In Response to Trayvon Martin's Death: Psychologists for Social Responsibility

My previous blog entry features a journal that was written by a student in one of my classes. After sharing the entry with a friend (and member of Psychologists for Social Responsibility), she forwarded the following letter that has already been sent to the Attorneys General of the United States and Florida. I am posting this letter with her permission.   

March 20, 2012

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General of the United States

Office of the Attorney General

The United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20530-001

Attorney General Pam Bondi

Florida Office of the Attorney General

State of Florida

The Capitol PL-01

Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1050

Dear Attorneys General Holder and Bondi:

Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) joins other human rights groups in calling for further investigation into the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida on February 26, 2012.  George Zimmerman, the man who admits to killing Trayvon, remains free almost one month later. We believe the death of Trayvon has not been thoroughly investigated, denying Trayvon’s family, the community of Sanford and indeed our entire society a sense of true justice.

As an organization of psychologists and other mental health professionals we are concerned about the loss Trayvon’s family and community are enduring and the ways in which the justice system is failing them. We believe the death of Trayvon and the reactions of the Sanford Police Department to this killing have broad psychosocial impacts because they exemplify the terror and trauma that racism inflicts on many Americans today.

According to the FBI, the single largest motivator (nearly 50%) of hate crimes in the United States is racial bias, with anti-black bias accounting for 70% of offenses (http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2010-hate-crime-statistics). On the 911 calls from February 26, 2012 we hear Zimmerman criminalizing Trayvon as a “black” man. These recordings reveal how racism may have played a role in Zimmerman’s later actions, motivating Zimmerman to use deadly force despite orders from the 911 police to stand down.

The Sanford police have so far failed to arrest Zimmerman, who claims he shot Trayvon in self-defense, despite evidence in the public domain that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon. The media also reports that other African American crime victims have felt betrayed by the Sanford police, who have been slow to press criminal charges in the past when victims are people of color. It is no wonder that public outrage includes the accusation that racism has been normalized and institutionalized in the Sanford Police Department.

The combined effects of this tragic killing and the failure of the justice system to act swiftly allows for questions regarding the permissibility of violence in our culture. The permission to stalk another human and kill that person because of “suspicions” based, at least in part, on the person’s race leaves a chilling effect on those of us who are concerned with human rights for all. Anthony Marsella, past director of the World Health Organization Psychiatric Research Center and past president of PsySR, says, “If there is any meaning to come from the killing of yet one more Black man, one more repetition of a killing that has crossed centuries and place, let it be that this evil is confronted in all its forms across our land.” It is time for national dialog on the lingering persistence of racism.

We urge you to ensure a thorough investigation into the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. At this point in time, we remain unconvinced that justice has been served, that Trayvon’s death was in any way justified, and that racism was not a factor in Trayvon’s death. 

Sincerely,

Psychologists for Social Responsibility

Trayvon Martin: A Student's Reflection

I am posting the following journal entry that was written by a student in one of my classes. I asked for her permission to post this blog entry anonymously. She agreed... What would you say to her?
[Note: I added the photo of Trayvon].

      I am writing this journal out because over the past couple of weeks my heart has really been breaking as I learn more and more about the Trayvon Martin case. I am troubled at the fact that a man could kill a young person and yet be free even after admitting he had killed the young man. There is plenty of evidence that Zimmerman had chased this kid down and killed him for no reason. The police calls, Zimmerman's history, the phone calls Trayvon made to his girlfriend before he was killed. Why has he not been arrested, charged, caught? I feel that this opens the door for more racist people to target people they don't like and get away with it. I'm writing this journal out of frustration.

     I'm frustrated because all of my life I go to history classes that have only taught me about the enslavement, abuse, and deaths of people of similar skin color to me. I learn how my people have always been oppressed and have always been given the lower hand and have to fight continuously to get somewhere in life. I have to go to extra events, or read about how great my people really are as far as inventions and such. My people have been given up to sports because it was a sense of entertainment for other ethnic people. Other than that, everything is a fight, a struggle, and we get ignored or overlooked when we do not know the system. A white person will Never go to history class and have to view or try to make sense of pictures showing people of their color being hung, skinned, burned, shot, raped, beaten, picking cotton, tortured, chained, sold as property, or separated from their families. I try to tell myself that it is history and that the world has moved on, but such a tragic death like Trayvon's, only makes me wonder what is really going on. Why are people trying to ignore this like it is not a racial issue? Why is the system trying to make this shooting okay? You will NEVER hear of a African American person doing harm to a white person or anyone and getting away with it, or the system trying to deviate from the facts of the case to find a justification for the crime. There is no hope for this world.

Serena doesn’t love tennis: What’s the big deal?

Serena in Brisbane

Now that tennis season is underway in Brisbane, Australia, startling news has emerged from ‘Down Under.’ According to reports, Serena Williams has acknowledged that she “is not passionate about the game she has dominated for so long” (“Serena Williams,” 2012, para. 1). After saying that she doesn’t love tennis today, she admits in the next sentence that she “can’t live without it” and doesn’t “want to go anywhere any time soon” (para. 2). Perhaps that is a relief to the WTA tour administrators who know how much the Women’s Tour relies upon the Williams sisters to headline the sport. There is an obvious drop-off in interest and television ratings when either Venus or Serena misses a tournament. I have even heard tennis analyst Mary Carillo say that Serena Williams is the biggest draw in the game—in men’s and/or women’s tennis! While some would take issue with that assessment, Serena is arguably the most dominant woman player of the past decade.So how do we make sense of this "bombshell" from "down under?"

Agassi acknowledged hating tennis.

When I first heard the reports, it reminded me of Andre Agassi's admission in his autobiography Open that he hated the game he played for so many years. Perhaps the impact of Agassi's admission was diffused by 'other sins' he confessed including that he had taken crystal meth during a particularly difficult time in his life. Even more surprising to students in one of my classes was the admission that he wore a hair weave. Apparently, hating tennis was not the worst sin to confess. In an earlier blog entry, I suggested that it may be difficult for sports' purists to accept that professional athletes might not  love the sport that most would give anything to play for a living. So when we see those who have the opportunity to do so, making millions of dollars on top of that, it is difficult to fathom how they would not love it (as we think we would). I am guessing that the majority of Sport Management students would probably say that their "dream job" is to play their sport professionally.

Many students who choose Sport Management as a major believe that loving sports is a sufficient prerequisite for being hired in the field. As a result, professors in Sport Management repeatedly emphasize that loving sports is not enough. There are so many other areas in which students need to be proficient so as to excel in a Sport Management position (e.g., understanding management principles, accounting, economics, event planning, facilities, legal aspects of sport, psychological and/or sociocultural aspects of the workplace, to name only a few). So perhaps it should come as no surprise that professional athletes also need to be proficient at so many other things besides playing their sport. Not to mention that there are things professional athletes have to do that have nothing to do directly with their sport--I can think of nothing more draining than to have to travel on a regular basis to do my job. Yet professional athletes (tennis players, in particular) must do it globally on a year-round basis.

There is another aspect of Serena's bombshell that intrigues me even more, and that relates to comments by tennis analyst Brad Gilbert that were aired on ESPN. When asked about his response to Serena's statement that she didn't love tennis, Gilbert seemed to downplay the negative impressions so many others had expressed, pointing out that she appeared to be relaxed and was having fun with the press. He noted that she has been saying many of these things for the past 4 or 5 years. The next part of his explanation was especially instructive as I  prepare to teach a class in "Sport & Gender" for the coming semester. Gilbert said that "Serena's this great powerful athlete. But she wants everybody to know deep down she's kind of a woman... she's a girlie-girl. And she likes to get her nails done and she loves fashion. And she's still a great athlete--all in the same sentence." My takeaway from this: there is still dissonance between being an athlete and being a woman. If you are a woman athlete, it is still "contested terrain" (to quote Mike Messner, 1988). Did anyone think Andre Agassi would have been more of a man if he had loved tennis?

Is Serena getting the shaft from Sports' Media?

I wanted to attach the following link to an article that asks if Serena gets the shaft from Sports' Media. http://bleacherreport.com/tb/b7caN

Let me know what you think. I will post my thoughts on this later.

Women's Tennis in the Global Context

In the assigned reading for today's SM 3950 class, Kimmelman (2010) addresses how power has changed the women's game in tennis. Since the women's professional tennis tour began in the early 1970s, one of the main ways it has changed is in who dominates the rankings. In its early days, the top-ranked women were primarily from the U.S: Billie Jean King (see below), Rosie Casals, Nancy Richey; and later, Chris Evert (below King, Tracy Austin, and Jennifer Capriati, to name only a few.

Of course, two of the most popular women players today are from the U.S. (Serena and Venus Williams). But as Kimmelman indicates, with both nearing the end of their careers (Serena is 29 and Venus, 30), the next highest ranked woman player from the U.S. is Bethanie Mattek-Sands (No. 58), who is not exactly a household name. Meanwhile, since the Williams sisters have been out of play (due to injuries) Serena and Venus have now dropped in the rankings, to Nos. 4 and 5, respectively.
With the U.S. no longer dominating the women's (or men's) world rankings, the top 100-ranked women "now come from 33 countries, most of the best from Eastern Europe—countries like Russia, Serbia, Poland and the Czech Republic, nations hungry to nurture the sport" (Kimmelman, 2010, p. 3 of 6).

A second way in which professional women's tennis has changed since it's genesis relates to the age of players. As mentioned in the article, there was a time when 13 year old girls could compete on the women's tour. This practice ended in the early 1990s after Jennifer Capriati burned out and was arrested for possession of marijuana. Many experts felt that her burnout was a direct reflection of starting to play professionally at such a young age. Capriati joined the Women's Tour at age 13, and she already had endorsement deals worth millions of dollars. When the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) decided that there needed to be an age requirement for girls to turn professional, the Age Eligibility Rule was passed. As a result of its passage, girls could play a limited number of tournaments at age 14, but they could not play a full slate of tournaments until they turned 18. ESPN commentator (and Fed Cup Captain) Mary Joe Fernandez believes that Women's Tennis might be missing out on talent as a result of the Age Eligibility Rule.

Another recently passed ruling that effects the state of women's tennis is known as the "Road Map." Passed in 2007 and implemented in 2009, the 'Road Map' is aimed at discouraging player withdrawals and ultimately encouraging more meetings between the top-ranked players in women's tennis. A case-in-point was the recent season-ending tournament in Doha, Qatar, where the top 8 ranked players were invited. Only 2 of the top 8-ranked players were not in attendance (Venus and Serena), which might suggest that the Road Map has been effective in its aim to provide more meetings between the top players. However, another measure of players' success is how many grand slam tournaments they have won. Of the 8 players at Doha, two had won a combined total of 4 Grand Slam titles (Kim Clijsters won 3 U.S. Opens, while Mary Jo Schiavone won the 2010 French Open). However, among players who were missing at Doha (besides Venus and Serena, Maria Sharapova, Justine Henin, and Svetlana Kuznetsova were also absent), those 5 players had won a total of 32 grand slams. By this measure, it appears that the Road Map is not as effective as had been hoped.

On one hand, Professional Women's Tennis has been and remains the best-compensated sport in the world for women. To illustrate, Serena Williams won over $4 million while playing in only 6 tournaments this past year. Plus, she held the No. 1 ranking in the world until October 11, when Caroline Wozniacki took over at No. 1. Meanwhile, Serena, Venus, and Maria Sharapova each earned over $15.5 million in the past year, based on earnings and endorsements. From an economic standpoint, their earnings seem to reflect a sport that is flourishing. Yet, there are those who suggest that women's tennis is in crisis--not only because of the eventual retirements of the Williams sisters, but also due to the continuing injury problems that plague many of the top players. So serious is the problem that it prompted ESPN announcer John McEnroe to suggest that perhaps women's tennis should scale back its schedule, since women may not be tough enough to handle the grueling schedule.

So what do you think? Is there a crisis in tennis? Does that perception have anything to do with a shortage of top-ranked players from the U.S? What do you think about the comments of John McEnroe and/or Mary Joe Fernandez (or others) in this article?

Serena Williams' "92K Mission"

In an effort to turn Serena's record fine (see previous entry) into a positive outcome, she has taken the opportunity to raise money for the Serena Williams Foundation. In a message sent December 12, Serena wrote as follows:

Hello all,

How are you all? I hope that all is well. I want to raise $92,000, to match what I am being fined from the ITF (international tennis federation) and donate it to some of my many philanthropic endeavors. The ITF denied my request to use some of the monies toward a charity of my choice-so I decided to match what I was FINED by raising money for the Serena Williams Foundation, my second Secondary school that will be opening in Africa soon, other charities & schools.

I will not only be raising money but I will be donating as well. I have started to gather personal clothes to give away as well as things that I have worn during tournaments to auction off. Dresses I wore a various Wimbledon's, US Opens, French Opens, Australian Opens, and more will be auctioned off and 100% of proceeds will go to my charity until we reach our 92k mission!!
As you know, I am an advocate for education. I will be donating money to schools in California and Florida because learning is key, and this experience has educated me beyond belief so I would also like to take this opportunity to educate Women about what I have learned from this experience. It does not matter if you are an athlete, student, teacher, attorney or a police officer, we as women should not be treated as less than equal. It is our right as HUMANS to be treated equal no matter race, color, or gender. I will start this mission by donating clothes to women Shelters throughout California. My first mission is to donate clothes to Liberty Social Services of San Diego County. I am asking that you all help me reach this goal in turning 92k into a great MISSION of Empowerment for Education & Woman!

Visit the Serena Williams Foundation to learn more about how you all can help me reach my 92k MISSION!!!

Thanks,

Serena

So, I am interested to know what you think about Serena's "92K Mission?"

Record Fine for Serena Williams' Outburst

On November 30, almost 3 months after her well-documented "outburst" in the semifinals of the 2009 U.S. Open, the Grand Slam Committee announced a record fine for Serena Williams. Most reports indicated that Serena was fined $82,000, although the conditions of the fine were more complex. According to Bill Babcock, the Grand Slam administrator who was charged with reviewing the case and recommending the terms of the fine, Serena faces a "probationary period" of two years in all major grand slam events. If she has another "major offense" (as her outburst was classified), the fine would double to $175,000. and she would be banned from playing in the subsequent U.S. Open. On the Baseline's Aaress Lawless reported the actual amount of the fine as $175,000, noting that if Serena behaves properly during the next two years, that amount will be reduced to $82,500. While most reports referred to $82,000 as the amount of the fine, Serena pointed out that since she was previously assessed $10,000 (the maximum on-site amount), that actually brings the total to $92,000.

The highest fine ever levied before was in 1995, when Jeff Tarango walked off the court during a match at Wimbledon. After accusing Chair Umpire Bruno Rebeuh of being the "most corrupt" official in tennis, Tarango's wife later slapped Rebeuh. Tarango was fined $48,000 and not allowed to play Wimbledon the following year.

Just as the outburst evoked diverse responses from Serena's fans and haters, the announcement of the fine elicited widespread response as well. The Washington Post writer Liz Clarke cited the new CEO of the Women's Tennis Association (WTA), Stacey Allaster, who hailed Williams as "a great champion and role model to millions" (para. 10). Noting that Serena had already apologized for her behavior, Allaster said that she had no doubt that Serena had "learned from this incident," adding that she doubted we would ever see her "act in this manner again" (para. 11). A less forgiving view was offered by commentator Mary Carillo who questioned why it had taken almost 3 months to return a verdict. According to Carillo, "Serena Williams physically threatened and verbally assaulted an official during one of the most watched tennis matches of 2009, and after three months of thoughtful, considered cogitation the Grand Slam Committee came up with 'Grand Slam Probation' and a 'suspended ban'? ...And half of what was deemed to be her fine? Boy, that ought to show everyone" (para. 13).

While many assessments considered the fairness of the fine in relationship to Serena's outburst, some writers weighed in on the process by which the decision was made. J.A. Allen suggested that since the governing body of tennis could not really "separate its disciplinary practices from its financial needs," the result was that "the action taken by the ITF smacks of favoritism and impotence" (para. 34). Meanwhile, on ESPN.com, Bonnie Ford hinted that the decision had already been telegraphed by the President of the ITF, Ricci Bitti, when he suggested that suspending Serena Williams would not make much sense since it would actually "penalize the people handing out the punishment" (para. 3).

Regardless of how the action has been evaluated, Serena has responded to the fine by speaking out and launching her own effort to match the amount for charitable causes. Shortly after learning of the record fine, Serena was said to launch "an extraordinary attack on officials and former players in a bitter aftermath to her record fine" (para. 1). Suggesting that previous male players like Jeff Tarango and John McEnroe got off easy for their violations of tennis' code of conduct , Serena suggested that she believed her breach of etiquette was different because she was a female, saying that it's "Cool for 'MEN' I guess. Is it because they are all HEs and not a SHE like me? Being American, I guess, the first amendment, freedom of speech, does not apply to a SHE in this case? In any event, the Grand Slam committee, ITF and its staff did not hesitate to call, send a note, text, nor write letters after this incident. Ironic, is it not? ... I don't mind being fined. If I did wrong I accept the repercussions. All I ask for is to be treated equal," said Williams. (para. 7).

So, I am interested to know if you think the record fine was fair, and/or do you think there is a double-standard?