I disagree with everyone's statements that it shouldn't make a difference
whether a player is African-American, Asian, Hispanic, Jewish -- or female.
 
It should make a difference. A BIG difference.
 
One of the primary reasons for minority involvement in so many facets in
society is lack of two factors: exposure and role models. Despite the
growing presence of all levels of hockey the US (thank you, ESPN and
Rollerblade), the accessibility of ice hockey to the minorities on the
basis of participation will always be extremely limited due to its high
cost.
 
Role models however, can reach anybody in any area of society, and have an
effect. The existence of minorities in hockey -- or any sport, for that
matter -- should definitely be recognized publicly.
 
I think that at times many people are afraid that if they might be branded
a racist or a bigot if they mention the nationality of a hockey player. For
example, much of Boston has been very hush-hush regarding the prominence of
BU's Mike Grier. It wasn't until Grier began to lead the country in scoring
that the press "felt OK" to run stories on him. Even then, the press (with
the exception of Sports Illustrated) very carefully skirted the race issue
 
Grier has two future possibilities that make him extremely important:
 
1. Should Grier prove to be a success in the NHL, he may very well be one
of the first of a "new breed" of NHL players -- strong, physical players
who score rather than fight. It's been said enough about how difficult it
is to move Grier out of the crease; heck, I think Michael Jordan is the
only guy who gets "double-teamed" more than Grier. Imagine what Grier could
do if he played on the same line as say, Paul Kariya...
 
2. Grier will most likely become the first American-born black player to
play in the NHL. IMHO, this will be a monumental achievement, and I hope
that a LOT of people make a BIG fuss about it when it happens.
 
 
If anyone has any doubts about the positive results of calling attention to
an athlete's racial or religious background, take a look at Arthur Ashe's
career. Not only did Ashe rise to the top of his sport, but he rose to the
top amidst severe racial tension.
 
For years, nearly every article or television feature on Ashe spoke of his
being "a black tennis player." This was not racism in the press; rather,
this was solid reporting of the facts. Ashe himself had admitted on a
number of occasions that he was very glad that so much attention was called
to his skin color; he felt very strongly that it would help ease racial
tension.
 
Did Ashe's success help to lower the level of bigotry around the country?
Did his two-year reign as the "best player in the world" (according to SI)
nurture understanding between blacks and whites? Who knows.
 
What we *do* know however, is that Ashe not only made blacks accepted in
the world of tennis, but helped pave the acceptance of blacks in many other
predominantly "white upper-class" sports. And perhaps best of all, Ashe was
able to inspire thousands of blacks living in the ghettos to not just pick
up a tennis racquet, but strive for the ultimate success in whatever they
do, no matter how "white" it may be.
 
After his tennis career ended, Ashe spent thousands of hours and hundreds
of thousands of dollars on minority sports programs for inner-city children
of all races. There is no question that he has significantly improved the
lives of many children, as well as the world of sports.
 
So folks, don't be afraid to call attention to Grier's being an
African-Amercan; by all means, applaud it, and wish him the best. After
all, just imagine what'll happen when Nike gets a hold of him after
college.
 
 
greenie
 
S P O O N ! !
(go BU)
 
 
ps: I know it's not related to college hockey, but... do you think Manon
Rheaume would have been given the same opportunities if she was judged
solely on goaltending skill?
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.