Zirin's Choice

I usually welcome the sports writing of Dave Zirin. He’s a frequent contributor to Z-Magazine, a regular commentator at his own site, and a provocative writer on the politics of sports.

However, I find his most recent post on David Stern a little disconcerting. There has been a flurry of activity on NBA and sports blogs this season about Stern’s tyrannical appetite for power. Along with Zirin, most of the opposition to Stern disagree with his decisions regarding the dress code, the new ball, and the minimum age requirements for the draft. All seem suspicious of the excessive control wielded by the Commish; like Zirin, they call him “paternalistic,” “racist,” and “profiteering.”

What bothers me about this critique of Stern is not the protest or charge itself. In large part, I agree with those writers who speak out against the policies introduced by Stern. I’m troubled, though, by the metaphors used by Zirin (and a few others) to characterize Stern the man—the Jewish man. I sense an underlying current of anti-semitism animating the rhetoric and symbolism of Zirin’s language. Here’s how his article begins:

“Anyone seen David Stern recently? Is there proof that the man they call "Money" isn't growing out his fingernails, freezing his urine, and trading in his wingtips for tissue boxes? All I want this holiday season is an assurance that the Commish doesn't think he's nine feet tall, green, and running Whoville. But indications are that the slogan for this NBA season is ‘How the Stern Stole Christmas.’”

Is this not some kind of malevolent Jewish caricature? How the Stern Stole Christmas? Why draw on tropes of the anti-Christian troglodyte to evoke Stern? Is the issue his person or his policies? And even if the former, why bring in religion, the devil, and Christmas to make the case?

I understand perfectly the rhetorical importance of concrete imagery. Arguments can be clarified and made more effective by adding the flourish of a well-stroked metaphor. That said, metaphors rely on particular modes of thought for their kick, and Zirin’s depends on the uncomfortable association of Jews and savagery. The same association lit the fires that burned our books and forced Sophie to choose between children.

Later in the same article, Zirin compares Stern to a certain historical figure: “Not since Josef Stalin insisted that the girls of the USSR wear pigtails under penalty of imprisonment, have we seen a leader stride so confidently off the deep end without any fear of reprisal.” Is this ethical and responsible journalism? Stern not only steals Christmas but also carts away kulaks? Stern is like Stalin for making professionals wear suits to work?

Who’s the one in deep, Dave?

UPDATE: Zirin was gracious enough to send me an email response to my post. In the interest of full disclosure, I thought I should post it here. Thanks for the email, fella. Come to think of it, I think I helped hoist the chair at your bar mitzvah:

Dude. I'm Jewish. But personal religious history that dates back damn near 6,000 years aside, let me respond to some of your observations:

"Money" is a longtime nickname of respect for Stern by NBA players and agents, given to him at the heights of his powers: not an anti-semitic slur (it's actually a nickname he shares with Michael Jordan... who isn't Jewish.). Also, the "growing the hair out" is an obvious Howard Hughes reference. Hughes: not jewish. And the Whoville joke was a reference to the Grinch, a character created by Dr. Seuss. Seuss was Jewish. The Grinch was not.. As for the Stalin line: it was a joke. A poor joke? Sure. Feel free to say so. Your kulaks reponse even brought a smile to my face. But I didn't suffer through ten years of Hebrew school, to be called anti-semitic.