Imus\' Racist / Sexist Comments

¶ … Imus' Racist / Sexist Comments

Is Don Imus a racist? Does he exhibit a consistently sexist attitude toward women? No one really can answer that but Imus himself - or those very close to him. But his very public on-air statements last year that were pointed at the Rutgers women's basketball team certainly would lead objective observers to believe he had both racist and sexist thoughts running around in his wealthy "shock jock" head.

In this paper the inappropriate, shocking verbal attack by Imus will be critiqued in the sense of how people in positions of power, and others, responded to his attack. Moreover, when a high-visibility media personality makes severely critical racist-and-sexist-laced remarks against a successful women's basketball team - and most of that team's players happen to be African-American - what is the result? Who pays the price? What is the punishment and why? Does MSNBC - and CNN, FOX, and the other national cable channels - have hegemonic authority and power over the American society?

CRITIQUE of IMUS INCIDENT:

WHAT HAPPENED? First of all, in what context was Imus' remark made? To set the stage, it should be noted that the Rutgers' team had made an "improbably run through the women's NCAA basketball tournament," reports Aditi Kinkhabwala in Sports Illustrated (SI) (Kinkhabwala, 2007). But the Scarlet Knights' season ended abruptly on April 3, when the always-tough Tennessee team beat them 59-46. The Scarlet Knights had received a great deal of positive media coverage because they had been underdogs coming into the NCAA tournament.

It was Wednesday morning, April 4, the day after the Rutgers team had been eliminated, and on his nationally syndicated morning TV talk show Imus (and his two sidekicks, Bernard McGuirk and Sid Rosenberg) "cruelly mocked" the Scarlet Knights, according to Kinkhabwala's story in SI. Imus, a very well-known and popular morning talking head said that the Tennessee players were "cute" and the Rutgers players were "rough girls" who wear tattoos. Then he called the Rutgers' players "nappy-headed hos." His sidekick McGuirk called the game the "...jigaboos verses the Wannabes." Use of the word "jigaboo" is clearly intended as a racist comment against black people (www.urbandictionary.com),similar to using "nigger" as a hateful term.

What is the meaning of "nappy-headed"? The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the adjective "nappy" as "kinky." The inference is highly suggestive in this case; there is no secret that the hair of many African-Americans is "kinky" (naturally very curly with tight curls). As to "ho" - there is no doubt this is slang for prostitute, or hooker. Had any of the Rutgers players been involved in prostitution or any illegal activities, in order to give Imus the idea or the justification to refer to the entire team as hookers? The answer is no, and even if there had been a scandal involving at team member, would it be appropriate for a television commentator to call any member of the team a prostitute? Certainly not. There is also the specter of libel associated with such an unfounded remark, especially when the word "alleged" is not used in conjunction the assertion that someone is a hooker. The blatant defamation of one's character by a nationally known television personality on live programming is very serious indeed.

In addition to the sting of Imus' racist / sexist remarks, the team was by now being "hounded" by the national media, Kinkhabwala wrote. The Monday after the Wednesday the remarks were made by Imus, Scarlet Knight coach Vivian Stringer brought her team together and there was a "tearful" situation in that meeting. The two white players on the team, Heather Zurich and Katie Adams, "cried the most," SI reported. The team voted to talk to Imus and meet with the press. There was far too much controversy and too much media interest to just duck out of sight and let it all simmer down.

WHAT DID the RUTGERS PLAYERS DO ABOUT the SITUATION? Junior guard Essence Carson became the "de facto spokesperson" as she and Stringer made the rounds of all the morning TV shows - and the whole team taped a section for Oprah. In addition to the hurtful ramifications of what Imus had said, the team was also very angry that this incident interfered with their normal class work and collegiate routines. And by Thursday April 12, eight days after his untimely and ugly remarks, Imus was fired from his CBS radio contract.

An agreement was reached - in part due to Imus' desire to save face and possibly salvage his career - for the team to meet with Imus. The meeting took place in the New Jersey governor's mansion; in attendance were the Scarlet knights, their coach, four player parents, two grandparents, an aunt, and Stringer's pastor (who served as mediator). Imus brought his wife Deidre.

Kinkhabwala, whose information of course was second-hand (since no media was present), reports that the players wanted to know, "why us?" They spoke of their rough early season (getting beaten big by Duke and UConn), and how their amazing streak during the Big East Tournament lifted them up, only to be shot down by the negativity of Imus' remarks.

Imus apparently told them about his philanthropy work, and his wife reportedly cried. In the end, the players told the media they accepted Imus' apology - no one could imagine them not accepting it and seeming to be heartlessly, hopelessly angry and too bitter to say the right thing - and Imus, according to Newsweek (Kelley, et al., 2007), "seemed genuinely apologetic."

WHAT IS the UPSHOT? Imus told the players "that making fun of people was just what he did," Kelley wrote in Newsweek. Imus went on to insist, "...He didn't mean to hurt anyone." Deidre later told Kelley that she could quote her husband's statement: "We want to know the truth here, we want to know everything you are feeling." But how could he not know he was hurting someone? How could he just offhandedly make seemingly hateful and obviously vitriolic remarks on national television about people he had never met and knew nothing about? This is what happens when a media personal gets too much power; he or she begins to forget that they do not have hegemony over their audience; they begin to believe they are like little Gods that can dictate the terms of their celebrity.

Coach Stringer knew it wouldn't be easy" for her team to stay focused, "given the magnitude of what had just transpired," the Newsweek story continued. It wasn't easy, but it was powerful: "Young black women speaking truth to media power, and media power listening," wrote Kelley. That poignantly and perfectly describes the hegemony which is obviously the genesis driving this whole affair; big media rumbles along like a well-fed tank with its stars in the limelight until the little guy, the underdog, is so badly trampled on that there is nothing left to do but fight for fairness.