Nov 302006
 

Lately it seems like we’ve been inundated with news stories about racial prejudice from celebrities. I’m not going to talk about Michael Richards or Mel Gibson; those stories have been covered to death. I’m more interested in the tales of Michael Irvin and Rosie O’Donnell, which have received considerably less press.

Michael Irvin, if anyone has not heard, attributed Tony Romo’s recent quarterbacking success to having a little “brother in him.” Irvin claims that the comment was made in jest, and it certainly was not delivered with the level of hate shown in Richards’ diatribe. Regardless, it was a racist comment, and some people were (fairly) offended. A comment that celebrates one race’s superiority is just as racist as one that berates another’s inferiority. And the funny thing about humor is that it often it reveals one’s underlying feelings. Even though Irvin may not hate white people, his joke does reveal his personal prejudice—he thinks African-Americans are better athletes.

Does Irvin’s comment offend me? Not really, if only because I don’t take anything Michael Irvin says seriously. He’s had far too many legal run-ins for me to dignify his comments with respect. From someone else, such a statement might bother me a lot more. What is alarming is how Irvin seems to be receiving a “get-out-of-jail-free-card” compared to what happened to Steve Lyons after his joke about Lou Pinella (quite possibly a less-offensive joke to boot). Lyons was fired; Irvin is keeping his job. Does either of them deserve to be fired? Probably not. But I believe in equal application of the law, and while there is no formal legal statute, what’s fair is fair. So why is what Irvin said more acceptable, or at least less punishable?

Now let’s consider Rosie O’Donnell and Kelly Ripa. Again, for anyone not familiar with the story, at one point during Clay Aiken’s guest host stint on “Live With Regis and Kelly”, the singer put his hand over Ripa’s mouth. Ripa pushed the hand away, saying, “I don’t know where that hand’s been, honey,” a statement for which O’Donnell ripped Ripa, calling her a homophobe.

On what grounds does O’Donnell get away with this? Despite what many may think, Aiken is not out of the closet. If you accept him at his word (hence, as straight), then what Ripa said could not in any way be construed as homophobic. Even if Clay is gay, there are a trillion reasons why Ripa might not someone else’s hand over her mouth—according to Kelly, Clay was shaking hands with everyone in the audience, potentially gathering germs during cold and flu season.

It is O’Donnell who is prejudging here. She first assumes, rightly or wrongly, that Aiken is gay and secondly assumes that Ripa’s response could only result from homophobia. Assumptions built on top of other assumptions! Tell me, who is the truly biased one in this story? People see what they want to see, they find what they want to find. Why would anyone want to find bigotry other than for a reason to justify being offended?

  4 Responses to “Prejudice”

  1. An educated person always works to maintain peace in the society. He is calm and loves peace. He does not like others claiming the right of others. They never support any kind of hostility.

  2. Thanks for this inspiring article. These ideas are really useful. Get going with my dissertation help services

  3. Great post )
    Very interesting topic, thanks to the author )
    Good Luck )

  4. Nate you are such a talented writer! I really appreciate your every blog post!