'Mr. Streeter, you are a vile demagogue and a self-pitying bigot."
It was one of the tamer notes to grace my inbox. Anonymous, of course, it arrived after I wrote two weeks ago that Karl Dorrell should keep his job. I added that, for some, race plays a part in their angry criticism of the UCLA football coach.
Using rhetoric often too ugly to print, scores said that I coddled Dorrell and that I "played the race card" because he is black -- and so am I. Scores more said that I should be embarrassed, ashamed, silenced or fired for having the nerve to mention race.
Dorrell is one of only six African Americans among the 119 head coaches in major college football.
Since Nov. 18, when my column was published, the hyperventilating has not stopped, mostly because of six paragraphs I wrote about race at the end of my column. Here is the conclusion I draw: Too many of us are far too scared of the very mention of race. It jangles the nerves and destroys common sense.
For too many, discussion of racial issues has become like the electrified third rail in the Metro subway: Don't go near it, don't even come close.
I'm worried about this. We all should be. Until we learn to calm down and have an ongoing, realistic dialogue about race -- even while we discuss sports -- we're not going to solve a problem that has plagued us for far too long.
Richard Lapchick, director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida, is one of the wisest voices about race in this country. "We'll never really heal the racial divide in America until we can honestly and openly discuss America's racial issues," he e-mailed me this week.
"We need to listen to each other far more closely and not simply shut down the conversation" with cliches like "playing the race card."
In addition to my column, I started a blog: dontdumpdorrell.blogspot.com.
There too, I cataloged why Dorrell should stay: his character, the way he has changed the culture of a troubled team, the fact that the injuries he has had to overcome this year should not be held against him. I noted that UCLA is not a football powerhouse and never has been. Victories are important, but not at all costs.
Over several seasons, Dorrell has won about six out of 10 games. So did his predecessors. He's doing what football coaches do at UCLA.
I've long been skeptical about the heated, heavy anger directed at Karl Dorrell. I've wondered: Where does it come from?
