You Are Here > Basketball-Reference.com > BBR Blog > NBA and College Basketball Analysis

SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all Basketball-Reference content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.

Also, our existing Basketball-Reference blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.

Basketball-Reference.com // Sports Reference

For more from Neil, check out his new work at BasketballProspectus.com.

Layups: Jalen Rose vs. Grant Hill

Posted by Neil Paine on March 17, 2011

Surely you've seen this already, but if not, a brief recap:

My take on this:

Hill was understandably upset and hurt by the statements Rose & his teammates made -- it's never easy to hear that people harbored negative feelings toward you because of factors that were beyond your control. But I think Hill missed Rose's point. In essence, Rose was giving voice to his mindset as a 19-year-old and how it motivated his play back then. And the level of honesty & self-examination with which Rose looked at those emotions was a meditation on Rose's own life more than a knock on Grant Hill. Though he doesn't come out and say it, it seems somewhat obvious that Rose no longer holds the same feelings, if not just from the fact that he now recognizes the true source of his resentment (Rose admits it came from a place of jealousy, not a hatred of Hill himself). That Hill seems unwilling or unable to make a distinction between feelings at 19 and feelings at 38 makes me wonder whether he or Rose has grown more as a person in the last 20 years.

Of course, that's just my opinion -- what's yours on this Jalen Rose-Grant Hill spat?

ShareThis

106 Responses to “Layups: Jalen Rose vs. Grant Hill”

  1. Metsox Says:

    I had exactly the same thought. It does seem to me that rose failed to make the distinction between his feelings now and then. It certainly stirred controversy, I am no conspiracy theorist but I think the publicity that it engendered probably was both anticipated and welcomed.

    I also think while there are probably no personal differences between the two men at this point, their are still class divides in black society, so it's still a teachable moment that speaks to the current moment.

  2. marparker Says:

    Rose and King have been on First Take a couple of times this week and they spoke about those feelings. Neither would take back their words but they did go on to further clarify what they meant. Rose specifically said those were his feelings as a 19 year old.

  3. Tadpole Says:

    I agree with Jay Bilas' assessment that the eventual legacy of the Fab 5 was they ruined Michigan basketball for years afterward. Nothing to be proud of.

  4. Jason J Says:

    I'll take Grant Hill in a basketball game or a debate. I'll take Rose in a trivia question about players who managed to get lit up by both Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant over the course of their careers (though I'm sure Hill would be an adequate answer to that one too).

  5. P Middy Says:

    I won't say this very often: Whitlock has this situation handled.

    http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/ESPN-The-Fab-Five-documentary-Jalen-Rose-Chris-Webber-Juwan-Howard-Jimmy-King-Ray-Jackson-031511

    The real problem for Rose's comments is that he has not pointed out how they were a) factually incorrect b) disrespectful c) sent the wrong message. You should be able to look at your 19 old self and say, "yeah, that was a dumb move I made when I was a kid."

    So coming from two parents and going to an academically challenging school makes you an Uncle Tom? I'm sorry, I thought that a stable family, a good education, and eventually a good job was exactly the kind of thing ALL AMERICANS aspire to. For Rose to disparage those goals as being traitorous to the black community shows exactly how stupid the man is. He was stupid when he was a kid and he's stupid now.

    But then all you had to do is watch that soft-shoe act he pulls on ESPN that passes for analysis to know that.

  6. lorrance Says:

    Reading Whitlock's article made me think he only partially watched the documentary. Jalen said he felt that Duke only recuited uncle Tom's and thats how he felt back then. Why people making such an issue about what most black kids his aged probably felt at that time is stupid.

  7. Tadpole Says:

    Qiut being apologists for Jalen Rose. He is on ESPN every damn day. If he wants to set the record straight, he can do so for himself......and he doesn't.

  8. P Middy Says:

    #7 Nail on the head. He needs to denounce those statements, rather than glorify them via documentary.

  9. BSK Says:

    I think the use of the term "Uncle Tom" is the biggest issue I take with Rose's statement. First off, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the historical meaning of that term (though it certainly has morphed to mean something more akin to how Rose used it). And while I think Rose touched on it, he didn't make it clear that his criticism was really aimed at Duke and not so much at Hill. I think the idea that Duke recruited guys of certain social, economic, and cultural backgrounds is a legitimate one to explore. Whether that happens is an intriguing conversation and, if it is, what it means and how we should respond is even more interesting.

    The documentary obviously didn't tell the full story of Rose's feelings and I think the ideal scenario would be for Hill and Rose to sit down and hash this out man-to-man and if, coming out of that, Rose feels the need to offer further clarification, he clearly has the platform.

    All-in-all, I didn't find Rose's statements to be that controversial. In my experience, Duke does avoid recruiting black, urban, poor athletes. Does that make it wrong for Hill to have attended the school? Absolutely not. Does it make Rose's feelings towards the school understandable? Yes.

  10. Johnny Says:

    I have no issue with Rose's comments. I did not have the same upbringing as him and cannot walk a mile in his shoes. If that is how he feeling at the time then who are any of us to tell him he is incorrect? I actually like when athletes don't give the same cookie-cutter politically correct answer every time. He spoke from the heart.

    And to be honest, I can't recall anyone (white or black) not hating Christian Laettner back then.

    I am not going to comment on Hill because of bias. He was rather rude to me when I was a kid so I will refrain from commenting.

  11. Ricardo Says:

    "Though he doesn't come out and say it, it seems somewhat obvious that Rose no longer holds the same feelings"

    The problem is that Rose NEEDS to come out and say it. I mean, sure, we were all young and stupid and all that, but something like this isn't your typical youthful indiscretion.

    "That Hill seems unwilling or unable to make a distinction between feelings at 19 and feelings at 38 makes me wonder whether he or Rose has grown more as a person in the last 20 years."

    A grown person unequivocally apologizes for something like this, even if Rose is not that man now. I'm sure that's all Grant Hill wants out of this, and I think he's entitled to that for the sake of human decency.

  12. BSK Says:

    Ricardo-

    It's possible that Rose DID say it and it didn't get included in the documentary. We do need to remember that the documentary was edited and, as great as I found it, it certainly had an agenda (as all documentaries do) and we shouldn't assume that nothing was left on the editing room floor.

  13. Imadogg Says:

    For the people freaking out, Rose did clarify that he was saying those things as a 19 year old, and that he didn't feel like that anymore. Nothing to see here.

  14. thparadox Says:

    I agree with BSK.

    Hill had to respond because of the mis-use of the phrase "Uncle Tom"

    I think Hill was very eloquent and thoughtful. I like how he drew an analogy between his grandfather and Rose's mother.

    It's true that Duke is trying to recruit a certain type of person. They want players that fit into the culture of the school (which I can guarantee you is correlated to middle-high income families). But doesn't that make sense? Isn't that natural? Notice that Hill never denies this... but he clearly has an issue with the word uncle tom.

    Here's the bottom line: I don't think jalen was BLAMING Duke or Duke players for what they were. He was just expressing his own emotions. Aside for misuse of the phrase "Uncle Tom", I think both players showed a high degree of intelligence and honesty.

  15. Robert August de Meijer Says:

    My opinions mirror those of Thparadox

  16. Daniel Bui Says:

    Grant Hill's well-written response is the perfect reason why kids should go to college.

  17. Tadpole Says:

    It's amazing how thousands of people can listen to the same few simple straightforward statements made by a person and then how a few people can write 2 paragraphs or more explaining to the rest of us dumb blokes what the guy really "meant".

    Rose's documentary was weeks (months?)in the making. Therefore it can be reasonably assumed that his statements were measured and calculated, and also survived editing. He certainly has the forum to expand on what he "really meant", if he wanted to do so. He chooses NOT to. There were no hidden meanings in his words, and no regret for having said them. He feeds off the controversy today as he did 20 years ago.

    First and foremost, Duke University's overall academic standards limits who Coach K - or any other coach at Duke - can recruit. To my knowkedge, in the 25 or so years he has been there, he has never been accused of, or been perceived to be prejudicial towards "poor" black kids. If you have the athletic skills, character, AND the grades, he will consider you.

  18. BSK Says:

    Tadpole-

    Every school has academic standards. Do some schools loosen them for athletes? Yes. Is Duke one of those? Probably not. But why are we assuming that the members of the Fab 5 couldn't meet those standards? They recruited CWebb, didn't they? I think Rose has proven himself to be a remarkably intelligent individual. He may not have been a book smart teenager with high SAT scores, but people here seem to be arguing the unfounded notion that the sole reason members of the Fab5 didn't go to Duke is because they weren't smart enough. Really? What evidence is there for that?

    And, I think all of the Fab5 guys made it clear they were talking about their perception of Duke. Does it mean that Coach K or the university really are racist? No. But they are carrying themselves in a way that sends that message, at least to young, urban, poor black men. If they are okay with that image, so be it. But you can't act in a way that sends a particular message, even if that message isn't intended, and then get mad when people presume that message about you.

    There is a culture of power that exists... that says, "This is the right way to be and this is the wrong way to be," with much of the distinction arbitrary. Why was a shaved head indicative of anything other than a hair style? It wasn't. But because it was perceived to be outside the norm by the culture of power (namely middle and upper class white males) it became a symbol of something "wrong". From there, those who resisted the culture of power took it up as a symbol of rebellion and were further ostracized from the norm. On and on the cycle goes. Same thing with baggy shorts... black socks... none of that had anything to do with character or basketball or intelligence. But we fall prey to signaling behavior and guys who look like Rose did are assumed to be wrong.

    What I was most appalled by was Bill Walton's comments. Seriously??? Outside of his fantastic play, this guy made a name for himself doing the exact same counter-culture, angsty youth rebellion as the Fab5... just in a different way. He was a long-haired Dead Head who always had rumors of marijuana use floating around him. How DARE he call out another group of young men exploring their own cultural revolution. Oh yea... white hippies smoking weed is okay. Black guys knowing guys who smoke crack is the end of civilization as we know it. I would love to see someone take Walton to task for this. I highly doubt we will, unfortunately...

  19. BSK Says:

    Just to clarify, I'm referring to Walton's comments from what appeared to be a basketball analyst television segment broadcast in the early 90's. Walton was not featured in the documentary. Still, if we want to hang the opinions of a 19-year-old out to dry, must we not also scrutinize the opinions of a 40-year-old basketball pundit?

  20. P Middy Says:

    BSK, I think that's right. But we are not hanging out the opinions of a 19-year-old out to dry. That's a straw man that is being used in this argument. We are hanging out to dry the fact that a grown ass man will not take responsibility and denounce racist comments he made as a youth.

    If this was a white player explaining that he honestly hated black people when he was in college, and made racist comments to black players in college because "that's honestly how he felt at the time," that would put said player in the wrong. Well, Uncle Tom is just as charged a racist term as the n-word. Rose needs to unequivocally, now, say that he was wrong in his youth - rather than glorify his ignorant comments in his documentary.

  21. Tadpole Says:

    BSK -

    Why are you reading so much into this? Even more than the documentary implies.

    C'mon man!! These guys are not the epitomy of socially and economically repressed black teenagers who were demonized by white middle and upper class males, and then rose above it all to become cult heroes... as they would love to be portrayed. They weren't even the forerunners of baggy pants, bald heads, or anything else related to College basketball. There was (and still is) simply more media available which gave them a platform to express their viewpoints. I believe it's more about EGO feeding and $$.

    All the barriers they imply they had broken thru as a team of young black men was done 25 years ahead of them by the '66 Texas Western team. What those men experienced set the bar and broke the barrier for what adversity really was (is) for young teenage black men trying to accomplish greatness in the college sports world.

    On another note: The '60 NCAA Champion OSU Buckeyes, made up sophomores, set the standard for winning when it comes to collegians in their 1st year of college eligibility. And then were also in the finals the next 2 years. The Fab 5 accomplishments don't begin to compare to that record.

  22. BSK Says:

    P Middy-

    First off, you are setting up a false equivalency. Rose didn't say he hates middle-class black folks. He said he was bitter towards them, largely because of his and his family's own failing and struggles. To say that is the same as a white player spouting off racism is simply not true. And, yes, the use of the term "Uncle Tom" is troubling. As I said earlier, I think Rose and Hill should sit down man to man and talk it out and if, after that, they feel there is a need for further clarification, they/he should absolutely provide it. And, if a white player who did once harbor racial embitterment or resentment came out and owned that and discussed how and why he held those feelings as a youth, I would not lambast him (many would, but I wouldn't... for one, I am a white male who did harbor such feelings at one point in my youth, which I can now own and disavow through growth and change).

    Tadpole-
    The Fab5 may not have been the cultural icons the documentary purported them to be. For myself, as a 8-9-10-year-old during their college careers, I was fascinated by their approach because it resonated with me. The testaments you heard from other prominent members of the black community also demonstrated that there was real currency to what they were doing. Did they set the world ablaze? No. But did they matter? Yes. And their impact was probably far more acute within the black community, so I think it is presumptuous for the white folks in this conversation (I do not know if you are one of them or not) to tell the black community how much the Fab5 did or didn't matter.

    There has always been friction between middle-class and lower-class blacks. In my experience and understanding, their is fault to both sides. I think Rose was touching on how he felt that friction between himself and players like Hill and on how the dichotomy that existed between Duke and Michigan seemed to exemplify this fractious relationship. Does that make Rose's feelings right? No. But it does explain them and puts the rivalry that existed between those players and teams in context.

    I still haven't see anyone offer any evidence that the Fab5 were not smart enough to attend Duke, as so many contended earlier in the thread. That just goes back to the perception that any time we see a disparity in racial representation within elite groups, it is a function of the minority group lacking the "qualifications" for admission, thereby excusing the dominant group of taking accountability for exclusive practices. All we know is that outside of Webber (who attended a highly regarded prep school), none of the members of the Fab5 were recruited by Duke. Clearly, they weren't lacking in basketball acumen. It is possible they were lacking academically, though there is no evidence of this and everything I've seen of Rose, Webber, and Howard at least demonstrate them to be fairly intelligent individuals. But if they were not lacking in these two areas, where were they lacking? Culturally. And you can say, "Well, Duke was recruiting players who would 'fit in' there." To which I say, "Yea, that is just more coded racism."

  23. BSK Says:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6227464

    Love Wilbon's take here. I think he said what I was trying to far, far better.

    And, just to clarify, I am taking absolutely NO issue with the Hill family. They should not be begrudged a thing and the use of the term "Uncle Tom" in relation to them was ugly, unfair, and unfortunate. Even though I may not agree with every word of Hill's letter, I do understand, recognize, and appreciate his perspective on the matter and think he has handled it well. I think the title of this post is unfortunate, as the issue is not really "Hill vs Rose", but a far more complex one.

  24. P Middy Says:

    BSK -- Rose is not owning the comments. He still has not disavowed them. He's just made excuses for having those feelings. And Uncle Tom IS a hateful word. I think all you need to do is look at Hill's reaction to see just how powerful a word it is.

  25. Tadpole Says:

    Wilbon undoubtedly has a deeper understanding of both men than anyone posting here. And I can accept his high opinion of both men.

    Any good intentions aside, the fact remains that the documentary contained incendiary commentary. The resulting effect was a stoking of the black-on-black, black-on-white divide(s). WHY? Why does someone of his influence (and of both races) always seem to pick at that wound? Society never gets the chance to heal the prejudices of our fathers and grandfathers.

    Rose could have advanced his humanitarian causes better by making a brief reference to the fact that he was an angry young black man 20 years ago, then came to a realization that he didn't serve society or his life's purpose well with that attitude.

    Instead, the project came across as self-serving, bitter, racist, and arrogant. Better to have left those feelings in the past where they belong. A great piece of advice received when I was a much younger man...
    The only purpose served by airing your dirty laundry in public is your own. You always keep a close tight circle in that respect. It's only harmful gossip with the masses.

  26. David Says:

    My take: much ado about nothing, can we actually watch/discuss a game of basketball now?

  27. BSK Says:

    P Middy-

    Who does he have to disavow them to? You? Me? The public? Hill? The black community? I'm not one for grandstanding. I think it's clear that Rose's feelings now are different than they were then. I don't know if his choice of words was accidental or deliberate, whether he was attempting to stoke hatred or give insight into the mindset of himself (and potentially many other black youths) at the time. I can't speak to any of that. I'm content with what I've seen from him, looking at the whole picture. If you need more, that's cool, but obviously I am not the right person to talk to about it.

    As others have touched on, what is most troubling is that THIS has become a huge topic of conversation when there are far uglier instances of racism. Is there a place and time for a conversation within the black community about class relations? Absolutely. And I don't fault those of us here talking about it, mind you; this is a basketball board and a basketball conversation. It's just frustrating that this is the most that many people will engage racial dialogue. If we think Rose's comments are the most racist thing that happened regarding basketball this week, then we've all got our heads up our asses.

  28. Sean Says:

    Jalen Rose VS Grant Hill is a blow-out win for Grant Hill.

    Neil openly wonders which man has grown more as a person in the last 20 years?

    That's a bit unfair to Mr. Hill. See, when you're a bitter, ignorant ass like Jalen Rose was------there's no place to go but up. 20 years ago, Jalen Rose was still stuck in the starting block as a man and Hill was well into the figurative 1600 meters that is 'growing up'. If Hill FINISHED growing up before Rose STARTED-----it's ridiculous to suggest Rose should get the freaking medal, here. (And I know that nobody really 'finishes' growing as a person---we're all works in progress---but y'all get what I'm saying).

    Rose was more comfortable taking shots as an idiot 19 year old at the Hill family than he was coming to grips with how awful a father his daddy was. It's a defense mechanism of sorts for a weak kid. He needed to do it back then to be able to live with just how lousy a man his father was. It's not uncommon.

    Of course, TODAY, Jalen Rose is NOT an ignorant, bitter 19 year old. But he's still responsible for everything the younger version of himself said and did. The problem I see is that he bascially shirks that responsibility 'because it was a long time ago and I don't feel that way anymore'. That is a bunch of CRAP, Jalen. You owe people an apology. It was a long time ago-------but it was still YOU. His retraction of all those ugly things he said should be just as dramatically presented as the ugly things were. You don't make FRONT PAGE accusations----then make a cryptic 2-line retraction on page 16 later. That's just irresponsible and classless.

    I predict Jalen Rose will 'grow more as a person than Grant Hill in the NEXT 20 years', too----if for no other reason than Rose has so much farther to go....STILL.

    He had every opportunity to directly retract those ugly things IN that documentary that HE helped produce-----but he left it all flapping on the wind with his weak, passive 'I don't feel that way anymore' pose. You don't feel that way about WHAT, Jalen? Be bold. Spell it out. It's amazing how 'lost for words' mouthy ignoramuses become sometimes.

    It's obvious Duke made the right choice not pursuing him.

    And I'm no Dukie---but Duke's non-interest in him had NOTHING to do with skin color... so anybody who tries to make it a race thing is pathetic. Is Duke snobbish? I can't even say 'perhaps' with a straight face---but why should I think they care about skin color as much as even Jalen Rose might? They supposedly went hard after Webber------is WEBBER an 'Uncle Tom', Jalen? How comfortable do you think C-Web was listening to Rose's bitterness about who Duke recruits? Webber was 'one of THEM', afterall. Do you think Rose gave an ounce of crap about how Webber might feel about the disparaging remarks Rose was making about Duke recruiting targets? Obviously, no. But Jalen Rose was a bitter, insecure dope. It was just easier to blame the Hills. Irresponsible people always find it easier to blame someone else.

  29. Sean Says:

    BSK says in #27:

    Who does he have to disavow them to? You? Me? The public? Hill? The black community? I'm not one for grandstanding..................

    As others have touched on, what is most troubling is that THIS has become a huge topic of conversation when there are far uglier instances of racism. Is there a place and time for a conversation within the black community about class relations? >>>>>>

    Personally, I think the 'grandstanding' disavowing/ retraction------needn't be anymore grand than the initial presentation of the ugly comments were... but they shouldn't be any LESS grand, either. If you want to accuse so-and-so of being something ugly by taking out a full page ad---------you better take out ANOTHER full page ad when you retract it----JMO.

    Also, my personal opinion is that the Duke non-pursuit of Rose is about 'class division' (which is ugly in it's own right---and basically snobbish) and NOT about race, which gets tossed around too eagerly, IMO-------and ultimately it steals attention from the REAL racist wrongdoings that deserve everybody's attention.

    Duke would NOT have taken in Jethro Bodine---as white as he is---BEFORE Jed Clampett struck Texas Tea with his huntin' rifle, I reckon. AFTER the Black Gold was found, I suspect they would have not only given him a full scholarship-----but named a library after him. JMO.

  30. P Middy Says:

    #27 - he glorified his comments at the cost of Hill and other African Americans on the team, he should apologize to them. Pretty obvious. Don't make this more complicated than it is. You do an asshole thing, you apologize for it to the people that it hurt. It's a pretty basic cultural behavior.

  31. Mr. Understood Says:

    Man I loved Grant Hill growing up, but now I can never be more angry at him. Why? Because like many people above, he just doesn't get it. He completely misconstrued an argument that had merit into a "he called me a bad name." Really Grant Hill wrote 3000 words saying "that's not nice and that hurt my feelings." Rose's argument wasn't primarily Rose is an Uncle Tom. Yes he said it, but really it was, that duke doesn't recruit guys like me, they recruit people like you, and its not based on our personalities, but our social class. This speaks for a lot of young men, and if you think that every inner city kid, is some rough kid with no morals and would punch you square in the face you're wrong. But this is the feeling that many in this country hold and refuse to offer these kids opportunities because of it.

    Grant Hill had a couple of options, not respond, go to the tv media and respond truthfully and respond to this argument about his school. Most including myself, would have been cool if he would have just owned. "Yeah I went to Duke, a good part of me went their for the education, thus I stayed all four years." Good, but no he choose to go to the NY Times of all places, which I felt and many felt was to speak to his people, to get on his side. What a bad move. He used the platform of the NY Times to whine, instead of brining light to the situation and kids all over the area.

  32. Mr. Understood Says:

    * all over the U.S.

    So whats up with the Uncle Tom name calling and why did he not go after CWebb?

    I believe that Rose gave CWebb a pass because he knows him personally, and because more importantly, he didn't go there. To Rose, Hill was part of the problem. Why give a school like Duke that recruits a majority white kids, a token black guy. Really, isn't this what Duke does. So to Rose Hill was that token black guy, Uncle Team, that enabler.

  33. Sean Says:

    Grant Hill responded publicly to something that was said about HIM, publicly. There's no crime. He had a couple options? IMO, he went with a good one, frankly. I mean HOW MUCH bigger of a man than Jalen Rose does Hill have to be to NOT 'be the bad guy' to some folks here? It's laughable.

    Jalen Rose crossed a line that is no less crossed because insulting Hill wasn't Rose's 'primary' objective. 'I owe you NO apology, sir, for knocking your family into traffic----because my PRIMARY objective for clumsily barging into your group was to cross the street... and I was angry'.

    Ehhh...NO. That guy owes an apology for knocking people into traffic.

    I would find it ridiculous if Jalen Rose believes in some statute of limitations for apologies. 'I owe no apology because that thing was said a loooong time ago----even though I am the one who just dredged it up again'...

    The argument that 'Rose has grown since then----and therefore doesn't owe an apology' is awful. Isn't 'growing to the point where you realize you were WRONG' (if that's what Rose believes now---though how would anyone know because he has been so terrible at clarifying his current position)THE 'perfect' time to apologize? Isn't that WHEN most apologies come out? When the person no longer feels as they did when they said the ugly thing? If Rose is apologetic, I'm not seeing it. He should be apologetic. And just as publicly and dramaticly as he was ugly. JMO.

  34. Sean Says:

    At #32:

    Why give a school like Duke that recruits a majority white kids, a token black guy. Really, isn't this what Duke does.>>>>>>>

    No. I really don't think that's what Duke does.

  35. Mr. Understood Says:

    #34. I was speaking of the viewpoint of Rose, and actually a lot of people. And I guess to clarify Duke may not have had a token Black Guy but maybe have one or two. Is there a better example right now than Grant Hill, or maybe its Nolan Smith right now. Didn't Sheldon Williams fill the role after Luol Deng left, and if I remember correctly Tranjon Langdon did so also before Coach K got desperate and put Jay Will, Boozer, and Battier on the floor.

  36. Mr. Understood Says:

    @Sean
    Why does he have to be apologetic?

    Many people feel this is true, including myself and most of my friends.

  37. Sean Says:

    At #35... I think maybe there's some folks here concerned FAR more with race than Duke is.

    At #36... Why does he have to be apologetic? He made personal, inflammatory remarks publicly about specific people. That's not enough?

    You and your friends feel that what Rose said at age 19 is true----even though Rose no longer does (supposedly)? I guess it must be true AND acceptable, then.

    Rose CLEARLY should take responsibility for his attack and apologize. What I don't get is why Hill owes Rose command over his future as a high school senior/recruit. That's possibly the most ridiculous concept in this whole thing.

    I'm fascinated that the boorish, ignorant, jealous, childish guy who lashed out at an innocent party minding his own business is viewed as the protagonist here by anyone.

  38. Mr. Understood Says:

    #37
    Obviously we're at two different sides of the spectrum. What I don't get is, why you insist on Rose apologizing, and what would he apologize for, calling him an Uncle Tom? Ok fine that's fair, and I can agree with, but that wasn't the basis of his argument. Should he apologize for everything else that he said, his description of Grant Hill and how it fit in with the culture of Duke, and how his description of himself did not? Why should he apologize for saying that when its true. I just don't understand where you're coming from.

    You sound almost like Grant Hill. You're so caught up in the word "Uncle Tom" that you're missing the bigger picture. Ok focus in on an apology and make the the highlight of what you have to say, while everyone else discusses race dynamics and how it plays into the recruitment of basketball players.

    The oddest thing is, you identify Jalen Rose as being jealous. Well guess who else identified himself as being jealous, Jalen Rose !!! That was one of the basis for his arguments. Pretty much to summarize, "wow Grant Hill has a great family, he has a loving mom and dad, I want that... but wait, wow there's a school that caters to people like Grant Hill and his family"... To take the point a step further, "when did a school ever cater to me"

  39. Mr. Understood Says:

    @Sean

    You ask, why does Rose command Hill's future. You have a point, but maybe the larger point is, collectively, why doesn't every Jalen Rose out there command Hill's future. Why didn't Hill recognize that there is something greater than himself, and that he can go to any school, why Duke? Maybe the experiences of others, should guide you in a particular direction. One can ask did he go to Duke because he wants to be surrounded by like minded people, and not have to play with people with lesser backgrounds? Hill should have titled his piece "Why I went to Duke"

    If you want an apology out of Rose, its not going to happen. Mainly because he probably still agrees with what he said, maybe not the Uncle Tom part but most of it. If you look at the documentary he called Hill an Uncle Tom without the context of a teenager. He put it in context of his own life, which is more valid than name calling.

  40. Sean Says:

    # 38:

    Obviously we're at two different sides of the spectrum. What I don't get is, why you insist on Rose apologizing, and what would he apologize for, calling him an Uncle Tom? Ok fine that's fair, and I can agree with>>>>>>>>

    Wonderful. We agree. It's lovely that Jalen Rose has gone down this road of self-exploration. Unfortunately, he personally attacked people publicly along the way who were just minding their own business-------for THAT, he owes an apology. Simple.

    I think referring to Hill's public rebuttal of a public attack as 'whining' is misguided. Hill's response was appropriate, justified, eloquent and powerful. The whiner is Rose. He's just so wrapped up in himself, that he hasn't bothered to notice that he personally & directly offended other people. Egocentricism & whining often go together.

    There's a joke/ story where 2 people are walking down a street and they pass an alley and hear muffled moans of pain. They rush down the alley to investigate and uncover a person who is battered and near death. They ask 'what happened' and the person says they were just walking down the street when they were attacked and beaten and robbed and left to die... with that, the 2 passersby run out of the alley-------and the near death mugging victim cries out 'where are you going? I need help! Please!' The 2 passersby yell back as they disappear around the corner: 'We're going to find out who did this to you! They must REALLY need out help!'

    The twisting we do to make the offensive, aggressor the 'victim' in some cases is most interesting.

  41. BSK Says:

    And here we are. Everyone wants to hoot and holler about racism and classism when it is a black guy making a comment. Meanwhile, our country and many of our leading pundits engage in and spout blatant racial, class, and gender exploitation on a daily basis. But we're going to hang out anti-racist hats on Jalen Rose's comment. Sheesh. We're totally post-racial!

  42. P Middy Says:

    BSK, Neil asked for opinions, and I think people have been giving good ones here. I find the discussion thoughtful and useful. Of all the things to complain about, the fact that we are discussing this is not one of them.

    Mr. Understood, your point about context is off-point. You can honestly think someone is an Uncle Tom all you want, and you can define it in your own special (i.e. WRONG) way, but once you accuse someone of being an Uncle Tom on National TV, you've done a wrong to that person. Stupidity is not an excuse for bad behavior.

    I can't say this enough. Just because you are HONESTLY wrong, doesn't mean you are right somehow. Those Duke players were not traitors to the black community. If Jalen is pissed about his father being an absentee, maybe he should call HIM an Uncle Tom, instead of falsely placing that blame on Hill and his family.

  43. P Middy Says:

    This column speaks well as to why Rose's comments, aside for being factually incorrect and unnecessarily harsh towards Hill, are seriously problematic:

    http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/view.bg?&articleid=1324513&format=&page=2&listingType=sco#articleFull

    "The sad thing about this approach is it celebrates poverty and hardship and frowns upon prosperity and blessing.
    That has nothing to do with measuring a person by race. That is measuring a person by his economic rank."

    and also adds:

    On Thursday, Rose backtracked somewhat and told USA Today he now has "great respect and appreciation for Duke." Maybe that will serve a dual purpose:

    It might shut up the baiters that see racism everywhere. And it might show some folks that America is no place for class warfare.

  44. Sean Says:

    At #42:

    I would like to know that Jalen saved the lion's share of his public, peronal, offensive name-calling attacks for they guy who REALLY hampered him-------DADDY.

    I haven't seen it, but I trust that the 'now grown' Rose who 'sees the big picture that so many of us supposedly do not' has ripped his father to shreds publicly and called him horrid, offensive names.

    If he hasn't.... maybe in another 20 years he'll figure out what the REAL 'big picture' is....a shortage of fathers who fulfill their responsibility of mentoring & guiding young men they brought into this world.

    There's a lot of people with daddy issues. Many of them never focus that angst on the appropriate party, though. And the rest of us have to hear them whine, lash out and displace their anger at people minding their own business. It gets old.

  45. Sean Says:

    At # 41:

    We're totally post-racial!>>>>>>

    I fear our world will never be. Or, when we are post-racial (and not in our lifetimes), it will be something else that divides people bitterly------but only IF we allow it to.

    Remember the 'Brown Eyes VS Blue Eyes' experiment in the 1960s (I think)?

    Man is a weak, insecure animal. Insecurity breeds ill feelings and ugly words and actions. We just have to rise above and appreciate the character of the individual. And call out the people yelling 'racism' when it's something else. Some people play the 'sexist' card when it's not there (and racism and sexism exist and need to be vetted------but it's counter productive when folks develop a neuroses regarding race and gender as if there was some constant conspiracy along racial and gender lines in everything that doesn't break someone's way completely.

  46. Mr. Understood Says:

    I'm just surprised here. You guys totally don't get it and maybe you never well. Focusing on the fact that Rose called him an Uncle Tom, is valid but more strawman than valid. Rose actually gave a larger more articulated position in his documentary discussing Hill's social class and Duke's empathy toward that rather than those of lesser class. Am I missing something, or are you guys just ignoring this. Wilbon and Chris Broussard choose to ignore the same point with their, "Acting White" argument wherein if someone is educated they are acting White. That's totally strawman, as it doesn't even address what Rose was talking about.

    Are we in a post-racial society, hmm no. There has to be a lot more mixed people for that to start.

  47. Sean Says:

    At #46...

    Here's 'lesson learned' for Mr. Rose, though I suspect he's too stupid to 'get it':

    The 'bigger picture' he was getting at-------gets lost on people who are completely put off by his personal public attack and LACK of apology for such.

    You want his 'bigger message' to get through----but Rose destroys those chances because he carries himself as an ass, offending people who are minding their own business and agitating others who are tired of whiners and their displaced anger because their daddy was a piece of garbage.

    As much as certain people can't believe that Rose owes apologies for being offensive---the irony is that it would have helped get his 'bigger message' out.

    Go back to the lab, Jalen, for another 20 years and try to come up with something else.

    You've heard of "you had me at hello"? Well Jalen Rose LOST an awful lot of people at "Whaaaaa!"

  48. Anon Says:

    "The 'bigger picture' he was getting at-------gets lost on people who are completely put off by his personal public attack and LACK of apology for such."

    Well, you can always choose to focus on that instead of the grander issues that are the driving force behind the discussion.

    Wrong as Rose was for his comment about Hill, to get so wrapped up in his apology to Hill - which I hope he did already, or SHOULD do if he hasn't yet - is overlooking more important issues here.

  49. Sean Says:

    #48---

    The point is that no matter how great the 'larger, more important issue' is.... it doesn't make it through to the intended audience when you behave in a manner that is boorish, antagonistic and offensive.

    Rose kills his own message. Blame ROSE.

  50. Sean Says:

    If Rose apologizes, he gains a larger audience for his 'larger' issue.

    Has he apologized? Publicly? On a scale equivalent to the drama of the insults?

    Whether anyone likes it or not------his 'bigger point' will be lost until he clears that debris away. Debris that HE created.

    It's his call. There's no one to blame for the message not getting through but himself.

  51. Sean Says:

    I worked with a guy who very desperately wanted a certain position at work. He had an interview scheduled and I helped him prepare for it. We went over what to do and what not to do. He had wanted the job for a while----years----and he kept getting passed over. Frankly, it was with good reason as he was NOT the most stable guy there. Anyway, he dressed the part, looked the part and had prepared what to say. He was bitter for all of the rejections in the past------but today was a new day. The interview seemed to go fine at 1st... but a few minutes in, he stood up and pointed at everyone on the panel and said 'You people BETTER give me this $@@&!! job'! ......Well, it was over right there. Forever. There was NO going back. It didn't matter if the next thing out of his mouth was the cure for cancer------no one was listening.

    He had no one to blame for losing that audience forever. Jalen Rose has it better. He can still reach his targeted audience... but he has some work to do to disarm that target audience. So, far, he's done nothing but encourage that audience to hit 'mute'.

    It's his move again.

  52. Mr. Understood Says:

    @Sean

    The bigger point will be lost? No, it's not lost, it was there the whole time, you have people telling you exactly what the bigger point is !!! You just choose to ignore it looking for an apology. Again, you're essentially using this apology fit, as a giant straw man argument to ignore the real issues.

    Seriously, Sean you're hurting your own credibility.

  53. Anon Says:

    "The point is that no matter how great the 'larger, more important issue' is.... it doesn't make it through to the intended audience when you behave in a manner that is boorish, antagonistic and offensive."

    No it doesn't. That's because I'm not an idiot about what the backstory behind this whole controversy is about. One that has been caused by the sad race relations in this country for many generations.

    Rose SHOULD apologize. We also need to stop kidding ourselves about what the most important issues are here.

  54. Sean Says:

    #52--- I'm not ignoring ANYTHING as I look for an apology. I'm just ALSO looking for an apology.

    And don't keep track of my credibility for me, please. You haven't the 1st clue about it.

    #53--- YOU don't miss 'the larger point'... I wasn't counting YOU among that part of the audience. I am also NOT saying people who don't WANT TO hear beyond Rose's offensive remarks are IDIOTS, though----as you seem to be. I'm saying that he LOSES his audience (at least a large part of it) with his offensive remarks. If HE wants to poo-pooh that, then he's not likely to reach everyone he wants to reach. It's NOT about people being idiots... it's about people not having time for fools who offend people then don't take responsibility for it.

    And what do YOU think are the most important issues here? What has taken the more mature Rose 20 years to discover?

  55. Sean Says:

    I am also NOT saying people who don't WANT TO hear beyond Rose's offensive remarks are IDIOTS, though----as you seem to be>>>>>>>>>>>

    That sounds like I'm calling YOU an idiot, Anon-----I'm not. I'm saying that YOU'RE calling people idiots.

  56. BSK Says:

    Sean-

    Why do you need an apology? How did Rose harm you? You don't need or deserve shit from Rose. Since you were not the one harmed by his comments, why are you incapable of seeing past the harmful parts of them to the bigger issue he was addressing? You're being deliberately obtuse because you see a reason to discredit Rose and you'd rather not address the real issue.

  57. Ricardo Says:

    Obviously, Sean would like to see Rose apologize to Hill, NOT SEAN.

    Now who's being obtuse?

  58. Ricardo Says:

    And by the way, that's quite a leap to suggest that calling Grant Hill an Uncle Tom was some sort of grand sociological commentary.

  59. huevonkiller Says:

    #57 Sean also wants to see Rose apologize, for Sean's sake. He has a personal stake in this apology now, because otherwise he will just skim over the larger picture.

    "Whether anyone likes it or not------his 'bigger point' will be lost until he clears that debris away. Debris that HE created.

    It's his call. There's no one to blame for the message not getting through but himself."

    Sean is admitting that nuance should be ignored because he is so offended.

    #58

    Can you quote what you're referring to? People are referring to the entire issue, not just calling out Hill.

  60. Ricardo Says:

    I'm not going to respond at length for Sean - I assume that he'll come back and speak for himself - so I'll make this as short as I can. His statement: "Whether anyone likes it or not------his 'bigger point' will be lost until he clears that debris away. Debris that HE created. It's his call. There's no one to blame for the message not getting through but himself." seems to refer to how other people will tune out Jalen Rose for his comments. I think Sean is on the same wavelength as I am about this; I don't THINK Rose is that guy now. But he deply offended somebody with that statement, and, casting aside all other issues, it's simply the decent human thing to do to publicly disavow what he said before and apologize to Hill.

    I don't think any of you would take up for the offender here if he was white. Just a guess, though.

    As for #58: some of you, in your zeal to defend Rose, have turned his offensive comment made in a very specific context into "Jalen Rose: Social Commentator". As if to say, "Rose wasn't really disrespecting Hill's authenticity, he was making a statement about true socio-economic tension that plagues the black community today." There are two problems with this:

    1) Jalen Rose is stupider than a bag of hammers.

    2) You can't have this both ways. You can't on the one hand dismiss Rose's statement as the ramblings of a young, ignorant kid and then turn around and elevate his words into being some sort of revolutionary insight on class struggle.

  61. BSK Says:

    What evidence do you have that Jalen Rose is stupider than a bag of hammers? Why is it okay for you to hurl such insults at him but not okay for him to share a negative perception he held of an opponent 20 years ago?

  62. Ricardo Says:

    What evidence do you have that Jalen Rose is stupider than a bag of hammers? Why is it okay for you to hurl such insults at him but not okay for him to share a negative perception he held of an opponent 20 years ago?

    One: I've listened his "analyses" on ESPN.

    Two: Compare the situations.

    Anyway, which is it? Was Jalen Rose just an ignorant teenager, or was he making a larger point about black culture that Hill and others are just too dim to get?

  63. Sean Says:

    At #59...

    Sean also wants to see Rose apologize, for Sean's sake. He has a personal stake in this apology now, because otherwise he will just skim over the larger picture.

    Sean is admitting that nuance should be ignored because he is so offended.
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    What an imagination. You're WAAAAAAAY off.

  64. Sean Says:

    At #60

    I'm not going to respond at length for Sean - I assume that he'll come back and speak for himself - so I'll make this as short as I can. His statement: "Whether anyone likes it or not------his 'bigger point' will be lost until he clears that debris away. Debris that HE created. It's his call. There's no one to blame for the message not getting through but himself." seems to refer to how other people will tune out Jalen Rose for his comments. I think Sean is on the same wavelength as I am about this; I don't THINK Rose is that guy now. But he deply offended somebody with that statement, and, casting aside all other issues, it's simply the decent human thing to do to publicly disavow what he said before and apologize to Hill.>>>>>>>

    Thank you, Ricardo. That's pretty much on point.

    Correct, I do not think that Rose is 'that guy' now.
    Correct, I do think aplogizing to Hill is simply the decent thing to do.
    NO, I have no desire for an apology to ME by Rose, nor do I want an apology to Hill BY Rose for MY sake-----it's ridiculous even repeating that crap.
    Correct, Rose impedes the 'getting out of the message' by turning some of the audience off by the offensiveness of his attacks on the guy minding his own business (Hill).

    I remember a concert for NYC Firefighters and Police soon after 9-11. Richard Gere, the actor, came on stage between numbers----and mind you the audience was largely surviving NYC Police & Firefighters of 9-11 and their loved ones----and Gere began to implore the audience to try to 'understand the hijackers/ terrorists'. He was booed off the stage. He had turned people off and no matter WHAT he wanted to say----it wasn't going to be heard. To this day, I have no idea what wisdon (if any) Gere COULD HAVE imparted-----because the live crowd wasn't listening to ANYTHING he said after his opening line.

    Whether it's unwise or wrong or anything else anyone wants to call it for an audience segment to tune out a speaker-----you CAN lose your audience. It's human nature. It's NOT necessarily about audiences being IDIOTS, tuning out someone's message--------we all have 1,000 people have our ear(s) everyday between the TV and Radio and the internet and the print media, etc.---but people merely have this built-in 'dump button'. Some of those 1,000 voices have to filtered out. And as soon as someone is talking like a douche bag-----they greatly increase the risk of being dumped.

    I try to stay abreast of politics, but I find it ever-increasingly impossible to listen to anyone. All of the old faces have an agenda and everyone seems a hypocrite. There are some people who have used up their last chip with me-----and they might have something (FINALLY) good to say.... but I'm done with them. The odds are that everytime they open their mouths, it's just more predictable garbage from them... and as someone with finite time to listen, I dump them-----and maybe I'll dump them right when they were going to impart great wisdom, but I'll take that risk.

    Had Jalen Rose apologized to Grant Hill IN that documentary------there's no telling how much wider his audience would be. JMO.

    Now I DIDN'T dump Jalen Rose. But I suspect people did. All you have to do is google the topic and see what the blogs are saying. I watched the 2 hr documentary after DVRing it. And I can go back and watch it again. I enjoyed it, but I have to be honest---------I saw no Town Hall Meeting on race and class relations.... it was a 120-minute self-gratifying stroll down memory lane for the Fab 5... and the most repeated topic WASN'T anything to do with better understanding race and class issues--------but rather how COOL the Fab 5 were and how infectious their fashion style was. This was NOT required viewing for an honors course in socio-economics. Anyone who is pretending it was some great, deep piece on race and class structure in America is stoned.

    I did find it ironic that several times Fab 5 members lamented being judged by superficial appearances with anyone really KNOWING anything about them---------only to have them forming all kinds of opinions about Duke players and how Duke is run and what Duke is about. I felt sorry for how dopey they came off at times.

    Rose doesn't HAVE TO apologize to anyone. But he'd likely be better recieved if he did----and you'd think a guy with a message (if he has one) would want the biggest audience he could garner. It's also the decent thing to do.

    Maybe in another 20 years.

  65. BSK Says:

    Sean-

    You've acknowledged that you understand Rose had a bigger point, though presented it sloppily and insultingly. You clearly ARE capable of seeing beyond the delivery, or you wouldn't have understood the bigger point. Yet, you refuse to engage the bigger point because of poor form. That is being deliberately obtuse. If you were so offended and turned off that you missed the message, that is one thing. But you are essentially saying, "Many people might be offended and miss the point. I'm not one of them. But because the potential for that is there, I'm going to deliberately ignore the point." That is intellectually dishonest and demonstrates that you have some sort of ax to grind against either Rose, his message, or both. If that is how you are going to approach this conversation, then there is no reason in carrying on with it.

  66. P Middy Says:

    what's Rose's revolutionary point here again? Poor people are jealous of the well-off? What social commentary! What amazing insight!

    Rose's point was this: WE WERE BLACKER.

    The problem is that he thinks having a terrible dad and growing up poor means you're somehow blacker than someone with money and family. Blatantly false and loaded with bad, no good, horrible connotations and expectations.

    ALSO You can't make a point by calling someone an Uncle Tom, because there's no such thing. Nobody sets out to betray their culture/race. And they certainly don't do that just by living a charmed life.

  67. Tadpole Says:

    To: P. Middy

    "Rose's point was this: WE WERE BLACKER."

    I concur with that. But in following all these postings, it seems that the original subject matter and message has morphed into some of the posters' own ideological messages. Maybe me included.

    I still think this:

    Yes, they think they were blacker....and cool...and original...and trend setters...and culture setters.....and icons.

    There were not, and are not, any of the above. Only in their own minds.

    But the documentary was certainly made to relive and revive those points, feed their egos, and create controversy again. Which all leads to the ultimate goal of just making BIG $$......period. Follow the money honey....And as we all know, THAT point never changes.

    The collateral damage doesn't matter. The social debates don't matter. And I'm sure it was expected. Twenty years later, it's still all about me me me me and me.

  68. BSK Says:

    Tadpole-

    Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous to speak for the entire world and declare that the Fab5 was not cool or trend setters or icons? Perhaps they were not as big a deal as they imagine themselves to be. But as a young kid, I thought they were dope as hell and definitely wanted to emulate them. They very well may have been emulating others, but they were my first exposure to many things and, as such, were the ones I think of when I think of those things. There are some ways we can objectively analyze a cultural phenomenon, there is also a lot that is subjective and contextual. For many folks of my generation and the generation slightly older than mine (I'm 27), the Fab5 were a huge deal. Maybe not as huge as they wished or imagined, but a big deal nonetheless. To deny that is to deny reality.

  69. Sean Says:

    BSK claims this of Sean>>>>

    But you are essentially saying, "Many people might be offended and miss the point. I'm not one of them. But because the potential for that is there, I'm going to deliberately ignore the point." >>>>>>>>>

    That is a FANTASTIC story. It's a ball of crap, though. Where do you get that I am deliberately ignoring ANYTHING in that 2 hour documentary? Is this where we're going? We're going to fabricate what each other is saying now? That's pitiful.

  70. huevonkiller Says:

    Well #60 and #64, I think BSK has done a pretty good job addressing his views. He's shown how emotional Sean is and how he needs his ego satisfied by a Rose apology, or he'll continue being obtuse.

    Ricardo, it is possible to provide insightful commentary while using excessive or indecent language. I could act like a jerk about any issue but still hold the technically correct perspective.

  71. huevonkiller Says:

    #69

    Really, how exactly should we interpret what you said in #47?

  72. Sean Says:

    P Middy Says:
    March 22nd, 2011 at 12:18 pm
    what's Rose's revolutionary point here again? Poor people are jealous of the well-off? What social commentary! What amazing insight!>>>>>>>>

    I watched the 2nd half of the documentary initially, then DVR'd the next showing----and then watched it in it's entirety.

    I enjoyed the program. It was thought provoking. But NOT because of any presentation that Rose did. There is plenty of fodder there from which to draw all kinds of 'bigger picture' conclusions.

    However, somewhere along this conversation, the idea that Jalen Rose was illustrating complex issues for the viewer has emerged. THAT, he wasn't doing. Like I said-----I watched the program... Jalen Rose and 3 of the other Fab5 spent 120 minutes skipping down memory lane. Jalen Rose did NOT point out larger issues to the viewer and guide the viewer to some better understanding of them.

    Mr. Understood talked about the 'bigger picture' being 'Race dynamics & how it plays into the recruitment of basketball players'------(see #38)------which is a legitimate issue for discussion... it's a shame Jalen Rose spent only a handful out of 120 minutes on that----and his manner to do so was to bemoan some people not liking him as much as they like others.

    I said in #44 that the REAL 'big picture' was 'a shortage of fathers who fulfill their responsibility of mentoring & guiding young men they brought into this world'. But ROSE didn't spend more than a couple minutes on his dad-----which REALLY is what is at the heart of his troubles. Rose COULD HAVE spent 15 minutes MINIMUM on how crushing it is when a man walks away from his son, never to have anything to do with him. Rose COULD HAVE said: "look at ME, I made it----but I'm still messed up about it after 38 years"... it would have been a terrific message to get into that more-----but he spent more time talking about a Europe trip he didn't want to be on, black socks, baggy shorts, fades, jersey sales and basketball games.

    Rose WASN'T spending any real time on the bigger picture points------he was blowing by them in favor of when the Fab5 all finally got to start or not having enough money for pizza & gas (guess how many college kids don't have enough money for pizza & gas... PLEASE.).

    Some people have been making Rose into this grand social commentator. He ISN'T. He was an executive producer for a 2-hr self-gratification session. The VIEWER has to gather all of the larger points as Rose whizzes by them to get into more exciting topics like the nuances of trash talking and what's not a crack house or the splendor that is mayonnaise sandwiches and sugar water.

    I GET IT. You were POOR. All the more reason to split dad's head open in your documentary and REALLY lay it down about how AWFUL it is when a father deserts his unborn son. THAT would have been a message. I don't understand the bizzaro dynamics of Rose's culture. Is it WRONG to call out dad and REALLY let him have it?-------because THAT IS where all this animosity was born for Duke and supposed Uncle Toms who go there.

    I don't understand the failure to REALLY hammer home the 'my dad wounded me bad by deserting----so don't do it to your sons' angle... but why should this dysfunctional culture make ANY sense? There's the 'I'm a more real black because I'm worse off than you, but I'm jealous of you even though I think I'm better than you, even though I hate my life and wish I had yours' thing. That is one awesome, convoluted sh!t circle.

    God help him and all of the childrem of deadbeat dads who screw up their kid's lives well into adulthood.

  73. Sean Says:

    At #71>>>>>>>>

    That some people are going to tune him out. I didn't say me. I've actually said that I wasn't dumping him. But people are.

  74. Sean Says:

    At #71>>>>>>>>

    See #64, which I know you read. You're not being OBTUSE, are you?

  75. Sean Says:

    Huevonkiller, tell us of the 'larger issues' in the Rose documentary. Be specific. Tell us how you feel about them.

  76. Ricardo Says:

    I still don't understand why BSK and Huevonkiller keep shifting the goalposts here.

    How is "the real issue" anything OTHER than "Jalen Rose made a deeply offensive statement and has not explicitly apologized for it"?

    What are people like Sean, P Middy, and myself missing?

    I think part of it is modern PR. These days, the rules for public apologies seem to be these:

    1) Never apologize unless it's completely unavoidable
    2) You were either misquoted or taken out of context
    3) Should an apology be absolutely necessary, qualify it: "If I have offended anyone, I'm sorry." "To anyone who may have been hurt, I apologize." etc.
    4) You weren't yourself at the time(the Michael Richards defense)

    Rose seems to be taking #4 there. Fortunately for him, he's got apologists spinning his thoughtless comment into provocative social commentary.

  77. Tadpole Says:

    BSK -

    LOL. Your response to me is a perfect example of how these exchanges eventually spin completely off topic.

    I purposely prefaced my comments by saying "I still think this..."

    Yet your response begins with "Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous to speak for the entire world........."

    Yet you state, "For many folks of my generation and the generation slightly older than mine (I'm 27), the Fab5 were a huge deal...." Now that's presumptuous.

    I am much older than you. Along the way, I've learned to survey the landscape - beyond this site - and be a good listener before I engage.

    I don't agree with your youthful assessment that these guys were a "cultural phenomenon" or even a "huge deal".

    People like the Beatles and Muhammad Ali? Without a doubt. History supports that. These guys? I don't think so.

  78. BSK Says:

    Tadpole-

    It is presumptuous because you are attempting to speak on behalf of others without knowing anything about them. You can preface it with "I think..." all you want; the fact that you disregard the people who were likely most directly impacted by the Fab5 shows that you hold your opinion above all others, even those most qualified to speak.

    Ricardo-

    How are we moving the goal posts? First and foremost, I'm not one for apologies. Saying, "Whoops! I'm sorry," does very little. I believe actions speak much louder than words. I've said from the beginning that I think Rose should speak personally with Hill and they should determine the best course of action going forward. If Rose's words had an impact beyond Hill (very likely) then he should work with those harmed by his words. If he doesn't, I think it is fair to conclude that he doesn't regret what he said. And if he doesn't, I will criticize him for that. I don't know what he's done beyond closed doors, before or after the documentary, and how it relates to the often tense relationship between lower and middle/upper class blacks (groups he has shifted between in his life).

    What did Rose REALLY say? He thought that Duke recruited "Uncle Tom's" and not players like him. His belief was that Duke refused to recruit poor, urban blacks who did not conform to the culture of power. Looking at Duke's recruiting history (without knowing all the guys they went after and got away), I think that criticism is fair. Was Hill upper-middle class? Did he come from a home life that was more culturally similar to middle-class whites than poor, urban blacks? Yes. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Does that make him an Uncle Tom? No. Did Rose harbor some embitterment towards Hill? Yes. But as he spoke about in the video, it's because Hill had many things that Rose could have and should have had and didn't. Hill and Rose's fathers were both wealthy professional athletes. Rose could have had the same lifestyle as Hill, and likely would have preferred to, but was denied this because his dad was a deadbeat. As he stated, in not so many words, in the documentary, his embitterment wasn't really towards Hill but was towards the scenario, one largely of his father's making.

    Rose's criticism was entirely directed toward Duke. He did not intend to attack Hill and I think that much is clear. Was his choice of words poor? Yes. Was his framing of the issue as succinct and direct as it could and should have been? No. Does that mean we should just dismiss his point (which was primarily that Duke, and probably other schools, refuse to recruit certain types of places because of race, class, and cultural differences)? Hell no. But as long as we argue about should he or shouldn't he apologize, we ignore the real issue. Which is why race relations continue to stagnate in this country. Instead of having an opportunity to discuss a much bigger issue (though the issues between economic classes within the black community is an important one as well but one which I think the black community itself should address), we have to tear Rose down because of one unfortunate phrase. Brilliant.

  79. BSK Says:

    Tadpole-

    To further my initial comment, it is really insulting for you to tell me what mattered. Before the Fab5 documentary came out, my fiance saw Jalen Rose on TV during the NBA Celeb game. She asked who he was and I went on an immediate 15 minute rant about Rose and the Fab5 and how cool they were and how they made me interested in college b-ball and how I always wanted to play like them and look like them (despite being a scrawny white kid with limited basketball skill), etc, etc, etc. Did the Fab5 change the world? No. But was there generations of young people who were deeply impacted by them? Yes. To me, that makes them important and relevant. Is our standard for relevance that they completely change the landscape of their given field? Really? That is a high standard. They mattered. A lot. To people like me and my friends. And as the documentary showed, even amongst their black peers (the rappers featured), they mattered a whole lot.

    But keep telling us that we don't really know what we're talking about. We weren't REALLY impacted by them, inspired by them, connected with them. They were something different. They demonstrated that you didn't always have to play by arbitrary rules and might do better to flout them. Age and shorts length and attitude didn't matter as much as your ability to ball. People who were turned off by the way that Duke or UNC looked and played the game were attracted to how the Fab5 did it. Were they first to do any of the things they did? Clearly not. But for my generation, they were the most prevalent example of a different, a newer, a cooler way to play the game that many people still revere them.

  80. Ricardo Says:

    "...[Rose's point] was primarily that Duke, and probably other schools, refuse to recruit certain types of places because of race, class, and cultural differences..."

    Okay, fine. So that's the point he was making. But his unwillingness to disavow what he said, especially in light of the fact that he doesn't feel that way anymore (allegedly) is enough for me to dismiss him as a serious, intelligent commentator on such matters.

    "First and foremost, I'm not one for apologies. Saying, "Whoops! I'm sorry," does very little."

    Well sure, a giggly, insincere apology like that WOULD do very little. An appropriately worded, sincere apology does go a long way. It's gone a long way with people I've hurt, and it's gone a long way with me from those who have hurt me. It's an expression of human sympathy.

    And you're right. By itself, an apology is little. It's the steps you take in conjunction with the apology that rectify the matter.

    "But as long as we argue about should he or shouldn't he apologize, we ignore the real issue. Which is why race relations continue to stagnate in this country."

    I think we've made some enormous positive strides, even in the last twenty years. But there are certain tensions that will never go away in large part because there are political and monetary benefits for those agitators who cry racism at every opportunity. But frankly, if that's the "real issue" to this whole affair (and I don't think it is the real issue - A2D, I guess) I would prefer to ignore it on a sports site. I've spent too much time on this issue as it is, meaning no personal disrespect of course.

  81. Tadpole Says:

    BSK -

    LMFAO. You're killing me dude.

    Your lack of correctly interpeting others posts and opinions is surpassed only by your arrogance in that at 27 years old you have all the answers. It must be pretty crowded in that little bubble world you live in Professor Doogie.

    Moving on.

  82. BSK Says:

    "Okay, fine. So that's the point he was making. But his unwillingness to disavow what he said, especially in light of the fact that he doesn't feel that way anymore (allegedly) is enough for me to dismiss him as a serious, intelligent commentator on such matters."

    How many people have said things that would make us question their ability to intelligently comment on an issue? I've said my fair share of dumbass things. All of us have. If you're going to dismiss his point (which is not unique to him) simply because of an unfortunate choice of words, than you are being deliberately obtuse. You are saying, "There may be something to what you're saying, but I don't like the way you're saying it, so I'm just going to stick my fingers in my ears and ignore you." Really? Is that how discourse functions nowadays? Did Rose personally offend you? Or is his choice of words just a convenient out to avoiding confronting such a major issue as institutional racism at major universities? Wow.

  83. BSK Says:

    Tadpole-

    How about you offer a substantive argument instead of ad hominem? Your tact is one of someone who has realized he has nothing left to contribute.

  84. BSK Says:

    Tadpole:

    You said:
    "Yes, they think they were blacker....and cool...and original...and trend setters...and culture setters.....and icons.

    There were not, and are not, any of the above. Only in their own minds."

    You get to decide all of that on behalf of the world with regards to the Fab5? You hold yourself in pretty high regard, don't you? I guess your opinion completely invalidates my life experience and that of the dozens of people I know who would say the Fab5 were all those things and more.

  85. Ricardo Says:

    BSK-

    You don't get it. Rose is not a serious commentator on any subject. This is not Dr. Harry Edwards here. It's not as though I am hearing Jalen Rose speak for the first time in the last two weeks. I've made up my mind not to listen to him. I have given the man a fair hearing, and I choose not to lend him my ear any longer. If it's not sufficiently fair to you...well, I've got my own standards to live up to, not yours.

    Why does this bother you? Is there not a single commentator you have tuned out? If you tell me that you give equal weight to all voices...well, I don't believe you. Nobody does that.

    "You are saying, "There may be something to what you're saying, but I don't like the way you're saying it, so I'm just going to stick my fingers in my ears and ignore you." Really? Is that how discourse functions nowadays?"

    I am a free person in a free society. I get to decide for myself who I will listen to, when I will listen to them, what I will take out of what they say. You and I disagree on what the central issue is W/R/T the Rose-Hill incident; that's fine. I was not interested in entering a discourse on race relations in the first place, because 1) that is not what this is about, and 2) short of porn sites or model railroading forums, this is the worst place to have a discussion on race. In the extremely unlikely event that anything profoundly life-changing comes from this, no one is going to see it, except for a few people who are still looking for a way to tweak the PER formula.

    And don't "Wow." me as though my position so utterly lacks nuance. Is this your tolerance level for those with whom you disagree? I have dealt with your comments squarely, even though I disagree. Please afford me the same courtesy and stop the condescension.

  86. BSK Says:

    Ricardo-

    You've proven my point better than I could. Thank you. Enjoy living in the echo chamber you've carved out for yourself wherein you need not be bothered by things like race relations. Good for you. You have personified deliberate obtusiveness. Bravo.

  87. BSK Says:

    Ricardo-

    "...those agitators who cry racism at every opportunity."

    How did I miss that the first time around? You are not even worth attempting to discuss these issues with when you hold an attitude like that. I'm done with you.

  88. Ricardo Says:

    There's a lot you missed the first time around, you infant.

  89. sean Says:

    In #82, BSK says to Ricardo: You are saying, "There may be something to what you're saying, but I don't like the way you're saying it, so I'm just going to stick my fingers in my ears and ignore you."

    And I get the feeling that BSK is opposed to people doing this.

    In #85, Ricardo says to BSK: It's not as though I am hearing Jalen Rose speak for the first time in the last two weeks. I've made up my mind not to listen to him. I have given the man a fair hearing, and I choose not to lend him my ear any longer.

    Again, I get the message that BSK is opposed to people doing this.

    But then in #87, BSK tells Ricardo: You are not even worth attempting to discuss these issues with when you hold an attitude like that. I'm done with you.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    My question is: Did BSK just tune out RICARDO? Was RICARDO just DUMPED by BSK? Even though there may be something to what Ricardo is saying----is BSK 'sticking his fingers in his ears' and ignoring him?

    Ricardo makes up his mind not to listen to Jalen Rose anymore= BAD

    BSK makes up his mind not to listen to RICARDO anymore= OK???

    Is that what I just saw?

    Now, I HAVE NOT dumped Jalen Rose. Ricardo has. I am fine with that. People on my dump list include Rush Limbaugh, Al Sharpton, Keith Olberman (sp?)& most new to that list is Sean Hannity. That's MY perogative. And I have to admit that my dump list IS somewhat forgiving in that I DO still give these guys my ear----they're just on a VERY short leash and get dumped often and quick.

    I am also fine with BSK dumping Ricardo. I have neither dumped Ricardo OR BSK, myself. That's MY perogative.

    What I don't understand is why it's not OK for other people to DUMP... but it's OK for BSK to dump.

    I find that hilarious.

    Interesting side note** On my morning drive, on 1050 ESPN Radio, Doug Gottlieb was talking with Mike Golic about the NFL and how some of the players have come out and compared it to slavery, then have recanted what they said and apologized (at least 1 of them has)--------and Gottlieb got into the idea that has been talked about HERE: that there are some "trigger words" that we say that make the people listening just tune everything ELSE you say out. Gottlieb said this. Golic agreed. It's just the way it is. Gottlieb said comparing things to slavery gets you tuned out like comparing US political regimes to Nazis. Anytime you do that, you might as well stop-----because you've just lost your audience.

    Anyway, BSK, it's totally acceptable that you 'are done' with Ricardo even though I am NOT done with Ricardo. That's YOUR perogative. It doesn't make you stupid or obtuse or intellectually dishonest or anything you might have called others here had they dared to tune someone out.

    Enjoy the day!

  90. Ricardo Says:

    "Ricardo makes up his mind not to listen to Jalen Rose anymore= BAD

    BSK makes up his mind not to listen to RICARDO anymore= OK???

    Is that what I just saw?"

    Well, you have to understand where BSK is coming from. He used to be a bigot with an awful attitude, as he admitted in post #22:

    "if a white player who did once harbor racial embitterment or resentment came out and owned that and discussed how and why he held those feelings as a youth, I would not lambast him (many would, but I wouldn't... for one, I am a white male who did harbor such feelings at one point in my youth, which I can now own and disavow through growth and change)"

    So you see, BSK speaks with the authority of the reformed. This is why he reads very closely for subtext: because he once used code language in his daily dealings, BSK can now spot it in others. It's kind of a superpower.

    This is why BSK seems to lack reading comprehension skills. It's not that he's not reading what gets posted; he is reading INTO what gets posted.

    For example:

    "Enjoy living in the echo chamber you've carved out for yourself wherein you need not be bothered by things like race relations."

    How does one get there from here?

    "I was not interested in entering a discourse on race relations in the first place, because 1) that is not what this is about, and 2) short of porn sites or model railroading forums, this is the worst place to have a discussion on race. In the extremely unlikely event that anything profoundly life-changing comes from this, no one is going to see it, except for a few people who are still looking for a way to tweak the PER formula."

    That I don't care to discuss a complex social issue HERE is interpreted by BSK as my disinterest in the subject overall. One can understand why I (and not only I) get frustrated with the BSKs of the world.

    But I suppose, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Time for me to make a few assumptions based on what I've read from BSK posts:

    BSK lives in a world in which slavery was invented in the 1600s by the British as a tool to subjugate indigenous populations. BSK lives in a world in which no one falsely alleges racism to profit on a personal level. BSK's version of tolerance is reserved for people who basically agree with you, and everyone else is a contemptible anachronism. BSK says things like, "It's terrible what we did to Native Americans", as though we are the exact same people who stole their land and drove them into Oklahoma.

  91. Mr. Understood Says:

    and.... I'm back, really surprised you guys went on that long. I guess I have to say my background, I'm a black male who's got my edumacation (I'm very sarcastic, I know its spelled edukation) and was told many times that I was acting white growing up, but so what, I got over it. I'm able to put things in context and know the ignorance where it comes from.

    Do I think Grant Hill can accuse Jalen Rose of the same ignorance? Yes and no. The word Uncle Tom is horrible, but in context, there is a reason why his words were spoken with such anger.

    Anyway, @Sean:

    You said the greater issue here is about absent fathers. Ok, that is a huge issue, but again that pretty much ignores the arguments about Duke's recruting background. Actually, the argument you presented is exactly what Jalen Rose was talking about, "Duke won't recruit me because I don't come from a certain type of social class background and family background." Even if Rose addressed his father, which he did, it would not have been relevant to his discussion about Duke. Seriously, would it have ended something like, "well, if Jalen Rose had a dad he maybe wouldn't have been poor, thus in a higher social class, which would have persuaded Duke into recruiting him"? How screwed up does that sound.

    Granted absentee fathers is an issue, so are a lot of things, what's wrong with the inner city education system is one too, but none address Duke's messed up recruiting practices. Stay on point.

    Yup you're credibility is shot dude.

  92. sean Says:

    BSK From #68: But as a young kid, I thought they were dope as hell and definitely wanted to emulate them. (the Fab 5)

    BSK From #22: For myself, as a 8-9-10-year-old during their college careers, I was fascinated by their approach because it resonated with me.

    BSK From #22: if a white player who did once harbor racial embitterment or resentment came out and owned that and discussed how and why he held those feelings as a youth, I would not lambast him (many would, but I wouldn't... for one, I am a white male who did harbor such feelings at one point in my youth>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I'm looking at these claims by BSK and I'm forced to construct a VERY odd picture.
    I am being asked to believe that BSK LOVED the Fab 5's act at age 8.
    I am also being asked to believe that BSK 'harbored racial embitterment' as a youth.

    Am I supposed to believe that AFTER he fell in love with the Fab 5 at ages 8 through 10 (a love affair that doesn't seem like it's waned one iota 17 years later)----that he LATER had some period where he was a bitter youth along racial lines?

    OR... am I supposed to believe something even LESS believable----that BSK harbored racial embitterment BEFORE he fell in love with the Fab 5?

    Taking into account what MUST HAVE been some 'desensitization period' to get him from 'racial embitterment' to absolute adoration of an act like the Fab 5's---------I'm compelled to believe that at age 5 or 6 possibly, BSK was a racially bitter human being.

    I'm picturing a racially charged Stewie Griffin. Lemme guess: in BSK's 2nd Trimester, he kicked a descendent of Rosa Parks through his mother's abdominal wall while in her womb on a bus. His 1st words were 'damned coloreds' and after taking his 1st steps at age 11 months, he formed hist 1st lynch mob. By the age of 6, though, he had developed 'white guilt' after noticing every Easter that the BLACK jellybeans were always the last ones to be picked. By age 8, he was some pathetic mini-me version of Vanilla Ice pretending that it was the Fab 6.

    What, praytell, could have been happening in the world of BSK at age 6 that made him a 'racially embittered' person?

    I just get the feeling that somebody overstating the gravity of his life experiences to the point where at age 27 he feels he's lived more lifetimes than Count Dracula..."You are a wise man, Van Helsing, for someone who has lived but a single lifetime..."

    There's gotta be a DSM IV Disorder for that.

    C'mon. It's funny.

  93. sean Says:

    At #91: You're holding your 'credibility scale' upside down... or sideways. Let's not pretend that Rose made Duke's recruiting practices THE issue. He spent a few minutes... A FEW minutes mentioning that. Duke's recruiting practices is YOUR baby. That's YOUR bone to pick. A FAR larger issue is the complete absence of the father in the young Jalen Rose's life. That is the alpha and the omega for his troubles. And he only spent a few friggin' minutes on THAT point, too.

    What do you think Jalen Rose wanted and needed more?

    To be recruited by DUKE? Or the love of his father?

    REALLY.

  94. Mr. Understood Says:

    @Sean

    See now, here's the problem. The argument went from "How in the world can he possibly call Grant Hill that horrible word." You then provided with reasons why he called him an Uncle Tom, Duke's recruiting practices. Then it was "well that still doesn't outweigh calling the guy an Uncle Tom." You were then rebutted with other substantial arguments, which you then rebutted with "well, I can't accept that reasoning or even address that issue, unless he apologizes to Grant Hill first."

    Then, I rebutted, and you rebutted with you're apology line of thought. And I left, and now I'm back, and now you're saying.... "screw everything that we talked about in all of the other comments, let's talk about absent fathers." This was brought up in the documentary, and Rose actually addressed it, he wanted his father. BUT

    WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH GRANT HILL AND DUKE OR THE ARGUMENT YOU'VE JUST HAD OVER THE PAST WEEK. Seriously, you decided to argue something that no one is even arguing, because you're proven completely wrong. What next, is the issue "well, why did he grow up poor." Come on man.

  95. Ricardo Says:

    "Duke's messed up recruiting practices."

    Messed up how?

    I don't root for Duke; in fact I root against them all the time. This even forces me into rooting for North Carolina sometimes (ewww). But I don't get what's inherently messed up about the types of players Duke recruits.

    You know what IS messed up? At the end of his NFL career, Dexter Manley revealed that he was illiterate. This from a man who spent four years at Oklahoma State. THAT is messed up. How many schools have let down people like Manley just because they needed help on the defensive line? (And it didn't begin at OSU, obviously)

    It's a hard school to get into, for athletes and non-athletes alike. Are the recruiting practices messed up at Harvard, Stanford, and Rice, too?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University#Undergraduate_Profile

    (The wiki page breaks down the demographics and whatnot)

  96. BSK Says:

    A conversation that should be about pervasive, institutional racism has turned into a conversation about how I, one random dude, handle internet discourse.

    And THAT is why we can't get anywhere on race relations in this country. We are too busy calling "GOTCHA!", calling a black guy out for using a term like "Uncle Tom", which is certainly insidious but pales in comparison to the real racism to which he spoke, than addressing the real issue he was attempting to get at.

    But yea, have at me and my racial identity development. That is really the core issue here. Not the question of whether major institutions of education and athletics, which serve as major stepping stones to future employment and success for youths across this nation, engage in racist and classist recruiting practices.

  97. BSK Says:

    Let's summarize:

    Rose's failings:
    1.) Referring to blacks that Duke recruited (not Grant hill explicitly, but certainly implicitly) as Uncle Toms
    2.) Offering apparently sub-par NBA analysis
    3.) Potentially overstating the significance of the Fab5

    BSK's failings:
    1.) Having a complex racial identity development which included at what time idolizing and emulating black, urban culture and, at a much later time, feeling embittered towards being white in a predominantly African-American community, both feelings of which I've moved away from and disavowed
    2.) Growing frustrated with an online poster who made ad hominem attacks and demonstrated himself to be intellectually dishonest, willfully ignorant, and deliberately obtuse (an admittedly biased assessment)

    Duke's failings:
    1.) A history of recruitment that could lead to legitimate questions of how the race, class, and culture of players impacted Duke's level of interest in them and, by extension, how this limited the opportunities for poor, black, urban youth to attend one of the most prestigious academic and athletic institutions in the country

    Clearly, Rose has the MOST failings, in quantity. I certainly have the ones that are most directly relevant to the people on this board. But, in the aggregate, are we really going to say that either mine or Rose's failings on this matter match those (potentially) of Duke? Perhaps Duke is innocent of every charge levied against them, but given the severity of those charges, is it not at least worth discussing? Many here seem to be arguing that it is not, largely because of the failings of the first (or maybe first two) people on this list. To me, that is killing the messenger. Yes, Rose has his shortcomings. But I haven't seen anyone here come up with a compelling reason why there isn't room for a legitimate discussion regarding Duke's recruiting practices. If Duke is innocent of these accusations, I will be the first taking steps to clear their name, because I know that there are few things more damaging to the cause of anti-racism than false claims of racism. But right now, I stand convinced, as does Rose and others on this board, that there is legitimate reason to investigate his accusations further, as horribly as they may have been framed. Not everyone will think this way. Which is cool. But to act as if it is absurd to even raise the question... especially while harping on the question of just how racist/classist/offensive Jalen Rose is... well... I call that screwed up priorities...

  98. Ricardo Says:

    Jalen Rose:

    http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/03/08/jalen-rose-i-hated-duke-they-only-recruited-black-players-who-were-uncle-toms/

    “Well, certain schools recruit a typical kind of player whether the world admits it or not. And Duke is one of those schools. They recruit black players from polished families, accomplished families. And that’s fine. That’s okay. But when you’re an inner-city kid playing in a public school league, you know that certain schools aren’t going to recruit you. That’s one. And I’m okay with it. That’s how I felt as an 18-year-old kid.”

    That cuts both ways, Jalen. Guys like Jerry Tarkanian and John Calipari weren't/aren't recruiting Rhodes Scholars or Physics majors either, even if they can play ball. Some schools take their academics seriously.

    This is what is remarkable about Coach K's success: because of the sort of academic standards Duke has, he can't just go recruit anyone he wants - yet the program wins anyway.

    But JALEN ROSE made allegations of racism, at least according to BSK. So what did that wiki link show us earlier?

    The demographics of the Duke student body in fall 2010 showed that 10% of the enrolled are African-American. (Nationally, the African-American population is 12.4% of the total)

    This is RACISM, right? Well, what about Jalen's alma mater?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan#Student_body_profile

    The demographics of the University of Michigan student body in fall 2010 showed that 5.8% of the enrolled are African-American.

    I guess the answer is that we have two racist schools, rather than just one. Or I went in and edited the wiki pages, something like that.

    (I still can't wait to hear what's messed up about Duke's recruiting process)

  99. BSK Says:

    Why did you suddenly start talking about academic standards? Rose made no comments on academic standards. He spoke about class, race, and culture. Why are you connecting being poor, black, and from an urban area with academics? Do you mean to imply that poor, black, urban kids cannot cut it at elite universities? I can think of no other reason one would make that leap. Perhaps you can offer one, but it seems interesting that your knee-jerk reaction is to assume that academics had something to do with it, yet I have seen no evidence of this.

    As for Calipari or Tarkanian, I'm sure they would not turn away a Rhodes Scholar who could play basketball. If they did, that is a problem. But there is no evidence to suggest that they did. The absence of Rhodes Scholars on their team is not an indictment given that I'm sure 95% of coaches never had a Rhodes Scholar on their team.

    As for the numbers, that is such a facile look at the situation as to be useless. You can't just a blanket comparison of the population at large and the populations in the colleges. The issue is far more complex than that. African-Americans are not evenly distributed across the nation. You are comparing a public and a private school. You are comparing a school that can use affirmative action to one that cannot.

    Again, the question is not whether or not Duke or Coach K recruit black players (clearly they do, as they have had many blacks on the team); but whether Duke/Coach K limits the recruitment of black players (or players in general) to those coming from a certain socio-economic group or culture. If they are, that is incredibly concerning. Even if race is not a factor, but if they limit themselves to kids from two-parent homes or suburban schools or wealthy families, it would be incredibly classist and biased and just as problematic.

    I still find it amazing that you are unwilling to even entertain the idea that Duke might be classist or racist in their recruitment practices but are so quick to throw Jalen Rose under the bus. I guess anyone pointing fingers at Duke is just an "agitator" playing the "race card" while the accusations of Rose are nuanced, legit, and categorically undeniable.

  100. BSK Says:

    Just to clarify, I have no problem with an institution holding athletes to the same academic or moral standards as the rest of applicants; as a teacher, I applaud those that do. But when the standards apply differently based on class or race or culture or where someone grew up or family dynamics... that is a problem of untold proportions. It is a huge issue for me when we assume evidence of the latter is explained by the former.

  101. Mr.Understood Says:

    @ Ricardo, thanks for bringing the discussion back to where it should be.

    1. But, I don't think this is a case of racism, but clearly a case of classism. If Duke was really racists, why would they even let in Hill in the first place, or the countless other A.A. Dukies. This was Rose's main argument, hey Hill comes from a different class than I do, and that's why Duke accepted him.

    2. Duke doesn't have any Rhode Scholars. However, FSU football and Alabama football's teams have over the past couple of years. Myron Rolle, and Bama's Qb. You can't honestly think that the Duke's athletes are smart simply because they go to Duke. Jay Will graduated in communication (3 years) great. Emeka Okafor graduated in biology, who's smarter. Luol Deng and Kyrie Irving stayed and would have stayed for one year. Corey Maggette and Elton Brand left too.

    So what does this prove? What evidence do you have that Duke basketball atheltes are smarter than their peers. Or is it simply their private school background which they were probably tutored through.

    3. You're right Duke does have 10% A.A. students. But this isn't the point as those student couldhave grown up in the best of areas. More importantly, 37% of Duke's students are legacy students, meaning soemone in their family went to Duke. Does this mean that they perform better than others? No.

    http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/09/09/duke-study-says-legacy-students-underachieve

    So really Duke is recruiting kids from a specific class, who are not as smart as their peers in the classroom, giving suspicion that they weren't qualified in the first place.

  102. Mr.Understood Says:

    Accidently hit the submit button before I was done, but oh well. I'll keep this going.

    4.) So you have a point that if Duke isn't recruiting the Jalen Rose's of the world, then someone else will. That's true, but how much better is that than, if my restaurant won't serve you than someone else will.

    5.) You have a point about Michigan. That's bad. They need to do better. But they've tried. How so? By creating affirmative action programs for their law school to help minorities. These programs were so in favor of minorities that some actually got pissed and sued, leading to two famous Supreme Court cases:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger

    Clearly Michigan has tried to help minorities.

  103. BSK Says:

    Mr. Understood-

    Two great posts. However, I would not be so quick to exclude race entirely from the conversation. While I agree that class seems to be the driving force, it'd be interesting to compare whether the class exclusion applies across the board or is unique to AA and/or other PoC. Many institutions (educational and otherwise) have well-defended class biases that only seem to manifest themselves when dealing with racial minorities. They have no problem taking poor or lower class whites, but suddenly "culture" and "fitting in" and other BS becomes issues when dealing with poor or lower class blacks or Hispanics.

  104. BSK Says:

    Shane Battier - Detroit Country Day (MI); elite private school; also where C. Webber went (who was recruited by Duke)
    Elton Brand - Peekskill High (NY); Peeksskill is a middle class suburb of New York; predominantly white
    Chris Duhon - Salmen High (LA); Salmen is in a middle class suburb of New Orleans; predominantly white
    Corey Maggette - Fenwick High (IL); Fenwick is in a very wealthy suburb of Chicago; predominantly white
    Carlos Boozer - Juneau-Douglas High (AK); Juneau is a predominantly white, fairly middle-class city
    Luol Deng - Blair Academy (NJ); Blair is an elite private school and Deng's father was Sudanese royalty before the family fled the country for Egypt and then Britain; moved to USA in high school
    Dahntay Jones - Steinhert High (NJ); located in a middle class suburb of New Jersey; predominantly white
    Shelden Williams - Midwest City (OK); lower-middle class suburb of Oklahoma City

    These are all the black NBA players (outside of Hill, who we already know about) who played for Coach K (according to his website) at Duke. It is obviously far from a comprehensive, but offers some insight into the types of black players who go to Duke (I limited myself to NBA players because they had the most biographical information available). While we can quibble with how I might have chosen to define "middle class" or "predominantly white", it is clear that none came from poor or urban areas.

    Again, this doesn't necessarily "prove" anything, as it is far from exhaustive and does not include white players (who may have come from equally privileged backgrounds). But it does prove interesting that Duke does not have a single NBA-caliber player from an urban area, when such a large share of NBA players grow up in that environment.

  105. sean Says:

    Seriously, you decided to argue something that no one is even arguing, because you're proven completely wrong.>>>>>>>>>

    1) Nobody has been 'proven completely wrong' here. Why would you say such a thing? Ego? What am I complete;y wrong about---not to mention 'proven to be'? That a better man than Rose would apologize to Hill? That Duke is snobbish? That Jimmy Walker being an absentee dad is a FAR bigger deal than Duke not recruiting Rose?
    2) Neither the Rose documentary nor Neil's intro to this thread set THE issue as 'Duke's Recruiting Practices'. Your insistence that it be just that that is amusing, in a myopic, egoentric kind of way. Please stop trying to control what the larger issues are.
    3) Rose spent 1 year NOT being recruited by Duke. He spent his whole life not being loved by his dad. What's the bigger issue?

    My take on Duke is that they are snobs. I don't believe my pedigree would pass muster with them. I don't sweat it. I know that none of us can fit in everywhere. The Duke snobbiness ISN'T racist-------it's classist... There is nothing that can be done about who some people consider 'their type of people'. There has been class division since the beginning of man. It's not going away. It would be nicer if more people were more inclusive of EVERYONE. At least it SOUNDS better... but the honest truth is that people ARE different. They have different ways, values, priorities. People have different sets of things they consider 'no-nos' and different things they let slide. Jalen Rose and the Fab 5 seemed to really enjoy themselves at Michigan. I don't know if they could've made a better choice for themselves. You want EVERYONE to want you/ like you as a child. But that's just not going to be. I've been in jobs and schools where I really didn't feel like I fit in. I found my niche and couldn't be happier. No anger. I can't control how anybody else values me. Duke valued Rose and 3 of the other Fab 5 less than the guys they recruited (including Webber).

    You do what you can to take care of personal responsibilities and don't worry about who's 'kind of people' you aren't. I'm not Duke's king of people, either-----it doesn't make their recruiting practices criminal or mean they have to change them.

    What has to change---and everyone to a man can actually inact this kind of chage---------is that people have to be responsible with their kids and be good, loving parents. That's something that can happen that we all can control.

  106. SLT-A77 Says:

    Irigylem a képessége, hogy tegye közzé a csodálatos cikket - egyszerűen akartam mondani, mint ez!