"The first key to writing is... to write"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNU_HofAfPQ&feature=related

“You write your first draft with your heart. You re-write with your head.

The first key to writing is to write.”

As wisdom goes, the above statements are so simple, yet so profound.

The above clip was posted by someone on my Academic Writing Club site yesterday. I was grateful for the inspiration. After watching the clip, I wrote three single-spaced pages from my heart.

"The first key to writing is to write.”

The mantra reminds me of the first rule of "Fight Club: "The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club."

But I digress.

Forrester's wisdom resonates with me for several reasons. First, I realize why I have been so enthralled with Andre Agassi's autobiography... because it was written from his heart. People have questioned why he revealed some of the things he did; they have suggested his revelations were "bad" for tennis. I think what he wrote is good for humanity. He has written about what it means to be human. That, according to my doctoral advisor, is what the humanities are about... learning what it means to be human. That is why I want to write... not because I have to write so many articles to become a full professor. But because I want to explore what it means to be human. And I want to share the discoveries that result from my exploration.

I remember another profound statement from the movie, Shadowlands:

"We read to know we're not alone..."

Perhaps that is why I am so avidly devouring Andre Agassi's book. Apparently I am not alone, since it is No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller's list.

How does this relate to the writing I have begun and want to pursue in academia? The writings of several scholars inspire me to write performance ethnography (Norman Denzin) and autoethnography (Laurel Richardson). Richardson wrote one especially provocative article entitled "Writing as a method of inquiry." That is how I want to write... from my heart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNU_HofAfPQ&feature=related

Andre Agassi is "Open"

It comes as no surprise to me that Andre Agassi's new book, Open, has risen quickly to No. 1 on the New York Times best seller list. Since excerpts of the book leaked out, I have frequently been asked by students and colleagues about the admissions that Agassi used crystal meth and that he lied to the ATP after failing a drug test. While nothing much surprises me anymore, I wondered why Andre chose to reveal this information now--including the fact that he HATED tennis. Early in his career, Agassi was often criticized for not living up to his "Image is everything" persona, as revealed by ads for Canon. In those commercials, audiences saw the image of a "rebellious" Agassi running his fingers through his long-flowing hair. The first reaction to Agassi's tell-all came from a student who was shocked to hear that Agassi wore a weave to obtain that look! As Paula Vergara wrote on Twitter, people seemed more surprised by Agassi's admission that he wore a weave than by his confession that he used crystal meth and lied about it!

In my Sport History class, I have always defended Andre Agassi, arguing that he should not be considered an "anti-hero," despite Benjamin Rader's suggestion that he was. Instead, I have touted his accomplishments, since he became one of only a handful of players to win a career Grand Slam in tennis. Furthermore, I argued that his establishment of Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy more than atoned for his earlier indiscretions.

So, how can we understand the indignant responses to revelations in Andre Agassi's autobiography from so many in the tennis world? Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal expressed shock, while Marat Safin suggested that Agassi should return all of his trophies. Martina Navratilova likened Agassi to Roger Clemens, when she said that she felt “not as much shock that he did it as shock he lied about it and didn’t own up to it. He’s up there with Roger Clemens, as far as I’m concerned." Really? Andy Roddick was one of the few to offer compassion when he said: “Andre is and always will be my idol. I will judge him on how he has treated me and how he has changed the world for the better."

In Andre Agassi's appearance on "60 Minutes" with Katie Couric, he spoke candidly about hating tennis, while asking for compassion about other confessions in his autobiography. I'm not sure which of his confessions have drawn the most ire, but I get the impression that some people feel as if Andre committed the unforgivable sin by admitting that he hated tennis! So, why is that such a threatening confession? I think because it destroys the myth that being a professional athlete must be the greatest avocation in the world. How many kids grow up thinking that if only they can become a professional athlete, they will be the happiest person in the world? What if that isn't true? Worse yet, what if there are other athletes who feel like Agassi? Maybe that's the most threatening reality of all!

Footfault! Reflecting on Social Media Coverage of a Controversy

It has been two weeks since the controversial ending to the US Open semifinal match between Serena Williams and Kim Clijsters that garnered worldwide attention. For many who did not see the moment live, social media provided opportunities to revisit it in visual detail. In the two weeks since the semifinal match, I found over 20 YouTube sites (including this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE6Z5Q2tOk4&NR=1) that featured video footage of, or related to, Williams' footfault and her subsequent default. As of September 26, 2009, 3,365,889 views were recorded on those 20 sites alone. Nearly 10,000 viewers left Comments on these YouTube sites while countless others reacted to the news via facebook and Twitter.

I have been intrigued by the overwhelming response to the events that occurred in the semifinal match between Serena Williams and Kim Clijsters. I have been especially interested in examining what this outpouring means in terms of how global racism operates in the year 2009. And I have been saddened to see so much racist vitriol expressed by some viewers of the YouTube links. Using Twitter, I discovered an article on Mashable, a link that measures the activity on social networking sites. According to Fisher (2009), “conversation on Facebook (was) mixed, but a search for ‘Serena Williams’ show(ed) up the majority of comments as being fairly derogatory” (¶ 2). Meanwhile, “a Twitter sentiment analysis tool” revealed that “the negative sentiment (was) overwhelming” (¶ 5). A search on google indicated that “reference to the outburst was already ranking at number 3 on a search for ‘serena williams’ (¶ 6). As to why the “majority of the commentary (was) overwhelmingly negative,” Fisher (2009) suggested that “a look at the discussion on the Serena Williams Facebook page shows that there is plenty of support out there for Serena Williams but it is confined to the space designed for fans” (¶ 7). Fisher further predicted that Serena's reputation was “undoubtedly taking a massive hit... The fact that the video (was) already ranking at number 3 in Google demonstrate(d) the power of social media and the need to build up a loyal online following” (¶ 8).

I have observed loyalty to Serena Williams in several ways: through comments that have been posted on her blog and Twitter sites, and from listening to students discuss the incident in my "Sport & Gender" classes. Yet, I am still disturbed by the racist slurs made by commenters who seem to feel justified in expressing hateful sentiments because of the error in judgment that was made by Serena. This goes beyond "sincere fictions" that Feagin and Vera identified in their work. This seems like a simmering hatred that has been brewing beneath the surface, waiting to be unleashed by an incident like this, that seemingly justifies such hateful rhetoric. This is a new, more blatant, in-your-face racism that is more troubling than ever. In a world where "free speech" is a valued commodity, how can we address this new form of racist hatred?

I just finished reading the chapter about Indian Wells in Serena Williams’ new book, On the line. I heard about the book from Wayne Coffey, a New York Daily News journalist who wrote an article about the Williams sisters on the occasion of the 10-year anniversary of Serena’s first Grand Slam singles title (i.e., she won at the 1999 U.S. Open). Coffey’s article appeared in the Sunday edition of the New York Daily News, on the eve of the 2009 U.S. Open.

In Serena’s chapter entitled “The fiery darts of Indian Wells,” she shares her perspective on what happened in the 2001 tourney after Venus defaulted before their semi-final match. For one thing, Serena says that Venus knew after her quarterfinal match against Elena Dementieva that she was hurting and might not be able to play in the semifinals. Following the established procedure for tournaments, Venus made an appointment with the trainer, and told her that she did not think she should play. The trainer was supposed to pass that information along to the WTA office, so an announcement could be made. As the time for the match drew closer, Venus wondered why an announcement had not yet been made. For whatever reason, either the trainer and/or tour officials must have waited until shortly before the match was supposed to have begun to convey the information about Venus defaulting. As it turned out, Serena bore the brunt of the angry crowd when she played in the Finals against Kim Clijsters two days later.

Serena wrote something that I thought was quite poignant, when she considered what could have been done, in retrospect, once the booing began during the final. This is what she wrote:

“I look back now and think something could have been done about this situation before it got out of hand. Some tournament official could have gotten on the loudspeaker and explained to the fans that Venus had been legitimately hurt, that I had nothing to do with her withdrawal, that every effort had been made to cancel that semifinal match in a more timely manner. Some effort could have been made to quiet the crowd. But no one did anything. The WTA people just sat there with their mouths open as all these people beat up on a little girl. The Indian Wells people just sat there with their mouths open, too. Everyone was in shock, I think—but that’s no excuse” (Williams, & Paisner, 2009, p. 81).

That was exactly how I felt at the time—I remember wondering why someone did not step in and make an announcement... why someone didn’t say that this behavior was totally inappropriate and uncalled for... I remember (when I was watching the match on television) that one of the commentators (Pam Shriver or Mary Joe Fernandez) said she had heard that something might happen during the final, since people were still really upset about Venus’ semifinal withdrawal. So, if that was the case, why didn’t tournament officials anticipate the possibility and take steps to be pro-active? That is something I never understood.

Here is a Youtube clip of the beginning of the finals between Serena and Kim Clijsters, showing what happened when Richard and Venus came down the steps to their seats and the fans continued to boo. Whenever I show this clip in class, students are horrified! Most indicate that they fully understand why Venus and Serena continue to boycott the Indian Wells Tournament. So, why do the WTA officials still not “get it?”

Serena explained that the reason she and Venus have continued to boycott Indian Wells, is because she believes “it’s instructive, because I think we need to call out bad behavior, especially when it cuts across racial lines and is directed at our children” (Williams & Paisner, 2009, p. 82). She says it is about holding people accountable for their actions—I agree with Serena 100%. I have felt this way since the moment I saw what happened during that finals match. And I am even more convinced of that now, especially after reading this chapter by Serena! Even though Indian Wells has become a mandatory tournament (i.e., there are consequences for a player who does not play), Serena and Venus are adamant about not playing. According to Serena:

“I don’t care if they fine me a million dollars. I will not play there again. They can also suspend you from the next tournament, but my feeling is that if I go back to Indian Wells I’ll send the wrong message to little black girls who for whatever reason have chosen to look up to me… if they fine me, they fine me. If they suspend me, they suspend me” (p. 82).

Serena says she does not know whether their boycott will make a difference in the end—i.e., whether her stand will make a difference in the "ongoing fight for inequality." But as she points out, “you don’t get past racial tension by forgetting about it. You don’t just ignore this kind of prejudice and hope it goes away” (p. 83). She concludes that you make such stands “because you wouldn’t be here if someone didn’t make them for you, long before you were even born” (p. 83).

I believe it does—and will—make a difference that Venus and Serena continue to take a stand against the “bad behavior” at Indian Wells. And I also believe it is important for others to stand with them!

I do.
Will you?

Serena Captures Women's Singles and Doubles Titles in Oz

In a final that lasted 59 minutes, Serena Williams captured her 10th Grand Slam Singles title at the Australian Open, beating Russia's Dinara Safina, 6-0, 6-3. It was Serena's fourth consecutive singles win in Melbourne during an odd-numbered year (she won in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009) . I was there in 2007 when she beat Maria Sharapova in the Finals, 6-1, 6-2. Two years ago, Tracy Austin gave Serena very little chance of winning the first Grand Slam of the year, suggesting that Serena was not fit enough to endure the hot Australian sun. Yet, despite several close calls, Serena prevailed over the likes of Nadia Petrova, Shahar Peer, and Nicole Vaidisova. Although her early rounds may have been close in 2007, Serena left little doubt that she would win against Sharapova, as she came out sharp in the first set and dominated throughout. Thus, it came as no surprise to me that Serena won handily in this year's final, even though she again struggled in some of her early round matches.

Following her most recent win, Serena recaptured the No. 1 ranking in the world, surpassing former No. 1 Jelena Jankovic, from Serbia. Some argued that Jankovic was not deserving of the top ranking since she has yet to win a Grand Slam. That is a moot point now that Serena has re-secured the No. 1 spot. With her victory, the younger Williams also established herself as the top-earning female athlete of all time, winning a total of nearly $23 million to pass LPGA golfer Annika Sorenstam. When compared to the top male athlete, Tiger Woods, Serena's earnings for her career are about the equivalent of what Woods earned in all of 2008, despite his being injured for part of the season. In addition to capturing the Singles title, Serena teamed with sister Venus to win the Women's Doubles with a convincing 6-3, 6-3 win over Danielle Hantuchova and Ai Sugiyama.

With the resurgence of the Williams sisters, Women's Tennis appears to be in good shape with the bulk of the season lying ahead. And yet, as the Williams sisters return to the spotlight, the WTA faces an inevitable showdown when the Tour travels to Indian Wells March 9-22 of this year. Since 2001, the Williams sisters have boycotted the tournament formerly known as the Pacific Life Open. And there has been no indication that they will discontinue their boycott despite the WTA Tour's new "Road Map" that was approved by the WTA Executive Board. According to the new tour guidelines, the Indian Wells Tournament is one of four tournaments that the players must enter, at the risk of being penalized. In my view, the Williams sisters are right to continue their boycott of Indian Wells. In an article by the New York Times Christopher Clarey (2008), Serena was quoted as saying: “I’m not going to be playing at Indian Wells,” Serena Williams said in an interview last month. “I’ve had some extremely life-altering things that happened to me there. So I told Larry Scott there are things that happened there that he understands shouldn’t happen, especially me being African-American" (para. 7).

While the powers that be in tennis attempt to find a way to negotiate with the Williams sisters, hoping to circumvent the inevitable confrontation over Indian Wells, is it possible that they might be persuaded to revisit the events that occurred at Indian Wells in 2001? Perhaps in doing so, they may discover that Venus and Serena have had good reasons to continue their boycott of the event.

From Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" to "Yes, we can!"

Fifteen years ago, Congress voted to designate Martin Luther King Day as a day of service. For many, the memory of Martin Luther King evokes a moment when he gave a speech on August 28, 1963, before a crowd of over 250,000 near the Lincoln Memorial. That speech is now remembered by four words, "I have a dream," but it began as a transcript that King ultimately put aside to deliver one of the most memorable speeches in American history. On that fateful day, as King drew to the close of his prepared remarks, the gospel singer Mahalia Jackson, urged him from behind to tell the people about his dream. Upon further urging from Jackson and the crowd, King delivered his famous speech to all who had gathered for the March on Washington.

King spoke of his dream being deeply rooted in the American dream, as he said...

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

Fast forward to November 4, 2008, and the U.S. people elected Barack Obama to become the first black President of the United States. As we commemorate Martin Luther King's "dream," the U.S. is on the verge of history, anticipating the remarkable inauguration of Barack Obama. Perhaps it is fitting that the President-elect has answered the call of Martin Luther King, Jr., by declaring, "Yes, we can!"

Revisiting Indian Wells, 2001

On March 15 2001, I was eagerly anticipating the sixth meeting of the Williams sisters as they were scheduled to play in the semi-finals of the tournament at Indian Wells. Venus and Serena Williams were two of the most exciting players in women's tennis and I was intrigued by watching them negotiate their encounters while still maintaining their close bond as sisters. I was excited to see two proud, strong African American women beginning to dominate in the sport I had played, taught, and followed for most of my life.

Needless to say, I was disappointed when ESPN announced that there would be no match, since Venus had defaulted, citing knee tendinitis.

My disappointment evoked feelings I had back in the mid-1980s when I taught tennis at UCLA. An ATP tournament was scheduled for the UCLA courts and John McEnroe was slated to meet John Lloyd in the semi-finals. I looked forward to seeing the infamous McEnroe play on the same courts where I taught. About 30 minutes before the match was scheduled to begin, McEnroe called it in—saying he was too sick to play. The tournament directors hastily organized an exhibition match that was of little consolation to the fans. The majority of the people in that crowd had come to see John McEnroe, not a last-minute substitute.

Herein lies one problem with tennis--when someone defaults, there cannot be a meaningful substitution--no matter how skilled the players who are called upon to substitute. Even if Jimmy Connors had agreed to play at the last minute, that match at UCLA would not have "mattered" to the angry fans who anticipated seeing McEnroe.

In this regard, tennis is very different from other sports. Suppose I wanted to take in a Cleveland Cavaliers' game and to see one of the most exciting players in the game, Lebron James. If I paid for a ticket and traveled two hours to see him play, I would understandably be disappointed if I found that he had been scratched from the line-up due to injury. Despite my disappointment, there would-in all likelihood-still be a game because the Cavaliers have enough players to field a team even if Lebron cannot play. Yet, if a tennis player defaults in the semi-finals or finals of a tennis tournament, even a strong substitute opponent cannot play a "meaningful" match.

So, I understand the disappointment that fans may have felt when Venus defaulted to Serena.

What I do not understand is what occurred two days later, when Serena played Kim Clijsters in the finals. Keep in mind that Serena was only 19 years old. Also keep in mind that tennis has historically been a game in which certain protocol is followed when watching tennis--fans are expected to remain silent (for the most part) during play, and they typically applaud politely for well-played points, even if it is for someone who is not their favorite player. With the possible exception of Davis Cup, fans do not usually applaud or respond vociferously to one player's misfortunes (i.e., serving a double-fault, hitting a shot into the net, etc.)

Given these assumptions, I watched with great consternation as Serena was introduced at Indian Wells, amidst the loud booing of fans. I was further dismayed to see that the booing continued after play began, with obvious unsettling effects on Serena—she lost the first 3 games of the first set. Somehow, Serena managed to win 4-6, 6-4, 6-2. However, when Venus and father Richard Williams entered the Stadium, the booing and ugliness grew worse. According to Richard Williams, about a dozen fans hurled racist epithets and someone spoke of skinning him alive. While tournament director Charlie Pasarell admitted that he was “embarrassed for Serena and humiliated by the crowd” his response to Richard’s allegation was curious. When asked about the racial taunting, Pasarell commented “If Richard says someone yelled something, maybe they did, but I know that's not Indian Wells people." Apparently we live in a time when there is what Eduardo Bonilla Silva terms Racism without racists.

I remember thinking at the time that tennis would finally have to confront the reality of racism. Indeed, New York Times journalist George Vescey wrote in 2002 that the Williams’ sisters could lead tennis into a more “enlightened era” by forcing tennis to come to terms with racism. Sadly, it appears that tennis has not yet done that. Most recently, the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) Tour CEO Larry Scott announced its Road Map for 2009. Included in the provisions is a requirement for top-ranked players to play in four tournaments, including Indian Wells. Players who do not play will be sanctioned by not being allowed to enter two subsequent tournaments. That could obviously have huge ramifications for rankings points, but would also be a disappointment for fans.

The Williams sisters have boycotted Indian Wells since the racialized incident that occurred in 2001. Therefore, it is likely that this issue will come to a head in March 2009, barring unforeseen circumstances that could lead to a settlement before that. What troubles me most about this impasse is that the WTA does not seem to have (publicly) acknowledged that the Williams sisters’ reasons for boycotting Indian Wells are valid. I believe it behooves the tennis world to revisit the events that occurred at Indian Wells on March 15 and March 17, 2001. If I were the Williams sisters, I would insist upon a public apology for what happened at Indian Wells and seek an assurance that such an ugly incident would never happen again!

Next: “The Roadmap to Nowhere?”