I didn’t watch ESPN’s documentary on the University of Michigan’s “Fab Five,” but here is what I understand: Former Michigan and NBA player Jalen Rose made derogatory comments about Duke University’s basketball recruiting practices and the African American players that those practices yielded. He said Duke did not recruit inner-city hoopsters like him, but instead went after players he referred to as “Uncle Toms.”

From Rose’s point of view, Duke’s program was not inclusive of many talented basketball players and was based on non-basketball factors.

In the week or so since the documentary aired, Grant Hill (a Duke alumnus who played against Rose in college and in the NBA) has responded in a New York Times editorial. Others also have offered opinions, and Rose has clarified his comments.

In the last couple of days, I have been outraged at how the tone of the conversation has turned. What started with Rose pointing out what he found offensive about Duke’s recruitment practices has evolved into one black man attacking a group of black men he considers different from himself. I can’t help but speculate on why the conversation has taken this unseemly shift.

I graduated from Duke in 1989, a short time before the Fab Five’s run at Michigan and Hill’s tenure in Durham. As a graduate student, I barely felt like a part of the university community. But, by virtue of my sorority connections and the time I spent at “The Black Bench,” I had a fairly good view of the campus from an African American perspective. (“The Black Bench” was a cement bench on the main quad where black students congregated, decompressed, socialized and passed along messages. In the days before cellular communication, the bench was remarkably utilitarian; you could tell anyone there you needed to talk to another Duke student and within a few hours that person would show up, saying, “I heard you were looking for me.”) I hung out at the bench to escape the claustrophobia of my graduate program – I needed to come up for air. It was there that I listened to many views about the school and used those to inform my own.

I distinctly recall a few black student-athletes referring to themselves as “indentured servants” to the Duke Athletic Department. Yes, the conversation was similar to what some professional football players are saying now and what other professional and college athletes have asserted in the past. And, yes, they readily acknowledged that access to a Duke education was extremely valuable. But the feeling remained that their predicaments were one-sided: Their time, sweat and talents earned more money for Duke than the benefits the players received in return.

I also recall that most Duke student-athletes had at least one college-educated parent, and many had attended private secondary schools. It is likely that Duke’s high academic standards had something to do with that. But it also seems Duke chose to spend its vast resources on young people who needed very little assistance to succeed. HBCUs proudly speak of being there to groom youngsters; Duke apparently was not concerned about taking on that responsibility.

Rose’s comments appeared to me, first and foremost, an indictment of Duke’s lack of interest in cultivating kids who might be rough around the edges. Duke has long been tied to the United Methodist Church and professes a commitment to public service. I am profoundly disappointed that Rose’s comments have not generated more discussion about what obligation the school has to share its resources with an economically diverse group of potential student-athletes.

I hold no ill will toward my alma mater for seeking athletes who represent it well, but I also expect more from the institution. Duke should offer opportunity to young people who really need it! Exposing young people to new opportunities and environments is a noble pursuit, but Duke doesn’t seem to seek that kind of nobility.

I also find it curious how 99 percent of the attention has been shifted to the players as “Uncle Toms” portion of Rose’s statements rather than the University-as-the-culprit part. Hill has taken the whole thing personally, adding to the media’s frenzy. He certainly has reasonable grounds to feel insulted, but is he playing into someone’s hands by furthering a conversation that doesn’t put Duke on the hot seat?

In an uncomfortable and twisted way, this discourse has turned into a black-on-black crime -- Rose attacks Hill, et al. Hill strikes back. Chris Broussard and Skip Bayless are talking about how loaded the comments are, etc., BUT NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT DUKE!

Is this the result of a clever public relations strategy by Duke? (i.e., if we don’t respond, maybe nobody will notice Rose was talking about us.) Is the media unwilling to acknowledge that Rose made points worth further exploration? Or is it just more “newsworthy” to listen to famous people use incendiary language to jab at one other?

I don’t know about you, but I still have many questions: How did/does Duke describe its recruitment criteria? How did Duke really view kids like Rose? Are there any facts to support Rose’s position? In 1991? In 2011? Is Duke willing to go the extra mile to nurture those who put so much money into its coffers? Why hasn’t the Duke administration (academic or athletic) spoken up to defend the school’s recruitment philosophy or its current and former student-athletes?

Will anybody ask these questions? Will we get any answers?
***
Janice Allen Jackson lives in Charlotte and holds a graduate degree in public policy from Duke University.

Got news to share with Qcity readers? Email us at editor@qcitymetro.com.
Sign up for our weekly email newsletter below

Sign up for our Weekly Email Newsletter Email: For Email Marketing you can trust

Other Ways to Share Twitter Del.icio.us MySpace

Discussions and Submission Agreement