Nobody understood why ESPN pulled its own Robert Lee from the broadcast of a University of Virginia football game set for Sept. 2.
When the news broke on Tuesday, people assumed reports were parodies.
They were not.
“We collectively made the decision with Robert to switch games as the tragic events in Charlottesville were unfolding, simply because of the coincidence of his name,” a spokesman for the network told the Washington Post.
Later, an unnamed ESPN executive sent a statement to Yashar Ali clarifying, “This wasn’t about offending anyone. It was about the reasonable possibility that because of his name he would be subjected to memes and jokes and who knows what else.”
That’s absolutely correct. It was, I agree, also fair given that the executive further explained Lee agreed to switch games and was not forcibly yanked from the broadcast.
But among the “jokes and memes and who knows what else,” there inevitably would have been a smattering of complaints from progressive internet activists crying, “ESPN let a man named Robert Lee call the first UVA football game after Charlottesville.” Nobody wants to be called racist, and the sad fact of the matter is that ESPN probably would have been.
Not by many people, of course, but by a vocal cadre of extreme progressives who demand total compliance from every business they patronize and even from those they don’t.
In fact, though the coincidence is notable, most people don’t believe there’s anything remotely racist about a network failing to remove a broadcaster with the name “Robert Lee” from a post-Charlottesville broadcast of UVA football. But some do. And it’s a reminder that different segments of society are operating with different standards for what constitutes racism.
That’s an important point because it’s complicating our ability to discuss and understand race relations.
There are people who truly believe it is racist to wear sombreros on Cinco de Mayo or serve culturally-appropriative sushi or even to support stricter immigration laws and voter ID requirements. There are others who believe those standards are too low and racism is better perceived as the belief (and behavior motivated by that belief) that one race is fundamentally superior to others, a grotesque philosophy that was on full display in Charlottesville earlier this month but, many would agree, is not behind well-meaning Cinco de Mayo parties or efforts to restrict illegal immigration.
Without advocating for one of those definitions over another, it’s at least worth recognizing that some of the post-Charlottesville discord in a country where neo-Nazis and the KKK have, thankfully, been relegated to the far fringes of society stems from the reality that we don’t understand one another’s basic notions of racism.
At a time when some people take microaggressions seriously and others laugh them off, it’s no wonder this conversation feels so unproductive.
Can we agree on a definition? I don’t know. But, for now, it may be helpful to at least understand that currently we don’t.
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
