Site Presented By
Wednesday, Nov 25, 2009
Readers say Jermaine O'Neal was right: There is an element of race in the NBA's desire for an age limit, and this column missed it.
Apr 14, 2005 | Wednesday's column about Jermaine O'Neal saying there was a racial element to the NBA's desire to set a minimum age of 20 brought a lot of mail. A lot. And what a lot of readers had to say was that they agreed with me that money, not race, was at the bottom of the NBA's argument, but they believed I'd missed a crucial way in which race did play a role.
They're right. I did miss it. I'll let several of them explain.
Catherine Bracy: I agree with you that, for the NBA executives, an age limit is about money, not race. But what I think is more compelling (and maybe more what Jermaine O'Neal was getting at) is why the general public seems to be supportive of an age limit in the NBA. That to me has something to do with race and nothing to do with money.
I think it's probably true that the average white middle-aged male sports fan harbors some resentment toward the young, brash, black teenagers coming out of high school and going to the NBA. They've got attitude problems, they're greedy, they don't value education, etc. No one ever says this about 18-year-olds who go straight from high school to the NHL or MLB. I would find it very hard to believe that none of those sentiments have anything to do with race.
I also don't think anyone wants to have that particular conversation (which is why this all got turned around to the NBA executives' motives and not the fans' attitudes), because white middle-aged men don't feel comfortable admitting that, malicious or not, they harbor some prejudicial feelings toward some black men. It's a conversation they don't want to have but it's definitely a conversation we should be having.
C.R.: [The age minimum may be nothing more than a bargaining chip], but our society accepts the maturity argument in a way that it probably would not in other circumstances. Americans think young black men are dangerous, and this is doubly so for those with enough money to be independent. What's racist is the way the system manipulates stereotypes in order to keep young black men from working in their chosen profession.
Lester K. Spence: Your column makes an important point ... but also misses one. The bottom line for the NBA is green. But the revenue stream either comes from fans, or from assessments of fan preferences. The NBA is a black league, and David Stern has done an excellent job of selling that league to a largely white fan base. But this job is not easy, given largely white stereotypes of black talent and black behavior.
This is why race plays a role in the entire teenage debate. Inasmuch as whites on average believe that young black men are undeserving of economic success, and that they don't know the value of a (white) Protestant work ethic, they would much rather see "adults" in the NBA than "kids." This perception is not Stern's fault, any more than it is even someone like Allen Iverson's. But Stern and the NBA owners have to deal with these perceptions in order to continue to be viable.
Remember, green doesn't just appear out of nowhere, it comes from people's pockets, and from their personal evaluations of what has value.
