It’s hard to say this as a black woman, but Rachel Nichols was right…and least from what I can tell from that New York Times piece. This story is so fascinating to me because there are a lot of moving parts that seem to just sort of all collide into a beautiful disaster.
Now I want to give you my first impression, so I’ve only read the article once. I’ve also watched some YouTube commentary. I wasn’t even going to write about this. Tonight, I was going to write about me, but when I just so happened to peep that they took Rachel off of NBA Finals coverage altogether and replaced her with Malika Andrews, I was like whoa—ESPN must have felt that pressure. That’s when I was like, “why the hell not? Let me give you my two cents on the matter.” If I change my mind or have any updates, I’ll put them at the end of this post.
All right so let’s go!
Rachel Nichols
Black people, we gotta be careful about what we call racist. Like, not everything that has to do with race is racist. And this is coming from a woman who has not only complained about racism to HR departments at damn near every job I’ve had, but who’s also gone to the EEOC to file a complaint. So I know that racism is alive and well on these jobs, and I would even say that it is impossible to be a black person or any minority and not experience some form of discrimination on the job. It’s coming, but this, and by this I mean Rachel’s statement, is not it.
Now I don’t have an exact quote for you right now, because that would take up too much time, but basically what Rachel said is that ESPN was giving Maria Taylor the NBA Countdown position because she’s black and that would make ESPN look good given the social climate of the summer of 2020.
Um, that sounds about right to me. Now again, I’m basing my opinion on what I read in that New York Times article. Apparently, from what I can ascertain from the article, ESPN promised Rachel that gig in a contractual agreement, but somehow finagled their way out of it to get Maria in there. And if that’s the case, that’s fucked up, and I can understand why Rachel would be upset.
One of the main points black women were making about Maria getting the position over Rachel is that in her comments, Rachel was reducing Maria to a “diversity hire.” As if she only got the job because she’s black and not because she’s qualified.
But the fact of the matter is you can be a diversity hire and be qualified at the same damn time. Matter-of-fact, anybody looking to hire a black writer, holla at cha girl, I’m happy to be your diversity hire. Oops didn’t I say I wasn’t going to talk about me? Anyhoo.
It could very well be that ESPN put Maria in that position last summer because it was the “on-trend” thing to do. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t qualified. That doesn’t mean she didn’t step into the role and crush it. It simply means that ESPN had ulterior motives.
It could also very well be that ESPN was going to put Maria in the role anyway, who knows? Only they do. My point is it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that she was a diversity pick for that role. And if she was, so what. When you’re black and you become a diversity pick it’s not like being a nepotism pick, or an I-owe-someone-a-favor pick. When you’re black to even be in the position to be a diversity pick, you have to know your stuff. Basically, when you’re black you don’t get to be in the position to be a diversity pick without being good at what you do. I mean, I’ve seen it a couple of times, but for the most part, that doesn’t fly for black people.
Whenever there is just one slot available, it’s rare if ever there is just one person who can fill it. That’s the thing about corporations that have established themselves like ESPN, they have the pick of the litter. It’s like that “The Devil Wears Prada” line, “a thousand girls would kill for this position,” or I think that’s how it goes? But anyway, you get the point.
I’m sure there were scores, if not more, of people who could do that job well, men and women, black and white and what have you. That’s the power of the corporation, they pick who they want and control the narrative, and create the optics that they want to present.
And the narrative that it seems ESPN wanted to portray is that they don’t have a race problem in their organization, and black people can and have ascended to key on-air positions there.
So bringing it back around to Rachel and her comments, given the situation from her perspective, I can understand how she would feel the way she does. She’s been in the business a long time, it seems like she’s put in the work and is good at her job. That’s all the shit that people tell you you need to do to advance, only to do all that shit and learn you’re not going to advance, and learn that you’re getting passed over for a role that you were promised? Who wouldn’t be pissed off?
What I Did Find Disturbing About Rachel’s Comments
It was the part where she said – and I had to look up the exact quote for this, but here it goes: “If you need to give her more things to do because you are feeling pressure about your crappy longtime record on diversity — which, by the way, I know personally from the female side of it — like, go for it.”
So it was two things for me. The part where she said, “…your crappy LONGTIME record on diversity,” and, “I know personally from the female side of it.”
Those two phrases stuck out to me, and here’s why. In the first phrase it appears that she is acknowledging that she has been aware of ESPN’s long-time problem with increasing diversity. I found that interesting because there was a time when I thought that a lot of white people didn’t even realize there was a discrimination problem in the workplace, especially because they are not people of color and don’t face those challenges. However this phrase leads me to believe that although she’s known about it, she’s chosen to do nothing about it.
Some have called her an ally, and that’s a new term that I’ve used, even though I’m still trying to wrap my head around it. Like what is an ally? Are you an ally because you talk to black people, or don’t talk bad about black people, or don’t use the n-word? I guess what I’m saying is, if she’s known this was a problem for so long, than what has she done about it? Did she go to her boss, or someone in power and say look I think we need more people of color in certain roles? Did she mention it in a performance review? Like what has she done about it or tried to do about it, or has she just sat back and watched being thankful it wasn’t her until it was her?
Maybe she has spoken up. Perhaps she has lent her voice to try and remedy this longtime problem she’s observed. I can’t say for sure. It’s just my guess, and I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am, that the lack of diversity at ESPN is something she’s been aware of yet silent on.
Then there is the second phrase where she seems to be acknowledging that she’s experienced discrimination for being a woman. The way she said thatm and just the way I heard the conversation going, I got the impression that that’s also something she’s just endured instead of challenged. Given that she was on the phone with someone in the system, if you will, it seems to me that instead of challenging the system her MO or strategy was to play within the system.
I found it odd that she was having such an intimate conversation about her employer with someone that does business with her employer. And when I say intimate conversation, I don’t mean like she’s sleeping with him, but I mean intimate in the sense that she was talking to him the way one would talk to a good girlfriend, or her husband, or mom or family. You know, I used to work in a restaurant, and when you work in a restaurant you can work with a lot of vendors – like the guy who supplies you with pizza sauce for example, when it’s not made in house. Well, what she was doing, to me, would be like if I started complaining about my restaurant to the pizza sauce guy when he made a delivery. I mean, to just break it down in simple terms, it just doesn’t make sense. Why would you do that?
But the fact that she even feels the need to have this kind of conversation with an industry insider, if you will, alludes to the challenges one faces when trying to advance at ESPN. More importantly, it comes across like she doesn’t seem to care until it directly affects her.
Maria Taylor
Now this may be a bit confusing, but try and stay with me. Even though I don’t necessarily think that Rachel’s comment was a dig at Maria, but rather a dig at ESPN, I understand Maria’s reaction to it. The thing about black people who work in these predominately white spaces is that by the time you get to where Maria is, actually well before that, you’ve experienced so many slights and micro-aggressions and discrimination that any comment or action that is even remotely indicative of such can be a trigger. The bottom line is Rachel was talking about Maria behind her back – which she has the right to do, but unfortunately for her Maria found out about it—and now Maria doesn’t want to work with her, and I can understand that.
However what gives me pause about Maria is Kayla Johnson’s suspension. Kayla Johnson, a black woman, is reported to be the only one who received disciplinary action for this leaked conversation. According to the New York Times, Kayla Johnson told HR that she shared the conversation with Maria Taylor. But also according to the New York Times, and other conversations about the matter, Kayla Johnson wasn’t the only one who got a hold of the video and it was disseminated by a number of people throughout the company.
So my question is, if Kayla recorded the conversation on her phone from the ESPN server, not like downloaded it or something like that, how they know to go to Kayla? Like did Maria tell on Kayla? I don’t know, maybe they questioned everyone who was working that day at that time. Maybe they brought in everyone who had access to the server, but if that was the case, you’d think they would have had more culprits than just Kayla, as it was reported that the video was disseminated by several employees not just Kayla. Yet Kayla was the only one who ended up suspended for two weeks without pay. Not going to lie, if I was Kayla, I would have probably lied. Unless you can definitively trace it back to me, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Then again, who knows what they did when they pulled her in there by herself. If ever you’ve been called to the HR office, you’re usually unprepared for the visit. They’ve been working on it for some time, but they call you up without warning. It’s a nerve-racking experience for sure. Hell, even when you know they gon’ call you up, it’s still scary. So maybe Maria had nothing to do with that. Maybe they just backed Kayla in a corner. I sincerely hope that’s the case, because how can we talk about white people not having our backs when we don’t have our own backs. But anyway, I’m being totally speculative here.
The Takeaway
The takeaway is I’m sleepy as fuck right now, so I hope this makes sense. But in regards to this situation, ESPN and Disney for that matter has a serious problem on their hands and that problem is technology. Technology done showed up in the mix and started exposing shit in no uncertain terms. It’s put office mess on blast in a way that heretofore was only talked about, rumored – the musing of “disgruntled employees” – you know how jobs love to label people that way when they expose their dirt. However, this critique of is coming from a current employee, who loves her job, yet she had to admit there is a diversity problem round those parts. Now with technology, before you know it, the whole world in your business and it ain’t good. Technology moves faster than one can think or come up with a cover up for. And the thing is they can suspend people and discipline people all they want, with technology being the way that it is, there is no safeguard for it. Next time, they’ll be cleverer. Something like this is bound to happen again. The only answer is fix the diversity problem.
Leave a Reply