The recent controversy
surrounding the awarding of the Arthur Ashe Courage Award to Caitlyn Jenner (formerly
the Olympic great Bruce Jenner) provoked me to ask two questions: 1) “Who the
hell is Peter Berg?” (Did an ancestor sink the mighty Titanic in 1912?); and 2)
“Why the controversy over bestowing an award for such a meaningless event (ESPN’s
the ESPYs)? Before I go let me just say that this takes nothing away from what
Arthur Ashe did and represented. Even after his death his legacy continues to
inspire hope, dignity, resiliency and humanity.
The problem I have is that we have become so sports-centric that we have
elevated sports/entertainment to the level of cultural/historical/academic/political
importance. This should not be. I enjoy sports, but I have come to understand
that they are only a fraction of what life is truly about, or the strenuous
decisions people have to make.
As I read the article on the controversy, I
saw that Bob Costas, the NBC broadcaster, chimed in with his officious
two-cents. He is quoted as saying, “In the broad world of sports, I’m pretty
sure they could’ve found someone – and this is not anything against Caitlyn
Jenner – who was much closer actively involved in sports, who would’ve been
deserving of what that award represents.” English teachers should use this
sentence in class. Costas should have used “more” instead of “closer” or “much
more closely involved.” It appears that Costas has a bias against transgendered
people and this comes out in his judgment of Jenner. As an Olympian Jenner
embodies and represents the athletic ideal and greatness. Even though she no
longer competes, her struggles transcend anything that happens between two
lines, a court, a soccer field, etc.
Ashe was recognized for his work outside of the tennis courts, why can’t
Costas apply the same standard to Jenner?
The real issue here is that the
criteria for the award has never really been defined. Should the recipient be a
current athlete or one who has retired? Should he/she be acknowledged for work
outside of athletics or not? Should the award go to the individual who
practices a sport that most represents people/society? Cindy Boren, the
reporter who researched and put together the article for The Washington Post, wrote, “Jenner was a controversial choice for the award, with many pointing out that Noah
Galloway, an athlete who lost an arm and leg in war, was more deserving, as was
Lauren Hill, who achieved her dream of playing college basketball before she
died of brain cancer.” Should we now require that athletes who were involved in
war be given preference for the award? Or how about a dying individual? Both
are extremely good choices for the award, but at some point ESPN is going to
have to validate the award by imbuing its criteria with more substance than it
has.
As for Mr. Berg, it is sad that he
felt it necessary to engage in such a petty, disgraceful and immature act as
his posting illustrates. No one disrespects Gregory Gadson, the Army veteran
who lost two legs in conflict, whose image Berg used to deride Jenner. In
reality, Gadson should be insulted that Berg used his image without his consent
for such a pathetic example of stupidity.
It is a shame that battlefields are
the metric for determining a person’s worth or value. Not all battles take
place in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq or Baltimore, Maryland. I remember seeing
pictures of Bruce Jenner on Wheaties
cereal boxes in the 1970s and I was struck that he had to struggle with
identity issues for so long. Army veterans proudly display their injuries
sustained in battle; others, such as Caitlyn Jenner, have wounds that run just
as deep, but are not as visible. The battles that people like Caitlyn Jenner
are fighting are no less important than the conflagrations that US armed forces
have with ISIS and the Taliban or that Bob Costas may have with an English
grammar book. If we give too much weight or credence to what Peter and Bob say,
it will “Costas” in the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment