I've said before that I came down on the newdusk and rondofan side of this, but I just saw the offensive statements for the first time, though, and think I am changing my mind. I have to say, I think a suspension is warranted though I'm still not sure firing is.
To me, honestly, it was a case of too much hyperbole from a fan and very bad editing. I do not think for a second Hill was calling all Celtics fans Nazis or Communists. She's not saying that black Celtics fans around the country are traitors to their race. She's saying specifically that Pistons fans who are cheering for the Celtics to win the title are traitors to their team. Unfortunately, due to poor editing, that was not made clear enough.
The two truly offensive lines: "Rooting for the Celtics is like saying Hitler was a victim. It’s like hoping Gorbachev would get to the blinking red button before Reagan." Those are way too much. They never should have been printed, but that's as much ESPN.com's editors' fault as it is Hill's. We don't know what offensive jokes over the years were removed from articles by Simmons, Hunter Thompson and others. Writers write and writing using literary devices like hyperbole. It was over the line, but it wasn't an accusation that Boston or the Celtics are racists, Nazis, Communists, dog torturers, bad rappers or baby-killers. It was offensive enough, though, that it never should have been included. She needs to be held accountable for writing it and her editor needs to be held accountable for printing it.
In her defense, I think she made it clear this was about rivalry, not race, and she was not talking about all Celtics fans or even about Celtics fans at all. She was talking about Pistons fans cheering for the Celtics. It's a whole different set of people. I see that clearly, but realize now that it should have been made even more clear by Hill or the editors. The buildup talks about lifelong Detroiters rooting for the Celtisc to win. But when they switched to a new paragraph, it should have begun "A Pistons fan rooting for the Celtics is like..." instead of just "Rooting for the Celtics is like..." to make her point more clear.
On the race issue, I just don't see the problem. Here's the offensive part that people hated and is being likened to a statement that "Boston and the Celtics are racist":
"Admittedly, to some degree it was about race. Detroit is 80 percent African-American, and as my colleague J.A. Adande stated in a fantastic piece on the Celtics earlier this season, the mostly white Celtics teams of the past had a tough time being accepted by black audiences. Boston was viewed by African-Americans as a racially intolerant city. Boston was the home of the infamous Charles Stuart case -- in which a white man murdered his pregnant wife and blamed it on a black suspect who didn't exist.
"Those feelings toward the city and the Celtics have subsided, in large part because our own racial attitudes have progressed.
"But this isn't about race. This is rivalry. This is tradition. Considering Detroit is America's favorite impoverished punch line, it probably hurts every Detroiter just a little to see Boston succeed."
What is offensive about that? First line, she says "was" on the race issue. In the 80s, there WAS a perception of Boston as a racist city and the Celtics as the white team. Those are facts. I was a white kid in West Roxbury in the 80s and 90s, and I knew about Boston's reputation. Adande's excellent article is founded on the same principle - a lot of black fans around the country saw the Boston Celtics as the white team and had a hard time embracing them. All Hill said is that was a factor back then. I accept that as opinion I can't possibly dispute, since I was not a black fan in another city. I am a white lifelong Celtics fan from Boston.
But she also emphasizes that those feelings have changed. The fact that those feelings existed is just a statement of fact; her subsequent sentence, set out in its own paragraph, makes clear that (a) she doesn't hold that perception that Boston is racist now and (b) she doesn't think there is a current perception that the Celtics or Boston are racist. What more is she supposed to do?
I do think this passage, again, should have been edited better with at least three important changes, but that is an ESPN.com issue, not a Jemele Hill issue. (1) The statement "mostly white Celtics teams of the past" should have replaced "past" with "80s" as the Celtics of the 60s were the most racially progressive team of the era. (2) There should have been an embedded link to the Adande article or a parenthetical noting that the article disclosed the relatively unknown (nationally) racial progressivism of Red Auerbach and the entire Celtics franchise. (3) The Stuart case, I think, is very relevant to a discussion of why black Americans viewed Boston as a racist city. However, it occurred in October 1989, after the Celtics had faded and were replaced by the Bulls as the Pistons' chief rival in the East. While I think it's highly relevant, due to the timing issue, I would have considered removing it and replacing it with statements regarding Boston legends like Bill Russell viewing Boston as somewhat intolerant toward black athletes. That would have been more relevant and more accurate in terms of timelines.
But her feelings now - the feeling that a Detroiter and Pistons fan who roots for the Celtics is like a Red Sox fan rooting for the Yankees - are all about the simple fact that for whatever reason, she hated the Celtics when she came of age as a fan and still hates them now and can't possibly cheer for them. I have no problem with that whatsoever. It's how most of us who are Red Sox fans feel about the Yankees. Some of us feel the same way about the Pistons because of those Bad Boys teams, I think, but Detroit feels it more than we do because we have had more success and have other rivals (just like a lot of Yankees fans didn't hate the Red Sox until a few years ago because they had more success and other rivals). Her feelings actually make perfect sense.
She wrote as a fan - nothing wrong with that. She said as a Detroit Pistons fan she can't cheer for the Celtics - nothing wrong with that. She said as a Detroit Pistons fan she can't understand or accept that other Pistons fan could possibly cheer for the hated Celtics - nothing wrong with that. She made a tasteless joke about the Holocaust and the Cold War - over the line, for which she deserves some punishment. A suspension followed by a written apology sounds about right to me. I still don't know about firing.
I personally do not really see the Imus parallel. Imus flat out called the Rutgers women's basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hos" with no real rationale behind it. Hill compared Pistons fans cheering for the Celtics to people claiming Hitler was a victim and people who rooted for the USSR to destroy the USA with the rationale that such fans are traitors to their team. It was way too much, but I just don't think the parallel is there with respect to forcing the firing issue.
I see the problems with the Hitler/Gorbachev statements, but I don't see the race issue problem at all which may be why I don't see the Imus parallel. That said, I understand the parallel, and would understand if ESPN followed that rationale. I think it should be applied to the editor, as well, though, if it is applied to Hill.
I am interested to see if the ESPN Ombudsman responds to this situation.
Topic: Jamele Hill suspended by ESPN! (Read 18725 times)