 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Editorial out of bounds Times, not Tiger should boycott MastersPosted: Wednesday November 20, 2002 2:20 PMUpdated: Wednesday November 20, 2002 5:36 PM
The debate over Augusta National Golf Club’s refusal to admit women members has, as predicted, gone over the top. The New York Times made it official when it suggested that Tiger Woods should boycott next year’s Masters if the women’s issue isn’t resolved. The Times again showed its understanding of golf to be every bit as deep as feminist leader Martha Burk's, whose golf gaffes have included initially thinking the Masters could be moved to another course. And the Times is the same paper that once wrote in an obituary for tennis star Vitas Gerulaitis, an avid golfer in his later years, that he was buried with his favorite pink 5-iron. Pink? It was actually a Ping 5-iron but the Times’ golf-challenged editors got it wrong. Tiger Woods shouldn’t boycott anything, except maybe the New York Times. The paper said Woods’ absence from the tournament would send an important message. No, it wouldn’t. And even if it would, it’s not the Times’ call, it’s Tiger’s. 
Here’s what would send an important message to the world about discrimination against women: The New York Times should announce tomorrow that it will not send writers or photographers to cover the Masters Tournament in 2003 unless the club agrees to admit women members and that Dave Anderson, the Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and Cliff Brown, the paper’s esteemed golf writer, are not going to Augusta. If the New York Times believes what its editorial staff writes, it should have the courage to back up its convictions with action and not ask someone else to do their posing for them. The paper should say it will run the Masters scores on its agate page and provide a short wire account of the tournament, so as not to deprive its readers of news, but that it will not take part in promoting a profit-making venture at a site where, in the paper’s view, women aren’t accorded equal rights. It reminds me of the Vietnam War, minus the bombing. Vietnam was a generation gap conflict. I was a teenager in the '60s and speaking for my generation, it wasn’t our war. It was our parents’ war -- or, more correctly, it was the establishment’s war. Fine. All you people over 30 who support this war, who started this war, you go over and fight it. Leave us out of it unless you can tell us what we’re fighting for. No? Didn’t think so. I did, indeed, have a draft number (a lottery you didn’t want to win) but by the time I turned 18, the war was winding down and the draft was nearly dead. The '60s was when our naivete ended, thanks in large part to Vietnam. It’s when we started questioning our government for the first time (and rightly so, it turned out), a rebellious act that was totally resented by the older generation, a group that served in World War II and fought at Normandy and Iwo Jima and in the Korean War. They were the Greatest Generation, as Tom Brokaw aptly dubbed them, and unless you lived it, you have no idea how divisive this era was and why seemingly little things, like the supposedly shocking length of the Beatles’ hair, rock music and non-conformity in general were so contentious. The New York Times should fight its own war, not ask Tiger Woods to serve its cause like some draftee. It’s interesting that Woods should be singled out for a possible boycott. How about Phil Mickelson? Should he boycott the Masters because of the women’s issue? Or Colin Montgomerie? Or Ernie Els? How about Jack Nicklaus? He’s actually a club member. Why not ask him to boycott? Obviously, Woods is the best player in the world and one of the planet’s most famous celebrities. Anything he does is news. The problem is, Woods and his rich cultural background is a walking advertisement for diversity, something golf badly needs. His simple presence does more to work against discrimination of all forms in golf than anything else. Before Woods, the gallery at the Masters featured few faces of color. Inspired by Woods and with the help of Augusta National, that is no longer true. Singling out Woods for a possible boycott is not only unfair, it may smack of racism. Why not ask some white golfers to stay home? It took Augusta National 56 years to finally admit a black member a dozen years ago and now, because women can (and do) play Augusta National as guests but can’t join, we’re going to set back the cause and ask the most famous golfer of color to stay home? It’s insulting to Woods. His standard reply when interviewers try to pin down his race is to say he’s a member of the human race, a remark that has been considered a cop-out. It’s no cop-out. Woods’ view is way ahead of the curve and what we all should aspire to. Pardon the feel-good moment but really, we’re all brothers and sisters in the same family. America is supposed to be the world’s melting pot so people, let’s melt. The New York Times could accomplish something if it addressed the real issue, which is widespread discrimination against women in golf. Not at Augusta National, but at hundreds, maybe thousands, of clubs around the country where women members don’t have equal rights, aren’t allowed in the men’s grill, don’t have equal access to the course with tee times, can’t play on certain days or can’t play until noon on weekends, have no voting rights and if their husband dies, they lose their membership. That’s right, they’re kicked out of the club. That’s discrimination and it’s slow to change. Three women from a course near Philadelphia recently filed a lawsuit against the club for unfairly restricting their access, then reported to police that they received threatening phone calls after the suit went public. Where’s Martha Burk on this one? Where’s USA Today and Christine Brennan? Where’s the social outrage? Where’s the New York Times? The issue of women members at Augusta National is of little consequence, a small gesture that will eventually happen because the club will tire of being held up as an embarrassing international symbol of discrimination (and the guys at Shoal Creek say thanks for finally bumping them off that unwanted pedestal). Then perhaps we can focus on dealing with real women’s discrimination in golf, something no organization or media outlet has substantially addressed. The New York Times could do that. It should have some space available in the sports section next April. Sports Illustrated senior writer Gary Van Sickle covers golf for the magazine and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. The opinions expressed here are solely the writer's. |
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
