And (surprise) She's Articulate too...bad, bad, headline on USA TODAY website.

Well-spoken Carson hits right notes at Rutgers
By Dick Patrick, USA TODAY
PISCATAWAY, N.J. — When the Rutgers women's basketball team needs a defensive stop or key basket, the assignment often goes to Essence Carson. The senior guard/forward is a two-time Big East defender of the year and a versatile scorer.
"I'll put everything I own on Essence being an excellent pro player," says new Illinois coach Jolette Law, a Rutgers assistant the previous 12 years.
When the Scarlet Knights hold one of their music-comedy jams at coach C. Vivian Stringer's house, Carson is front and center. The music major plays the piano — everything from Tchaikovsky to Jay-Z plus her own creations — as well as the bass guitar, saxophone and drums. Teammate Matee Ajavon handles the mike as emcee and stand-up comic."We gather around and won't move for the next two hours," Stringer says.
With such go-to credentials, it was no surprise Carson emerged as team spokesperson in April when shock jock Don Imus uttered sexist and racist comments after Rutgers lost to Tennessee in the NCAA title game.
During a nationally televised news conference, Stringer and each team member addressed the comments by Imus, who referred to the team as "nappy-headed 'hos."

 

Can you link us?

 

Sorry, it got yanked from the site. Props to USAToday.

 

The headline aside, did anybody else see some problems with the story?
First, "emcee?" Why not "M.C.," which stands for masters of ceremonies?
Also, the writer declares Imus' comments "sexist and racist." Why not just let him tie his own noose by quoting the "nappy-headed hos" part (and why the apostraphy in front of hos?)?

 

I never got the racist and sexist comments part. To find something as racist and esxist is a personal opinion. Except for some circumstance like the use of the N world or or blatant race baiting (you know when you see it), how is Imus' comments racist or sexist? Who decided that they were?

Listen, I don't think the comments were appropiate, but racist and sexist? You can argue those points and it seems a journalist should be more careful than assume that those comments are racist or sexist to everyone. Just because they were offended doesn't make it racist or sexist.

 

Well, the article described her as the team spokesperson. So implying the headline is racist is quite a reach.

 

I'm not seeing the connection either

 

What he's getting at is the fact that pointing out how well-spoken she is suggests that she's atypical of blacks or women or ballplayers. Any of them is a negative implication.

 

I've seen this argument before, and I'm not sure I agree that "articulate" or "well-spoken" always means "minority."
I have found that most athletes I deal with aren't particularly well-spoken, regardless of race. I can't think of a time I've written that they are, but I do tend to go to those athletes for quotes most often.

 

I have heard the word "articulate" used to describe minority athletes and have often felt it was based on expectations or biases. However, what I could read from this article, I wouldn't jump all over this writer. He showed examples of this young woman's talents, so he backed it up with some substance.

 

I've dealt with this too: a harmless reference to someone as "well-spoken" is racist if that person is a minority. You can explain that not every college athlete -- regardless of ethnicity -- has a solid command of the English language, but there are people that will take a compliment as an insult. Again, it's a situation where the response is far more intentionally race-based in nature than the actual usage.

 

story is here:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/womensbasketball/bigeast/2007-10-23-carson-hoops_N.htm

headline was changed, but story seems unchanged.