Fuzzy Math

Given the importance of “tradition” to the Masters golf tournament, I’ll borrow that word to note that I have been making a tradition of not watching the Masters since the 2003 publicity surrounding Martha Burk’s letter to Augusta National chairman Hootie Johnson asking Johnson to admit a woman to the golf club and Johnson’s subsequent public refusal to do so. As I mentioned a year ago at this time, I struck upon a new idea for how I’d like this to be handled. So, once again, I’m hoping (I’m sure in vain) for someone from this year’s tournament to donate all or part of his winnings to the National Organization for Women. In the meantime, I watched the tournament for the first time in 7 years and my attention was caught by something involving similar issues as my tradition not to watch …

On ESPN’s broadcast of the Masters much was made of former champion Fuzzy Zoeller’s last round at the championship on Friday. Former champions are invited to continue to play in the tournament in perpetuity, though many stop playing in the championship once they feel they are no longer able to post respectable scores. This year, both Zoeller and Gary Player announced that that time had come. For Player, this meant he played in an all-time record 52 Masters tournaments. For Zoeller, this meant 31. Though both shot well better than most everyday golfers would shoot, neither was close to making the cut for the weekend and, thus, with the conclusion of play on Friday, the Masters playing days for each had come to a close.

In the case of Zoeller, much of his greatest fame as a golfer came in conjunction with the Masters golf tournament … for better and for worse. On the positive side, he remains to this day the last player to have won the tournament is his very first appearance (and the only person to do so other than the first two champions of the tournament). On the negative side, Zoeller is very much still remembered for racially insensitive remarks made after Tiger Woods won his first Masters tournament in 1997. The former point about Zoeller’s career was mentioned quite readily in interviews with Zoeller and coverage of the event during his last round of competition in the tournament. The latter point about his career, I suppose predictably, was not. To an extent, I know why Zoeller’s 1997 comments were not discussed. Often, at times when people’s milestones are marked, those commemorating these people emphasize the positives of their lives. Additionally, there is always the practical aspect of getting through the interview with Zoeller, since he might not do or continue with the interview if he was asked about the 1997 comments (though this interview in Golf Digest did bring it up, even though it was in a way that allowed it to be framed as having nothing to do with race). Yet, I think neither of these reasons is an appropriate excuse. Zoeller’s comments in 1997 do not alone define him and he does deserve the opportunity to make up for them, but that’s exactly the point. Making up for these comments would involve active and ongoing recognition of them. I don’t know that the “he’s put it behind him” kind of idea was explicitly at work in ESPN’s coverage of Zoeller, but the coverage rang in a manner that is very reminiscent of that sentiment. Just as athletes and other public figures who have been involved in activities that are deemed inappropriate are often said to have “gotten past it” or “put it behind them,” so to are comments involving racism and sexism handled in this way. The problem here is that real reflection on any kind of inappropriate behavior means continual acknowledgement of the potential to do it again and vigilance to help ensure that one does not do so again. This works personally (e.g., I recall what I did and my potential ability to do it again so that I do not personally misbehave again) as well as structurally (e.g., I acknowledge how specific behaviors perpetuate racism, sexism, exclusion, etc.). Zoeller’s retirement from competition could have been used to draw attention to the continual need to be vigilant of the many ways racism works in society. Instead, it’s as if racism does not even exist—i.e., we’ve “gotten past it.”

Zoeller’s final round could also have been used to draw attention to sexism and issues of gender as well. Much was made of the fact that Zoeller’s daughter, Gretchen, caddied for him during the tournament and, thus, Fuzzy was able to share the experience with her. Yet, to this day, August National continues to lack female members. So, Gretchen Zoeller was allowed on the grounds as his caddie and could play the course as his guest, since he’s a member by virtue of having once won the tournament, but she has yet to have the opportunity to join. Of course, Augusta National’s defense has for the past six years been that they do not have a rule against female membership; they simply have not yet had the right opportunity to admit a female member. So, they might (and I’m sure some would) argue that there’s nothing necessarily keeping Gretchen from joining the club. … Well, of course, nothing but the same old informal blocks that have continued to keep women out for decades and for the past six years despite public attention to the lack of female membership … the same old informal blocks that create the glass ceiling phenomenon and keep women (and racial and ethnic minorities) from getting opportunities in not just sports, but organizations, groups, and events across the board. It, then, stood as a rather (at best) awkward and (more to the point) patronizing and paternalistic sight to see a woman working in service to a man at an institution that denies membership to women. Again, though, this awkwardness and paternalism remained unaddressed in the coverage of the tournament. In this case, it’s as if sexism does not exist. After all, as the narrative went, Gretchen got to enjoy being her father’s caddie and share in his experience.

Fuzzy was applauded as he walked off the course and he was celebrated as a Masters champion by ESPN as they covered the tournament, but here’s an idea that might have been worthy of even more applause and celebration: Especially since he’s going out anyway (and, thus, does not have so much to lose), why not use this as an opportunity to draw attention to issues of discrimination by asking Augusta National to offer membership to his daughter? Her physical presence as caddie already potentially serves to draw attention to the fact that women can do what men do on the golf course, so there’s no good reason to exclude them. Why not, then, at the end of the round, during your interview, note what Gretchen did as caddie, state what this illustrates about women’s abilities to play and manage rounds of golf, and ask Augusta National to offer Gretchen membership? While race and gender are not the same and do not work the same way, the attention to discrimination that such a gesture could bring would certainly do a lot to atone for the offensive comments Fuzzy offered 12 years ago. Fuzzy could even have addressed that, saying something to the effect of how, as one who has been guilty of reinforcing prejudice before, he has learned the value of diversity and respect for others and he’d like to see this addressed further by the admission of women as members of Augusta National. Then, we’ve got coverage of it, it can easily be discussed in an interview with Fuzzy, and he can leave a little more positive of a legacy for himself.

Of course, none of this happened and coverage of the event continued the long tradition of keeping the United States from productively talking about issues of gender and race. For a country that claims so often to be aligned with freedom and equality, that tradition just doesn’t add up.