When I saw that Micheal (yes, it's really spelled that way) Ray Richardson said all that stuff about Jews that got him suspended from his job as coach of the CBA's Albany Patroons, the first thing I did was swallow hard and think "Micheal, for a million reasons I wish you hadn't said that."
(I imagine his team feels the same way. Since his suspension, the Albany Patroons lost a key game of the championship series on an airball, and two Albany Patroons -- remember Felipe Lopez? -- fought each other on the court mid-game.)
The worst part was that after Richardson made the initial comments, he sensed trouble and went on to "clarify," to smooth things over, as it were. If there had been any political correctness buttons he had somehow left unpressed in the first go-round, he sure fixed that with the follow up.
His spirited defense of "Jew lawyers" and the "craftiness" of Jews generally offended every rule about how people talk about race and culture in the media.
And in most cases, I'm a fan of those rules. If this melting pot thing is going to work, it will work by being careful with each other. Harsh stereotypes are reckless and potentially very harmful. They are the kinds of weapons people should not bring to parties.
But I think most people believe that Richardson, though certainly engaging in some of the same kinds of thoughts about Jews that have been the stock-and-trade of anti-Semites for ages, actually thought he was being nice.
He certainly offended the rules of how we talk about Jews. But did he actually offend Jews?
I forwarded the article to my friend whose three primary nicknames are The Wild Heb, Heb Ho, and Kosher Dill. His response?
The Jewish slurs could be a lot worse. Having said that, of course the sensitivity is that by saying this stuff, you dehumanize a group of people. Once you do that, the risk is you can do whatever you want to them, or say whatever you want, because who cares, they're them. They're truly different.
You also have to consider the shoe-on-the-other-foot theory: if a Jewish coach said blacks are faster and can jump higher, how would that be perceived?
In some ways Jews think of themselves as smart businessmen -- "crafty" is a bit derogatory, though.
Having said all of that I tend to think he means this as a compliment. And it is not as if stereotypes themselves are based on nothing. This seems to be a case of honest ignorance -- i.e. a person who thinks what he is saying is not harmful.
That sentiment, or something like it, was echoed by other Jewish friends, and on many blogs. I linked to Straight Bangin' yesterday (and Joey has since followed up).
Kevin Arnovitz of ClipperBlog emails: "For the record, I wasn't all that offended. I take issue with the comment because if Jews were really that crafty, I wouldn't be sitting here writing for free." Arnovitz adds that he does think Richardson is an idiot, but he doesn't think he should lose his job.
Chris Isenberg (also Jewish!) wrote a big Richardson profile for the Village Voice a few years ago, and feels he has a grasp on Richardson's personality. Isenberg's recent post on his No Mas blog is called "Jews for Micheal Ray." Richardson once lived in Israel -- he played basketball all over the world after David Stern kicked him out of the NBA for repeatedly failing drug tests -- and Isenberg talked to Richardson about the time James Brown played Tel Aviv:
He isn't the guy who knows it may be more expedient to say: "The Jewish people have a deeply celebratory spirit." He's the dude that says, "Them Jews know how to party!" But if you hear him say it, you know his heart is in the right place. He was proud of James Brown, and he was happy that Israelis could appreciate a performer who he felt represented to a certain extent the collective spirit of his people. It clearly made him feel more at home and more comfortable in Israel. If they could truly appreciate James Brown, you could feel him thinking, maybe they could truly understand and appreciate him.
I really can't think of any better way to illustrate that Micheal Ray is the opposite of a racist. Confronted with the reality of Israel he abandoned preconceived notions and evaluated people on how they actually behaved. Michael Ray has done that in every country he's been to. And that's why he's been loved all around the world.
Isenberg concludes his post like this:
Micheal Ray is proud to have a Jewish lawyer because he thinks they are the best lawyers. Certainly it's a stereotype, but it's a stereotype rooted in a reality. A disproportionate number of the great lawyers in America are Jews. A disproportionate number of the great basketball players in America are black. We have learned to be very careful around these facts because here the line between fact and "stereotype" can get very blurry and if you're not careful, you can get into deep water real quick. Michael Ray was unwise to have been so indiscreet around reporters, but it wasn't exactly Elders of Zion territory. ...
Michael Ray simply has not learned how to talk differently in public than he does in private. Michael Ray does not censor himself. That's why he has always been quotable. That's what's "shocking" about his remarks. They are not hateful or malicious. They are candid and politically incorrect. Not politically incorrect in the tradition of Al Campanis whose remarks revealed the unspoken assumptions behind a shameful and unwritten policy of exclusion. They were just words better left unsaid in public.
So Benito Fernandez, Jim Coyne, David Stern--or whoever calls the shots on this one--please give Michael Ray some sensitivity training, give him a spanking, and then let him back in the good graces of the CBA.
It will be very interesting to see what happens next.
It seems like it would be simple for Richardson to garner the support necessary to get his job back. But there is, in fact, one other issue hanging around from the original ESPN.com story:
According to the Times Union, Richardson told a fan who heckled him early in Tuesday's game, "Shut the [expletive] up." And near game's end, he shouted at another heckler, "Shut the [expletive] up, you [derogatory term for gay men]."
Ugh.
Isenberg is convinced, based on his knowledge of Richardson, that this part was not malicious either. Arnovitz, on the other hand, says that bit of news soured his perception of the whole thing. "I thought the Jew stuff was funny and trivial until I heard that," he emails. "Then you start asking, 'if the really bad s--- were to go down, would Micheal Ray Richardson be on the correct side?' The answer is, 'probably not.'"
My thought: Let's make sure that the really bad stuff doesn't go down. How are we going to do that? I guess step one is to talk openly, honestly, and yes, carefully about this kind of stuff.
UPDATE: Check out Peter Vecsey's column. He wants to hear the tape of Micheal Ray Richardson making the claims in the article that started the whole flap. Vecsey is concerned that Richardson may not have even really said those things or was somehow goaded into making the claims.
