White Vick

I generally agree with Luis both in his reaction to the the white-faced Michael Vick and his reaction to the accompanying article by Toure, a black cultural critic. I don't see the problem with putting Vick in whiteface (nor would I see the problem with say putting Ben Rothlisberger in blackface if the point is to talk about race and racial privilege).  Race and phenotype matter.  One of my all time favorite academic articles is this one, entitled Looking Deathworthy, by Jennifer Eberhart and colleagues.  From the article's abstract:

—Researchers previously have investigated the role of race in capital sentencing, and in particular, whether the race of the defendant or victim influences the likelihood of a death sentence. In the present study, we examined whether the likelihood of being sentenced to death is influenced by the degree to which a Black defendant is perceived to have a stereotypically Black appearance. Controlling for a wide array of factors, we found that in cases involving a White victim, the more stereotypically Black a defendant is perceived to be, the more likely that person is to be sentenced to death.

 Notice that we're not simply talking about race but also phenotype.  Thus, in my view, it is perfectly acceptable to change Vick's race and phenotype and ask whether our reaction to him is driven in by one or both.  When I medidated on the picture, it dawned on me that I found white Vick quite palatable, less menacing.  It reminded me of this Jason Williams.

As for the accompanying article by Toure, I thought the article was itself confused.  To ask whether Vick would be treated differently if he were white is not a "meaningless" question.  This is just a question of baselines.  The concept of equality requires a baseline.  In the American context, whites have always been the baseline.  In many ways, the comparison is a basic tenet of American law.  Compare here 42 U.S.C. section 1981(a), which provides:

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

I remember the first time I read this provision, I was struck by how explicitly the baseline was asserted.  Now one may say that whiteness as a baseline is incomplete, which is how one may charitably read Toure's piece.  But ultimately, the piece really is just confused. Consider Toure's closing lines:

 And to those who believe we should judge a man by how he responds when dealing with the worst life has to offer -- with how he climbs after he hits rock bottom -- Michael Vick has become heroic.

And that has nothing to do with race.

Huh?  Did Toure miss the fact that the reaction to Vick is completely racialized. If Toure had done some research, he would have found this article in the social science quarterly, which examined the racial reaction to the Vick case.  Specifically,

 Using data from 400 adults, we examine how race affects perceptions of criminal punishment and subsequent reinstatement into the National Football League in the case of Michael Vick, a star professional quarterback who pled guilty to charges of operating an illegal dog-fighting ring.

This is what the authors found:

 Attitudes toward both criminal punishment and NFL reinstatement vary across race such that there exists important divides in how individuals perceive the system meting out punishment and subsequently reintegrating offenders back into society. These results underscore that white and nonwhites perceive the law and its administration differently.

 Shocking!

Thinking about a white Michael Vick

I can hardly think of a quarterback who has accomplished as little as Michael Vick has accomplished yet with as much press.  I am not saying it has never happened.  I just cannot think of any.

Here's the latest, which thankfully is not related to his football life: would Michael Vick be treated the same way for abusing his dogs if he were white?  This is from a piece for ESPN the magazine:

All of that is why, to me, Vick seems to have a deeply African-American approach to the game. I'm not saying that a black QB who stands in the pocket ain't playing black. I'm saying Vick's style is so badass, so artistic, so fluid, so flamboyant, so relentless -- so representative of black athletic style -- that if there were a stat for swagger points, Vick would be the No. 1 quarterback in the league by far. 

Race is an undeniable and complex element of Vick's story, both because of his style as well as the rarity of black QBs in the NFL. A decade after he became the first black QB to be drafted No. 1 overall, about one in five of the league's passers is African-American, compared with two-thirds of all players. But after his arrest for dogfighting, so many people asked: Would a white football player have gotten nearly two years in prison for what Vick did to dogs?

As soon as the reporter wrote this question, he began to hedge about its import.  For example, "[t]his question makes me cringe. It is so facile, naive, shortsighted and flawed that it is meaningless. Whiteness comes with great advantages, but it's not a get-out-of-every-crime-free card. Killing dogs is a heinous crime that disgusts and frightens many Americans. I'm certain white privilege would not be enough to rescue a white NFL star caught killing dogs."  All the same, he thought to ask it, and on a mainstream magazine to boot.

From what I gather, the reaction has been deafening, and largely negative (see here and here; but see here). But it appears that the negative reaction is largely a response to a decision by ESPN to offer a picture of a white Michael Vick.

I don't get it.  The idea itself is hardly crazy, that a white person would be treated differently than a black person for the same offenses.  So is the problem here with the picture?

Help me out, Guy.