But are Vick’s legal troubles a civil-rights issue? NEWSWEEK’s Joshua Alston spoke to R.L. White, president of the Atlanta NAACP, to find out. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: What motivated you to call a press conference this week, urging restraint in the media’s coverage of Vick’s case? R.L. White: The biggest factor was that our office had taken so many calls from people who were urging us to take a stand.
Is Vick involved with the NAACP somehow? No, not at all. Our involvement was only based on the response from our constituency. We didn’t make this statement on the urging of him or anybody in his camp. When we looked at the case, we decided that it was important for us to make a statement. I wasn’t aware that our position was going to be so controversial.
Can you elaborate on that position? We believe that the influence of the media is so strong that whatever people see on television and hear on the radio, they believe. The coverage of Michael Vick’s situation has been very negatively skewed, skewed to the point that we don’t believe the whole story is getting out. What we’re asking is that people not make judgments until he has had his day in court.
PETA and the Humane Society have been so vocal in their criticism of him because they think he might have harmed an animal. And this case is so high profile that it gave them an opportunity to get up on their soapbox and make news. So they’ve initiated writing campaigns to his sponsors and organized demonstrations outside the Atlanta Falcons training camp. They’ve done whatever they’ve done to bring negative attention to Michael Vick, and at that point it wasn’t about Vick as much as it was about getting publicity for themselves. We feel that’s wrong.
We’re not taking a position on whether or not he did it, nor are we condoning dogfighting. We’re merely saying that people shouldn’t rush to judge Michael Vick. When [Baltimore Ravens linebacker] Ray Lewis was accused of murder [in 2000], he was still afforded the right to work. [Lewis later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in a plea deal and the murder charge was dropped.] When [Los Angeles Lakers guard] Kobe Bryant was accused of rape [in 2004], he was still afforded the right to work [those charges were also later dropped]. My question is, are we suggesting that alleged rape and alleged murder is less important than mistreating dogs? He’s been told he cannot come to work because of this because the NFL wants to see if he’s violated the code of conduct, when all the evidence has not yet come out. We think that’s wrong. That’s not due process. It’s the media convicting him before his day in court.
But this is the same media scrutiny that all celebrities get. Paris Hilton was skewered by the media during her court proceedings. Do you think Vick is being treated differently because he’s black? I think part of it is his celebrity status, but I think it’s racially influenced as well. Obviously celebrities are scrutinized, but he has attracted scrutiny prior to this case for no other reason than because of his “thuggish” image. That persona may have turned some people off, and when people see that they assume you’ve done something wrong. He’s definitely getting attention because of his celebrity, but in terms of people’s judgment of his guilt, that’s essentially racial profiling. He’s been completely vilified. I haven’t heard one commentator come to Vick’s defense, even to play devil’s advocate.
When the Duke lacrosse players were accused of rape, the NAACP came out early in favor of the accuser. Isn’t that the same thing PETA and the Humane Society are doing? In the case of the Duke players, everyone did form an opinion before the trial, and I’ve been reminded several times that the NAACP came out in favor of the young woman who was the accuser in that case. And I’ve said that just because you make one mistake doesn’t mean you have to continue to make mistakes. In other words, instead of saying, “Let’s rush to judgment in this case because the same thing happened to those boys at Duke,” we should be learning from what happened there and stopping the prejudgment of people’s guilt outside of a courtroom.
Dr. Charles Steele, the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said, “We need to support Michael Vick no matter what the evidence reveals.” Do you agree with that position? I heard that statement, and no, I don’t agree with it if it means condoning his acts. The NAACP cannot condone anything that is wrong. To say that we would support him right or wrong would undermine our credibility. What we would rather do is support him in getting his fair day in court. Beyond that, we would hope that if he is convicted, I assume he would appeal and go through that, and we would certainly support him emotionally. That was the way I interpreted Steele’s statement.
What would you say to people who criticize the NAACP for using their resources to aid someone who has the money to afford a superior legal team? This isn’t something we’re spending money on. The NAACP is in a financial crunch. We couldn’t help in that way even if we wanted to. As far as the time we’re spending on it, issues in this country and how they affect people in the black community are exactly what we should be spending our time doing. Michael Vick has been a hero to many African-Americans for years. It’s important to us because so many of our heroes have been cut down over the years by the press. We still need some heroes in our neighborhoods. It was conventional wisdom that blacks couldn’t lead a team, and here we have someone who can and has done it. Now he’s being vilified. Some people may say we’re spending too much time on it, but we’ve been flooded with calls of support, so clearly someone thinks we’re doing the right thing. And of course, it’s not the only thing we’re working on. But if every other group gets to have their say, why is it wrong for us to weigh in?
