Our Response To Michael Sam

After Missouri All-American defensive end Michael Sam publicly announced he was gay last Sunday, a media frenzy began.

With small exception, every big name publication has done a piece on Michael Sam’s revelation. They range from pieces glorifying his supporters like Redskins executive, Doug Williams to critical articles against NFL commentators who called Sam’s orientation a potential “distraction.”

Though most of these journalists were quick to support and encourage Sam (and brutally criticize his opponents) perhaps we should take a deeper look at what our response truly means.

The New York Times

An article published today in the Times took the family angle. The article walks you through Sam’s difficult childhood which involved familial death, poverty and a wildly unsupportive father. Though the article must be commended for its creative angle, there is a problem. Writers Joe Drape, Steve Eder and Billy Witz said “to get a sense of the challenges awaiting Sam [in the NFL], look no further than his father.”

The crutch of this article has a fatal flaw. The writers intend to draw parallels from Michael Sam’s difficult childhood to the challenges he will face as an openly gay NFL player. Giving equal attention to both situations gives them equal validity.

Michael Sam Sr. said in response to his son’s announcement “I couldn’t eat no more...I don’t want my grandkids raised in that kind of environment.”

If Michael Sam Sr. has a difficult relationship with his son it is a direct result of inappropriate, and in this case ignorant parenting. And to say that Michael Sam Jr. will face similar challenges as a gay NFL player is to say he has done something wrong to deserve it.

While Sam Jr.’s relationship with his father was caused by an unfeeling parent, his relationship with the NFL was caused by his sexual orientation, or so this article would have you believe.

The Washington Post

Yesterday, the Post put out an article congratulating Redskins Executive, Doug Williams for his open support of Sam. In the article, Williams told the post he does not think Sam’s place in the draft will be affected nor will he have difficulties with other players.

“He’s been in the locker room with his teammates and they put their arms around each other and they went out and played,” Williams said of Sam.

Again, a problem arises. Few will argue that Williams, upon being questioned gave a respectable answer, perhaps even a controversial answer, considering his position.

Yet it is the exact acting of congratulating Williams which is troublesome. The celebration of Williams’ message, which was little more than “accept people for who they are,” means that his attitude was in some way, special.

If indeed Williams’ support of Sam is special or idealist, then it implies being critical of Sam, or his sexual orientation is normal, or so this article would have you believe.

USA Today

The above articles meant well. Their ideas intended to support Sam, though fell short in execution. An article published today in USA Today was altogether different.

Writer Tom Pelissero begins by explaining a “rite of passage” in professional football which leads to the teasing of players for their hometown stereotypes, regional accents and unique behavior.

He then says “Michael Sam's announcement that he is gay raises a new question: would it be OK for teammates to joke about that?”

Here, exactly here is where every reader should have stopped.

If you have to ask the question, the answer is no.

Fellow teammates treating a southern accent as jokingly as sexual orientation is shameful. At the heart of any teasing, there is a true, negative connotation with the aspect being teased. If a person were being teased for a southern drawl, it is probably at the expense of his intelligence (a presumption the majority knows to be false).

But to joke about homosexuality is to give it a connotation with something unnatural or non-masculine. And unlike the presumption with the accent, this is not something the majority knows to be false.

The USA Today’s ability to publish meaningful stories is questionable, or so this article would have you believe.

What Our Response Says About Us

Michael Sam’s story has officially gone viral. And it is crucial to take a step back and ask why. Is it because it affects the NFL, a major franchise of our culture? Is it because we value the bravery of young people?

In fact, no. Our response means this: as a society and a media we still see homosexuality as something uncommon, rare and marketable. Our response shames us.