Climbing back on the soapbox... just for a minute

So I've already stated where I stand on Kelly Tilghman's comment about lynching Tiger Woods (not that anybody cares what I think, nor should they). No, she did not intend harm with her comment -- in fact, it was made in the context of complimenting Tiger on his dominance of modern golf. Nevertheless, her comment displayed an ignorance and insensitivity that simply does not belong on a national news forum (I know, I know, no one actually watches the Golf Network... I'm making a point here, sir). I think the consequences she faced were necessary and appropriate, and I think it's very important for media outlets (even stuffy, boring ones like the Golf Network) to adopt a no-tolerance policy towards offensive comments and behavior.

Apparently, Golfweek disagrees with me -- or, at the very least, they're missing the point. Here is the cover of the January 19th issue of Golfweek:




Ah yes. Let us fail to internalize the fundamental message behind the Tilghman affair, which is simply this: the language and symbolism of nooses and hanging are loaded with bitter memories and linked to decades of hatred, and thus should be treated with extreme caution. Moreover, let us refuse to let an issue be resolved and let a chastened reporter get on with her life and her career. Let us, instead, put an image of a noose on our front cover; let us continue to drag this story out; let us display a deliberate callousness towards those who have been hurt by this unfortunate incident (most directly, Kelly Tilghman and Tiger Woods).

(At least, that's how I imagine the editors of a magazine like Golfweek must sound.)

This, however, is what really caught my attention:

In the magazine's news story, noted sociologist Harry Edwards, said the public should accept Tilghman's apology.

"If we stopped the train every time somebody made a dumb remark that is potentially offensive," he is quoted as saying, "we'd never progress as a society."

Really? Because to be perfectly honest, I actually think that what keeps us from progressing as a society is that people continue to tolerate "borderline" remarks and attitudes that seem innocuous enough that people fail to realize that their existence is actually symptomatic of the much uglier truth that real racism and sexism exists in pure, unadulterated form in many regions of the country. Like the guy who tried to strike up a conversation with me while we were waiting for the T in East Boston the other day about how many "fucking Spanish people" there were around us. (I'm Latina, dude.)

So, while I certainly feel for Kelly Tilghman and agree with Edwards' assertion that she should be forgiven, I also think it's very important that the "train be stopped" in situations like this so that we can all take a moment to reassess our own values and acknowledge that the battle against prejudice is never truly won.

Recommended reading for next week's seminar

If you haven't already, please read The Debriefing's take on the Kelly Tilghman/Tiger Woods snafu. Click the links -- they suck and are scary, but do it anyway.

I'm immensely grateful to work for an organization that actively fights social injustice in a neighborhood riddled with examples of such injustice, but I know that sometimes I forget how pervasive ignorance about such matters can be. And, as The Debriefing points out, ignorance is no excuse for grossly insensitive comments like Tilghman's. Ignorance fosters cruelty by enabling it to exist unchallenged.

RIP Sean Taylor

Yeah.

Schilling back in 2008?

So the story to follow today is whether or not Curt Schilling will be back for another season with the Red Sox in 2008. Personally, I'm surprised that the Red Sox front office is even considering a deal with Schilling. Not that I don't support it, because I do, but because Epstein & Co. have established themselves as firmly opposed to keeping players on just because of their popularity when they become less of an athletic asset to the team. Pedro Martinez is the primary example of this, followed by Johnny Damon and Derek Lowe. (And soon, probably, Coco Crisp.)

I mean, Schilling does still have a 3.46 career ERA, and his career post-season ERA over 5 appearances is 2.23. I guess if you're a GM with his eye on Yankees-like Series domination over the next few years, that stat is going to grab your eye. The other thing is, of course, that to re-sign Curt Schilling right now is not to re-sign an aging fastballer whose dwindling velocity makes him a liability on the mound (see Clemens, Roger). After losing a month and half to a shoulder injury in the middle of this season, Schilling has very much reinvented the way he pitches, relying on creativity and reading the batter much more heavily than he has done in the past. He can still shred the strike zone with fastballs for a couple of innings a game, but it's his ability to move the ball and draw swinging strikes, particularly with his changeup, that has become his signature in later months. Consider the rest of the Boston rotation for next year: Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, and Matsuzaka, all speedy young throwers who, with the exception of Beckett, have a great deal of maturing to do if they want to become 20-game winners. Suddenly, it makes a lot of sense to bring a shrewd, grizzled veteran who is less reliant on his fastball like Schilling in for the #3 or even the #2 spot.

Like I said, I'm for it. I guess the trade will be announced at some point today.

/tries to come up with witty commentary

/fails