The “Privilege” Of Being Treated As An Individual, Or A Quarterback

Most of you have already read — or at least read about — what has been aptly described as “David Sirota’s masterfully idiotic piece entitled ‘Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American‘” in Salon. I just did, as a public service so you don’t have to if you haven’t already, and in fact I did notice something that despite all the ridicule and denunciation Sirota earned has not received as much attention as it deserves (or maybe I simply haven’t read enough of the ridicule and denunciation).

His now familiar complaint is about “the dynamics of [white] privilege,” something he claims

has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats….

His complaint, in short, is with “these undeniable and pervasive double standards” that bestow upon white male terrorists the privilege of being treated as individuals but lumps together “non-white or developing-world” terrorists as representatives of their ideology, race, religion, or ethnicity.

But wait a minute. Isn’t “privilege” a good thing? Don’t leftists generally want “the poor” or “the masses” or the multicultural left’s equivalent, the blacks and browns, to have the privileges enjoyed by the rich and white? There seems to be a good deal of confusion here, since you’d have to look far and wide (and ultimately fruitlessly) to find a leftist these days who wants all individuals to be treated “without regard” to their race or ethnicity. They object to some “groups” being “targeted” because of the unlawful actions of some individuals from those groups, but at the same time they denounce as racist anyone who wants everyone to enjoy the “privilege” of being treated as an individual, who objects to treating individuals as representatives of their racial or ethnic group.

This confusion is not limited to the treatment of terrorists or even the inconsistency of opposing “racial profiling” … except when it is employed to admit or hire minorities. Consider, to pick one example, what a recent article in USA Today denounces as the continuing “black tax,” i.e., discrimination, against black quarterbacks:

Not a student of the game. Not committed or focused. Marginal work ethic.

When a Pro Football Weekly scouting report on West Virginia quarterback Geno Smith surfaced recently, containing damning proclamations by analyst Nolan Nawrocki about the habits of the top-rated passer in the NFL draft, it made me shake my head.

Here we go again.

Two years ago, Cam Newton was slammed by Nawrocki for having a “fake smile” and setting a bad example while carrying a sense of entitlement.

Last year, in a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel report, Robert Griffin III was knocked by unnamed scouts for how he “deals with people.”

It is of course possible that these uncharitable comments derive from racial bias (although to reach that conclusion it would be relevant to know if similar evaluations appear in reports on white quarterbacks). It is also certainly possible that they are unfair and not true. But insofar as this article has a point, it turns out to be very similar to the complain made by David Sirota: black quarterbacks don’t enjoy the privilege of being judged as individuals. They are not evaluated on merit alone, as non-black quarterback candidates presumably are. Instead, qualities (or absence of qualities) having nothing to do with their quarterbacking skills and promise are taken into account.

In short, if the USA Today article is to be believed, the NFL has abandoned quarterback selection standards based on pure merit in favor holistic consideration of the candidates. If USA Today has condemned holistic admissions or hiring in other contexts I must have missed it.