Kelly Tilgham, an announcer for the Golf Channel who used the word "lynching" in discussing Tiger Woods' continued dominance in the world of golf, was suspended for two weeks for her choice of words. I posted about this last week, unsure of where the story would go. Subsequent to that, the Reverend Al Sharpton called for a boycott of the Golf Channel and Tilgham was suspended. There's a more detailed version of the story here, courtesy of GolfDigest.com.
What to make of all this? My attention continues to be drawn to the official word from the Camp Woods' -- that this is a "non-issue." What does that mean exactly? Does he have a broader responsibility to acknowledge that it is an issue for others? If Tilgham and Woods figured this out, or at least making nice for the camera, is there a broader question about public discourse at play? The comment was directed towards Woods, but he wasn't the only one who heard it. Have people made the great mistake of thinking that lauding Tiger Woods means that race isn't an issue in the world of golf (which is, of course, metonymy for other institutions that have typically been the jurisdiction of the elite, and the white)?
Language and history; white women and black men; issues and non-issues. These are certainly palpable themes in the news cycle this week.