Sparks Fly at Morehouse Panel on Black Athletes
ATLANTA
Negative images of law-breaking Black athletes stem from societal issues, not something inherent to the athletes, according to a star-studded panel on the Black athlete at Morehouse College Monday.
http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_7315.shtml
May 9th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
this is a very interesting story because it dicussed issues that are important to the black community and the nation at large.we need to have more of this type of dialogue on the black scholar-athlete and the media.i am happy to see morehouse and professor thomas to take on this task.i wish morehouse and mr thomas much success in the future.i will be looking for additional stories.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
The new sports journalism program will be a great addition to Morehouse. I do understand Stringer’s anger at Whitlock’s column. What part of the Imus situation did he (Whitlock) think was handled inappropriately? Imus saying that those young, college students looked rough or the part calling them nappy headed hos? Whitlock said-”Black people needed to focus on themselves instead of people like Imus” “and we have to deal with us and not get caught up with them”. Yes, we do have to deal with us, but suppose Jackson and Sharpton had done nothing, do you think you could have written an article that would have gotten the national attention to help stop that “Imus Madness”—his saying anything about anyone, no matter how hurtful and nasty it was. As for Stringer’s behavior, anytime you work with young people (especially when they are doing positive things)–you become an advocate for them, you go into the “mother mold” and you defend for those who can’t. There is a saying,(this may not be the exact lines) they came for my catholic friends, I said nothing because I was not catholic, they came for my jewish friends, I said nothing because I was not jewish, then they came for me ……Peace to All
May 10th, 2007 at 3:05 am
I am a white male and I absolutely adore every single sentence Jason Whitlock puts on his website. I think he’s right about everything. The best way for Rutgers to respond would have been a 3-sentence long public statement of how Don Imus is not even worth their breath and move on. Let the public grandstanders do the grandstanding. No, Stringer chose to drag her entire team in front of the media. Why? Did she really think that her team, well-dressed and groomed, is going to prove Don Imus wrong? Was she going to show that they are the opposite of “Nappy-headed” and that they are not “Ho’s” and are indeed sexually responsible, well-dressed/groomed, young women? We already knew that. Don Imus is an idiot, who was paid to be an extremist idiot on national radio.
Whitlock’s social commentary is right on. Stringer’s emotional, but clearly misinformed outbursts during the forums did nothing to quiet down the powerful words Whitlock puts out there everytime he pens an article. This is exactly the reason why Stringer had to say something, she felt like she had to defend her motivation for the press conference. Whitlock didn’t have to say a word and thankfully didn’t retract his statements.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Dear Jason:
I was so happy to read that Stringer confronted you at Morehouse for your scurrilous journalism in which you accused her , Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton of less than honorable motives in confronting Imus. I read that column and had written a long reply but could not find the time to edit it. At your age, whatever it is, you should know it is possible for blacks to fight this war for survival on two fronts at once: self-improvement and direct confrontation of the enemy, in whatever manifestation. We don’t have to be so limited that we can do only one thing at a time. Maybe you’re too young to understand that. But I hope this confrontation with Stringer and the response of the audience at Morehouse helped you to realize that blacks can walk and chew gum — and given the magnitude of the problems we face as a community, we had better learn how to fight on all fronts simultaneously, cause we are surrounded!
And I would like to bring to your attention that the actions of Sharpton and Stringer and the response they elicited from the black community was one of our finest hours in recent memory. It showed a unanimity and cohesion that hadn’t been demonstrated by us over any issue for a long time. And it provided the Rutgers basketball team with a moment of support and pride that will be life enhancing. And it stimulated a much needed dialogue that includes the very thing you seem to long for: self-examination by the black community.
I hope that you are able to use this incident as a motivation for your own self-examination and reflection on what is really going on. Hopefully it will be one step on your road to maturity and wisdom.
Elinor Bowles
P.S.: It is hardly responsible journalism to make unsubstantiated charges (the implication in your article that Sharpton and Jackson and Stringer were motivated by money — “golddiggas” indeed!).
May 15th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I think Mr. Whitlock’s ultimate goal is to gain noteriety. Let’s see Bill Cosby criticized black folk, so why can’t he. Yes Blacks do have a lot of problems, and they can be talked about on the surface, or looked upon more deeply to gain clarity. Mr. Whitlock is definitely afraid to go too deep, and why should he, he will definitley get more support from the one’s who count, and have money if he stays on the surface.
Racism is not popular conversation these days, and any black man who skirts around the issue must be pretty damn smart. Enter Mr. Whitelock.