First, let me state, unequivocally and for the record: I do not
like Rush Limbaugh. I find his manner irritating and his politics
offensive. I am disgusted by the way he attempts to advance his
ideology by personally disparaging his opponents. I am disturbed by
his obsession with the Clinton administration. I stand for
everything Limbaugh finds wrong with the world.
So I am appalled to now be defending him.
This past Sunday, on ESPN’s “Sunday NFL
Countdown,” Limbaugh stated his belief that Philadelphia
Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb is overrated: “I think what
we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think
the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.
We’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks
doing well. I think there is a little hope invested in McNabb and
he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he
really didn’t deserve. … I’m saying (McNabb as a
player) is a good investment, don’t misunderstand. I just
don’t think he’s as good as everybody says he has
been.”
These remarks sparked a controversy that resulted in
Limbaugh’s resignation from the sports talk show. Limbaugh
was accused of racism and has been pilloried in the press for his
so-called “hateful and ignorant speech.”
But what, exactly, was so hateful and ignorant about
Limbaugh’s comments?
Let’s be clear. Limbaugh did not say that McNabb
wasn’t a good player because he is black. He did not say that
black quarterbacks don’t deserve acclaim. To have done so
would have been both hateful and ignorant.
What Limbaugh actually suggested was that the media is
responsible for a kind of reverse racism ““ or, as Bill Maher
puts it, “accolades affirmative action.” Limbaugh was
calling out the media ““ not McNabb and not black football
players. He implied that McNabb should stand on his talent alone
and not be judged based on his race ““ he should not be a
“social concern.”
But this is clearly not what people heard. They heard a social
conservative criticize a particular way in which society deals with
issues of race and oppression, and immediately concluded that
Limbaugh was somehow making a racist comment.
For good or ill, there may be some truth to the idea that the
media has an interest in promoting black players. Professional
sports have long been at the forefront of the civil rights movement
in popular culture. The industry has been a leader when it comes to
breaking racial barriers, and has been quick to punish its own
““ be they coaches, sportswriters, commentators or players
““ for racist remarks or practices. Because of its visibility,
its history, and its ability to foster change in the rest of
society, it is vital that sports remain on the leading edge of
racial equality.
So no, I do not think it entirely out of line to suggest the
media may have an interest in promoting black players. Whether or
not you believe it, there is certainly an argument to be made. And
if the argument is there, should it not be discussed?
Granted, Limbaugh is not known for his tolerance. His comment
was clearly without tact and I question the value of discussing the
issue in such a forum. But was it racist and hateful? No.
I am reminded of Howard Cosell’s near career-ending
comment: “Look at that monkey run!” Certainly it was in
questionable taste, given the similarity to a particularly nasty
racial slur, but no one stopped to check Cosell’s history
““ they simply burned his effigy. Cosell had long used the
phrase while covering college football ““ in reference to both
black and white players. He called his own grandchildren monkeys.
It was a term of affection.
Likewise, no one seems to remember Limbaugh’s monologue
four weeks ago regarding the NFL policy requiring teams to
interview at least one minority candidate for any open-head
coaching position. Limbaugh feared the policy would turn minority
coaches into political tokens: “It is important folks,
because 71 percent of the players are black in the NFL but only
three of 32 head coaches are black. But this rule says nothing
about hiring anybody. I’m gonna tell you, this could be a
setback for minority hiring; this is the opposite of what everybody
wants. This rule, this policy, has the potential to become a
charade with black coaches becoming pawns in the
process.”
Limbaugh has been thinking about race and equality for a long
time. He is firmly against affirmative action in all its forms. But
whether or not you agree with his politics, I do not believe we can
afford to label him a racist on the basis of those politics.
This kind of witch-hunt takes attention away from real racism by
fostering an atmosphere in which the discussion of race is not
allowed. If I am not allowed to expose a bias ““ whether the
intent of that bias is positive or negative ““ then what is
the point of the discussion in the first place? We will not achieve
a truly equal society until all forms of bias are at least
recognized and examined in an open forum.
Is Limbaugh himself a racist? I don’t know. If I searched,
it is possible I would find statements of his that could be labeled
as racist. I am positive I could find statements I would label as
ignorant. As I have said before, I have many problems with the
man.
But in this instance, I have to defend him.
Sutton is an assistant Viewpoint editor. E-mail her at
jsutton@media.ucla.edu.