A column about who should be running the two-minute drill for the Washington Redskins may seem like an unusual jumping off point for a serious discussion about race, but this awful sports column for by awful sports columnist Rick Reilly* hits so many of the low notes of contemporary racial discourse that it’s worth examining.
First, some background. Two weeks ago, Washington Redskins Coach Mike Shanahan benched (black) starting quarterback Donovan McNabb during the final two minutes of a failed comeback attempt against the Detroit Lions, claiming (white) back-up Rex Grossman had a better knowledge of the team’s two-minute offense. As discussion grew about the surprising move, Shanahan leaked to the press that McNabb was struggling to learn the team’s playbook in general and gave the alternate explanation that he was worried about McNabb’s “cardiovascular fitness.” The Washington Post’s John Feinstein said that there was “racial coding” in Shanahan essentially calling McNabb fat and stupid, and called for Shanahan to be fired.
Reilly finds Feinstein invocation of race to be beyond the pale. In his column, Reilly throws up what are probably the two biggest and most commonly employed barriers to productive conversations on race.
Barrier Number 1: “Racism? That’s sooooooo 1963.”
In response to Feinstein’s suggestion that racial coding might be involved in the decision to bench McNabb, Reilly writes, “Are we really going there? In 2010?”** Because, you know, racial prejudice ended when we passed the Civil Rights Act. Or when Tony Dungy won a Super Bowl. Or when Obama was elected. But definitely at some point before now, so we should just stop talking about it.
What’s so obnoxious about Reilly’s article is not just that he wants to believe that racial prejudice no longer exists, but that he seems unwilling to acknowledge that it ever existed at all. Up until very recently, there were almost no black quarterbacks in the NFL. The major reason for this is the type of prejudiced beliefs about African Americans that Feinstein identifies: blacks were thought to lack the intelligence and leadership ability required to be a successful quarterback. This was the conventional wisdom of the NFL Mike Shannahan came up in and the men from whom he learned the game. Amazingly, Reilly doesn’t acknowledge this history at all, and acts as though Feinstein’s accusations come completely out of the blue.
Barrier Number 2: “How dare you call me a racist!”
Reilly devotes a large portion of the column to showing that Mike Shanahan is not, in fact, a racist.
Does Feinstein know that Shanahan was the guy who gave Rick Smith his first job in an NFL personnel department? Smith went on to become the league’s first black GM, at Houston.
Does Feinstein remember how Shanahan campaigned to help his wide receivers coach, Karl Dorrell, become the first black head coach in UCLA’s history? And that he let him leave in the middle of the Broncos’ season to do it?
Does Feinstein know what Shanahan did after receiving the call telling him that Broncos cornerback Darrent Williams had been killed in a drive-by shooting? He wept. On the phone.
Wasn’t it Shanahan who wanted McNabb in the first place? Convinced Dan Snyder to trade for him? Wasn’t McNabb black then? Or was there something wrong with the racial coding on Shanahan’s flat-screen?
But question isn’t “Is Mike Shanahan a racist?”, but rather, “Did negative stereotypes about African Americans play a role in the decision to bench McNabb?” Maybe the most counterproductive feature of our current discourse on race is the need to destroy any nuance and fit things neatly into boxes of “racist” or “not racist.”
Extensive research shows that almost all of us make certain assumptions about other based on race (gender and sexuality and myriad other factors). What really separates the “racists” from the “non-racists” is not whether these assumptions are made, but the degree to which we question these assumptions before expressing and acting on them. Which is why it’s so counterproductive that our first reaction whenever someone else questions whether racial prejudice might have influenced a decision is to shut down debate (How dare you call me a racist!) rather than engage in discussion and question our attitudes.
Reilly breaks out a series straw men to try to make Feinstein’s argument seem ridiculous.
What is Feinstein saying? That’s it’s not possible Grossman knew the two-minute offense better? That it’s not possible for a white guy to be better at something than a black guy? That’s it’s not possible for a black guy to be out of shape? If that’s the logic, what follows is: Black people are never inept. Apparently, according to Feinstein, white people have cornered the market on it. And if you think a black person is inept occasionally — like McNabb — go stand in the racist line.
Of course that’s not what Feistein is suggesting. And nothing I’ve said means that Feinstein is necessarily right in his assessment. But given the sorry history of the NFL and black quarterbacks it’s a legitimate point to raise, and demonizing and ridiculing Feinstein for daring to bring up race just shuts down an important line of inquiry. On a broader level, the only way we can start moving towards racial justice is to be willing to at least discuss the ways in which our long sad history on race continues to infect our thoughts and actions.
-AR
*Previously, my problem with Reilly was that he tends to take very strident positions on utterly non-controversial topics. The little league coach is wrong to exploit that the other team has a cancer patient? Thanks for the insight, Rick! Turns out he’s even worse when he takes on controversial topics.
** This deserves longer discussion on its own, but I have to at least note the absurdity of someone seeming baffled that we still have to deal with questions of racism while writing a column about the Washington Redskins
