do as well as females, but then when they say "this test is to see if blacks/females/whites do worse than whites/males/asians" suddenly the predicted groups do indeed to worse ?

Blatant racism is a problem, but just because it's not there doesn't mean unconscious racism still isn't in play. And people sticking their heads in the sand about it will only make it worse.

[Fishbone McGonigle]

The sports section seems to be the main place in a newspaper where writers seem to have a difficulty discerning the difference between a reporter (Noun: a person employed to gather and report news, as for a newspaper, wire service, or television station.) and an editorialist (Noun: a journalist who writes editorials, SYN: columnist). One states facts, the other states opinions. Evidently a sportswriter blends the two together and seasons with a dash of hypocracy.

The sports section is also place where you are most likely to find the best overall writing in any given newspaper. I think this is at least partially a direct result of sportswriters' willingness to interject a little opinion here and there.

How this makes them hypocritical, I don't quite understand.

[Jeff]

"There's not that many African-American quarterbacks, so we have to do a little bit extra. ... Because the percentage of us playing this position, which people didn't want us to play ... is low, so we do a little extra."

I remember that when McNabb was first promoted to starting QB, good ol' Rush blathered that it was just because of his race. So this time around, I'm sure McNabb was good and tired of all this nonsense. (I kind of wish he'd told the reporter to go f**k ask Limbaugh, since he was the "expert".)

[Salamanda]

the opoponax: The thing sitting in the bottom of your mouth that enables you to speak is a tongue. I don't know about this "tounge" you speak of...

People got tired of saying "tiki lounge", and shortened it up a bit. Nice, eh? ;)

Now if you'll excuse me, I need a mai tai.

[Lila]

"The main difference is, nobody ever asks white quarterbacks that question."

[Rich]

How is Mike Freeman's column a "real column" as opposed to a "Column"? It offers the same cherry picked examples and the same baseless assertions. The only thing distinguishing it from a "Column" is that it offers a different opinion. That fact alone does not make it a "real column" as opposed to a "Column".

He seems to come at this subject from a different perspective than that shared by so many of his hivelike colleagues.

On what does Fred base this comment? Mike Freeman's means of argument are exactly the same as his "hivelike colleagues", the only thing different about Mike Freeman's column are his conclusions. To me, it seems kind of ass-backwards to judge a column's merits on its conclusions.

As for McNabb's comments, I won't comment on whether or not he puts forth extra effort because he feels pressure as an African-American quarterback. I will note the following:

1) The two highest scrutinized quarterbacks in the NFL are, IMHO, Rex Grossman and Eli Manning. Both white.

2) McNabb has faced about average scrutiny for a large market, high profile team, which the Eagles have certainly been in the last 5 years (or longer). When he plays well he's a hero, when he plays poorly he is a villain. Uhm...welcome to being a starting quarterback in the NFL, white or black.

3) As of this week, African-Americans make up 18.75% of starting quarterbacks in the NFL, compared to 12.1% of the US population. If we count "people who would be starting quarterbacks but chose to bankroll dog righting rings instead" as starting quaterbacks the percentage would be 21.875. So the notion that the NFL as a whole is racist regarding quarterbacks is obviously false.

The facts are obvious: The NFL is not racist reagrding quarterbacks, nor are black quarterbacks held to higher standards than white ones. I have no doubt that Donavan McNabb was being sincere when he made his statements, but being sincere does not make one's statements true.

Especially tounge, some people misspell it consistently enough for it not to be a typo, but why on Earth would anyone think that's the correct spelling ?

Well, it's hardly less plausible than the correct spelling, is it? On the one hand you have something that should obviously be pronounced "townj", on the other hand you have something that should obviously be pronounced "ton-gyew".

[the opoponax]

Ah. Tiki Lounge.

There seems to be this trend going around of coining slang words by taking a two word expression and adding the first letter of the first word to the beginning of the second word. Jorts (jean shorts). Jandals (japanese sandals, the Kiwi and Oz term for flip-flops). Fugly (F*cking Ugly). Now Tounge...

[the opoponax]

So the notion that the NFL as a whole is racist regarding quarterbacks is obviously false.

That doesn't follow at all from what you said, though. The definition of "racist" isn't "having less minorities than are present in the bulk national population." That argument is like the policy wonks who think that, because women make up 60% of American college students, and only 52% of Americans as a whole, therefore feminism's goals are complete, and omigod, those poor boys whose college spots are being stolen by the eeeevil feminists! Those poor girls who secretly want to be barefoot and pregnant but are instead pressured by the eeeevil feminists into getting educated!

[Bugmaster]

Sigh...

Ok, I know I'm going to regret asking this, but: how do you measure when feminism's goals, as applied to colleges and colleges only, are complete ? Let's say that, 20 years from now, 99% of college attendees will be women. Can we conclude that feminism has achieved a victory in the field of college education ?

If the demographic breakdown is not your measurable criterion for victory (and I'm not really claiming that it's a good criterion, either), then what is ? Note that I said "measurable"; this means that answering, "when the bias that favors men in colleges is finally eliminated ! yar !" is not going to work, unless you describe a way of measuring such bias.

You could, of course, reject the very notion of measurable criteria for success, but I don't think you want to go that route... It's not doing our current President any good, just to name one example.

[Rich]

the opoponax:

That doesn't follow at all from what you said, though. The definition of "racist" isn't "having less minorities than are present in the bulk national population." That argument is like the policy wonks who think that, because women make up 60% of American college students, and only 52% of Americans as a whole, therefore feminism's goals are complete, and omigod, those poor boys whose college spots are being stolen by the eeeevil feminists!

Your analogy does not follow at all. I never said, "there is no racism in America". All I said is that there is no racism as far as NFL quarterbacks are concerned. So your analogy of "women are overrepresented in college compared to their presence in the national population" as being the same thing as "feminism's goals are complete" does not apply. Your analogy would apply if you said, "60% of American college students are women, and only 52% of Americans are women, and therefore women are not, as a whole, prevented from attending college". You didn't say that though. I am not claiming that because African-American males can gain equal or greater access to a given position then all problems with race are solved. I'm merely claiming that their access to the position is equal or greater.

I claim that if black men make up the same or a higher percentage of NFL starting quarterbacks than they do as a whole in the US population, then the NFL is not being racist as regards African-American quarterbacks. I further claim that African-American men are not given greater scrutiny than non African-American quarterbacks in similar situations.

I offer the following challenge to you: Show what percentage of quarterbacks would be African-American if the NFL were not racist, show some objective means by which we can determine if African-American quarterbacks are more scrutinized than white quarterbacks, provide some evidence that your method is valid, show that African Americans quarterbacks are more scrutinized than white quarterbacks, and provide some evidence for that claim. My guess is that you will not.

[hapax]

What I know about American pro football (or European football for that matter)could easily fit in a shotglass, with room left over for Rush Limbaugh's brain. (College hoops is whole nother issue).

But Rich, I would argue comparing the percentage of African American quarterbacks to the percentage of African Americans in the population as a whole is a false measure. I would imagine that it should be compared to the percentage of African Americans in the potential applicant pool -- and defining that is a bit tricky. (Those who show up for pro tryouts? College football players? High school football players? Every kid who dreamed that "the pros" would be his ticket out of poverty?)

I honestly have no idea whether this would support your contention or not. But it would certainly be a more useful statistic.

[Jeff]

McNabb has faced about average scrutiny for a large market, high profile team, which the Eagles have certainly been in the last 5 years (or longer). When he plays well he's a hero, when he plays poorly he is a villain.

Are you stupid or just blind? I had just posted that Limbaugh blasted McNabb when he became starting QB, saying that McNabb got the job SOLELY because he was black. Is that "average scrutiny" in your book?

The complaint is not that the NFL is racist (have someone read Fred's post to you, explaining all the big, confusing words); it's that black QBs are held to a different standard than white QBs.

And don't point to Grossman. If he were a black QB, many sports columnists would have demanded he be fired after the first interception.

[Cat]

I sent Freeman a nice note. I mean, I loved the column, even though I think sports are about as interesting as watching baseball. And reading the hate mail he got for it just clinched it for me.

[85% Duane]

Yeah, what Jeff said. Or consider Kordell Stewart when he was a Steelers QB. The racism Kordell had to endure from Pittsburgh fans was enough to make me pick a new team to cheer.

[Rich]

hapax:
But Rich, I would argue comparing the percentage of African American quarterbacks to the percentage of African Americans in the population as a whole is a false measure. I would imagine that it should be compared to the percentage of African Americans in the potential applicant pool -- and defining that is a bit tricky. (Those who show up for pro tryouts? College football players? High school football players? Every kid who dreamed that "the pros" would be his ticket out of poverty?)

I agree 100%. I don't know of a better measure however, so I used the measure that is used in most other areas (white-collar jobs, average income, college graduates, whatever). I would love to have a better measure, but I don't - that is why I'm hoping the opononax answers my challenge.

Jeff:
The complaint is not that the NFL is racist (have someone read Fred's post to you, explaining all the big, confusing words); it's that black QBs are held to a different standard than white QBs.

And my point is that black QBs are not held to a different standard. If they are, please show some friggin evidence. Fred didn't, Mike Freeman didn't, and neither did you.

And don't point to Grossman. If he were a black QB, many sports columnists would have demanded he be fired after the first interception.

Bullshit. Did columnists demand that McNabb be fired after the first interception? That McNair or Leftwich should be? Young or Vick? No. If you can show some, you know, evidence to the contrary then please do (I'm willing to be proven wrong). As far as I know, black QBs in the NFL suffer quite a bit of scrutiny - but so are white QBs.

[ako]

I offer the following challenge to you: Show what percentage of quarterbacks would be African-American if the NFL were not racist, show some objective means by which we can determine if African-American quarterbacks are more scrutinized than white quarterbacks, provide some evidence that your method is valid, show that African Americans quarterbacks are more scrutinized than white quarterbacks, and provide some evidence for that claim. (emphasis added)

You first. So far, you've flashed three data points, which show three specific facts. They hardly eliminate all claims of racism.

1) Two guys receiving the highest scrutiny being white doesn't prove anything about how the average amount of scrutiny given to people breaks down by race. The most powerful person in the House of Representatives is a woman, but that hardly proves that the overwhelmingly male house isn't sexist. Even if we accept your unsupported claim about who gets the most scrutiny.

2) Not data; an assertion. To present facts, you'd have to come up with some measurable standard to determine how much scrutiny was typical (number of articles and news stories?).

3) Even if we assume that black men qualified for the position are going out for quarterback in precise proportion to what percentage of the population they are, that just shows that they're not being systematically excluded. It doesn't show that they're not subjected to any degree of racially treatment (such as being more likely to be tagged with labels such as 'running quarterback', or subjected to extra pressure and scrutiny by coaches and teammates).

While demographics do tell you some things about racism, waving one good number doesn't disprove all kinds of prejudice.

[the opoponax]

how do you measure when feminism's goals, as applied to colleges and colleges only, are complete ?Let's say that, 20 years from now, 99% of college attendees will be women. Can we conclude that feminism has achieved a victory in the field of college education ?

I think it would depend on a few other things than just those numbers.

For instance, a big part of the whole "girls go to college now, therefore feminism is finished" thing is that the reason that more women than men go to college is the wage gap. There are still some pretty good options out there for men who choose not to go to college. On the other hand, most of the "pink collar" jobs require college now, and virtually all of the "white collar" ones do, to. This means that a man who doesn't go to college has better job prospects than a woman who doesn't go. Looking at that, it seems like sexism is the cause of the large percentage of women who go to college, not feminism.

Additionally, you'd have to look more closely at women's college experiences. Are women discouraged from choosing traditionally male fields of study? What are the rates of women going on to grad school? What is the attitude of professors towards female undergrads? What are women's gpa's like compared to men's? What happens to all these female college grads? Do they pursue careers outside the home? What kinds? How many children do they eventually have, and at what ages?

Only after doing a LOT of research can you determine how feminism has affected the university experience. One of my (eeeeevil, eeeeevil) women's studies professors, Virginia Valian, is the author of a book on this subject (well feminism and women's education in general), called Why So Slow? -- you might want to check it out if you're particularly interested.

[ako]

You could, of course, reject the very notion of measurable criteria for success, but I don't think you want to go that route...

I'd say the difference between numbers representing "a victory for feminism" and measuring "when feminism's goals are complete" is the difference between a single statistic, and a broad range of measurements. Big messy social phenomena like sexism and racism can rarely be measured by a single statistic. One stat might represent measurable progress, or prove that a certain narrow and specific problem has been dealt with, but it doesn't establish something like "No racism in the NFL" or "No sexism in universities".

[Tim Lehnerer]

So..uh...who's Connie Mack? Why is a statue of him significant for this story?

[hf]

Bugmaster: answering, "when the bias that favors men in colleges is finally eliminated ! yar !" is not going to work, unless you describe a way of measuring such bias.

You mean studies like the ones we mentioned earlier showing unconscious bias? The one they talk about here from Bowles et al technically looks at a different situation, but it still gives us a way to measure bias. ("Participants were 119 North American undergraduate students who assessed the impression created by a job candidate based on a resume and interview notes.") When it gives a result of zero, then we can reasonably start asking if we've achieved feminism's main goal in colleges.

[Mike]

You could, of course, reject the very notion of measurable criteria for success, but I don't think you want to go that route... It's not doing our current President any good, just to name one example.

How is a lack of criteria hurting Bush? He's getting everything he wants, and not even the Democrats dare say boo to him. In a sane world, Bush would have been tried at Den Hague years ago, but in this world a lack of standards certainly hasn't hurt him.

[the opoponax]

Apparently Connie Mack was a famous baseball manager in Philly. The wikipedia article is all glowing adoration, so I don't quite know what the context was for Fred's remarks. I'd guess he was the person who kept the Philly team from integrating for so long? Though he doesn't seem to have been a manager during the Jackie Robinson era, so I don't know.

[Bugmaster]

@ako, opo:
I agree that sexism and discrimination in general is a complex issue; this is why I've limited my question solely to discrimination in colleges. It's possible that even this criteria was too broad, and I should've limited the scope to college admissions. In other words, I'm not saying that, hypothetically, "100x more women than men attend college, therefore sexism is dead"; I'm saying "100x more women than men attend college, therefore sexism in college is most likely dead".

@hf:
The first study you linked to was interesting, but it's studying a different issue. According to the article, men are much more likely than women to negotiate for a teaching position, more salary, etc. This means that even if their bosses (and college deans, etc.) are perfectly fair and unbiased, and accede to the request of any qualified candidate, then men would still have a higher average salary than women (and better teaching positions, etc.) -- because they make the requests, whereas women do not.

The second study, however, does seem to provide a way to measure bias; and it might explain the results of the first study. However, I predict that if women become 100x more likely to apply to college than men, then the degree of bias will eventually undergo a drastic decrease. I could be wrong, of course; I'm not a licensed sociologist like opo is. Still, you have responded to my challenge, and she did not. Let's see if she accepts your criterion.

[the opoponax]

I'm saying "100x more women than men attend college, therefore sexism in college is most likely dead".

And we're both saying that you have to look at a lot of other factors regarding college before you can say that because N women go to college, feminism FTW.

For instance, what if it turns out that 40% of all female college grads only got Associates degrees, and became office managers and paralegals? What if 30% of female college students drop out in their last year to get married and have kids? What if 75% of female students in predominantly male programs report feeling unwelcome or experienced pressure to change into a more traditional major? What if 60% of female college students had trouble finding a job after graduation, or could only be expected to earn half of what their male peers made?

If that stuff were the case*, it would be incredibly unlikely that large numbers of female students meant that university life was more egalitarian or that feminist battles in the classroom had been won.

*I'm not saying it is, those were purely hypothetical data points.

[ako]

In other words, I'm not saying that, hypothetically, "100x more women than men attend college, therefore sexism is dead"; I'm saying "100x more women than men attend college, therefore sexism in college is most likely dead".

Well, really, close-to-equal numbers would better suit my idea of "sexism is dead". But I agree, good admission stats do increase the likelihood that sexism is dead.

With the (probably blatantly obvious) caveat that evidence of completely different forms of sexism (such as widespread sexual assaults on campus, rigid gender separation in majors, female students being given far lower grades, significantly fewer recommendation letters, or less chance to make professional contacts) isn't disproven by citing the absence of sexism in admissions. Which is my whole issue with the NFL stats.

[ako]

All my examples were hypothetical examples, by the way.

[--susan]

Rich, you have an astoundingly narrow view of racism. There's racism in the NFL because a lot of people are racist. The only way your assertions make sense to me is if you define racism, in this instance, as "institutionally-mandated policies that seek to promote racism." Just people landlords can't openly advertise whites-only apartments doesn't mean that racism in housing has been eradicated. Just because there are successful and widely beloved black football players doesn't mean that racism in football has been eradicated.

Oh, heck. And ako's saying all this better than me.

[hapax]

Oh, heck. And ako's saying all this better than me.

Yeah. That happens a lot here. Isn't it annoying? After you've spent all that time composing a brilliant post, usually.

(Although I rather liked yours. I'm a pushover for analogies.)

[Scott]

But Rich, I would argue comparing the percentage of African American quarterbacks to the percentage of African Americans in the population as a whole is a false measure. I would imagine that it should be compared to the percentage of African Americans in the potential applicant pool -- and defining that is a bit tricky. (Those who show up for pro tryouts? College football players? High school football players? Every kid who dreamed that "the pros" would be his ticket out of poverty?)

I love it. % representation is enough to 'prove' a need for 'progressive' govt affirmative action when it suits the lefts' purposes, but "it's more complicated" if it doesn't. Maybe the NFL is racist against white running backs? Oh, sorry, that's not useful to Fred Clark, Compassionate Evangelical Journalist.

The flip side to "the column" is the orgy of self-congratulation from the left when a McNabb makes this sort of comment. "We're the ones who get it, so we deserve the power to set employment/admission quotas to fix it, 'cause we're the compassionate ones; KNEEL before my compassion, bitch".

McNabb is a hero when his team wins, a goat when it loses, and he makes millions for it. Welcome to the NF-fucking-L.

I offer the following challenge to you: Show what percentage of quarterbacks would be African-American if the NFL were not racist, show some objective means by which we can determine if African-American quarterbacks are more scrutinized than white quarterbacks, provide some evidence that your method is valid, show that African Americans quarterbacks are more scrutinized than white quarterbacks, and provide some evidence for that claim. My guess is that you will not.

You're wasting your breath. Racism charges are useful to their Will to Power. They need charges of racism to make themselves feel superior. Nothing outside the head of a leftist is as important to their own emotional needs; yet they have the gall to call anyone in their way 'selfish'.

[85% Duane]

Oh lord, Scott is hitting the hootch early this week.

[the opoponax]

I want a T-shirt that says "KNEEL before my compassion, Bitch!"

[--susan]

Connie Mack: In a nutshell, Philadelphia was one of the most important cities for the Negro Leagues, with a long history of great black baseball. While the rest of the world slowly awoke to the possibility of black and white men playing on the same team, Connie Mack steadfastedly wasn't having any of it.

I'm sure others will elaborate better on the color line and Connie Mack's role in upholding it.

[Ecks]

Evidence for prejudice?

Oh heck, tons of it. A quick google shows some handy things, like here.

Or, if you have a local library and a more scholarly bent, here's from the psychology literature:

Crosby, F., Bromley, S., & Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of Black and White discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546–563.

Jones, E. E., & Sigall, H. (1971). The bogus pipeline: A new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 349–364.
(this one's a bit older, but it's really kinda fun).

Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 262–274. [Context Link]

Zuwerink, J. R., Devine, P. G., Monteith, M. J., & Cook, D. A. (1996). Prejudice towards Blacks: With and without compunction? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 131–150.

There's a brilliant study that shows people who score higher on a test of implicit racism have lower quality interactions with a black confederate (are more distant, etc) that's just a few years old (Tony Greenwald I'm pretty sure).

There was another great one by Gaertner and Dovidio where they gave people a modern racism scale in 1989 and 1999. People seemed to get less prejudiced accross that gap. But when you had those same people read a job candidate's application and recommend to hire him or not, they were far less likely to recommend him in both years if 2 things were true:
1) the associated picture was of a Black person
2) The candidate was very ambiguously qualified for the job. If it was clear one way or another, they used that info. If it was a really close call, so nobody could tell that race was the specific reason they were using to push them one way or another* then they dropped the black guy.

Rozzen: when they say "this test is to see if blacks/females/whites do worse than whites/males/asians" suddenly the predicted groups do indeed to worse ?

Actually you don't even need to say it's biased against them. In some case you just intimate that "some (unspecified) differences have been observed," and in other cases the default position is that they tank on the test UNLESS you tell them that it's been checked out and there is NO bias.

* The other reasonable interpretation here is that race only made a small difference to their judgments, so prejudice only affected marginal candidates - which is still bad, we're all marginal for decisions some times, no reason that discrimination is ok then.

[Rich]

ako:
provide some evidence that your method is valid

You first. So far, you've flashed three data points, which show three specific facts. They hardly eliminate all claims of racism.

The bold is me quoting ako who was quoting me. The following is my response: No! Not me first. It is your side (Donavan McNabb's side) who is making a claim, namely: Black quarterbacks are under more scutiny than white ones. It is you and yours who is making the claim, so you friggin back it up.

Keep in mind that I've made no claims about African-American quarterbacks at all. I have only said that they are not being over scrutinized. It's up to McNabb's defenders to show that they are. In other words, the burden of proof is on them.

Kindly show that black quarterbacks are under more scrutiny than white ones, or kindly STFU. I've never claimed that racism has ended; quite to the contrary, I've said it still exists. If you have the slightest bit of integrity you will either provide some evidence in support of your point, or you will retire and admit that I'm right and your're wrong. I expect you to do neither.

[Ecks]

Rich, I will be so bold as to say that Ako cannot prove to you that Black quarterbacks experience more scrutiny than white quarterbacks. Nor can does she have any evidence that Donovan McNabb has toe nails, that Eli Manning has a mother, or that Tom Brady has a penis. But if something seems quite generally true of most members of a class, is it not a reasonable inference that it is true of most particular members of that class? Racism seems pretty omnipresent everywhere else (see above cites), and while it is possible that there is some strange dynamic makes professional quarterbacks different than everybody else, such an exceptional case would require exceptional proof to be believable, would it not.

The only particular piece of evidence we have in this exact case is the word of One D. McNabb, an African American quarterback in the NFL, who has said that in his experience some level of prejudice exists towards people in his position. I score that as 1 bit of data in favour of the a priori overwhelmingly plausible hypothesis, and 0 against.

And zo! I see your smug derision and raise you logic, argument, and fact. Ball's back in your court Rich.

[Ecks]

errr... <shuffles feet>

That is, I *meant* to say, "if something is true of most members of a class, is it not reasonable that it be the default expectation of any given member of that class"... Some how it just blurted out as a tautology up there. Er, tee hee.

[Spalanzani]

hapax: "But Rich, I would argue comparing the percentage of African American quarterbacks to the percentage of African Americans in the population as a whole is a false measure. I would imagine that it should be compared to the percentage of African Americans in the potential applicant pool -- and defining that is a bit tricky. (Those who show up for pro tryouts? College football players? High school football players? Every kid who dreamed that "the pros" would be his ticket out of poverty?)"

Scott: "I love it. % representation is enough to 'prove' a need for 'progressive' govt affirmative action when it suits the lefts' purposes, but "it's more complicated" if it doesn't. Maybe the NFL is racist against white running backs? Oh, sorry, that's not useful to Fred Clark, Compassionate Evangelical Journalist."

Wait, so Scott quotes hapax, argues that what hapax said is crazy and evil, then uses this as proof that Fred is crazy and evil? How does that even begin to make any sense, even by Scott standards? Does he just think that we're all Fred's sock puppets or something?

[Mike W]

the opoponax:
...Jandals (japanese sandals, the Kiwi and Oz term for flip-flops)...
----

Delurking for a moment here with a slight interjection - it's only Kiwis who refer to flip-flops as Jandals. In Oz we call them Thongs, as in "It was too hot for shoes, so I wore thongs." We (generally) don't refer to underwear by the term Thong either, which can cause all manner of amusing misunderstandings. In my pants.

Anyway, back to lurking with me.

[Salamanda]

opo: There seems to be this trend going around...

Wasn't aware of any of such a trend (except for fugly, that seems to have been around for a while). Then again, I'm not often in the loop. Wow. Jorts. How irritating.

[Patrick Phelan]

Wait, so Scott quotes hapax, argues that what hapax said is crazy and evil, then uses this as proof that Fred is crazy and evil? How does that even begin to make any sense, even by Scott standards? Does he just think that we're all Fred's sock puppets or something?

It's Season 6 Scott. "Fred Clark, (Compassionate) Evangelical Journalist!!!" Scott. When they try to shove a new catchphrase on an existing character, that's a pretty good indication that the show's jumped the shark.

Personally, I know very little about sport (Aussie Rules football is pretty with the bits where they kick things), but I'd be a lot more surprised if black quarterbacks didn't come under more scrutiny than white quarterbacks, if only because, well, racism as an often subconscious bias exists in places. (And that's why you must give me your hard-earned money at the barrel of a gun, so that I can spend it on government programs that don't do anything, and hence staunch my overwhelming guilt at the cost of your very life.) So I guess what I'm really wondering at this point - and what I'm actually wondering, not in an "I guess that's sufficient for Rich No Last Name, KKK Commenter!!!!" kind of way - is, does context like this change the burden of proof in any way?

...Honestly, I kind of guess it doesn't. If you've proved that a balloon will float in temperatures from 30 degrees Celsius to 36 degrees Celsius, and from 38 degrees Celsius to 44 degrees Celsius, you still have to test the 37 degrees Celsius to be a Proper Scientist Type. But at the same time, as the opoponax says about feminism in universities, "proving" unconscious bias can involve a hell of a lot of data points. Many of which seem to point the other way. All of this sounds like work, and I've got my own college in an hour, for which I need to have finished a bunch of Word documents. (Which is why I'm currently playing Pokemon Emerald in my pyjamas. But, come on, guys, I'm up to the Weather Institute, and I'm about to get Castform, whose Powder Snow and Hail attacks will be really helpful against Winona's Flying-type Gym! That's an acceptable reason to be slacking off, right? Right? 'Cause... Castform!)

So I guess in order to have made any point in this conversation, I'll say the following... thongs! Hah! What a crazy name for underwear.

I'd've called them chazzwozzers.