Tag Archives: black-history

The Divided Soul of Stephen A. Smith

August 21, 2026 By in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , Leave a comment

When Success and Solidarity Collide, a Black Voice Finds Himself on the Outside Looking In

by Delgreco K. Wilson, M.A.

PHILADELPHIA, PA – In the pantheon of American sports media, few figures loom as large—or speak as loudly—as Stephen A. Smith. He is, by any measurable standard, a titan of the industry. His face is ubiquitous across ESPN platforms, his podcast commands millions of listeners, and his reported annual compensation places him among the highest-paid personalities in the history of sports journalism. He has transcended the world of box scores and trade deadlines to become a cultural force, a political commentator, and even, by his own admission, a man who has “toyed with the idea” of running for the presidency of the United States.

Yet for all his professional triumph, Smith now finds himself in the crosshairs of a sustained and deeply personal backlash from the very community that once celebrated his ascendancy. The criticism is not coming from the predictable corners of white conservative media, where he has increasingly found a sympathetic audience. It is coming from Black journalists, Black activists, Black athletes, and, most notably, Black women, who have accused him of everything from tone-deafness to outright betrayal. The animosity directed toward Smith is not merely a disagreement over political strategy or sports analysis; it is a referendum on his very identity, his authenticity, and his relationship to the Black American experience.

To understand the nature of this backlash, one must look beyond the surface-level controversies and examine the deeper psychological and sociological forces at play. More than a century ago, W.E.B. Du Bois—arguably the most important Black intellectual in American history—articulated a concept that remains startlingly relevant to the Stephen A. Smith saga. That concept, known as double consciousness, describes the internal psychological conflict experienced by subordinated groups in an oppressive society. It is the sensation of always looking at oneself through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. It is the feeling of “two-ness”—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body.

At its core, double consciousness is the sensation of having one’s identity divided into several parts, making it difficult to have a unified sense of self. Though Du Bois developed this framework to describe the condition of African Americans at the dawn of the twentieth century, it remains a devastatingly precise tool for analyzing the twenty-first-century phenomenon of Stephen A. Smith—a man who has ascended to the highest peaks of American capitalism while, many argue, losing his grip on the very soul that made such an ascent possible.

The American Dream, Achieved

Stephen A. Smith is, in many ways, the embodiment of the American Dream. Born in the Bronx and raised in the Hollis neighborhood of Queens, he was the son of Caribbean immigrants who worked tirelessly to provide their children with opportunities they themselves never had. Smith attended the Fashion Institute of Technology for a year before transferring to Winston-Salem State University, a historically Black university in North Carolina, where he honed his craft as a journalist for the student newspaper. From those humble beginnings, he clawed his way through the ranks of local newspapers—the Winston-Salem Journal, the Greensboro News & Record, the New York Daily News—before landing at the Philadelphia Inquirer, where he became one of the most respected NBA beat writers in the country.

Sean Hannity and Stephen A. Smith

His transition to television was not immediate, but it was inevitable. Smith possessed a rare combination of encyclopedic sports knowledge, unapologetic self-confidence, and a willingness to say things others would not. When he joined ESPN’s First Take in 2012, the show was transformed from a niche debate program into a cultural phenomenon. His catchphrases (“However,” “Blasphemous,” “We’re going to talk about it”) became part of the American sports lexicon. His debates with co-hosts Max Kellerman and Shannon Sharpe became appointment viewing for millions of fans. By the early 2020s, Smith had become the face of sports commentary in America, earning a contract reportedly worth more than $12 million per year.

This is, by any measure, the realization of the American identity that Du Bois described. Smith is a citizen by birth and law, and he has embraced the promises of the U.S. Constitution, democracy, liberty, and the Protestant work ethic with a fervor that would make Horatio Alger blush. He is a proud capitalist, an unabashed patriot, and a firm believer in the idea that hard work and perseverance can overcome any obstacle. When he speaks of his journey from poverty to prosperity, he does so with the conviction of a man who believes that the system works—that America, for all its flaws, is still a land of opportunity for those willing to seize it.

And yet, it is precisely this embrace of the American identity, unmediated by the countervailing pull of the Black identity, that has placed him at odds with so many in his own community.

The Neglected Soul

Du Bois argued that double consciousness is not a harmonious duality but a state of perpetual tension. The two identities—the American and the Black—are not complementary; they are at war. For most African Americans, this tension is inescapable. They are constantly reminded that their American identity is conditional, that their citizenship is provisional, that the full rights and privileges promised by the Constitution are, in the words of Langston Hughes, “a dream deferred.” The Black individual, Du Bois wrote, is forced to view themselves not just as they are, but as white society perceives them—as a problem, as inferior, as “other.”

This is the burden of what Du Bois called the Veil. The Veil is the metaphorical barrier that separates Black and White America. White Americans cannot accurately see Black Americans as true Americans or even as fully human; they see them through the distorting lens of racial prejudice. Conversely, Black Americans are born behind the Veil, meaning they are excluded from full participation in American society. They are forced to develop a “second-sight,” a heightened awareness of how they are perceived by the dominant culture, in order to survive.

Stephen A. Smith, however, has been given access to what he perceives as full participation. He has been welcomed into the corridors of power, invited to sit at tables that were historically off-limits to Black journalists. He has been given the keys to the kingdom—or so he believes. And it is this belief, this conviction that he has transcended the Veil, that has rendered him incapable of understanding and empathizing with the “twoness” that Black Americans struggle with every day.

When Smith sits across from Sean Hannity on Fox News, when he appears on Meagyn Kelly’s podcast, when he floats the idea that he might vote for Donald Trump, he is not simply expressing a political preference. He is signaling to his white audience—and, just as importantly, to himself—that he is not like other Black people. He is not angry. He is not radical. He is not going to make them uncomfortable by demanding too much, too soon. He is a reasonable Black man, a safe Black man, a Black man who can be trusted to see things from their perspective.

This is the tragedy of Stephen A. Smith’s double consciousness. He has internalized the gaze of white America so completely that he no longer recognizes the damage it does to his own community—or to himself.

The Corporate Mouthpiece

Nowhere is this tension more apparent than in Smith’s coverage of Black athletes who challenge the status quo. In the summer of 2020, when NBA players led a historic strike in the wake of the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Smith was among the loudest voices criticizing the players. He argued that the strike was “impractical,” that the players were “hurt” more than they were helping, and that they needed to “think about the consequences” of their actions. He framed the players’ collective action not as a courageous stand for justice but as a reckless disruption of the entertainment product that he and his colleagues were paid to analyze.

This was not an isolated incident. Smith has a long history of siding against Black athletes in labor disputes, criticizing players for demanding trades, sitting out games, or using their platforms to speak on social issues. He has framed his critiques through the lens of “old-school” respectability, suggesting that players who wear flashy clothes, use social media, or express themselves freely are “distractions” who are not taking their careers seriously. To Smith, the ideal Black athlete is one who shuts up, plays hard, and lets his performance speak for itself—in other words, an athlete who assimilates to white corporate norms without making any demands that might upset the people signing his checks.

This is not analysis; it is propaganda. And the Black community knows it. When Smith amplifies the voices of NBA front-office executives and anonymous “sources,” he is not being a journalist; he is being a tool of the establishment. The power structures of professional sports have historically been used to suppress Black labor, to silence Black voices, and to extract maximum value from Black bodies while giving minimum power in return. When Stephen A. Smith sides with those structures against the athletes, he is siding against his own people—and he is doing it from behind the Veil, where he has convinced himself that he is no longer subject to the same constraints.

The War on Black Women

If Smith’s relationship with Black athletes is complicated, his relationship with Black women is outright hostile. This is not a new development. In 2014, Smith was suspended from ESPN for comments he made in the context of the Ray Rice domestic violence scandal. Rice, a star running back for the Baltimore Ravens, had been videotaped punching his fiancée in an elevator, knocking her unconscious. Smith’s response was to suggest that women should not “provoke” men into violence—a statement so egregious that even his own employer felt compelled to take action.

More recently, Smith has directed his ire toward Black women in positions of political and cultural power. In March 2025, following a widely publicized interview in which Rep. Jasmine Crockett referred to Texas Governor Greg Abbott as “Governor Hot Wheels”—a reference to his use of a wheelchair—Smith launched a scathing critique of the Congresswoman. He called Crockett’s remarks “despicable,” “unnecessary,” and “low down.” He argued that by attacking Abbott’s disability, Crockett had lowered herself to the level of her political opponents and was embarrassing the Democratic Party. He demanded that she stop “playing the game” of gutter politics and show more class.

The irony, of course, was lost on Smith. This is a man who has built his entire career on vicious, personal, and often below-the-belt insults directed at Black athletes and public figures. He has called players “bums,” questioned their manhood, mocked their intelligence, and dismissed their legitimate grievances with a wave of his hand. Yet when a Black woman in Congress uses sharp language to criticize a white governor who has spent years dismantling diversity and inclusion programs that benefit Black communities, Smith suddenly discovers the virtues of civility and decorum.

Similarly, during the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Smith repeatedly criticized Vice President Kamala Harris. He questioned her “Blackness” in a political context, claimed that she was avoiding difficult interviews because she lacked the substance to defend her policies, and floated the idea that he was open to voting for Donald Trump. The criticisms were indistinguishable from conservative talking points, and they were delivered with the same smug condescension that Smith reserves for those he deems unworthy of respect.

When MSNBC canceled Joy Reid’s show in February 2025, Smith defended the network’s decision, arguing that “ratings are the currency of television” and that Reid’s show had simply not performed well enough to justify its existence. The comment was technically true, in the narrow sense that all television shows are ultimately judged by their ability to attract viewers. But it ignored the broader context: the systemic barriers that Black hosts face, the lack of institutional support that Black journalists often receive, and the fact that Smith himself benefits from a massive promotional machine at ESPN while Black women are expected to succeed or fail on their own.

To many Black women, the pattern is undeniable. Smith demands perfection from Black women in power while extending grace to white men who have demonstrated nothing but contempt for the Black community. He polices Black women’s tone while profiting from a broadcasting style that is deliberately inflammatory. He claims to be a voice for the voiceless while using his platform to amplify the voices of those who already have more power than they deserve.

This is not double consciousness; it is a failure of consciousness. It is a refusal to engage with the Black identity side of the equation, to recognize that the same systems that empower him are the systems that oppress the very people he claims to represent.

The Right-Wing Embrace

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Smith’s recent trajectory is his growing alignment with far-right media figures. His appearances on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show and Megyn Kelly’s podcast are not incidental; they are strategic. Smith understands that there is a market for Black voices that validate conservative talking points, that tell white audiences what they want to hear about Black culture, Black politics, and Black athletes. He has positioned himself as that voice—a Black man who is willing to criticize his own community in the language of personal responsibility and respectability politics.

This is not to say that Smith is a conservative in the traditional sense. He has expressed support for Democratic candidates in the past, and he has spoken passionately about the need for economic opportunity in Black communities. But his willingness to share a platform with figures like Hannity and Kelly—both of whom have built their careers on stoking racial resentment—raises serious questions about his judgment and his loyalties.

When Smith sits across from Hannity and nods along as the host rails against “critical race theory” or “woke culture,” he is not engaging in a good-faith debate. He is providing cover for a political movement that is actively working to roll back the gains of the civil rights era. He is lending his credibility to a network that has spent decades demonizing Black people, from its coverage of Barack Obama to its relentless attacks on Black Lives Matter. He is, in effect, helping to build the very Veil that Du Bois warned about more than a century ago.

Many Black observers have concluded that Smith is no longer in touch with the Black plight. They see a man who has been seduced by the trappings of white success, who has mistaken access for acceptance, and who has forgotten that the Veil does not disappear simply because one has been invited to the other side of it. They see a man who is struggling with the Black identity side of the double consciousness equation—and losing.

The Unreconciled Soul

W.E.B. Du Bois wrote that the history of the American Negro is the history of this strife—the longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge the double self into a better and truer self. He hoped that the Black American would one day be “both a Negro and an American, without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of Opportunity closed roughly in his face.”

Stephen A. Smith has achieved the American side of that equation. He has walked through the doors of opportunity, and he has done so with remarkable skill and determination. But he has not yet achieved the reconciliation that Du Bois envisioned. He has not found a way to be both a Negro and an American without sacrificing the former to the latter. He has, in the eyes of many, become a cautionary tale—a warning of what happens when success comes at the cost of solidarity, when access is mistaken for liberation, and when the loudest voice in the room drowns out the whispers of one’s own conscience.

The backlash against Stephen A. Smith is not about sports. It is not about politics. It is about identity. It is about the question of what it means to be Black in America, and whether it is possible to achieve the American Dream without losing one’s soul in the process. It is about the enduring power of Du Bois’s double consciousness, and the painful recognition that even the most successful among us are not immune to its pull.

Smith is not a villain. He is, in many ways, a product of a system that rewards assimilation and punishes dissent. But he is also a man with choices, and the choices he has made—to side with power against the powerless, to demand respectability from others while flouting it himself, to seek validation from those who would rather he not exist at all—have consequences. The Black community is holding him accountable for those choices, and it is doing so in the only way it knows how: by speaking truth to power, even when that power wears a familiar face.

In the end, Stephen A. Smith’s greatest challenge is not his critics, his ratings, or his political ambitions. It is the two warring souls within him—the American and the Negro—and the question of whether he will ever find a way to make them one. Until he does, he will remain what Du Bois warned against: a man divided against himself, whose dogged strength alone keeps him from being torn asunder.

Black Athletes, the Agony and the Duty of the NAACP’s SEC Boycott

May 21, 2026 By in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , 5 Comments

The NAACP Has Issued a Call for Black Athletes to Boycott the SEC. Asking a Young Prospect to Turn Down Dawn Staley Feels Insane. That Is the Measure of the Crisis.

PHILADELPHIA, PA – The NAACP, the nation’s oldest and most venerated civil rights organization, has now made it official. On Tuesday, it launched the “Out of Bounds” campaign, a direct and unambiguous call for Black athletes, their families, alumni, and fans to “withhold athletic and financial support” from major public universities in states that “have moved to limit, weaken or erase Black voting representation.” The target is clear: the powerhouse athletic programs of the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and their counterparts across the former Confederacy. The logic is searing. If the white political structures of these states have declared war on the franchise that Black Americans bled and died to secure, then the Black labor and Black fandom that sustain those states’ most cherished cultural and economic institutions must be redeployed as a weapon of collective self-defense. This is not a request for a symbolic gesture. It is a call to economic warfare, and it demands a sacrifice so profound that to state it plainly is to feel its weight in the pit of your stomach.

That sacrifice is measured most acutely not in dollars forfeited or championships deferred, but in a single, almost unthinkable question that will now confront Black families around dinner tables from Philadelphia to Houston: Should a gifted young Black woman pass on the opportunity to play for Dawn Staley?

To ask the question is to stand at the edge of a moral chasm. Dawn Staley is not merely a basketball coach. She is the living embodiment of a lineage that has produced the most towering figures in Black athletic leadership. She emerged from the Raymond Rosen Housing Projects in North Philadelphia, navigated every obstacle a society could place in her path, and ascended to the absolute pinnacle of her sport. At the University of South Carolina, she has built a dynasty with a dignity, grace, and unapologetic Black pride that was previously unimaginable. She has filled the enormous shoes of John Thompson, the Georgetown patriarch who showed that a Black coach could win with an all-Black starting five while demanding his players graduate. She carries the torch of John Chaney, the Temple legend who spoke truth to power in a gravelly baritone that made white administrators tremble. She extends the legacy of Nolan Richardson, who brought his “40 Minutes of Hell” to Arkansas and dared to say publicly that the SEC operated on a plantation model. In the 2025-26 season, Staley was one of five Black women head coaches in the SEC, a sisterhood that includes Yolett McPhee-McCuin at Ole Miss, Nikki Jones at Kentucky, Joni Taylor at Texas A&M, and the newly appointed Pauline Love at Alabama. These women are not tokens. They are the very best the Black community has produced—shining stars, guiding lights, proof that excellence and integrity can penetrate even the most historically hostile institutions.

To ask a young Black woman to forgo the chance to be molded by Dawn Staley is, on its face, an insane request. It is tantamount to asking a young Patrick Ewing to pass on John Thompson. It is asking Marc Macon to turn his back on John Chaney. It is asking a family to reject not just a coach but a cultural mother, a role model whose very existence is a rebuke to the white supremacy that still suffocates so many corners of American life. The NAACP, prominent Black activists, and the architects of “Out of Bounds” are standing before the Black community and saying, in effect: Target the best we have ever produced. Boycott Staley’s Gamecocks. Withdraw from the institutions where our own heroes have finally fought their way into positions of influence. This is the moral complexity that must not be sanitized or evaded. It is agonizing. It is dizzying. And it is the precise measure of the emergency we now face.

The Severity of the Threat: Why Callais Changes Everything

We must understand why the calculus has shifted so dramatically that such a request is no longer unthinkable but necessary. The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais is not a legal disagreement among reasonable minds. It is a deliberate, result-oriented act of judicial nullification, a 6-3 power play that disembowels Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act with a precision that must be called what it is: a betrayal of the Constitution, of Congress, and of the multiracial democracy this nation has always promised but never fully delivered. For sixty years, the VRA stood as the federal government’s most consequential acknowledgment that the franchise is not a gift from white power structures but a right that must be actively protected from them.

The Callais ruling declares, with the calm violence of legalese, that this era is over. In Louisiana, a map that finally gave Black voters a fair shot to elect a candidate of their choice has been discarded. Across the former Confederacy, legislative chambers are reading the signal clearly: the judiciary will no longer impede your efforts to make Black votes count less. The guardrail has been removed. The road to minority rule is paved and open.

This is the context that transforms a seemingly irrational ask into a rational, painful, and necessary strategy. When the courts have abdicated, when the legislature is gerrymandered into unaccountability, and when the ballot box itself is the very mechanism being rigged, the only remaining leverage lies in the economic and cultural spheres. The SEC is not merely a sports conference; it is the central nervous system of the white conservative political project in the South. Saturday afternoons in the fall and winter are not just games; they are rituals of regional identity, unmatched engines of fundraising, and the most powerful branding apparatus the states of the old Confederacy possess. A sustained boycott by a critical mass of Black athletes would hit this machinery precisely where it hurts: the balance sheet and the collective psyche. It would force university presidents, athletic directors, and corporate sponsors to make a choice between their profits and the political regimes that enable them. The goal is not to punish Dawn Staley; it is to make the state of South Carolina feel the cost of disenfranchising its Black citizens so acutely that the political calculus is forced to change.

The Impossible Choice: Weighing the Individual Against the Collective

Let us sit with the discomfort, for it is the heart of the matter. A Black mother in Atlanta has a daughter who is a generational point guard. She has been offered a full scholarship to play for Dawn Staley at South Carolina. To accept is to place her child under the wing of a woman who will not only develop her into a WNBA prospect but will teach her how to navigate a hostile world with her head held high. Staley’s program graduates players, builds character, and serves as a model of Black feminine power in a society that routinely denigrates both Blackness and womanhood. To turn down that offer is to potentially alter the trajectory of a young life in ways that cannot be calculated.

Yet that same mother must also reckon with the fact that her daughter’s presence in a Gamecocks uniform will be used by the state of South Carolina to project an image of racial harmony and opportunity that is a lie. Her daughter’s image, her excellence, her joy on the court will be monetized and deployed as propaganda for a regime that is actively working to ensure that Black grandmothers in Charleston and Columbia cannot elect representatives who care about their hospitals, their schools, or their air. The scholarship her daughter receives is funded, in part, by a state budget crafted by legislators elected from districts drawn to dilute Black voting strength. The arena she plays in was built with bonds backed by a taxpayer base that includes Black citizens who have been systematically robbed of their political voice. The NIL money that may come her way flows from booster collectives populated by white businessmen who write checks to voter suppression politicians on Monday and pose for pictures with her daughter on Saturday.

This is the impossible math that “Out of Bounds” forces Black families to calculate. It is the same brutal arithmetic that faced the parents who pulled their children out of segregated schools to march in Birmingham, who watched their livelihoods destroyed so that a generation might know freedom. The individual cost is real, intimate, and potentially devastating. The collective benefit is abstract, distant, and uncertain. And yet, every major advance in Black freedom in this country has been purchased by people who chose the abstract over the intimate, the collective over the individual, the long game over the short fix. The question is whether this generation, at this juncture, is prepared to make a similar accounting.

The Necessity: Why a Boycott Is the Only Language Power Understands

We must dispense with the fantasy that this legal assault can be countered through the ordinary channels it has just demolished. The Court has foreclosed legislative remedy by ignoring Congress’s intent. It has rendered future litigation a costly funeral procession for dead claims. The political leaders who gerrymander, disenfranchise, and suppress do not fear editorials or trending hashtags. They fear one thing: a disruption to the flows of money, prestige, and emotional allegiance that sustain their power.
When a four-star recruit from Atlanta chooses the University of Georgia, she is not just selecting a coach; she is injecting her talent, her likeness, and her family’s story into a narrative that bolsters the state’s economy and its political legitimacy. A sustained boycott, even by a disciplined minority of elite prospects, would force a reckoning. It would make the crisis their crisis. That is the definition of leverage, and it is the only currency that buys real change when voting booths have become facades.

The Possibility: Restructuring the Incentives of the Modern Athlete

The objection is immediate: the athletes will never do it. The modern economics of college sports, with Name, Image and Likeness deals and the frictionless transfer portal, has created a generation of rational individualists. This critique correctly identifies the collective action problem—the prisoner’s dilemma where the individual’s best short-term move is to defect from any group sacrifice—but it misunderstands that this dilemma is an engineering problem, and it can be solved.

First, the financial terror that blocks action must be neutralized through a Freedom Fund, capitalized by wealthy Black entertainers, progressive philanthropists, and the broad coalition that fuels movements like the Equal Justice Initiative. This fund guarantees the NIL income of any participating athlete. If a booster collective yanks a sponsorship in retaliation, the fund covers the loss, dollar for dollar. The prisoner’s dilemma collapses when the cost of cooperation is zero. This is not a fantasy; it is the logic of every strike fund in American labor history.

Second, the movement must manufacture selective incentives. A campaign celebrating “Freedom Riders 2.0” can make participation a career-defining marker of legacy and historical greatness. The free-rider who stays on the field becomes an object of quiet contempt. The blue-chip recruit who turns down an SEC offer for a program in a democracy-respecting state must be publicly honored and financially celebrated. For young adults attuned to public perception, these social costs and rewards can be as powerful as money.

Third, the strategy must exploit the power of small, high-trust groups. A call for every Black athlete in the SEC to walk out is a logistical mirage. A surgical intervention is far more plausible. The 2015 Missouri football strike that toppled a university president involved roughly 30 players. It required a cohesive, committed minority willing to occupy a facility and refuse to play. A similar action at a single flagship program, coordinated in the tight, accountable space of a locker room, would be an earthquake no media rights deal could insure against.

The Likelihood of Success: Why This Moment Is Ripe

Skeptics will mutter that this is improbable. But history instructs us. Successful boycotts—from Montgomery to the United Farm Workers’ grape strike—are forged by a catalytic moment, a sense of existential threat, and a disciplined core. Callais provides the existential shock. This generation of athletes is not apathetic; it is institutionally anxious, perfectly aware of its commodification, and digitally equipped to control its own narrative.

Moreover, the target is uniquely brittle. The SEC’s business model is a Jenga tower of media contracts, gambling partnerships, corporate sponsorships, and donor ego. It would take remarkably few strategic defections to introduce a crisis of confidence among the corporate partners who underwrite the spectacle. An insurance company does not want its logo on a screen where a star athlete explains why she is sitting out in defense of democracy. A soft drink conglomerate does not want its halftime show transformed into a teach-in on voter suppression. The leverage is structural, and it has never been priced into the asset because the asset has never flexed its full strength.

The Crossroads

Even with all of this, the moral agony of the choice remains. To ask a young Black woman to turn down Dawn Staley is to ask her to sacrifice a dream that is good and beautiful and earned. It is to ask her to walk away from a Black woman who fought through every barrier to stand where she stands, who represents the very excellence and self-determination the Voting Rights Act was meant to protect. It feels like a betrayal of Staley herself, a punishment of the very leader we should be celebrating.

And yet, Staley’s own journey—from the projects of North Philadelphia to the pinnacle of her profession—was made possible by a generation that made sacrifices precisely like the one now being asked. John Thompson did not get to build his Georgetown program in a vacuum of individual ambition. He built it on the shoulders of a movement that boycotted, that marched, that risked. The Voting Rights Act that Callais has now gutted was not handed down by benevolent white lawmakers. It was extracted by collective action so costly that it left blood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

The athletes of the SEC stand at a generational crossroads. On one path, they accept the deal on offer: individual wealth and achievement that makes them comfortable exceptions to a rule of communal political subjugation. It is a gilded silence, purchasing a fleeting scholarship and a first-round draft pick with the currency of a people’s disenfranchised future. On the other path lies something far more audacious and far more durable. It is the recognition that the power they hold is not a gift from the system but a muscle the system cannot function without.

The NAACP’s call is not an act of disrespect toward Dawn Staley, nor toward the four other Black women leading SEC programs with distinction. It is, in its most profound sense, an acknowledgment that their very presence has not been enough to change the political calculus of the states that employ them. Their excellence has been absorbed, celebrated, and ultimately neutralized by a machinery that is happy to crown Black queens on the court while stripping Black citizens of their crowns at the ballot box. The boycott is a demand that the contradiction be faced, that the celebration and the subjugation cannot coexist indefinitely.

A targeted, funded, and courageously executed boycott is not a withdrawal from the game. It is the ultimate assertion of ownership over the game—and over the democracy it has been used to undermine. The blueprint is there. The need is absolute. All that remains is the will to recognize that the true cost of a championship is now measured in the integrity of a vote, and the time to call that debt is now. The choice is heartbreaking. But the greatest heartbreak of all would be to discover, a generation from now, that the moral authority to act was squandered in exchange for a trophy that has long since gathered dust.

The Afro-Sheen Light Skin Brother Bowl: A Game Worth Watching, A Moment Worth Celebrating

January 3, 2025 By in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Next Thursday, American history’s getting made, plain and simple. Two Black coaches—Notre Dame’s Marcus Freeman and Penn State’s James Franklin—about to go head-to-head for a shot at the big prize: the National Championship. For Black folks, this ain’t just about football; it’s about kicking down doors that’ve been bolted shut for far too long. But, like clockwork, social media’s lit with white fans scratching their heads, asking why we’re even talking about race. To them, it’s just a game. To us? It’s a revolution.

Black folks know that for most of the 20th century, NCAA D1 colleges and universities wasn’t fuckin’ with us… At all…

The Long Shadow of Jim Crow

See, college ball didn’t always have space for Black excellence. For far too long, American Apartheid shaped collegiate sports. Back in the Jim Crow days, Black athletes were locked out of big-name programs, forced to shine in HBCUs while white players soaked up all the national mainstream media attention and glory. When integration finally hit in the 1970’s, Black players broke through, but the coaching ranks? That’s where the gate stayed locked.

And don’t get it twisted—the system wasn’t just about who could run the fastest or throw the farthest. In ‘87, Al Campanis, a Dodgers exec, told the world Black folks didn’t have the “necessities” to lead. Translation? “We don’t trust y’all to steer the ship.” Those words stuck, seeping into locker rooms, boardrooms, and beyond. Today, that bias may not wear the same ugly face, but it’s still lurking.

Breaking Through the Ceiling

Now here come Freeman and Franklin, rewriting the script. Many of the same cameras and microphones that have been prominently positioned in front of Coach Prime since August, will be pointed at these brothers. With everything on the line, Freeman and Franklin ain’t just holding clipboards; they’re running powerhouse programs, proving that leadership ain’t tied to skin color. For Black fans, it’s more than bragging rights; it’s decades of sweat, tears, and unshakable determination finally paying off.

But the pushback always comes. Some folks argue that sports should be colorblind, that the game’s about skill, not skin. Sounds nice on paper, but let’s be real: race has always been a lead actor in the American story. Black folks have felt the sting of fewer opportunities, lower pay, and higher scrutiny. That’s the backdrop to Thursday’s game, whether well-meaning white folks want to admit it or not.

A Call for Grace

To the white fans who don’t get the hype: this ain’t about excluding you; it’s about uplifting us. When we cheer for Freeman and Franklin, we’re cheering for progress—for the young Black kid watching the game, dreaming of calling plays someday.

Grace ain’t hard to give. It’s about understanding a joy that might not be yours to feel but is yours to witness. It’s about letting us celebrate without questioning the why. Because in moments like this, the why is woven into our history… American history.

Eyes on the Prize

This game’s bigger than football. It’s a chance to honor how far we’ve come and to fuel the journey ahead. For Black America, it’s a rare and beautiful milestone. For everyone else, it’s a reminder that progress, no matter how slow, is always worth the cheer.

So let’s savor this moment, not as a wedge but as a bridge. Let’s lift our voices for what’s right and what’s righteous. Because when the dust settles, it’s not just about who won the game—it’s about who changed the game.

The Light Skin Brother Bowl is ’bout to be lit like a Muthafucka…