Guerrilla, not gorilla, warfare: Fired tennis analyst who nearly died to have his day in court

[Chris Koziarz]

Fair enough. So you think he'll lose?
What do you make of the hypocrisy on ESPN's part though?

Yeah, the case of Steve Harvey (an AA man) who got away with his comparing of basketball team Golden State Warriors to ‘gorillas’, seem like hypocrisy by his employer ESPN. It seems like a clear case Harvey should be sanctioned but it's a little grey area, and I'm not a PR lawyer to opine here. I can say though, that I've seen, even in semi-formal situations, when black people, when arguing, call themselves names and use n-words profusely, and get away with it. They may be punished for verbal abuse and audible obscenity but not accused of racism.
I don't quite understand that. But maybe the US law is constructed in such a way that it would be difficult to prove the denigrating effect of Harvey's comparison of people who look like him to 'gorillas'. He might have said in court that he was just joking and feeling sympathetic for them, because he feels like "gorilla" himself and this is just his deep, "gut feeling of solidarity", so such claim can refute any denigrating intent implied in court. That's a possibility why ESPN does not even bother going after Harvey. It may seem unjust and irrational but that's the way it seems: you have to be vary careful in talking about races that are different than your race because people can claim an implied denigrating intent of your talk very easily while when you talk about your own race, such intent is difficult to prove.
In case of Adler vs. ESPN, there was no discrimination nor denigrating intent. IT was just misunderstanding IMO. Even if Adler chose careless word, the apology for his word (what he did I think) should be more than adequate solution to this PR problem. By way of a toddler example that Ricardo brought in, and I explained above, if no one accuses toddler of racism even if he discriminates but does not understand, why anyone does go after Adler who does not discriminate (IMO) and only misunderstands the usage (or popularity) of a particular expression? That's just misunderstanding, nothing beyond. Reasonable people should just laugh at his misunderstanding, just as Ricardo at the toddler, such social reaction would be far more healthy not just to Adler but to the society at large.

 

[luvsports!]

The article you posted has a vast mischaracterization in it:
"Guerrilla tennis is a term that has been used in the sport for decades.

In 1995, all-time greats Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi had starred in one of Nike’s most famous TV adverts, where they closed off a section of New York to set up a court, labelled ‘Guerrilla Tennis’.

This is where you utilise an ultra-aggressive strategy, where you rush to the net to make it more difficult for the opponent."
That ad has nothing to do with "an ultra-aggressive strategy where you rush the net." It's about playing tennis on the fly in an unexpected place. And the term has not been used in tennis for decades. It's not even used in tennis now.

That said, I don't know if Adler will lose his case. That's up to a judge, though I rather think he should win it, particularly based on their ignoring the same phrase used by Steve Harvey. I do understand why certain words and phrases land differently depending on who uses them. I suspect that ESPN overreacted to push-back they got from viewers in the Venus incident, while maybe they didn't, in the Harvey one, and made Adler collateral damage. I think in this case, given the journalist's long reputation, ESPN should have talked to him, apologized for any insensitivity, then stood by him and taken the heat and fallout. They should have talked to Steve Harvey, as well, (and perhaps they did,) but both should have been considered to have a bit of a warning on their records.

Anyway, this was a situation I was not aware of, so thanks for bringing it to our attention. It has been interesting to investigate and examine. Let us know if you find out how the case pans out.

I wrote the article btw.
I am following it avidly!

 

[Moxie]

I wrote the article btw.
I am following it avidly!

Oh, I wondered if you did.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Oh, I wondered if you did.

In case you missed it Moxie, in his intro post, luvsports! showed that he publishes in Roar as Richard Mills, u can find that he also tweets @RichieMills2. I hope Ritchie keeps the luvsports! character alive as a reference herein, because I'm not a regular Roar reader.

 

[Ricardo]

Racism is defined as discriminating people into groups based on anatomic features (such as skin colour) with an intention to denigrate any given group. All elements of above definition can be implied but must be undoubtedly present in the defendant's mind if you want to prove his/her racism. Toddler's yells are not racism because at his age, he does not understand the differences between humans and gorillas. So even though he discriminates people into black and white groups and compares black group to gorillas, the denigrating intent is missing here. And your laugh is just a laugh at toddler's lack of understanding, not an "accessory to racism".
I've been in many similar situations (where other form of discrimination have been implied into ignorant toddlers) and reasonable people usually react like you reacted and mothers explain to toddler his misunderstanding. This is normal at this stage. Only when you can deduce a denigrating intent from toddler's yell (e.g. "dirty gorilla") then you can claim such toddler to be racist.

In the toddlers case it was the facial features, but it’s usually not possible to prove intention to denigrate beyond reasonable doubt.