Research
Journal of Sport Management, 2011, 25 118-130
© 2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.
The Rutgers Women’s Basketball & Don Imus Controversy
(RUIMUS): White Privilege, New Racism, and the Implications
for College Sport Management
Emmett L. Gill, Jr.
North Carolina Central University
The following is a narrative and critique of the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball Team/Don Imus Morning Show
(RUIMUS) controversy. Using a convenience sample of regional and national media accounts and observations this piece
summarizes the confirmed events of the RUIMUS controversy. The first objective of the manuscript is to provide a synopsis of the RUIMUS controversy. The second purpose is to explore how White privilege (McIntosh, 2003), new racism
(Littlefield, 2008), sexism and their intersection operated during the lifespan of the RUIMUS controversy. The analyses
illustrated the presence of the core elements of White privilege, new racism, sexism and double jeopardy, along with
accounts of alienation, racial ambiguity, masculine characterizations and becoming visible through a prolonged controversy.
The practical implications of these findings for sport managers are presented, and include postcontroversy student-athlete
counseling, social and corrective justice, and proactive communications.
‘It’s more than about the women’s basketball team.
As a society, we’re trying to grow…”—Essence
Carson (Roberts, 2007, p. 1)
Don IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last
night between–a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee,
the women’s final.
Sid ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night–
seventh championship for Pat Summitt, I-Man. They
beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man,
they got tattoos and–
Bernard McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
Don IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there.
I’m gonna tell you that now, man, that’s some–woo.
And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute. (Media Matters, 2007, para 2)
Successful sport managers must be aware that collegiate athletic departments are not immune to scandals
and controversies in general, and in particular to contentious episodes that include race and gender. The opening
vignette is an excerpt from the Rutgers Women’s Basketball and Don Imus (RUIMUS) controversy. It offers a
foundation for examining an issue that has received little
attention by sport management scholars—the alienation
of Black female student athletes.
Studying collegiate sports scandals can be constructive in developing sports-focused models that are
grounded and supported by a conceptual base (Chalip,
2006). Zeilger (2006) describes sport as “one of
humankind’s fundamental social institutions” and as such
sport management should demonstrate social concern”
(p.297). Academic fraud (Kihl, Richardson, & Campisi,
2008), sexual assault (Crosset, 2007; Gill, 2007, Leonard,
2007) and problematic systemic practices and operations
in college football (Cullen, Latessa, & Byrne, 1990) are
a few of the controversies sport management scholars
have begun to examine. Still, there are simply too few
narratives about privilege and racism as they relate to
Black female student athletes.
Race, gender, and sport controversies have become
commonplace in the media, but they have been largely
ignored in sport management scholarship. Jarvie and
Reid (1997) suggest conversations about sport, race, and
gender are necessary. Sport controversies can alienate
and oppress Black female student-athletes who already
confront isolation, media criticism, prejudice and stereotypes. Inattentiveness to race and gender controversies in
sport can impact athletic department’s brand name recognition, alumni donations, corporate sponsorships and
game attendance. More important, race and gender controversies also can negatively affect minority and female
student-athletes’ recruitment, student-athletes’ social
development and social justice for all student-athletes.
Inquires should uncover sociocultural implications that
can be used to craft recommendations in instances when
race, gender, and sport adversely intersect (Zeigler, 2007).
The thirteen-day RUIMUS controversy included
Don Imus’s comments and responses from the Rutgers
Women’s Basketball Team (RWBBT), social and civil
activists, the Don Imus Morning Show sponsors, and the
Rutgers athletic department. The thirteen-day lifespan of
the RUIMUS controversy resulted in 20,000 print and
Gill is with the Dept. of Social Work, North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC.
118
The Rutgers Women’s Basketball and Don Imus Controversy 119
broadcast stories and 4,000 media requests to the university public relations office (Trevor, 2008). When the controversy reached its climax in April of 2007, the RWBBT
appeared via satellite on the Oprah Winfrey Show and on
the cover of Newsweek and The New York Daily News.
Despite the attention, arguably the most publicized race
and gender controversy in collegiate women’s athletics
was born and gone in thirteen days, and we are left to
wonder about its implications for Black female studentathletes and how collegiate athletic departments manage
student-athlete race and gender controversies. Following
is an overview of the settings, conditions, and situations
that created and contextualized the RUIMUS case.
The RUIMUS Case Study
The Imus in the Morning Show was ranked as high as
14th in advertisement income and was broadcast on at
least 70 stations across the United States (Bauder, 2007).
Advertisers paid WFAN $11.3 million per year to advertise on The Don Imus Morning Show and its host, Don
Imus, earned $8 million per year (Lieberman, Petrecca
& Strauss, 2007). The RWBBT and Hall of Fame Coach
C. Vivian Stringer were fresh off of an appearance at the
2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
championship basketball game. The team was a perennial
women’s basketball powerhouse as evident by its Big East
Tournament championship, nineteen NCAA Tournament
appearances and two trips to the NCAA Final Four. Two
senior Rutgers Black female student-athletes embroiled
in the RUIMUS controversy were top seven selections
in the 2007 Women’s National Basketball Association
(WNBA) draft.
On April 3, 2007, the University of Tennessee Lady
Volunteers basketball team defeated the Rutgers University Lady Scarlet Knights 59–46 to win its seventh
Division I NCAA national basketball championship at the
Quicken Loans Center in Cleveland, OH. In spite of the
loss, the RWBBT’s season was deemed a success because
of their dubious run for the women’s national basketball
championship. The Lady Scarlet Knights’ appearance
in the Final Four was improbable after the team started
the season with three injured All-American candidates
whose absence contributed to two wins and four losses
in the first six games—including a 40-point loss to
Duke University (Brubaker & Schneider, 2007). At one
point during the winter semester break, coach C. Vivian
Stringer locked the team out of their own locker room,
required the team to wash their own laundry, shower in
their dorm rooms after workouts and wear their personal
gym clothes to practice. The coaching staff believed the
team did not appreciate the privilege of playing collegiate
basketball and upholding the traditional work ethic of
Rutgers women’s basketball (Stringer & Tucker, 2008).
The team was believed to be conference and national
championship caliber because of their 2005 recruiting
class (which was ultimately evidenced by their eventual
run to the 2007 Women’s Final Four).
The following morning, April 4, 2007, on The Imus
in the Morning Show, a four-hour morning production
that combines locker-room humor and talk with ‘A-list’
politicians, the all-White morning crew played video
highlights from the NCAA women’s national basketball
championship game. The Imus in the Morning Show,
which is also simulcast by MSNBC and CBS, features
30-year shock-jock veteran Don Imus, executive producer
Buddy McGuirk, sports announcer Sid Rosenberg, sidekick Charles McCord and engineer Lou Ruffino. While
playing the video highlights, as introduced previously,
the following verbal exchange ensued:
IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night
between–a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the
women’s final.
ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night–
seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat
Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man,
they got tattoos and–
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there. I’m
gonna tell you that now, man, that’s some–woo.
And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you
know, so, like–kinda like–I don’t know.
McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.
IMUS: Yeah.
McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes–that
movie that he had.
IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough–
McCORD: Do The Right Thing.
McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
IMUS: I don’t know if I’d have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right?
ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I
look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto
Raptors.
IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah.
RUFFINO: Only tougher.
McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more
appropriate - (Media Matters, 2007, para 2)
The National Association of Black Journalists
(NABJ), the largest organization of journalists of color
in the nation, was the first national organization to
denounce the RUIMUS comments. In an April 6, 2007,
press release NABJ expressed that it was “outraged and
120 Gill
disgusted by the crude and insulting comments leveled
by WFAN radio personality Don Imus” (Media Matters, 2007). NABJ called for “an immediate, sincere,
and unequivocal apology” and “for all journalists of all
colors to boycott his show” (Media Matters, 2007). NABJ
President Bryan Monroe simply expressed that “Imus
needs to be fired” (Media Matters, 2007, p.1). On April
8, 2007, The National Organization for Women (NOW)
spoke out on the RUIMUS experience, issuing an e-mail
action alert asking its supporters to send a protest e-mail
letter to WFAN, CBS and MSNBC demanding that Don
Imus be terminated (Media Matters, 2007). Seventy-two
hours later the organization reported that over 20,000
messages were sent to the three entities (Kosova, 2007).
On April 9, the civil rights arena began to assume the
role as the primary operatives behind calls for disciplinary action against Don Imus, and NABJ and the National
Action Network (NAN) led the charge. The NABJ asked
the NAN to get involved. On April 9, the Rainbow Push
Coalition also held a protest in front of the NBC offices
in Chicago, Illinois, in part to encourage action by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against
Don Imus (Associated Press, 2007). The National Council
of Negro Women (NCNW), Inc., the oldest and most prestigious black women’s political organization, weighed in
on April 12th when President Dorothy Height pointed
out how Imus, McGuirk, and Rosenberg’s comments
were related to “monetary gains” and urged advertisers
to move past profits (NCNW, 2007, p.1). NCNW called
for radio stations across the country to drop the nationally
syndicated Imus show.
Late in the day on April 10, the synergy created by
the various groups began to impact the morning show’s
financial backing. Staples and Bigelow Tea announced
they would no longer advertise on Imus’ program. Cindi
Bigelow, a copresident of Bigelow Tea stated “Our
company does not condone or support in any way the
unacceptable comments made by Imus,’. One day later
Proctor and Gamble suspended its advertising commitments for the television simulcast and The New York
Times reported that General Motors stopped its Imus
radio ads (Bauder, 2007). Soon afterwards, GMAC
Financial Services, PetMed Express, Miralus Healthcare,
American Express, GlaxoSmithKline, Ditech.com, Sprint
Nextel Corporation also pulled advertisements from the
show (Steinberg, 2007). ”Those comments, they’re just
not consistent with our values, and we’re not going to
be a part of it,” said Ditech.com spokesperson Stephen
Dupont (Carter & Story, 2007). In total MSNBC and
WFAN lost roughly $6.17 million in revenue because
of the RUIMUS controversy (New York Times, 2007).
Response From the RWBBT
On April 10, the RWBBT held a press conference to
respond to the controversy; the press conference attracted
150 individuals including representatives from Cable
News Network (CNN), New York Times, New York
Daily News, ABC News, the Associated Press, and Inside
Edition. Coach Stringer said, “These young ladies before
you are valedictorians, future doctors, musical prodigies.
These ladies are the best the nation has to offer” (Brubaker & Schneider, 2007, p.1). The RWBBT used this
opportunity to inform the public of the repercussions of
their humiliation, including the death threats, changed
cell phone numbers, interrupted Easter holiday, unwanted
media attention, and other unforeseen circumstances
related to their “stolen moment”. Understandably the
RWBBT team members were humiliated because the
day after they competed for a national championship they
were characterized as kinky-haired, sexually promiscuous, and potentially lesbian women, by four White men to
an audience of 2.5 million listeners. Kia Vaughan closed
with “Now that you’ve met me, I am not a ho. Unless
they’ve given ‘ho’ a new definition, that’s not what I am.”
(Associated Press, 2007, p.1).
On the same day as the RWBBT press conference,
Don Imus appeared on NBC’s Today Show and asserted
that the phrase “nappy-headed ho’s” originated in the
Black community. “I may be a White man,” said Imus,
“but I know that young Black women all through that
society are demeaned and disparaged and disrespected by
their own black men and that they are called that name.”
(Cose, 2007, p. 2). On April 11, Don Imus was fired as
host of The Don Imus Morning Show (Associated Press,
2007). The RWBBT met with Don Imus and his wife
Deidre hours after Imus’ firing, and later accepted his
apology (Associated Press, 2007). “We, the Rutgers University Scarlet Knight basketball team, accept Mr. Imus’
apology, and we are in the process of forgiving,” said
coach C. Vivian Stringer (Associated Press, 2007, p. A1).
Response From Rutgers Athletic
Department
The Rutgers Athletic department did not publicly respond
to Imus’ comments until five days after the comments
became public. The university responded when contacted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA). When contacted by the NCAA, the Rutgers
President, Richard McCormick and Athletic Director,
Robert Mulcahy, agreed to cosign a statement issued by
the NCAA. The Rutgers President and Athletic Director
originally disagreed with the idea of a press conference,
but they were persuaded to hold the press conference after
speaking with the RWBBT and a pastor. After the team
accepted the apology from Don Imus it was recommended
by the pastor that the RWBBT participate in counseling to
deal with any trauma from the controversy. The Athletic
Director vetoed the suggestion.
The RUIMUS controversy raises several questions;
among them are: (a) Are sports managers prepared to deal
with what harm might come to female Black studentathletes due to scandal? and (b) Are sport managers
equipped to achieve social justice outcomes for Black
female student-athletes when scandal erupts? There
were three objectives for this manuscript: (a) to provide
a summary of the RUIMUS controversy, (b) to explore
how elements of white privilege, new racism and sexism
operated during the controversy, and (c) to explore the
The Rutgers Women’s Basketball and Don Imus Controversy 121
research and sport management implications for Black
female student-athlete development and college sports
controversy management.
Conceptual Framework
Conceptual frameworks provide the organizing concepts for the ideologies under examination. Organizing
concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as one
characteristic of an organizing concept may be a trait
of another concept. The conceptual framework for this
case study is constructed under the umbrella of Critical Race Theory (CRT; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Singer,
2005). CRT allows for a thoughtful analysis of sport
phenomena in which scholars are mindful of race (Long
& Hylton, 2002), core social relations, and processes of
power (Ladson-Billings, 1998). CRT permits scholars to
view race as a social construct as well as a tool to study
social problems involving People of Color. According
to this theory, Whiteness is positioned as the standard in
society (Ladson-Billings, 1998), academics, and athletics
and can oppress other ethnic groups. The four organizing
concepts in the conceptual framework that guided this
exploration include: (a) White privilege, (b) new racism,
(d) sexism and (e) ‘double jeopardy.’ There is no linear
order for presenting the organizing concepts except to
say that White privilege is presented first because all of
the perpetrators in the RUIMUS controversy were White
men and the medium they used, talk radio, is dominated
by White men and women.
White Privilege
Scholarship on White privilege has a modest presence in
the sport literature including studies on White privilege
and sport psychology (Butryn, 2002), gender bias (Roper,
2002), African-American student-athletes (Singer, 2005),
professional cricket (Long & Hylton, 2002), American
Indian athletes (Staurowsky, 2006) and men’s distance
running (Walton & Butryn, 2006). McIntosh (2003) refers
to White privilege as an “invisible knapsack of special
provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes,
tools and blank checks” (p.147) that “I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was meant to remain
oblivious” (p.1). Examples of White privilege include
when an individual makes another group feel alienated,
denies alienating others, enjoys the comfort of knowing
the person in charge will be of the same race and being
protected from sanctions after exercising White privilege
(McIntosh, 2003). Whites use the invisible package of
unearned assets through a series of subtle processes
that oftentimes occur because of perceived cultural
differences with others (Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock, &
Kendrick, 1991).
New Racism
New racism is based on the widespread belief that racism
no longer exists and civil rights legislation created an
equal playing field (Littlefield, 2008). New racism,
like White privilege, includes feeling a way of life is
threatened by others and different cultures are assumed
to be incompatible (Barker, 1981). The traits that truly
distinguish new racism from historical racism are: (a)
racial ambiguity, (b) blaming Blacks for their problems,
and (c) the use of the media to facilitate racism. Racial
ambiguity refers to putting forth a nonprejudiced explanation for what might be considered as a prejudiced statement (Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock, & Kendrick, 1991).
For instance, when Don Imus was asked to explain his
comments about the RWBBT he stated that his comments
were intended to be a joke. Inherent in new racism, unlike
historical racism, is the belief that the problems Blacks
experience are not a result of social disadvantage, but
rather a result of some inherent deviance in Black culture (Collins, 2004; Ferber, 2007; Littlefield, 2008). In
the RUIMUS case study, Don Imus ascribed the origin
of phrases like “nappy-headed” and “ho” to gangsta and
mainstream rap music artists. The third distinguishing
characteristic of new racism, when compared with historical racism, is the use of the media to expediently and
expansively alienate the target group (Littlefield, 2008).
Don Imus and his colleagues are syndicated radio shock
jocks, which affords them added freedom to open up their
invisible knapsack (McIntosh, 2003) of sexist and racist
insults to millions of listeners.
Sexism
Sexism is the belief or attitude that women are inferior to
men, the application of masculine stereotypes to women
or the hatred of one gender or sex (Brittan, 1984). In
collegiate sports, sexism can manifest itself in several
ways including inequitable funding streams dedicated
to women’s sports, media coverage of women’s sporting
events (Blinde, Greendorfer. & Shanker, 1991), women’s
college coaching salaries (Kamphoff & Gill, 2008), views
on elite female athletes (Kolnes, 1995) and prejudice and
discrimination against lesbians (Cullen, Latessa & Byrne,
1990). Sexist views on female athletes originated in the
1920s, from medical establishment concerns about the
masculinizing effects of sport participation on women
(Griffith, 2000). From a contemporary standpoint, football, men’s basketball and most male college sports draw
more interest and revenue than women’s college sports.
This reality provides the foundation for beliefs about
female athletic inferiority. Sexism appears most often
in women’s basketball, in part, because the game draws
the most attention among women’s college sports and
because women’s basketball is more similar to a men’s
sport than any other college sport. In addition, women’s
basketball is not one of the socially approved ‘feminine’
sports like tennis or golf (Kane, 1989). Traditionally,
‘country club’ sports like tennis, golf and gymnastics are
viewed as more feminine and these sports are, coincidentally, inundated with White women. Black women have
customarily participated in basketball and track, which
have long been considered as masculine sports (Johnson, 1994). In the RUIMUS case, the members of the
RWBBT were characterized as masculine via analogies
122 Gill
to professional male basketball players, comparisons to
professional basketball team mascots, references to their
tattoos and through other unflattering remarks about their
physical appearance.
Double Jeopardy
Over time, sexism (Collins, 2004), economic disenfranchisement (Evans, 1998), the necessity of work
(Ashe, 1998), animalistic portrayals (Hall, 1981), power
structures (Bruening, Armstrong, & Pastore, 2005), and
humiliating stereotypes (Vertinsky & Captain, 1998) have
deterred Black females from participating in athletics.
Thirty-five years after the implementation of Title IX,
Black females have still not prospered to the degree of
White females in collegiate sports opportunities (Evans,
1998). On one hand, since the inception of Title IX the
participation rate of Black females in college sports has
increased 955% (Lopiano, 2007). Still, Black female
collegiate athletic participation lags behind every other
identifiable ethnic category. In 2004–2005, in women’s
soccer, lacrosse, and rowing, the sports that have experienced the most growth because of Title IX, White
females outnumbered Black females 11,692–594 (Gill,
2007). In 2000, Black female student-athletes, excluding
track and basketball participants, were awarded 2.7% of
all Division I athletic financial aid awarded to female
athletes (Suggs, 2001), indicating a longstanding/continual pattern.
Blake (1999) says, “Black women are at the intersection of two of the most pervasive prejudices in America;
racism and sexism.” (p.84). Viewing Imus and his colleagues comments as potentially racist or sexist is a
superficial analysis and fails to acknowledge the exclusive
impact of both “isms” on Black female student-athletes.
When referring to jeopardy we are referring to the danger,
risk or harm (American Heritage, 2009) produced by
prejudice. Black females are in double jeopardy in almost
every realm of society including leadership (Gaetane,
Williams & Sherman, 2009), postsecondary education
(Hanson, 2004), the workplace (Blake, 1999) and sports
(Kamphoff & Gill, 2008; Lapchick, 2000; Smith, 1992).
Smith (1992) believes the experiences of multicultural women in American sports are not identical to White
women because there are different social realities. Still,
little is written about the experiences of Black female
student-athletes; in part because Black female students
comprise less than a quarter of all female student-athletes
in Division I sports. In critical analyses Black female
athletes have been described as silenced (Smith, 1992),
invisible (Edwards, 1999; Evans, 1999), exploited (Lattimer, 2005) and left behind (Corbett, 2002). According
to Harris (1994), “intersectionality posits that AfricanAmerican women share unique life experiences that differ
from those of African-American men or White women”
(p.745). Ferber (2007) and Edwards (1999) argue that
race and gender are interacting and inseparable. As bellhooks suggests, Black women’s bodies function as “the
discursive terrain, the playing fields where racism and
sexuality converge.” (2004, p.4). Edwards (1999) adds
that race and gender are not additive variables, in that
they interlock in the female Black body and intensify the
singular experiences of racism or sexism. Mathewson’s
descriptor “the function at the junction” (1996, p.243)
reminds us that silencing, exploiting and neglecting Black
female student-athletes produces some unique results.
According to Mathewson, “If the mixture (of race and
gender) were actually a compound or solution, it would
have properties that are different from the sum of the
properties of the individual elements” (1996, p.243).
Methods
The methodology for this inquiry is a descriptive case
study, involving an in-depth examination of a single event
(Flyvbjerg, 2006). Case studies are used to interpret and
bring meaning to a unique and extreme case (Yin, 1994).
A case study is an appropriate approach to explore the
RUIMUS episode because the method aims to promote
our understanding of a social situation by interpreting the
interrelated activities engaged in by the central actors in
the controversy (Feagin, Orum, & Sjoberg, 1990).
Data Collection
Documents, direct observation and interviewing were the
data collection methods used to analyze the RUIMUS
case (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). The documents used to
analyze the case were print newspapers, Internet articles,
and news magazines. Media texts can help structure social
relations and oftentimes serve as the site where groups
strive to influence ideologies throughout society (Davis,
1993). Studying media texts is a qualitative research
technique that helps to explore multiple and conflicting perspectives. The media content used to document
the RUIMUS case study was based on a convenience
sample of news stories from three national newspapers,
three local newspapers, one national magazine and two
Internet sites. The national newspapers included The
New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post.
The local newspapers included The Newark Star-Ledger,
The Rutgers Daily Targum and The Home News Tribune.
The national news magazine was Newsweek and the
Internet news websites were Media Matters and Cable
News Network (CNN). A total of 77 news articles were
located to document the case study, all of the articles
were collected during the thirteen-day lifespan of the
event. The sample was limited to 77 articles because the
information presented in subsequent news articles did
not yield any new data.
Direct participant observation was the second data
collection method. Direct participant-observation makes
the author an active participant in the events being studied (Tellis, 1997). The author was an assistant professor
at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, School
of Social Work at the time the RUIMUS controversy
unfolded. The author was not the women’s basketball
team faculty mentor at the time, but when the author
began to write-up, analyze and edit the case study he
was the team faculty mentor. As a direct participant
The Rutgers Women’s Basketball and Don Imus Controversy 123
in the Rutgers women’s basketball team activities, the
author was able to make a number of observations that
helped to better understand emerging themes, guide data
collection, and develop the proposed sport management
implications.
Interviewing was the final data collection technique.
Interviews are one of the most important sources of case
study information (Tellis, 1997). One interview was
conducted with a key informant to provide additional
insight into the RUIMUS events and to corroborate the
direct observations of the author. The interview included
unstructured questions about the Rutgers Athletics
Department and University Administrations’ response
to the RUIMUS controversy.
Case Study Analyses
Case studies lend themselves to generating and testing
hypotheses, propositions or themes (Flyybjerg, 2006).
The RUIMUS case included critical, yet, interpretive
analyses. The case study employed pattern-matching
(Campbell, 1975) to demonstrate the presence of, and to
interpret, three a priori themes. After the initial analyses,
the data generated an additional theme. After the full
analysis, the authors engaged in peer debriefing to provide
an external check on the methodological process and
provide feedback concerning the accuracy of the data collection and analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The authors
engaged in peer debriefing with two colleagues who have
substantial practical and research experience in college
sports. White privilege, new racism and sexism were the
three original sensitizing themes; however, during peer
debriefing a new theme became apparent as a result of the
intersection between the three original themes.
It is important to acknowledge the positionality of the
author in the development of the case study analysis and
its implications. The position of the author, as the only
Black male tenure-track assistant professor in the school
of Social Work and RWBBT faculty mentor, made him
more sensitive to the operations and influence of White
privilege, racism and sexism on the RWBBT. The author’s
work experience in collegiate athletics, in addition to his
work with the RWBBT, provided him with insight that
was not reflected in media articles. Qualitative researchers should acknowledge that analyses are not completely
objective, as we bring our own positions, meaning, values,
and backgrounds into our interpretation (Hertz, 1997).
Standpoint theory holds that different individuals or
groups in society possess significantly different perspectives that shape their views of reality (Woods, 1993). It
is important to acknowledge that individuals from other
positions may have alternative interpretations.
Critical Analysis
The RUIMUS case study originally included three objectives: (a) to provide a summary of the RUIMUS controversy, (b) to explore how elements of White privilege, new
racism, and sexism operated in the controversy, and (c) to
explore the research and sport management implications
for Black female student-athlete development and college
sports controversy management. After the initial analyses
a fourth objective emerged—to describe the impact of
the intersection between white privilege, new racism and
sexism on the RWBBT.
White Privilege: Alienation, Denial,
and Protection From Sanctions
“I am a woman and I am someone’s child.”—Kia
Vaughan (Wentworth & Patterson, 2007, p A1)
Alienation in the context of White privilege refers to
behavior that makes one group comfortable while making
another group feel uncomfortable (McIntosh, 2003).
Alienation is a component of racism, but it is also a trait
of White privilege because “White” is viewed as the racial
standard in American society. People of all colors, not just
Whites, can make non-White people feel inferior because
they do not have certain White characteristics. The alienation experienced by the RWBBT included feelings of
confusion, intimidation and anger that resulted from the
racist and sexist comments analyzed below. In a Newark
Star-Ledger article (Wentworth & Patterson, 2007, p.
A4) freshman Myia McCurdy asked “Why would he say
that if he doesn’t know us or what we accomplished?”
Sophomore Kia Vaughan stated “When I heard the quote
I was confused. I felt intimidated and scared and it was
the first time I ever felt that way in my life. I could not
believe someone was talking about my womanhood”
(Kelley, Starr & Connant, 2007, p.32).
Not only did the actual media narratives impact
members of the RWBBT, but they were also affected by
how the narratives were obtained by journalists. “The
media was calling our houses, our cell phones, following us around campus,” said Heather Zurich, “We went
home for the weekend and you couldn’t ignore the issue”
(Wentworth & Patterson, 2007, p. A4). Cocaptain Essence
Carson added, “Before the student comes the daughter”
(Jenkins, 2007, p. E1). This comment referenced them
being harassed at their homes, noting the place where
their primary role is someone’s daughter—which takes
precedence to their role as being student-athletes. Matee
Ajavon provided some insight into the long-term implications of the constant media replay of the misogynistic
comments. “I think this has scared me for life. I’ve dealt
with racism before, but for it to be in the public eye like
this is something I’ll probably tell my granddaughter
about” (Wentworth & Patterson, 2007, p. A4).
RWBBT members’ feelings of alienation may have
been further compounded by the growing public backlash
that developed after Imus shifted the focus to the rap community. “I want the hate mail being sent to them to stop. If
anyone has hate mail, send it to my husband. You’re doing
the wrong thing here,” pleaded Deidre Coleman Imus
(ABC News, 2007). Sniderman and Piazza (1993) argue
while most Whites do not believe blacks are born inferior,
many believe Blacks take advantage of the system. The
RWBBT was realienated when the team was portrayed as
a privileged group that should be content. The media and
124 Gill
its audience expressed opinions that the team should stop
trying to milk the system. “Those young ladies may not
be as embarrassed as they put on. By the weekend, they
will be partying and backing that thang up to the rhythm
and beat of musicians that refer to them as nappy-headed
ho’s” (ABC News, 2007). This comment was a reference
to Black women’s dancing to hip-hop songs where this
type of language and innuendos are commonplace. The
realienation of the RWBBT is also discussed later in the
section on double jeopardy because the dialogue reignited
concerns about privileged student-athletes and elicited
further racist and sexist comments such as “backing that
thang up” (ABC News, 2007).
Denial (McIntosh, 2003) is the second element of
White privilege. The privileged can deny they used any
special privileges if their comments or their actions
initially appear to be racially ambiguous (Sniderman,
Piazza, Tetlock, & Kendrick, 1991). McIntosh (2003)
refers to denial as White males’ “license to be ignorant”
(p.3). Privilege occurred when Imus’ comments were
described as “thoughtless and stupid” (Associated Press,
2007, p. A1) and not attributed to feelings of prejudice
or White superiority. “What I did was make a stupid,
idiotic mistake in a comedy context” (Associated Press,
2007, p. A1). Imus’ denial was facilitated by another
characteristic of White privilege; White men can be pretty
sure the person in charge looks like them (McIntosh,
2003). Don Imus, Bernard McGuirk, Charles McCord,
and Lou Ruffino, the tandem that made the misogynistic
comments, are all White males. The direct supervisors of
the Don Imus Morning Show were also White. Capitol
Broadcasting Systems (CBS) Chief Executive Officer,
Leslie Moonves, and WFAN General Manager, Chuck
Bortnick, were also embroiled in the RUIMUS controversy because of pressure from the civil rights and
feminist communities. Just because White males are in
charge does not suggest the stakeholders misused their
privilege or cashed in some unearned asset. However,
the racial and gender homogeneity of the men involved,
and in charge, raises concerns regarding their capacity to
understand exactly how the episode injured the RWBBT
and further damaged the social images of Black female
student-athletes.
The final indicator of White privilege present in
the RUIMUS controversy is the protection Don Imus
experienced from financial, criminal or civil sanctions
(McIntosh, 2003). The day Don Imus was fired, his show
was allowed to conduct a radiothon for his charities and
the event raised $1.3 million in less than 24 hr (Associated Press, 2007). Four months later, Imus’ protected
status was again apparent in his ability to negotiate a
$20 million settlement with CBS to preempt a $120 million defamation lawsuit (Associated Press, 2007). Then,
despite Imus’ firing eight months earlier, he was hired
by an ABC affiliate and back on the radio by December
3, 2007 (Associated Press, 2007). One of the intermediate benefits of White protection from sanctions is that
the absence of deterrents helps them to maintain and
strengthen white privilege (McIntosh, 2003). Not only
did Don Imus return to the airwaves and receive a new
$8 million contract, but when he returned to the airwaves
his new employer staged a $100 per person benefit for
Imus’ charitable camp (Associated Press, 2007). Furthermore, when Don Imus returned to the airwaves so
did Bernard McGuirk, Charles McCord and some of his
sponsors including Bigelow Tea, Sirius Satellite Radio
and the Mohegan Sun Casino (Associated Press, 2007;
Farhi, 2007).
New Racism: Racial Ambiguity,
Black Men, and the Media
Referring to the RWBBT as “ho’s”, suggesting the
RWBBT did not meet the physical standards of the
White females on the Lady Volunteers basketball team
(Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock, & Kendrick, 1991) and
commenting the “girls from Tennessee all look cute…”
(Media Matters, 2007, p.3) are all racist, but there is
little new about the prejudices expressed by Don Imus
and his colleagues. However, new racism was evident
because Imus’ comments contained racially ambiguous
components; Don Imus responded by blaming the rap
industry for its role in the ongoing degradation of Black
females and Don Imus and his colleagues used the media
to transmit the misogynistic comments.
Don Imus’s comments were racially ambiguous or
they allowed for a nonprejudiced explanation for what
might be considered as a prejudiced statement (Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock, & Kendrick, 1991). Racial ambiguity allows individuals who want to alienate people
of color to make use of “implicit racialized codings”
(Back, Keith, Kahn, Shukra & Solomos, 2002, p.6). The
racialized codings used by Don Imus and his colleagues
included Do The Right Thing, Jigaboos and Wannabes.
Despite our perceived familiarity with the expressions,
these concepts have newly baked meanings. Jigaboos
and Wannabees also are racialized codings because not
all members of Imus’s listening audience may be familiar
with the famous Spike Lee movie Do The Right Thing.
In Do The Right Thing the main plot revolves around
conflict between light-skinned (i.e., Wannabes) and darkskinned (i.e., Jigaboos) Black college students. Moreover,
the original definition of a Jigaboo was a person from
Africa, but the contemporary definition also refers to
a Black person living in or around a crack cocaine or
whore house (Urban Dictionary, 2006). Wannabe, a term
that was introduced in the 1980s, is coded language for a
person who wants their ethnic description to be White or
a person with an ambition to be someone or something
that they are not (Urban Dictionary, 2006). The reference
to Lee’s movie and use of coded language from the movie
was ambiguous because they lacked the clearness and
definitiveness of other racial slurs or insults.
Secondly, new racism asserts that Whites blame
Blacks for their own conditions (Verikuyten & Masson,
1995) and Don Imus responded to his critics by blaming
the rap industry for its role in the ongoing degradation of
Black females. In the RUIMUS controversy new racism
The Rutgers Women’s Basketball and Don Imus Controversy 125
was facilitated by the prevailing ideology regarding rap
music as a form of self-degradation that contributes to
violence, drug abuse and other risk factors in underclass
environments (Chappell, 1995). Rap artists can attribute
their lyrics to their counter-storytelling because they
discuss people and scenarios that unfold in their immediate community. In addition, rap artists do not negatively
compare Black women in their community to White
women. The allegations prompted the rap community to
respond and provided additional analyses and coverage
of the controversy. Calvin Broadus (aka Snoop Dogg)
penned a song with fellow rapper and actor Chris Bridges
(aka Ludacris) entitled Who Let These Hoes In My Room.
Broadus says, “They’re trying to stomp out rap with this
Imus situation. I don’t want to speak too heavily on it, but
they’re trying to use us as a scapegoat” (Reid, 2007, p.2).
In the midst of the media storm and the shift in the
focus, from Don Imus to the rap community, the notion
of a double standard was also introduced. Lou Dobbs,
host of CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, said of the RUIMUS
controversy “We must bring one standard, that is one
of honesty and truth. And that means that we’ve got to
look at the words that are being articulated in rap music”
(Goldberg, 2007, p.1). Nicole Symmonds (2007), After
Imus: Rap Deserves a Slap in the Face added, “Imus’
defense is, basically, that Black people use this language,
so why can’t I? And as much as I hate to admit it given
my feelings about Imus these days, he’s right” (p.1). Even
media types who did not support the double standard
argument ended up indirectly perpetuating the oppression
they sought to change by contributing to the development
of the media storm. In efforts to pursue the RUIMUS
controversy, one of the top scandals in 2007 (Salemme,
2007), the RWBBT became the center of repeated news
stories, human-interest exposes, commentaries, readers’
responses and online blogs. The continuous case analyses
by Whites and Blacks, conservatives and liberals and
sports fans and nonsports fans eventually created space
for the notion of a double standard. The media’s questions
regarding a double standard extended media life of the
RUIMUS controversy.
Sexism: Inferior Black Women
and Presumptions of Masculinity
Sexism is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex
is inferior to, less competent or less valuable than the
other gender (Brittan, 1984). Sexism can also refer to
the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation
to men (Brittan, 1984). The sexuality of the members of
the RWBBT were ‘masculanized’ and degraded as they
were physically compared with men (i.e., when Imus
and his colleagues made comparisons between a college
women’s basketball team and professional men’s basketball teams). Sid Rosenberg stated that members of the
RWBBT resembled members of the National Basketball
Association’s (NBA) Toronto Raptors. Afterward Bernard
McGuirk added the RWBBT resembled the “Memphis
Grizzles” (Media Matters, 2007). To further accentuate
their masculine characterizations Imus also commented
“that’s some rough looking girls from Rutgers. Man,
they got tattoos”. Rough has numerous connotations, one
definition is “not refined or polite” (American Heritage,
2009). Shortly afterward, Sid Rosenberg commented the
RWBBT looked like the “Toronto Raptors” and Lou Ruffino added “only tougher”. Ruffino’s comments served
to suggest the RWBBT was tougher than the men on a
professional basketball team. Racism and sexism interact
here given that the NBA is primarily composed of Black
men and because Don Imus compared the RWBBT to a
group of Black men.
The masculine references made by Don Imus and
his colleagues also could cause listeners and followers of the story to infer members of the RWBBT were
lesbians. Being called a lesbian is not necessarily sexist,
but inferring a female basketball player is a lesbian has
a negative connotation in certain circles. The Jennifer
E. Harris v. Maureen T. Portland and the Pennsylvania
State University (PSU) underscores the prevalence of
negative views toward lesbians in women’s basketball.
Portland, the former PSU women’s head basketball coach,
removed Harris, who is Black, from the basketball team
because of her perceived sexual orientation. Portland had
a long-standing policy against coaching lesbian studentathletes, but Harris was heterosexual (Harris, 2006).
Prejudices against lesbian student-athletes oftentimes
play out in negative recruiting or the practice of playing
on homophobic stereotypes to deter recruits from attending rival athletic programs by alleging or implying that
team members are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender
(Griffin & Carroll, 2009).
Double Jeopardy: Animalistic Portrayals,
Controversial Visibility, and Injustice
The intersection of racism and sexism, experienced by
Black female athletes, is characterized as double jeopardy
(Abney, 1999; Grimsley, 1978; Lapchick, 2000). Again,
when referring to jeopardy we are referring to danger,
risk or harm (American Heritage, 2009) based, in this
context, on their ascribed gender and race. Providing
a succinct descriptor for the compound produced by
interactions of White privilege, new racism and sexism
is difficult, but we can examine the experiences of the
RWBBT and how they might be qualitatively different
from their White female counterparts. The RWBBT
were compared with animals, made visible through an
international controversy, and experienced little, if any,
corrective or social justice.
First, the female Rutgers student-athletes were
equated to two professional men’s basketball teams
whose mascots happened to be animals. The RUIMUS
controversy was not the first time Imus’ cohost Sid
Rosenberg used primitive language to reference Black
female athletes. In June of 2001, Rosenberg recalled an
exchange he had with a friend on the air, “One time, a
friend says to me listen, one of these days you’re going
to see Venus and Serna Williams in Playboy. I said you
126 Gill
have got a better shot at National Geographic” (JET
Magazine, 2001).
Secondly, Black female student-athletes are a very
small subpopulation in the universe of student-athletes,
yet the RWBBT became highly visible because of an
international controversy. Black female student-athletes
comprise less than a quarter of all Division I female
student-athletes, which is one reason they have remained
largely invisible. Despite their positive contributions to
collegiate academics and athletics, after their run for the
women’s national basketball championship, the RWBBT
were still barely visible. However, after Don Imus and
his colleagues broadcast their comments, Imus and the
RWBBT became a leading news story in the US for nearly
two weeks. In terms of media coverage, the thirteen-day
occurrence reached more people, over a longer period
of time, than any other controversy related to racism
and sexism in college sports. In an atmosphere where
it is difficult for women’s athletics to get attention, the
contentious visibility of Black female athletes was damaging to the members of the RWBBT and Black female
athletes in general.
Third, there was no social or corrective justice in the
RUIMUS controversy. Don Imus was given a $20 million
settlement after filing a lawsuit against CBS and eight
months later, he was rewarded with a multimillion dollar
contract with ABC. On the other hand, the RWBBT did
not receive any financial compensation for the defamation
of their character. In September of 2007, then RWBBT
member, Kia Vaughan, filed a lawsuit in New York State
Supreme Court against Don Imus for libel, slander and
defamation that were intentional and motivated by greed
and financial gain (Setrakian, 2007). Vaughan withdrew
her lawsuit less than a week later to “concentrate on the
upcoming basketball season” (Setrakian, 2007, para 1).
Meanwhile, as the national media—ABC news reported, a
blogger wrote, “You are the biggest HO for filing this frivolous lawsuit. You are a mere opportunist taking advantage
of the system and if you get one dime out of this I hope
you choke on it. Whore, is someone who would go against
their principles for money. Hope she had excellent principles prior to April 4, 2007. Pray your underwear drawer
is clean Kia.” (ABC News, 2007). No other RWBBT team
member pursued civil action against Imus. Jennifer Harris
received nothing from Pennsylvania State University for
her humiliation and the members of the RWBBT did not
receive any compensation for the harm caused by Don
Imus and The Don Imus Morning Show cast.
As illustrated in this critique, poignant signs and
markers of White privilege, new racism, sexism, and
race-gender double jeopardy were evident throughout the
RUIMUS controversy. Such offensive and unjust depictions and characterizations may have lifelong implications for members of the RWBBT. As stated previously,
Matee Ajavon provided some insight into the effect of
the humiliation. “I think this has scarred me for life. I’ve
dealt with racism before, but for it to be in the public eye
like this is something I’ll probably tell my granddaughter
about” (Wentworth & Patterson, 2007, p. A4).
Sport Management Implications
“My experience tells me you don’t get too many
chances to stand up for what’s right.”—Essence
Carson (Associated Press, 2007, p.A1)
Preventing college sports controversies is improbable; however, there are a number of strategies that may
be employed that will allow athletic departments to ‘stand
up’ for what is right concerning their student athletes who
have been victimized by privilege, racism and sexism.
Among such strategies are group and individual counseling, social and corrective justice policies and practices,
and proactive communications. Following is a discussion
of these measures.
Student-Athlete Post-Controversy Mental
Health Counseling
Student-athletes’ mental health should be the first
priority for collegiate sport administrators when race
and gender controversies erupt. Several interventions
are plausible, but providing embattled Black female
student-athletes with counseling that helps them to cope
with the influences of privilege, racism and sexism and
their consequences is vital. The Rutgers athletic department neglected to provide the RWBBT with counseling
despite the RWBBT members’ feelings of alienation,
anger, disbelief and confusion. The RWBBT may have
benefited from learning strategies to deal with the intermediate and long-term implications of ‘double jeopardy.
A forum to discuss their feelings, self-perception and
postcontroversy athletic and academic commitment with
a licensed professional, would have been beneficial to the
RWBBT. A therapeutic response should be a component
of an athletic department’s tangible guide to deal with
race and gender controversies. Group counseling should
be used to develop constructive ideas for achieving some
fairness or corrective justice for student-athletes in the
aftermath of college sports controversies. Insuring group
and individual counseling is paramount, sport managers
should also recognize some student-athletes are singled
out, or frequently quoted, by the media and might need
additional therapeutic aftercare.
In the RUIMUS controversy three student-athletes,
Essence Carson, Matee Ajavon and Kia Vaughan, became
the names and faces observers linked to the controversy.
Eight months after the RUIMUS controversy KiaVaughan
was still distraught enough to file a federal lawsuit.
The prolonged media engagement required this trio to
endlessly revisit White privilege, racism and sexism.
Members of the RWBBT, especially members who are
still in the public eye, might benefit from therapeutic
exercises that allow them to cope with any revictimization. When controversy compromises a student-athletes’
self-concept, athletic departments are responsible for
protecting the student-athletes. This responsibility is particularly critical in situations where the student-athletes
are victimized while representing the university.
The Rutgers Women’s Basketball and Don Imus Controversy 127
Social and Corrective Justice
In the State of the Association Speech, NCAA president
Myles Brand (NCAA, 2008) expressed his view that
sports have an important role in promoting social justice
(Eitzen, 2002). Social justice refers to an ongoing awareness of injustice, power, and access (Sarvasy, 1992).
Despite the public consensus regarding the presence of
racism and sexism in the Imus incident, there was very
little attention to social and corrective justice. In spite of
counseling, without some level of social and corrective
justice, it is very difficult for student-athletes to move
forward emotionally. The RUIMUS storm was a rare
collegiate sports controversy, yet it demonstrates the need
for collegiate athletic administrators to be positioned to
protect their student-athletes and pursue social and corrective justice on their behalf. The university, with leadership from the athletic department, should be committed
to seeking social and corrective justice on behalf of the
student-athletes who are targeted while representing the
university and athletic department. Social and corrective
justice can take many forms, but the options are limited by
the politics of college athletics. With the array of opinions
that surround collegiate sports, not all stakeholders will
agree to pursue social and corrective justice or reach a
consensus on the type of measures to pursue.
One form of social and corrective justice the athletic
department could have considered for RWBBT was to
mobilize the myriad of organizations that expressed
their support for the team. No less than ninety-three
organizations officially responded to the misogynistic
comments made on The Don Imus Morning Show via
written reprimand, boycott, or rally. The Rutgers athletic and university public relations departments had the
resources to harness the interest, energy and resources
of the organizations and public figures that supported the
RWBBT. The athletic department might have: (a) led an
effort to request that Don Imus and MSNBC contribute
to an endowed scholarship for future RWBBT Black
female student-athletes, (b) held a ceremony to recognize the RWBBT for their courage, or (c) developed a
university sponsored appeal for the Don Imus Morning
Show sponsors to take more corrective action. Regardless of the means by which athletic departments support
Black female student-athletes who are targeted by racism
and sexism what is most important is that corrective and
social justice actions are taken.
Institutional-level involvement is equally as important as mobilizing external entities to protecting studentathletes and pursuing social and corrective justice when
racism and sexism occurs. Universities, in particular their
student affairs and counseling centers, should become
more involved in the overall welfare of student-athletes,
ensuring that they are having experiences that are free of
social injustices. Student affairs departments, especially
those at universities where the athletic department/director reports to the university Provost, should create social
and corrective justice policies that require sport supervisors and coaches to provide student-athletes, involved in
controversy, with counseling from a licensed professional
at the university. Social and corrective justice policies
intended to ensure postcontroversy student-athlete wellbeing should also include some form of independent
checks and balances, whereby licensed professionals
provide written reports detailing the outcome of the
intervention and recommendations for aftercare to the
Provost and athletic director.
Proactive Communications
Lastly, Athletic Directors should seriously consider
aggressive communication strategies that: (a) provide
a positive image of student-athletes touched by the
controversy, and (b) reach the myriad of print, radio,
and television communication channels. Developing a
proactive communication strategy requires additional
financial resources; therefore, this effort should not be
simply assigned to team sports information personnel.
Crises may require athletic departments to take out print,
radio, or even television advertisements. Likewise, athletic departments cannot solely rely on beat reporters or
other typical outlets to spread a message intended to be
proactive or to achieve some form of social and corrective justice. Consider the strength of the advertisement
produced by Nike after the RUIMUS controversy.
Thank you, Ignorance
Thank you for starting the conversation
Thank you for making an entire nation listen to the
Rutgers team’s story.
And for making us wonder what other great stories
we’ve missed…
(Howard, 2007)
Limitations and Future Research
While this study has the potential to contribute to studentathlete well-being and the crisis management skills of
sport managers, it is not without limitation. The primary
shortcoming of the current case study is the absence of
firsthand accounts, via personal interviews, from the
RWBBT. There were an array of comments from the
RWBBT to media inquiries, but it is possible that individual or group interviews, with a trained professional,
would have elicited different or enhanced responses. This
weakness underscores the need for additional research
that will also broaden our understanding of how racism
and sexism penetrate college athletics and how to develop
effective sport management interventions for studentathletes when they are targets of racist and sexist behavior.
Additional research, most notably qualitative
research, on how Black female athletes experience
racism and sexism is sorely needed based on the dearth
of research available. Sport managers should understand
what forms of racism and sexism seriously impact Black
128 Gill
female student-athletes and how these acts impact their
mental health. From a sport management standpoint,
data should be collected that speaks to the willingness of
sport managers to recognize racism and sexism and assess
their capacity to handle controversies involving racism
and sexism. With these implications in mind, it makes
sense for sport management students, sport academics,
athletic departments, conference offices and the NCAA
to pay close attention to the next collegiate sports race
and gender controversy.
Post Script: In an April 13, 2007, commentary Justin
Miller, a Rutgers alumnus, recounts his coverage
of the 2001 Big East Women’s Basketball Tournament and a story written by a local Hartford (CT)
reporter. Miller recalls how he noticed something
very odd about the Rutgers team in the first game
of the tournament in that almost every player on
the team had white tape covering different parts of
their body – including their forearms and calves.
He wondered why they required so much tape.
Miller later learned that a local reporter had written an article attacking/ridiculing the team’s tattoos
and bravado and their failure to win the particular
game. Miller then realized that the covering of the
tattoos was Stringer’s way of bringing attention to
the obvious racial undertones contained throughout
the local reporter’s article. In 2001 Miller criticized
the move and felt the tournament was the wrong time
for Stringer and her team to make such a statement.
However, to close his 2007 commentary, written in
the midst of the RUIMUS controversy, Miller wrote:
“What I did not realize was that she was fighting a
bigger issue that had followed her players around
much of their lives” (p.9). Miller’s closing statement was a reference to and recognition of: (a) the
ills Black women (in general) must contend with by
being ‘other-defined’ and (b) the symbolic nature of
the Black female student-athletes’ attempt to cover
the tattoos and thus, ‘cover’ the markers seeking to
unjustly define them.
References
Abney, R. (1999). African American women in sport. Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70(4), 35–38.
ABC News. (2007). Imus’ wife: Send all hate mail to him.
Retrieved on April 13, 2007, from www.abcnews.go.com/
GMA/print?id=3037072.
American Heritage. (2009). Dictionary of the English Language
(4th ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company.
Ashe, A.R. (1998). A Hard Road To Glory: A History Of The
African American Athlete. New York, New York: Amistad.
Associated Press. (2007, December 3). Imus returns, says
Rutgers furor was ‘life-changing’. Retrieved on April 7,
2008, from www.espn.com.
Associated Press. (2007, August 15). Rutgers player sues Imus
and CBS. The Star Ledger. A2.
Associated Press. (2007, April 10). Rutgers coach: Imus’
comments ‘despicable’. Retrieved on April 10, 2007,
from www.msnbc.msn.comid/179999196/print/1/displaymode/1098/.
Associated Press. (2007a, April 10). Rutgers women’s team,
coach speak out. Retrieved on April 10, 2007, from www.
espn.com.
Associated Press. (2007, April 12). Imus Raises Nearly $1
million for charity Despite Being Dropped from MSNBC.
Retrieved on April 15, 2007, from www.foxnews.com/
printer_freindly_story/0,3566,265483,00.
Back, L., Keith, M., Kahn, A., Shukra, K., & Solomos, J. (2002).
The return of assimilation: Race, multiculturalism and new
labour. Retrieved on December 6, 2009, from http://www.
socresonline.org.uk/7/2/back.html/
Barker, M. (1981). The new racism: Conservatives and the
ideology of the tribe. London: Junction Books.
Bauder, D. (2007). Imus loses two advertisers. Retrieved on
April 11, 2007, from msn.foxsports.com
Bell-Hooks, B. (2004). We Real Cool: Black Men and Masculinity. New York, New York: Routledge.
Blake, S. (1999). At the crossroads of race and gender: Lessons
from the mentoring experiences of professional Black
women. In A.J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, F.J., & R. J. Ely
(Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas; Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Blinde, E.M., Greendorfer, S.L., & Shanker, R.J. (1991). Differential media coverage of men’s and women’s intercollegiate basketball: Reflection of gender ideology. Journal
of Sport and Social Issues, 15(2), 98–114.
Brittan, A. (1984). Sexism, racism and oppression. New York:
Blackwell.
Brubaker, B., & Schneider, H. (2007, April 10). Rutgers players criticize Imus’s remarks. Retrieved on April 10, 2007,
from www.washingtonpost.com.
Bruening, J.E., Armstrong, K.L., & Pastore, D.L. (2005). Listening to the voices: The experiences of African American
female student athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 76(1), 82–100.
Butryn, T.M. (2002). Critically examining White racial identity
and privilege in sport psychology consulting. The Sport
Psychologist, 16, 316–336.
Campbell, D. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study.
Comparative Political Studies, 8, 178–185.
Carter, B., & Story, L. (2007, April 12). NBC News Drops
Imus Show Over Racial Remarks. Retrieved on April
12, 2007, from www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/
media/12cnd-imus.html.
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive Sport Management
discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 1–21.
Chappell, K. (1995). What’s wrong about Black music.
Retrieved on April 20, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/
articles/mi_m1077/is_n11_v50/ai_17362091/.
Collins, P.H. (2000). Who’s going on? Black feminist thought
and the politics of postmodernism. In E.A, St. Pierre &
W.S. Pillow (Eds), Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education. New York:
Routledge.
Collins, P.H. (2004). Black sexual politics: African-Americans,
gender, and the new racism. New York: Routledge.
Corbett, D. (2002). Title IX and Women of Color: Assessing Title
IX: Past, present, and future. A Title IX 30th Anniversary
Symposium. University of Miami, Center for Research
on Sport in Society.
Cose, E. (2007). What will we learn. Retrieved on April 24,
2007, from www.msnbc.msn.com/18108850/sitenewsweek.
Crosset, T. (2007). Capturing racism: An analysis of racial
projects with the Lisa Simpson versus the University of
The Rutgers Women’s Basketball and Don Imus Controversy 129
Colorado football rape case. The International Journal of
the History of Sport, 24(2), 172–196.
Cullen, F.T., Latessa, E.J., & Byrne, J.P. (1990). Scandal and
reform in collegiate athletics: Implications from a national
survey of head football coaches. The Journal of Higher
Education, 61(1), 50–64.
Davis, L.R. (1993). Critical analysis of the popular media and
the concept of ideal subject position: Sports Illustrated
as a case study. The National Association for Physical
Education in Higher Education, 45, 165–181.
Edwards, J. (1999). The Black female athlete and the politics
of (in)visibility. New Political Economy, 4(2), 278–282.
Eitzen, S. (2000). Racism in big-time college sport: prospects
for the year 2020and proposal for change. In D. Brooks &
R. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: the African-American athlete’s experience (2nd ed., pp. 293–306).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Evans, T. M. (1998). In the Title IX race toward gender equity,
the Black female athlete is left to finish last: The lack of
access for the invisible woman. Howard Law Journal,
42, 105–137.
Farhi, P. (December 4, 2007). Don Imus gingerly steps back on
air. Retrieved on December 15, 2007, from http://www.
washingtonpost.com
Feagin, J., Orum, A., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A case for case
study. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Ferber, A.L. (2007). The construction of Black masculinity:
White supremacy now and then. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 31(11), 11–24.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
Gaetane, J.M., Williams, V.A., & Sherman, S.L. (2009). Black
women’s leadership experiences: Examining the intersectionality of race and gender advances in developing human
resources, 11(5), 562-581.
Gill, E. (2007). The Duke lacrosse scandal: A case of White
privilege in college sports. Journal for the Study of Sports
and Athletes in Education, 1(1), 17–36.
Griffin, P., & Carroll, H.J. (2009). THE POSITIVE APPROACH:
Recognizing, challenging, and eliminating negative
recruiting based on actual or perceived sexual orientation.
Retrieved from http://www.nclrights.org, on June 2, 2010.
Griffith, P. (2000). Changing the game: Homophobia, sexism
and lesbians. In D.S. Eitzen (Ed.), Sport in contemporary
society and anthology. Macmillan Press.
Grimsley, W. (1978, June 8). Wilma beat ‘double jeopardy.’ The
Tuscaloosa News. p.17.
Goldberg, D. (2007, April11). Imus with tears. Retrieved on
April 16, 2007, from http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.
com/2007/04/11/imus_with_tears/
Hall, S. (1981). The whites of their eyes: Racist ideologies and
the media. In Bridges I R Brunt (Eds.), Silver Lining: Some
strategies for the eighties, p. 28-52. London: Lawrence
and Wishart.
Hanson, S.L. (2004). African American women in science:
Experiences from high school through the post-secondary
years and beyond. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 96–115.
Harris, A.P. (1994). The jurisprudence of reconstruction. California Law Review, XXX, 741–832.
Harris, J. (2006). Standing up to persecution at Penn State.
Retrieved on September 13, 2007, from http://lesbianlife.
about.com.
Hertz, R. (1997). Reflexivity and voice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Howard, T. (2007). Nike serves up new ads supporting women.
Retrieved on November 1, 2008, from http://www.usato-
day.com/money/advertising/adtrack/2007-08-26-ad-trackwilliams_N.htm
Jarvie, G., & Reid, I. (1997). Race relations, sociology of sport,
and the new politics of race and racism. Leisure Studies,
16, 211–219.
Jenkins, S. (2007, April 12). A needed conversation. The Washington Post, p. E1.
Jet Magazine (2001). Fired White sportscaster apologizes for
remarks about Venus and Serena Williams. Retrieved on
August 2, 2007, from http://www.findarticles.com.
Johnson, J. (1994). Women in Black and White: The New
York Times portrayal of African-American and White
Olympic athletes. Unpublished Dissertation. The Ohio
State University.
Kamphoff, C., & Gill, D. (2008). Collegiate athletes’ perceptions of the coaching profession. International Journal of
Sports Science & Coaching, 3(1), 55–72.
Kane, M.J. (1989). The post Title IX female athlete in the
media. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 60(3), 58–62.
Kelly, R., Starr, M., & Connant, E. (2007, April 23). A team
stands tall. Newsweek, p.32.
Kihl, L.A., Richardson, T., & Campisi, C. (2008). Toward a
grounded theory of student-athlete suffering and dealing
with academic corruption. Journal of Sport Management,
22(3), 273–302.
Kolnes, L. (1995). Heterosexuality as an organizing principle
in women’s sport. International Review for the Sociology
of Sport, 30(1), 61–77.
Kosova, W. (2007, April 23). Imus: Race, power and the media.
Retrieved on April 24, 2007, from www.msnbc.msn.
com/18108850/sitenewsweek.
Ladson-Billing, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and
what’s it doing in a nice field like education. Qualitative
Studies In Education, 11(1), 7–24.
Lapchick, R. (2000, April). Women of Color in sports: Double
jeopardy. Retrieved on January 15, 2009, from www.bus.
ucf.edu/sport/.
Lattimer, C. (2005). Track and basketball, is that all? An
exploration of African-American women in intercollegiate
athletics post Title IX. Unpublished paper. Princeton
University, Princeton, NJ.
Leonard, D.J. (2007). Innocent until proven innocent: In defense
of Duke Lacrosse and White power (and against menacing Black student-athletes, a black stripper, activists, and
the Jewish media). Journal of Sport and Social Issues,
31(1), 25–44.
Liberman, D., Petreca, L., & Strauss, G. (2007). Imus flap about
Black, White and green. Retrieved on April 12, 2007, from
www.usatoday.com/money/media/20
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New
York: Sage.
Littlefield, M.B. (2008). The media as a system of racialization. The American Behavioral Scientist, 51(5),
675–685.
Long, J., & Hylton, K. (2002). Shades of White: An examination of Whiteness in sport. Leisure Studies, 21, 87–103.
Lopiano, D. (2007). Room for improvement Title IX is succeeding, but there’s still work to do. Retrieved on July 28,
2007, from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com.
Mathewson, A.D. (1996). Black Women and gender equity
and the function at the junction. Marquette Sports Law
Journal, 6(2), 239–266.
McIntosh, P. (2003). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible
knapsack. In M. Kimmel & A. Berber (Eds.), Privilege: A
reader (pp. 147–160). Boulder: West View Press.
130 Gill
Media Matters. (2007) Locked out: The lack of gender and
ethnic diversity on cable news continues. Retrieved on
January 9, 2009, from www.mediamatters.org.
Media Matters. (2007) Imus called women’s basketball team
“nappy-headed hos”. Retrieved on January, 9 2009, from
www.mediamatters.org.
Miller, J. (2007). Talk athletics not stereotypes. The Daily
Targum, 138(127), 8–9.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2008). 1999-20002007-2008 Student-athlete ethnicity report. Indianapolis,
IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
National Council of Negro Women (NCNW). (2007, April 12).
The National Council of Negro Women, Inc. welcomes
the action taken by NBC; CBS Imus follow suit. News
Release, Retrieved on April 17, 2007, from www.ncnw.org.
New York Times. (2007). An Advertising Cornucopla. Retrieved
on April 20, 2007, from www.nytimes.com.imagepages/2007/04/11/business/20070411
Reid, S. (2007). Snoop says rappers need to end beefs with
Sharpton, Simmons. Retrieved on December 10, 2008,
from www.mtv.com/news/srticles/1558834/20070504
Roberts, S. (2007, April 11). A first-class response to a second
class put down. Retrieved on April 11, 2007, from www.
nytimes.com/2007/04/11/sports/ncaabasketball/11roberts
Roper, E.A. (2002). Women working in the applied domain:
Examining the gender bias in Applied Sport Psychology.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(1), 53–56.
Salemme, E. (2007). Top 10 scandals. Retrieved on March
3, 2010, from http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/
article/0,28804,1686204_1686303_1691421,00.html?art
Id=1686204?contType=article?chn=specials.
Sarvasy, W. (1992). Beyond the difference versus equality policy
debate: Postsuffrage feminism, citizenship and the quest
for feminist welfare. Signs, 17(2), 329–362.
Setrakian, L. (2007, August 14). Don Imus sued by Rutgers
basketball player. Retrieved on April 7, 2008, from www.
abcnews.com.
Singer, J. (2005). Understanding racism through the eyes of
African American male student-athletes. Race, Ethnicity
and Education, 8(4), 365–386.
Smith, Y. (1992). Women of Color in society and sport. Quest,
44(2), 230.
Sniderman, P.M., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P.E., & Kendrick, A.
(1991). The new racism. American Journal of Political
Science, 35(2), 423–447.
Sniderman, P.N., & Piazza, T. (1993). THE NEW RACISM the
scar of race. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Staurowsky, E. (2006). Getting beyond the imagery: The
challenges of reading narratives about American Indian
athletes. The International Journal of the History of Sport,
23(2), 190–212.
Steinberg, J. (2007). Imus struggling to retain sway as a franchise. Retrieved on April 11, 2007, from www.nytimes.
com/2007/04/11/business/media/11imus
Stringer, C.V., & Tucker, T. (2008). Standing tall: A memoir
of tragedy and triumph. New York: Random House Inc.
Symonds, N. (2007). After Imus rap deserves a slap in the face.
Retrieved on April 13, 2007, from http://www.beliefnet.
com/story/215/story_21592_1.html.
Suggs, W. (2001). Left Behind. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(14), A35–A37.
Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. Retrieved on
July 2, 2009, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/
tellis1.html.
Trevor, G. (2008). (Personal communication, October 17, 2008).
Urban Dictionary. (2006). Jigaboos. Retrieved July 10, 2010,
from http://www.urbandictionary.com.
Verikuyten, M., & Masson, K. (1995). New racism, self-esteem,
and ethnic relations among minority and majority youth in
the Netherlands. Social Behavior and Personality, 23(2),
137–154.
Vertinsky, P., & Captain, G. (1998). More Myth than History:
American Culture and Representations of the Black
Female’s Athletic Ability. Journal of Sport History, 25(3),
532–561.
Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations. Chichester: Wiley.
Walton, T.A., & Butryn, T.M. (2006). Policing the race: U.S.
men’s distance running and the crisis of Whiteness. Sociology of Sport Journal, 23(1), 1–28.
Wentworth, B., & Patterson, M.J. (2007, April 11). Women’s
basketball team agrees to meet Imus. The Star Ledger,
p. A1.
Wood, J.T. (1993). Gender and moral voice: Moving from women’s nature to standpoint epistemology. In Women’s studies
in communication (Ch. 34). Retrieved January 23, 2008,
from http://www.afirstlook.com/manual6/ed6man34.pdf.
Wyatt, G.E. (1992). The sociocultural context of African American and White American women’s rape. The Journal of
Social Issues, 48, 77–91.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd
ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.
Zeigler, E.F. (2007). Sport Management must show social
concern as it develops tenable theory. Journal of Sport
Management, 21, 297–318.