Even when a prominent black Christian tried to make an unassailable point about values, freedom and the irrelevance of what we call “race,” his mere mention of skin color called forth self-righteous condemnations better directed toward actual race-mongers.
Tuesday on X, veteran sports journalist and outspoken Christian Jason Whitlock, host of the “Fearless with Jason Whitlock” podcast, received a scolding from social media users for a comment he made on his podcast about former Iowa Hawkeyes basketball superstar Caitlin Clark.
“It’s a black sport, and this little white girl is dominating,” Whitlock said Tuesday in a clip posted to X.
“It’s like the underdog, or something unexpected, the same reason a lot of us fell in love with Tiger Woods in golf. We hadn’t seen anybody that looked like him dominate golf. We haven’t seen anybody that looks like her dominate basketball to the degree that she was,” Whitlock added.
As often happens, those who stopped listening after 20 seconds, or those who only read Whitlock’s accompanying tweet paraphrasing the clip’s opening comments, missed the point.
Ironically, Whitlock mentioned skin color for the sole purpose of arguing that skin color does not matter.
In fact, when it comes to forging connections with people or simply rooting for them, only values matter.
“Caitlin Clark, best I know, she’s heterosexual, has some boyfriend. She went to a Catholic school, comes across like she believes in Jesus Christ,” Whitlock said.
In other words, Whitlock can relate to Clark and sympathize with her for reasons infinitely more important than skin color.
Do you think race is pushed too much in sports?
The former ESPN reporter then shifted focus to Dawn Staley, head coach of the South Carolina Gamecocks, who happens to be black. Earlier this month, Staley’s undefeated Gamecocks won the NCAA championship game, 87-75, over Clark’s Hawkeyes.
At a media event before the game, Staley endorsed the indefensible madness of men pretending to be women and competing in women’s sports.
This, Whitlock said, made it impossible for him to sympathize with Staley, though they both have darker complexions.
“We should be choosing alliances based on values, not on skin color,” Whitlock insisted.
Who but racists, tribalists and Marxists could object to such a thing?
Readers may view Whitlock’s full comments below.
Basketball is a black sport, and this little white girl is dominating. Caitlin Clark is like the underdog. She’s something unexpected. That’s why we love her. It’s the same reason a lot of us fell in love with Tiger Woods. pic.twitter.com/gldm0i13IW
— Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) April 23, 2024
Unfortunately, a number of social media users objected to the mere mention of skin color.
Dude, why are you making this about race? The beauty of sports is that it doesn’t matter who you are; it’s about what you do on the court that matters.
— Antonio De La Cruz (@Antoniofilm107) April 23, 2024
So if you claim basketball is a black sport, what else are you willing to claim as belonging to blacks?
— D Reed 🇺🇸 (@G8TR1994) April 23, 2024
Others tried to correct Whitlock’s “underdog” assertion by pointing to other successful white female basketball players or coaches.
A lot of the best players in womens basketball are actually white though.
— MAGA K (@maga_kian) April 23, 2024
Sue Bird.
Diana Taurasi.
Breanna Stuart.
Becky Hammond.
Kim Mulkey.
Kelsey Plum.
Pat Summit (coach)It’s been done before.
— 💥🇺🇸MRcoRIDE🇺🇸💥 (@librahorse78) April 23, 2024
What exactly makes her an underdog?? She was a high school and college All American. What about that makes her an underdog?? What makes basketball a “Black” sport? Last I checked Dr. Naismith was a white man!
— Magnetic (@Andre49445967) April 23, 2024
Whitlock did receive some support from users who endorsed either the “underdog” assertion or the Woods comparison.
Correct, it has nothing to do with race – she’s just an underdog who is doing it, winning.
— NoMonkeyBusiness (@NoMonkeyBusine4) April 23, 2024
Good comparison.
— James Raussen (@JamesRaussen) April 23, 2024
GREAT analogy! You root for the underdog, the anomaly, Villanova over G-town. It’s not about the color, it’s about slaying the dragon! It’s what most people relate to in their lives. Well done Whitlock!
— KAN (@KevintheScoop) April 23, 2024
On the whole, criticism of Whitlock for the mere mention of skin color should strike us as unreasonable.
After all, if we observe differences in complexion — and who but the visually impaired can avoid doing so? — then we have only four basic ways to react to the observation. And each of these four options, in descending order from the benign first to the violent fourth, brings us one step closer to hellish hatred.
First, we could notice the differences and then argue that they do not matter. Whitlock did precisely this. It is by far the most Christian of our four options.
Critics, of course, might contend that it would be better not to say anything at all. Indeed it would, if everyone around us did likewise. But some people behave as if they believe that differences in skin color do matter, so we must answer them. And to answer them is to notice those differences.
Second, we could clumsily imply that differences in skin color should lead us to expect differences in performance. NBA Hall-of-Famer Paul Pierce did this by expressing surprise when Clark dominated “a bunch of black girls.”
Pierce almost certainly meant nothing sinister by the remark and even, in his own way, probably intended it as a compliment. But the remark still went a step beyond Whitlock’s by linking skin color to expectations and then failing to clarify that skin color, in fact, means nothing.
Third, we could insist that skin color should control one’s views and actions. This approaches dangerous territory.
Former NBA guard Stephen Jackson, for instance, made this very argument when he criticized black journalist Gayle King of CBS for her conduct during an interview with Staley. In short, when she praised Clark during the interview, King did not behave like a black journalist, according to Jackson.
On his podcast, in fact, Whitlock cited Jackson’s remarks as proof of continued self-enslavement.
“Look at white people. Do white people not hate Donald Trump? Do white people not hate Hillary Clinton? See, they’re free. They’re not in a prison. They don’t have Stephen Jackson running around as a correctional officer trying to keep them enslaved to only one way of looking at the world,” Whitlock said.
Finally, one gargantuan step beyond Jackson’s view, we find open hatred of other people based on immutable physical characteristics. The recent anti-Semitic protests at Columbia University, reminiscent of Nazi Germany, signify this level of hellish tribalism.
In short, Whitlock had it right. And those who wish to criticize race-mongering would be better served directing their righteous outrage toward actual transgressors.
